Tobacco Roots

I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.

Sometime back I sent an email (see it here) to my Senator Webb on the issue of tobacco tax increases. I did not even get a reply from one of his staffers.

Now, I sent nearly identical emails to both Senator Mark Warner and my representative in the House, Glenn Nye, but I do not think either of these newly elected men even had their staffs sorted out and ready to reply. I received a vague reply from Senator Warner that said about as much and I am fairly confident Glenn never even received what I sent to him. But Senator Webb has been in office for a few years and I am sure his staff received what I sent and they made the decision to not even bother to reply to me.

I have decided that it is time to start a grassroots uprising. I will label this uprising Tobacco Roots. I think it is a clever combination of "grassroots" and the history (or roots) of tobacco here in Virginia.

The goal of Tobacco Roots will be to throw a scare into politicians who are anti tobacco so that no politician hailing from Virginia will ever again dare to vote for an increase in tobacco taxes. Jim Webb will be Tobacco Roots first target.

Now, let me state that I voted for Jim Webb and in most ways I am pretty much pleased with how Jim Webb has been representing me, however on the issue of tobacco taxes he will no longer even discuss the issue. He thinks it is OK to ignore all Virginia citizens who smoke and those of our citizens who depend on tobacco for their livelihoods. Well I say it is time for those of us who are pro tobacco to band together and throw down the gauntlet. We are mad as hell and we are not going to take it anymore.

Surely we can find someone similar to Jim Webb who is unafraid to be pro tobacco.

I think it might serve our interests if the candidate actually smokes. There will be no doubt that such a candidate supports tobacco and is not just saying so to get our support. Such a candidate will be more then happy to accept contributions from "Big Tobacco".

Now, I also would prefer that such a candidate be a genuine moderate so as to most acceptable to the broadest swath of those joining our movement. A litmus test for this candidate being genuinely moderate would be for such a candidate to seek out and receive the endorsement of the Blue Dog Democrats.

Now, if we can not find a "serious" candidate who will be proud to accept funding from Big Tobacco I know of somebody crazy enough to do it. Me. I would prefer we find a "serious" candidate, somebody more experienced in government, but in some ways I might be preferable. If we can show the politicians that even a clown like me can be launched into being a serious candidate by the support of tobacco we can scare the pants off of them.

However it does not have to be me, I am just willing to take it on if nobody else is.

However our candidate must be proud of Big Tobacco's support and unafraid of campaign signs that state things like:

John Doe
Tobacco Roots

And our candidate must be willing to state on broadcast media messages "I'm John Doe and I approved this message" on commercials that show him lighting up and stating, in a play on an old tobacco commercial:

I'm John Doe and I'd rather fight then quit.

Our goal will be to scare the pants off any politician willing to vote for tobacco tax increases. We'll show them that while we might be a minority, we are a powerful minority. We'll attempt to prove what I think think every politician representing Virginia in Washington or Richmond should remember. Virginia is still a tobacco state and at least here in Virginia, you still better not be willing to take on Big Tobacco.

My efforts are going to be very public and open. If somebody in Big Tobacco wants to provide me with seed money to get things started, please leave me an email in the comments section that I can use to contact you. Please be aware that it might take me up to several weeks to get back with you because I am a truck driver who is currently on the road and while on the road my access to the internet is rather spotty.

Any established politician who might be interested in my (hopefully our) support please leave an email address that I can use even if it is one that preserves your anonymity for the time being. If I can find a suitable candidate, I am more then willing to take a back seat and just manage a PAC (Political Action Committee) that supports you. Perhaps a PAC is not the best organization, but I know there is some kind of organization that is legal which is allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money on issues related efforts. I'm pretty sure that the issue of tobacco will be pure enough to meet the requirements. I promise to preserve your anonymity in every instance up until the point you give me permission to use your name in my efforts.

G.O.P. Debate: A Broader Party or a Purer One?

On today's New York Times website an article appeared (see here) which outlined the debate going on within the Republican Party about how to recover from recent electoral losses and the defection of Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter to the Democratic Party.

Of all the quoted opinions contained in the article, I am going to lift two. Those of Senators Lindsay Graham and Jim Diment, both Republicans from South Carolina. I pick these two quotations because both come from dark red South Carolina and I think it is appropriate to point out how two men hailing from the same state have such differing opinions.

These quotes are:

Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said: “We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing.”

And:

Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina said ideological purity was the road to success. “The best way to get to 60 is to have a core group of Republicans who really do what they say and stand for their principles,” Mr. DeMint said.

I believe these two opinions accurately represent the two sides of the debate currently underway in the GOP.

First let me explain where my comments are coming from. I describe myself as a moderate. Many conservatives dismiss me as a liberal and many liberals label me a conservative. It is for this reason I describe myself as a moderate. With some of my opinions, I agree with the left and with some I agree with the right. Often I sit in the middle and would rather see compromise then an all or nothing victory by either side.

So where would I like to see the Republican Party in the future? I'd like to see them head in the direction of nominating more candidates that I would consider voting for. I would hope they would come to me rather then heading further to the ideologically pure right. I want choices when I go to the ballot box, and I would rather not be forced to always vote for the Democratic candidate.

Now let me explain that I understand that I am never going to get everything I want in a candidate unless I were to run for office myself. My opinions are so varied, that it is highly unlikely that a candidate will always agree with me. I also am not claiming to be the voice of the moderate voter. I will state that if another voter has opinions diametrically opposed to mine, that this voter too is a moderate because that voter will have a variety of opinions.

I view very favorably someone who has a variety of opinions. If someone always agrees with the most extreme portions of their party on everything, that person is unacceptable to me. I realize that both parties are going to have some of "those types" serving in government because both parties do contain sizable numbers of voters who prefer them as representatives. However, I do not want to see these types representing me.

But what does a voter like me do when faced with candidates for office, both of whom are what I would call extremists? When the Democratic nominee is from the far left and the Republican nominee is from the far right? How do I choose whom to vote for then? Do I just abstain? Maybe, depending on the candidates, some of my opinions are more important to me then others. However I am also then strongly influenced by which party is most inclusive of moderate voices in other races for other offices, in races in other districts, and in races throughout the nation. In other words, if I vote to add one more vote up on Capitol Hill to one party or the other, are there enough moderate voices within that party so that I can at least hope someone will still be open to debate and help keep things from spinning out of control?

It is my hope that the Republican Party seeks to appeal to more moderate voters by broadening its appeal rather then narrowing its focus by fielding only ideologically pure candidates. I hope the party changes and comes to me rather then narrowing its focus and trying to force me to come to it.

I believe the recent successes of the Democratic Party are at least partially due to the signaling by party leadership that they valued and welcomed moderate candidates who often disagreed with majority of Democratic party members and that if these candidates were elected they often might vote against party leadership in order to represent the opinions of those who elected them. I do know that is how the Democratic Party increased its appeal me, an independent voter.

The Democratic Party has been so successful with me, that I have considered abandoning describing myself as an independent, and affiliating myself with the Democrats (although I would describe myself as a Blue Dog Democrat). However I think it is better and safer for me to continue to stick with being an independent. I value my freedom to vote for what I consider to be the best candidate no matter which party that nominee runs under. I do not want to have to deal with being described as being disloyal for sometimes voting for the nominee from another party. However if it looks like the Republican Party is going to circle the wagons around the extreme right wing core? Well then I might be forced to abandon my independence, become more active in the Democratic Party and just do my best to ensure the Democrats nominate as many moderate candidates as possible. (Since I live in Virginia where independents are allowed to vote in whichever primary they wish, I can do some of that already.)

As far as I am concerned, the choice is up to the Republican Party. If the wagons are tightly circled, that will send to me a strong signal they do not want my vote, and if they do not want it, they are not going to get it.

Tax Rate Debate

Due to concerns about President Barack Obama's intentions to raise taxes on our wealthiest citizens, there has been a lot of discussion in the media, on blogs and on talk radio about how such tax increases would affect small businesses. Today the Washington Post website had an example (see here) from which I intend to lift this quote:

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels -- about $455,000 -- Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama's proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

"The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets," said Murphy, who employs 47 people. "But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire." A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be "really painful."

The above serves as an example where small business owners sometimes try to mislead the public when discussing this issue. I have to think that this must be deliberate. Surely Mr Murphy is not so ill informed about how the profits of his company are figured and how the bottom line is arrived at that he must pay taxes on.

Mr Murphy is not paying taxes on his companies gross profits, at least not to the feds (he may be paying local taxes on gross receipts, but that is not a federal tax). The money that is "used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire" is deducted from his gross profits and he and/or his company (it depends on how his business is organized which entity pays the taxes) would only pay taxes on net profits. Thus if Mr Murphy's company plows 100% of his gross profits back into the company, he would end up with a federal tax bill of zero. That's right, he would not owe a dime in taxes so he would have completely escaped Barack Obama's proposed tax increases.

Mr Murphy attempts to call this into question by directly stating: "The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets." But the only profits he pays taxes on are those he puts into his pocket. Anything reinvested in the company is an allowed business expense which is deducted from the gross before taxes are paid.

Now there are some genuine arguments that can be made for why increasing taxes on small businesses would be undesirable. (The strength of these arguments could be debated as well.) However fabricating outright false arguments in an attempt to mislead those who do not know any better does nothing to win the debate.

Actually, it could be argued that increasing taxes on net profits could motivate additional reinvestment of gross profits back into the company in order to escape the tax increase. Perhaps Mr Murphy is not smart enough to figure out how this might be so, but if he seeks the advice of a competent tax accountant he might come to understand how it works. A good accountant can also offer him advice on how to structure his company so as to minimize his tax exposure.

I am self employed (a small business) and I know that I enjoy many tax advantages that most average citizens are unable to take advantage of. Perhaps I just have a better tax accountant.

Who Pays Unemployment Taxes?

Recently while I was trucking in Pennsylvania, the subject of unemployment taxes came up on my CB (Citizen's Band) radio.

A trucker was grousing about how he did think it was fair that he had to pay unemployment taxes to provide benefits for all the unemployed. He thought it was just another form of welfare. I made the contention that it was only employers, not employees who paid unemployment taxes. Another truck driver chimed in that he had his pay stub handy and it clearly showed withholding for unemployment.

With some exploration, I found that both of these truckers were local drivers who resided in Pennsylvania. I then stated that this was something new to my experience. I had always assumed unemployment taxes were paid only by employers and the expense hidden from employees (it is still an expense to the employer - an expense for each employee he takes on), but perhaps Pennsylvania was different. I stated that I did not think this was true in most states. None of the truckers listening to the conversation from other states contradicted me.

I was motivated to do a little research on the internet. After starting my search using Google, I was not coming up with any real pages that solved the mystery for me. In fact, one website I visited claimed it was illegal to withhold money from employee paychecks to pay for unemployment compensation insurance. It seemed like most of the sites I visited were guilty of the same assumptions I had made. If unemployment is paid for in their state entirely by the employer, then this must be true in all states. Remembering that www.ask.com allows queries in plain language, I expanded my search there.

With the assistance of Ask I came upon a page (see here) at the Business Owner's Toolkit website that yielded some light on the subject. Please note that the linked to page states that only two states assess unemployment taxes on employees, and these are New Jersey and Alaska. But what about Pennsylvania? At the bottom of this page is a graph that allows you to click on individual states to find tailored information about unemployment taxes for the state in which you do business. Clicking on Pennsylvania, I noted that, yup, there is withholding in Pennsylvania from employees checks for unemployment taxes. Clicking on all the rest of the states, I noted that two states, Alabama and Washington, allow withholding as an option (perhaps to force the employees to pay a portion of the employers taxes). Anyone want to place a bet that in these two "optional" states it will not take long before the withholding becomes the norm?

So there we have it. Three of fifty states have mandatory withholding from employees paychecks to pay for unemployment. An additional two states have this as an option for employers.

Perhaps we are starting to see cracks in the dam. With the current economy, most state's are finding it difficult to fund unemployment compensation benefits and they are looking for additional revenue. I will not be surprised if an increasing number of states resort to passing part of the burden onto employees as part of the solution to their deficit woes now that the first cracks have appeared in the dam. Those most capable of making campaign contributions are going to have the loudest voices in the debate, and they (the employers) are going to be arguing they should not have to shoulder the entire cost alone.

Driving Behavior

A few days back, one of the major national websites had a link to a discussion about people's pet driving peeves. The number of posts was enormous, but I read through a few dozen of them. There were a few posts about truck drivers as well as a couple from truckers. I was tempted to answer a few of them from a truckers point of view, but decided to skip it.

Now I wish to point out that unlike many (perhaps most) truck drivers, I actually have a pretty high opinion of how considerate the motoring public is towards trucks. Yes, there are inconsiderate drivers out there, but not enough of them that it is impossible for me to get into traffic from an onramp even during heavy traffic for example. Perhaps someone might want to argue that even a majority of drivers are inconsiderate, however I would counter that if this is true the minority of drivers who are considerate have such a large impact, that I have been fooled.

By the way, I have been driving a "big truck" (tractor trailer) for close to 12 years now and just recently passed 1.5 million miles of experience. Now I am not claiming to be "the" expert as a result, because there are many drivers out here with far more experience then I. But I do think that I have been at this long enough to claim to have an informed opinion.

But during these 1.5 million miles I have twice (you might be surprised only twice) run into outright jerks on the road. The first happened years ago and I won't go into it, but the second happened just yesterday and I am going to describe what happened.

I was traveling west on US-82 along the Southern part of Arkansas. It was a section of two lane road, well into dusk with a light rain. Speed limit 55 MPH (Miles Per Hour).

I was doing just a little bit better then the speed limit, but not enough that a state trooper would even blink an eye if I came across one. I came up on two four wheelers traveling about 45 MPH. No problem, I just followed at a safe distance and patiently waited for a chance to pass. When we came up on a long stretch of open highway with a break in oncoming traffic, I flipped on my blinker and moved into the left lane. I was heavy, grossing about 77,000 lbs, so it took me a while to accelerate. As I moved past the first vehicle in line, the lead vehicle accelerated as I pulled even with his back bumper. He sped up to 60 MPH. The vehicle following the first lingered back and I did not have a problem with the lead vehicle accelerating. If he was going to pick up the pace it would be OK with me and I'd just fall into line. I was going to be satisfied if he just maintained the speed limit.

As soon as I moved into the right lane, the lead vehicle started to slow down. There was now oncoming traffic so I did not have the opportunity to jump out into the left lane again. Following the lead vehicle, I slowed back down to 45 as we headed into a series of curves and hills where there was no opportunity to pass.

We came up on a long stretch of straight, rather flat road. I decided I was going to take advantage of the opportunity to try again. I once again flipped on my blinker, slowly moved into the left lane and started to accelerate. Once again the lead vehicle slowly accelerated along with me. This time I did not stop when we reached 60 MPH. My truck is governed at 82 MPH and I was going to take it to the limit if necessary. There was plenty of open highway in front of us without any sign of oncoming traffic. At 65 MPH the vehicle I was attempting to pass backed out of it and allowed me to go by. As I drew next to him he started driving halfway on the shoulder.

From this action I took it that perhaps he was just an inexperienced driver who was scared to have a large vehicle next to him. I kept my foot on the pedal to keep his suffering to the minimum amount of time necessary, slowing down only after I had cleared him. After I passed him he seemed to resume his 45 MPH pace. Poor guy, I thought, as he receded into the distance behind me.

I had only gone about a half dozen miles when I saw a pair of headlights approaching from the rear. As they drew near I recognized it was my "friend". For him to have caught back up with me as quickly as he was approaching he must have been going at least 65 MPH. "What the heck is he up to?" I wondered. I hadn't noticed a cell phone stuck to his ear when I passed him, however I thought that perhaps he had one of the hands free earpieces and had been engaged in a phone conversation. Perhaps he didn't want the noise of my big truck interfering with his conversation as I passed, which is why he had attempted to prevent me from doing so. Once he was done with the conversation, he picked up his pace. We came up on a section of highway with a passing lane on our side. I moved over into the right lane in case he wanted by. My friend accelerated and passed me.

He maintained his pace until the end of the passing lane and we entered a stretch of road where it would be unsafe for me to pass and then he slowed down to, you guessed it, 45 MPH. If we came upon a stretch where it would be safe for me to pass, he would speed up for a short time and slow back down once it was no longer safe for me to do so.

I was not going to develop a case of road rage and maintained a safe following distance. If he was attempting to try my patience he was going to fail the test. As long as he maintained at least 45 MPH I was just going to follow along behind him. If he tried to escalate things by slowing down even more I was going to find someplace safe to pull over and let him get on down the road.

He did always maintain 45 MPH and we ended up having quite a string of vehicles following behind us by the time he reached his destination. He pulled off at a Travel Plaza and guess what, no blinker. I noted the Travel Plaza had a few places for trucks to park and briefly considered stopping to have a word with him. I'd explain to him that it was unwise to attempt to antagonize a truck driver into road rage. If he ran into the wrong driver behind that very large, very heavy vehicle; a driver with a bad attitude to begin with and who was having a bad day on top of it all? Well he could end up having his very light, very small vehicle pushed off into the ditch.

I quickly decided it was not worth my time. It would just be wasted effort. If he was not smart enough to have figured it out on his own, I was not going to have much chance of convincing him. Besides, it was getting late and I still had quite a distance to cover to get to the truck stop where I was planning on spending the night. I needed to get there early enough I still stood a chance at finding a place to park.

Letter to Mark Warner on SCHIP funding

Here is a copy of what I sent Senator Mark Warner on the issue of funding the proposed expansion of SCHIP (States Childrens' Health Insurance Program).

First let me offer you my congratulations at your election victory.

I wish to discuss an issue that is very dear to me. This issue is the attempt to fund the proposed increase in SCHIP benefits at the expense of our state's economy.

It has been proposed that such an expansion should only be funded through an increase in the taxes on tobacco.

A large segment of your (our) state's economy is dependent on tobacco. I do not understand why Virginia's economy is expected to shoulder such an unfair share of the burden of funding the increase.

It is my expectation that you will be willing to represent all of the citizens of your state. I believe that you possess the power to stop the increase in tobacco taxes dead in its tracks by joining in a filibuster of the legislation until the increased tobacco taxes are removed.

While I am not a one issue voter, this issue is extremely important to me. I consider your actions on this issue to be a litmus test as to whether you are suitable to represent Virginia in the Senate.

Letter to Jim Webb on SCHIP funding

Here is a copy of what I sent Senator Jim Webb on the issue of funding the proposed expansion of SCHIP (States Childrens' Health Insurance Program).

First let me say that you enjoyed my vote when you were elected.

Second, let me state that in general I have been pleased with your service as one of my representatives in the Senate.

But I wish to discuss an issue that is very dear to me. This issue is the attempt to fund the proposed increase in SCHIP benefits at the expense of our state's economy.

It has been proposed that such an expansion should only be funded through an increase in the taxes on tobacco.

A large segment of your (our) state's economy is dependent on tobacco. I do not understand why Virginia's economy is expected to shoulder such an unfair share of the burden of funding the increase.

It is my expectation that you will be willing to represent all of the citizens of your state. I believe that you possess the power to stop the increase in tobacco taxes dead in its tracks by joining in a filibuster of the legislation until the increased tobacco taxes are removed.

While I am not a one issue voter, this issue is extremely important to me. I consider your actions on this issue to be a litmus test as to whether you are suitable to represent Virginia in the Senate. I wrote to you in 2008 about this issue, and the response I received from you was completely unsatisfactory.

Letter to Glenn Nye on SCHIP funding

Here is a copy of what I sent Representative Glenn Nye on the issue of funding the proposed expansion of SCHIP (States Childrens' Health Insurance Program).

First off, let me congratulate you on your election victory.

Second, let me express my gratitude to you for running Thelma Drake out of office. When your candidacy was announced, I didn't think you stood a chance. I am pleased you proved me wrong.

Now let me get into SCHIP.

I am in favor of the passage of the increased benefits offered in the SCHIP legislation, however I am 100% against the proposed method of funding it.

There is no reason that the Virginia economy should be expected to pay a much higher price to expand the coverage then nearly every other state.

A significant portion of Virginia's economy is tied to tobacco. The increased tobacco tax is not just designed to fund SCHIP, it is hoped that such an increase will drive the tobacco industry out of business.

I hope that you will send a message to the nation that your own state's economy should not be burdened in these difficult economic times with such an extreme increase in taxes. That if the majority of Americans desire an expansion of SCHIP, then the majority should be expected to chip in as well to pay for it.

Truckers In Favor of Fuel Tax Hike

(See here) an Associated Press Piece which appears at the MSNBC website that reports about the federal commission that overseas financing transportation has recommended an increase in the federal fuel tax. Currently the tax is 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents a gallon on diesel. If Congress goes along with the recommendation, the gas tax would increase by 10 cents a gallon and the tax on diesel would go up by 12 cents to 15 cents a gallon.

I am a self employed trucker. Personally, I am in favor of the increases. From what I hear on the CB, I thought I was pretty much a lone wolf in the trucking industry by being in favor of such a tax increase.

I was pleasantly surprised (although not shocked) that I am not completely alone. In fact, I may be in the majority. The linked to piece reports that the American Trucking Associations (ATA) is also in favor of the increase. Quoting from the article:

Charles Whittington, chairman of the American Trucking Associations, which supports a fuel tax increase as long as the money goes to highway projects, said Congress may decide to disguise a fuel tax hike as a surcharge to combat climate change.

Transportation is responsible for about a third of all U.S. carbon emissions created by burning fossil fuels. Traffic congestion wastes an estimated 2.9 billion gallons of fuel a year. Less congestion would reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

"Instead of calling it a gas tax, call it a carbon tax," Whittington said.

Bottlenecks around the nation cost the trucking industry about 243 million lost truck hours and about $7.8 billion per year, according to the commission.

First off, let me inform you who the members of the ATA are. They include the majority of the larger trucking companies in the nation.

I also wish to point out that this support comes with a caveat. It is only as long as the money goes to highway projects. I am in agreement with them on this.

I am also quite amazed that the Chairman of the ATA, Charles Whittington, suggests calling it a carbon tax instead of a fuel tax. Could it be that the ATA is worried about their contributions to global warming?

I am really tickled that I am not so alone by being in favor of measures like this. In fact, if I am in agreement with the ATA I am accompanied by most of the heavy weights in the industry.

How should we vote?

How should we vote?

Personally I am in favor of electronic voting machines. I think that there are too many advantages from electronic voting machines for us to continue to vote like cave men. My own preference is for the usage of electronic voting machines with the machine producing a paper trail that could be used to validate the electronic results reported in the event of a need for a recount.

Some opponents of electronic voting machines have pointed to the usage of optically scanned paper ballots as being preferable. Their reasoning is that the results would be less subject to tampering and that even a hand recount of ballots originally scanned should yield the same results.

But look at what is going on up in Minnesota right now. (See here) where the weeklystandard.com reports that there are problems with optically scanned paper ballots. What happens when the optical scanner will not accept the ballot for one reason or another? Minnesota had a plan for that and the plan was a pretty good one. However the plan created called for human action and human error was introduced into the process.

Some are calling for a re-vote. (See here) an LA Times piece that mentions the possibility. Personally I think the Franken campaign will never agree to such a thing. Many Franken voters were motivated to go to the polls only by the chance to vote for Barack Obama for President and they only cast votes for Franken because they were already there anyway. He'd have a strong case to be made that the official election day results are the ones that should matter. Without Obama's coattails to ride on, victory is not going to be his.

Let me state that I do not have a horse in this race. I do not really like either of the candidates. Coleman might have only achieved victory back in 2002 due to the death of his incumbent opponent, Paul Wellstone, in a plane crash while campaigning. What I know about Al Franken (other then his being a comic I am not particularly enamored with) comes from his stint on Air America where the political left tried to mirror image right wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh. I will admit that Al Franken was probably one of the better Air America hosts, but it is not too hard to be the cream of the crop when you are trying to rise above garbage.

But back to my original point. Electronic voting machines that automatically produce a paper ballot for recounts are the way to go. These paper ballots could be produced in such a way that they could be optically scanned with a fallback of human counting of imperfect ballots which were soiled or torn preventing their scanning.

The problems with optically scanned ballots is being proven to us in real life.

Satellite Radio Direct Connect

This post is not for those of you who have an in dash satellite ready radio in your vehicle.

I am amongst those who do not have an in dash satellite radio. I purchased a satellite radio with a FM wireless transmitter and I was severely disappointed in how it worked.

First off, when traveling in large urban areas with a crowded FM radio spectrum, it was almost impossible to find a channel clear enough that there was no interference from a powerful, local terrestrial radio broadcast signal. Second, I am a long haul truck driver and obviously my occupation involves travel. Even if I found a channel in one smaller metro area with an unused channel that allowed interference free reception, as I traveled into the next metro (or even rural) area most times I was forced to search the dial once again for a clear channel.

Some time back, while talking to another truck driver, I head that the solution to this problem is to either get a satellite ready in dash radio or alternatively to get a direct connect cable assembly for your satellite receiver with FM wireless transmitter. I looked into both and balked at the price of either solution. While the direct connect was certainly the cheaper route of the two to follow, the price of the cable assembly was more then I had paid for my satellite receiver.

Well prices have come down. For less then $25 I was able to purchase the required cable assembly at a Pilot truck stop within the past couple months. Since truck stops notoriously over charge their primary customers (truck drivers who have limited options on where to shop) it probably can be found elsewhere even cheaper.

I purchased and installed the direct connect cable assembly. The results? I am overjoyed. The direct connect signal overpowers even extremely strong terrestrial broadcast signals allowing for clear reception of your satellite receiver's signal.

The direct connect assembly automatically injects your satellite receiver's signal into your antenna cable when you turn the satellite receiver on and allows for undegraded reception of terrestrial broadcast stations when you turn the satellite receiver off.

My recommendation? For anyone going with the FM wireless transmitter method of satellite reception I recommend getting the direct connect cable assembly. If you live in an area with a less crowded FM radio spectrum area, possibly you will not need it. But if you live in even a moderately populated area or if you engage in travel where you will still want to enjoy your satellite radio while you travel, you will find the direct connect method well worth the expense and trouble.

How do you install the direct connect cable? Direct connect involves purchasing a cable that has three connections. One connection plugs into the back of your satellite receiver in the plug provided. Connecting the others involves unplugging the antenna cable from the back of your in dash FM radio and then plugging in the cable assembly into the antenna jack on the back of the radio and then replugging the vehicles antenna jack into the cable assembly's jack. This almost certainly involves some dis assembly of your vehicles dash to get at the back of FM radio receiver, so I am not going to saying installation is not without its headaches. Also you are going to have to figure out how to get the small wire that runs from the back of the satellite receiver to the back of your FM radio which involves either drilling a moderate sized hole somewhere (probably at the top) of your dash or feeding the wire to somewhere at the bottom of the dash before running it up to the back of the in dash FM radio.

Open Letter to Senator John Warner

Some time ago, after my Senator John Warner announced he would retire, I decided that towards the end of his term, I was going to write him a letter of thanks for all of his years serving the Commonwealth of Virginia and our nation. Today was the day I decided to do so. Unfortunately, I waited too long for this. In visiting his official website I found all contact information removed along with the statement that any correspondence he did receive after election day would be forwarded to the new Senator-elect.

Since I do not have his home address, and I reckon John does not want such correspondence sent there anyway, I decided to just publicly post my letter of thanks to him.

Dear Senator Warner,

I wish to thank you for your numerous years of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to our nation.

I wish you well in your retirement, however I hope you will remain at least somewhat politically involved during it. It is my belief that Virginia and America would benefit from your knowledge and experience when you desired to make your opinion known.

While I am confident that Virginia can find others to provide the leadership we need, it is with at least some trepidation that I survey where we might be now that your steady, proven hand will no longer be assisting us in the Senate.

While I regret the loss of your presence in Washington, I must admit you certainly earned your retirement after your long history of service.

I am sure I am not alone in wishing you well in retirement. Once again allow me to express my gratitude to you for being willing to be harnessed by the yoke of public service for all of these years.

My ballot is in the mail

My ballot is in the mail.

My votes are as follows.

For President:

Barack Obama receives my unenthusiastic vote. I really like McCain, but found his selection of Sarah Palin as VP to be unacceptable. My vote for Barack Obama is so unenthusiastic that I looked into all the other candidates on the ballot before finally deciding Barack was the best choice out of the selections offered.

I'll only add this question: Where is Ross Perot when you need him?

For Virginia's Senatorial election:

For me this was a tough choice. I like both of the candidates. I narrowly decided to cast my vote for Mark Warner because I only slightly prefer him based upon financial responsibility grounds. From what I have seen, Mark Warner is going to end up winning in a blow out, so my own vote really isn't going to end up being that important. I just hope we can find a public service job for Jim Gilmore because he is just too good a man to keep sitting on the sidelines.

For Virginia's Second Congressional District in the House:

No contest. I was willing to vote for Bozo the Clown in order to try and run Thelma Drake out of office. Lucky for me, the Democrats nominated a really fine candidate in Glenn Nye. Glenn Nye gets my vote, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that he gets elected. The last poll that I had access to indicated the race is steadily tightening, however Thelma is still slightly ahead. I wish to point out that if incumbent Thelma was really such a great representative of Virginia's Second, she wouldn't be facing such tight and competitive races every time she comes up for election. Why don't the voters in Virginia's Second wise up and finally get around to electing someone more reasonable then Thelma? I am not against Virginia's Second being represented by a Republican mind you. However if it must be a Republican, then it needs to be a Republican more reasonable then Thelma Drake.

On all the local elections I abstained. Since I spend so much time on the road due to my occupation, I find it impossible to keep up to date and informed enough on local issues to cast a vote. I was tempted to cast my vote for Mayor of Virginia Beach towards Meyera Oberndorf. I appreciate her successful efforts in orchestrating the bold moves that got us Lake Gaston water. It also does not hurt that she won the endorsement of 2900 police officers, firefighters and teachers employed in Virginia Beach (2900 has to be most of them). However I decided to stick with my decision to abstain.

Dream Vice President

I'm dreaming about who would be a fantastic Vice Presidential candidate.

I'm dreaming about Kent Conrad (Dem-North Dakota) being selected by someone.

Selecting Kent as a running mate with the promise of letting Kent be Kent would have a serious impact on my decision of who to vote for.

It would not matter to me which of the Presidential candidates recruited him. While Kent is a Democrat, there has been at least some talk of John McCain selecting across the aisle, so Kent Conrad running alongside John McCain is not inconceivable. My guess is that such a selection might propel McCain into overwhelmingly winning the independent, moderate vote.

But what about a more conventional pairing of Barack Obama with Kent Conrad? Wrong choice you say? Let's look back on history. Ultra-Liberal FDR once chose more moderate fiscal hawk Harry Truman to run alongside him. After FDR expired in office Harry Truman was forced to take office. The result was that America ended up having one of our finest Presidents ever to lead us during the extremely difficult post victory times after WWII.

Please do not forget that it is from Harry Truman that we get "The buck stops here".

Pairing idealistic Barack Obama with the down-to-earth Kent Conrad would garner real mileage that Barack would not lead our nation towards fiscal irresponsibility. That is as long as Barack promised to allow Kent his share of the bully pulpit.

It has happened before, and it could happen again. FDR once chose Harry Truman and Barack could choose Kent Conrad. Such a bold selection by Barack would signal to moderates that voting for him does not mean we are voting for fiscal insolvency. That fiscal responsibility will indeed have a position at the table during his administration.

Presidential Candidates on Social Security

(See here) a piece that appears on MSNBC that was written by Larry Rohter and originally appeared in the New York Times.

It appears both of our Presidential candidates are willing to take on the third rail (Social Security reform) in their bids for office.

First, I would like to credit Barack Obama for getting this issue out into the open. It was Barack who first presented concrete proposals for Social Security reform all the way back to during his primary campaign for the Democratic nomination. I also wish to point out that only at Barack Obama's official campaign website can one easily find where he stands on the issue. When you visit the John McCain campaign website you can not find a direct link and I came away with the impression that he is reluctant to address the issue.

However, when John McCain is pressed on the issue and forced to address it, his position seems to be reasonable. Perhaps even more reasonable then is Barack Obama's. Please note that the piece I linked to points out that, at most, Barack's proposed tax increases on the wealthy only solves, at most, about 45% of the projected future revenue shortfall problem for Social Security. His proposals do not address the remainder. John McCain seems to be willing to accept some tax increases on the wealthy as long as it is only a portion of a final plan that includes addressing the remainder.

I'll give Barack Obama points for courage in opening up the debate while proposing tax increases (only on the wealthy) will be needed. I'll give John McCain credit for begrudgingly accepting that, yes, additional taxes on the wealthy might be required but for then insisting that other measures such as reduced benefits and/or later retirement must also be considered as part of a complete solution to the anticipated Social Security revenue shortfall.

One nagging fear I have is that John McCain seems to want to place his foot in the door of privatizing Social Security while endorsing the idea of private accounts. Seems to me there is no need for "private accounts" since we already have IRA's and 401K's. If someone feels a need to strengthen the existing IRA or 401K system, there is no need to endorse the "new idea" of private accounts unless it is aimed at keeping the door open for starting to destroy Social Security.

However, I do not think a Democratic majority in either branch of Congress (or both branches?) would accept even the beginning of privatization. It also seems that both candidates might be willing and capable of taking on this issue and actually provide the leadership necessary to come up with a long term solution to the problem of looming Social Security insolvency.

The last sitting President we had who was able to provide this type of leadership was Ronald Reagan. Now both candidates promise that they too are capable of touching the third rail, providing the leadership, forcing Congress to deal with the problem and walking away from the experience strengthened.

It is about time our government tackles this problem. It seems that perhaps both candidates are willing to shoulder the responsibility for providing the leadership, making the tough choices, and help our nation come to a resolution of the problem.

Glorious day, oh glorious day!

55 MPH Speed Limit

It is my understanding that reducing the nationwide speed limit to 55 MPH has been gaining some support.

Here is what I wrote to both of my Senators, John Warner and Jim Webb about this issue:

Dear Senator,

I am sending identical correspondence to both of my Senators.

I have heard that attempts to lower the speed limit to 55 are being seriously considered. I wish to communicate some of my concerns about this.

First, I am a self employed (independent contractor) truck driver. I do not claim to speak for all truck drivers, trying to do so would be like trying to herd cats. However I do believe that my concerns do address the best interests of the trucking industry as a whole and the needs of the American economy.

I estimate that a nationwide 55 MPH speed limit would result in an immediate decrease of the trucking industry's total freight hauling capacity of about 15%. If the legal speed limit is 55, a truck driver can only legally then log 55 MPH in his/her travels. The result will be a reduction in the maximum number of miles an individual truck driver can travel (and a reduction in salary) and thus if the total number of truck drivers is not increased, a decrease in the total number of freight miles the trucking industry can provide to the American economy as a whole is the
outcome.

Now, since I pay for my own fuel, and I will acknowledge that a decreased speed limit will result in fuel savings, I would benefit somewhat from a decreased speed limit. Not enough to compensate for the gross revenue lost from total miles travelled mind you, but I would see some savings never-the-less. I might also benefit from increased freight rates brought about from reduced total freight capacity. However an additional consideration needs to be included. Are higher freight rates really a good thing for the American economy? Will the trucking industry still be able to meet the American market's demands when the economy improves?

Let me tell you that if the economy and the freight market ever returns to what we experienced during what I describe as the Clinton economy, it will be hopeless. Back then, shippers were begging trucking companies to haul their freight and we had a difficult time meeting our customers needs. Even if the speed limit is not decreased, it will be difficult for the trucking industry to provide the level of service we did back then. If the speed limit is decreased (unless we think out of the box while doing so) it would be impossible.

First let me explain what the trucking industry is facing without a speed limit decrease. A significant number of present drivers are baby boomers. As these baby boomers are starting to retire, members of succeeding generations are not lining up to take their place. Yes there are some younger truck drivers, however they are not taking up the trade in large enough numbers to replace all of those getting ready to
retire.

Decreasing the productivity of each remaining truck driver is not exactly wise.

However increasing the capability of the trucking industry to haul the same amount of freight with a reduced amount of fuel is a desirable outcome. This is best for reducing our dependence on foreign oil and reducing our Greenhouse Gas emmissions.

But how can we achieve this desireable outcome, reduction in fuel consumption by the trucking industry, without shooting any future economic recovery in the foot? I previously stated that you need to start thinking outside the box. Are you ready for original thinking?

First you have to be ready to take on transporation safety groups suchs as CRASH (Citizens for Reliable And Safe Highways) and PATT (Parents Against Tired Truckers).
What would be required for the existing trucking industry to provide continuing levels of service to the economy with a decreased speed limit? Increase the number of hours per day (on average) that a truck driver is allowed to drive. I would suggest that instead of limiting truck drivers to 70 hours within 8 days, that truck drivers be allowed to drive 80 hours within 8 days. Also it would be required to increase the maximum number of hours per day a driver could drive from 11 hours to 12hours and increase the "14 hour clock" to 15 hours.

The above suggestions are not a strong opening position to start negotiations with. Even the above changes, with a decrease of the speed limit to 55, will force the trucking industry (and their customers) to increase their efficiency. The above suggestions are the compromise that safety groups should be forced to accept.

It could be pointed out to safety groups that if 40 tons on the highways hits something at 55 less damage will be done then if 40 tons hits it at 65 or even 75. Decreasing the speed limit does have some desirable safety impacts (pun intended), however the entire job still needs to be done.

Let me also point out that a decrease of the speed limit to 55 in rolling hills and mountains might also serve to actually increase fuel consumption. If the decreased speed limit is not accompanied by intelligent enforcement, you are going to hinder what you are trying to achieve (decreased fuel consumption). A Smoky Bear (state trooper) sitting at the bottom of the hill rigidly enforcing 55 upon truck drivers attempting to get the forces of gravity to increase his fuel mileage would only increase fuel consumption. The truck driver spent all that fuel fighting gravity to the crest of the hill. If he/she is not then allowed to enlist gravity for increased fuel mileage on the way down? If the driver is forced to ride his brakes all the way to the bottom of the hill you are going to see less then maximum fuel efficiency.

We need to consider that America's freight still needs to be hauled after any change takes effect. If you are really interested in increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucking industry, I have an idea that I feel I could prove would yield better fuel efficiency from truckers without any decrease in the speed limit. But to explain/defend my idea would require me to get even longer winded then I have been here. Let me warn you that if want to even consider my "new idea" you better be ready to think WAY outside the box and be willing to really be a true leader. If
you are not willing to be a trail blazer, do not even ask me to explain, extreme leadership would be required to overcome entrenched opposition.

Let me warn you that any response I receive from you might be published on the internet on my blog. Not many people read my blog, but I am publishing this
correspondence to you, and I am apt to publish the response as well.

Offshore Oil Drilling

Recently there has been a surge of increased support for off-shore oil drilling in America's coastal waters. Zogby International recently released the results of a poll that shows 74% of likely voters now support off-shore oil drilling with 59% supporting drilling in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge). It is interesting that majority support for off shore drilling cuts across party lines.

A majority of likely voters across the political spectrum support off-shore oil drilling, with vast majorities of Republicans (90%) and independents (75%) in favor of drilling for oil off U.S. coastal waters – more than half of Democrats (58%) also said they favor off-shore drilling.

Newt Gingrich has launched a "Drill here, drill now, pay less" campaign to take advantage of this increased support. Newt needs to realize that many of those that support increased drilling might not be 100% in favor of the manner by which he would exploit these reserves.

Meanwhile the left wing continues to preach against the evils of off-shore drilling as evidenced in this piece posted at VB Dems by Eileen Levandoski. Even a majority of their own base supports off-shore drilling but they are going to stand in the way of the freight train.

So it seems that some new leadership on this issue needs to be provided so that the end result does not come from choosing between two extremes. Yes, there should be increased off-shore drilling and in my opinion exploitation of ANWR as well, however this exploitation should come with heavy royalties paid to the American People for use in the encouragement of alternative energy. I think there is enough support for this position from amongst those in the 74% so that if the exploration and drilling is going to happen, it includes encouraging alternative energy.

Now we just need to find a standard bearer from amongst the representatives serving in Washington to provide the leadership that we can rally around. It does not matter from which party the leader(s) come, and hopefully we will find many leaders from both parties signing on.

Death on the Highway

I thought I'd share a tragic event that happened early in my trucking career that made quite an impression on me.

I believe this happened back in late 1997 or early 1998, certainly in the late 90's. I had picked up a load late in the week in California headed for Texas. Since the customer was not going to be open on the weekend, there was no reason for me to rush with the load. Since I had plenty of time, I decided to take a less traveled, scenic route.

Discussing my planned route with other truckers, I was told is was a nice drive, if you had the time. I was warned that I had better not be in a big hurry if I took it though. When I got to Phoenix, AZ, instead of staying on I-10, I headed east on US-60 until the junction with US-70, with my route then taking US-70 east until it junctioned with I-10 near Lordsburg, NM. This route would take me through a couple of National Forests and through the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation. The distance is about the same as staying on the interstate, but certainly it would not be as quick. Not very far out of the Phoenix area, the route became a two lane road and would remain so until I got to Lordsburg.

When I left Phoenix, it was already fairly late in the day. As promised, the going was often slow when I would join up with a string of vehicles following behind a slow going, vacationing RVer traveling through the often hilly and curvy route. Long before I completed the journey, the sun set; so much for the scenic views. As I approached the Arizona-New Mexico state line I learned the Arizona Port of Entry (scale house) was closed. They also told me that the Port of Entry was apt to open back up early the next morning, so if I wanted to get past them while they were closed I needed to keep moving.

I was starting to get a little tired, but figured I could make it to Lordsburg and find a place to park for the night there, but as I crossed the state line I noted a large, wide paved parking area alongside the road with ample room for me to park. I braked and pulled over into the area intending to spend the night there. It would be quiet there and I couldn't be sure that the truck stops down by the interstate would not be filled up by the time I got there.

I noted that only one other truck was in the parking area. It was a tanker. Before I got my CB turned off and headed back into my sleeper, two other tanker trucks came down the highway. The trucker who was parked near me called out to them, started up his truck and fell in behind them. Apparently the three of them all drove for the same company and knew each other. The one who had been stopped stated that he had been getting drowsy so he had stopped to get a nap. But now that he could travel and chat with his friends, he thought he could make it. I later wondered if this same driver was involved in the tragic accident I later was a witness to.

Anyway, I jumped into my sleeper and quickly fell asleep after setting my alarm clock. I set my alarm clock for early in the morning East Coast time, so when it went off, it was extremely early in the morning Mountain Time and dark outside. I was still laying in my bunk trying to gather the motivation to get up and get going when I heard a truck approaching rapidly down the highway. Suddenly there was a rumbling, then an even deeper rumbling followed by what sounded like somebody kicking a trash can down the highway, then silence.

I was startled into action. The first thought that crossed my mind was that a flat bed had lost his load, however I did not hear where the truck had continued on or had braked to a stop. I jumped out of my truck but it was pitch black outside, not even a full moon to see by. I ran out into the highway but could not see much of anything, however I could hear the hissing of air. Oh my God, I thought, there has been an accident.

I ran back to my truck and grabbed my rather powerful flashlight and headed back towards the sound of the hissing. My flashlight quickly illuminated a heap of twisted metal. The truck was almost perpendicular to the highway on its wheels. The roof of the cab of the truck was crushed down about even with the hood of the truck and the driver's side door was ajar. I tried to see if the driver was trapped inside but could not see him. I screamed out "Hello, can you hear me? I'm hear to help. Can you hear me?" But I heard only silence other then the continuing hiss of air leaking from severed air lines on the truck.

I once again ran back to my truck, turned on my CB and screamed into the microphone "Help, this is an emergency, can anyone hear me? There has been a truck accident and I need help." But I was met with silence. After a couple of transmissions on Channel 19 I also attempted Channel 9 (the emergency channel) with similar results.

I remembered that I had satellite communications, and that one of the messages available to me was the emergency message which was supposed to set off alarms when sent back to dispatch. I sent off one emergency message with a brief description of the accident and where I was located and waited for a reply but received no answer. I sent off a second message before I remembered that the system was down. From evening up until morning one day every weekend my company took the system down for routine maintenance, and this just happened to be during that time. My satellite system was not going to do me any good.

I noted off in the distance approaching headlights. I jumped out of my truck and with my flashlight tried to wave the approaching passenger vehicle down. The vehicle slowed down to a crawl as it approached, but just before it got to me the driver punched the accelerator and sped off. Perhaps they feared I was a road bandit or something. The truck wreckage was well off the road and not visible in the inky blackness. Shortly after a second vehicle approached with nearly identical results. Evidently I was not going to be able to get anyone to stop unless I pulled my truck across the road blocking it, and that in itself would be dangerous.

I once again headed back for the wrecked truck trying to locate the driver. Even if I could not get assistance en route, perhaps I could locate the driver and he might need CPR or something. However I could not see any evidence the driver was trapped in the cab and I could not locate him in the area immediately surrounding the truck. I figured that if the driver was trapped in the cab I was not going to be able to help him. I decided I would drop my trailer and bobtail off to the closest place I could get at a phone to summon emergency response.

Before I dropped my trailer I decided to give one last try on the CB, and this time my efforts were successful. The scale master for the Arizona Port of Entry was headed towards work and lucky for me she had her CB on. I told her the accident was right at the state line and she said she'd be there in just a couple minutes.

While I waited for her to arrive I set out looking for the driver in case he had jumped or been thrown from his truck. I followed from where his truck left the highway. It looked like he had probably fallen asleep at the wheel and drifted off the highway and into the brush. Once in the brush he must of woken up, and although disoriented, he tried to get his vehicle back up on the road. He almost made it. The path of the truck led back to the highway, but he still had too much momentum when he turned sharply up the rather steep bank. The tractor was back on the pavement when the truck first rolled which was evident from the gouges in the pavement and the broken glass. After rolling, the trailer separated from the tractor and actually bounced a couple of times before coming to rest well off the road.

Some might state that it is wrong for me to state that the driver probably fell asleep at the wheel, that I can not know and that the driver might have been overcome by a heart attack or something. However from the evidence, I can proffer the opinion that falling asleep at the wheel is probably what happened. If the driver had been overcome by a heart attack, he probably would not have attempted to get his truck back up on the road after he entered the brush.

After the scale master arrived, she at first attempted to help me search for the driver. While we were looking, I spied the Driver's wallet near where the truck first rolled. Inside the wallet was the trucker's Driver's License. The scale master took one look at the license and burst into tears. She knew the driver, he was a local driver that had a route delivering red dye (off road) diesel to the mines that took him regularly across her scale. She was overcome with grief. I briefly wrapped my arms around the young lady to comfort her, but quickly figured out that this was not going to do the driver any good. I held the scale master out at arms length and forcefully told her something like "Look, get it together. He might be trapped in the cab of the truck. The best thing you can do for him is get help on the way. Jump back in your pickup and go call for help. Keep it together until you call for help for his sake." She nodded, choaked back the tears, jumped in her pickup and sped off to call for assistance with her tires spitting gravel as she quickly accelerated.

Shortly after the scale master departed, another big truck came down the highway. It was another tanker truck from the same company as the one involved in the accident. I flagged the driver over, pointed out the wrecked truck while briefly informing him of what I knew, and that the scale master had went to call for help. He too knew the driver.

I set out to search for the driver from the point the truck left to road to where it came to rest. The other truck driver set out to search the area immediately surrounding the truck. It was he who located the driver involved in the accident, shouting out that he had found him when he did. The driver's body had been thrown at least 50 feet beyond the point the tractor had come to rest. I started running towards where the driver was while asking in a shout if he was still alive. The other truck driver was slowly walking towards me and responded with a shake of the head and stating that there was no hope for him. The back of his head was caved in as evidently his head had hit a rock when he was thrown from his cab.

I continued past the other driver to where the victim's body lay. He was stretched out face up with his still open, but lifeless, eyes staring off into space. I felt for a pulse, but could not find one. I briefly considered rolling the victim over to see the caved in head for myself, to be sure that CPR was not warranted, but I will confess that I became squeamish and just decided to take the other driver for his word.

It was not long afterwards that the emergency response started to arrive. Since the accident had happened right at the state line, evidently the scale master had called both New Mexico and Arizona as state police from both states responded. Perhaps lucky for me, a County Deputy Sheriff responded and he was able to confirm that I had spent the night there, he had noted me parked during his rounds, so there no question of my somehow causing the accident or anything.

It did not take too long for the owners of the trucking company to arrive. During the owners discussions with the other tanker driver who had stopped, I learned that the victim of the accident had a wife and young family. Any death would have been tragic enough, but leaving behind a young family only made it worse.

I stayed around long enough to give all the information I had to the officials. I did not think it was right to seek to rush off immediately, but after about an hour I asked for permission to depart. The officials investigating stated it would be OK for me to leave, saying that if they needed any additional information from me they knew how to get ahold of me. I never heard from them.

What I had just experienced made quite an impression on me as a rookie truck driver. I personally witnessed the possible horrific effects of driving while tired. From actual experience, I learned that it is important to always get adequate rest in my occupation. It only takes once to push it too far on too little rest for it to possibly result in tragedy. You might get away with it once, twice, a dozen or even multiple times. But you only have to fail once to never, ever, get another chance at it. Hopefully, if you insist on driving while tired, if you push it too far, the only victim involved will be yourself. That will be tragedy enough by itself, but if you kill innocent victims the horror will only be multiplied. And if you kill innocent victims and survive, there is a good chance you will end up in prison where you will have ample opportunity to reflect on what you should have done different.

Glenn Nye - Fiscal Responsibility

Glenn Nye is the Democratic nominee for the Federal House of Representatives to represent my district, the Virginia Second District.

I want to start off by saying that even if the Democratic nominee was Bozo the Clown, he would have my vote. Why? Because he ain't Thelma Drake. I have a strong desire to run Thelma Drake out of office, and if it took electing Bozo to office to do so (we could then attempt to get the Republicans to nominate someone more suitable then Thelma next election and then run Bozo out of office as well) then so be it. However Glenn is starting to run a campaign that would indicate he is no Bozo.

To find out more about Glenn Nye (go here) to his official campaign website. I am not going to go into all of his strengths and positions in this short entry, and I would imagine that the average voter might have more concerns in mind then the things I am going to go into in this short post when deciding whether or not to vote for him. But I am going to go into a few points of why I find him to be an attractive candidate.

First - endorsements. While often it is easy to dismiss occasions where a Democrat endorses a Democrat, I want to point to two strong endorsements that Glenn Nye has won (from Democrats) that signal that he is not some clown running for office. These are the endorsements of Owen Pickett (long time Federal House Representative serving Virginia's Second) and Jim Webb (currently Virginia's junior Senator in the Federal Senate). I do not think either of these endorsements came automatically - and by winning these two endorsements Glenn wins instant creditability.

Second - resume. While Glenn has no history of service in the uniformed services, he has a strong record while serving in conflict zones during service as a US diplomat. As we have learned in Iraq, those wearing suits are often in as great a peril as those wearing battle fatigues. Glenn's service to our nation includes stints in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. In areas where many might fear to tread, it appears Glenn sought to serve.

Third - fiscal responsibility (this is one of my primary concerns about anyone who wishes to represent me). With a tip of the hat to Vivian Paige for the source, I wish to point to a Port Folio Weekly piece (see it here) by Leona Baker that I am going to lift a quote from.

When asked if there were any ways in which he philosophically differed from the Democratic mainstream he responded, in part, with:

Well, first and foremost I think we’ve got to have a balanced budget and be fiscally responsible. It’s important for the future, the strength of our economy and I would be in favor of a balanced budget amendment to make sure we are much more careful about the way the government spends money.

He'd be in favor of a balanced budget amendment. This young man goes further on this issue then even I. I am in favor of a balanced budget. However I am not in favor of a balanced budget amendment because I can think of times where a balanced budget (think back to WWII) is not possible and Congress should have the power, during emergencies, to borrow money. But I relish any attempt by a candidate to introduce into public discourse the need for such an amendment. Even if Glenn Nye is a little bit off key (to my musical ear) at least we're singing from the same sheet of music.

I do not agree with Glenn Nye on every issue, but I realize that I am not going to find a candidate with whom I agree on every issue unless I run for office myself. Since I am not on the ballot I am throwing my support behind Glenn Nye.

So you want change? How about change within a budget? How about change within a BALANCED budget? That's a change I might be willing to live with.

Buyer's Remorse

Well, it's all but official. Barack Obama seems to have the delegate and super delegate support necessary to claim victory in the Democratic Primary race for the party nomination for the office of President of the United States.

(See here) an MSNBC piece that reports Hillary has not yet officially conceded. My opinion is that her race was so successful that she should not officially concede up until the convention. My own suggestion is that she simply acknowledge the math and cease campaigning while not taking the step of formally ending her campaign.

Why? A lot of water is going to go under the bridge between now and the end of August when the convention is going to happen and the Democratic Party officially selects their nominee. There will be ample time for buyer's remorse to kick in. Now that Barack is the presumptive nominee, he is going to become the target of pointed attacks by those who think he (or any Democrat) is unsuitable to serve as President.

As has been proven in the case of super delegates switching allegiance from Hillary to Barack, super delegates can change their mind any time up until the time they officially cast their vote on the convention floor. Evidently, it is even OK for committed delegates selected by popular vote to switch their allegiance after the fact (if it was OK for this to happen to Hillary, then it should be OK for it to happen to Barack).

Hillary could best serve the Democratic Party by not officially folding her tent at this moment. If over the next several weeks Barack proved himself incapable of broadening his appeal to more of the populace, and buyer's remorse did set in, then it will be less awkward to select a candidate who ran a close second and never officially conceded then it would be to attempt to resurrect a campaign from the ashes.

Perhaps Hillary could even appear with Barack, offer generous support and praise, while keeping options open for the Democratic Party. It is my opinion that this is how best Hillary Clinton can serve the Democratic Party and indeed our nation.

Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee. But it is not official until the end of August. Plenty of time for Buyer's Remorse to set in.

Presidential Preferences

I have decided to write this next piece as an introspective exploration of my own justification for my preferences as to whom we select as being our next President.

My leanings (not grounded in concrete) are as follows (in descending order):

- 1 - Hillary Clinton
- 2 - John McCain
- 3 - Barack Obama

Now how could this be, given that Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's proposals are so much alike? Why is it that Barack does not fall into the second slot if my first choice does not end up leading the Democratic ticket?

The answer is because I like John McCain for the same reasons I like Hillary.

(See here) an MSNBC piece (that originally appeared in the New York Times) written by Carl Hulse that I intend to lift some quotes from.

“If you are a single-issue person or a really ideological person on a cluster of issues, in John McCain your ship has not come in,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a close McCain ally. “He will be conservative, but this hard-edge ideology that is embraced by the hard left and the hard right, John has made a career of not giving in to that.”

And quoting Carl Hulse:

In fact, some see a potentially divided government, with Mr. McCain on one side and a Democratic Congress on the other, as an opportunity to make major
agreements.

Exactly. I look at John McCain as having the proven track record of working to achieve compromise in government. He might actually be able to get something through Congress to address some of the problems facing our nation.

No matter who wins the Presidential election in November, and no matter which party is in majority in either (or both) houses of Congress, the winner is going to have to deal with a divided Congress. Even if the Democrats retain majorities in both houses and a Democrat is selected to take a seat in the Oval Office, these facts will remain:

First: The majority party in the Senate will not have a filibuster proof super majority.

Second: Even if Democrats retain a majority in the House, portions of that majority are moderate to conservative Democrats. Significant numbers of Democrats caucus together as Blue Dogs, for example.

If the person selected as President is going to successfully address the issues the American Public is concerned about, that person is going to have to be willing to compromise. I am a moderate. I do not desire to have as my President an extremist from either side of the fence representing me. I believe that both Hillary Clinton and John McCain possess the characteristics necessary to successfully lead our nation at this particular point in history. I have yet to see any evidence that Barack Obama possesses any of these characteristics.

Would an Obama Presidency be a disaster for our nation? Not necessarily. Bill Clinton's first term in office did not start out so well either, however he quickly "learned on the job" how to become what I consider a successful President (if you forgive him for the Monica indiscretion). Perhaps Barack would be as adept in adjusting to reality. However Hillary Clinton has already been to school and has already learned the lessons. Why take a chance on the unproven candidate when two proven individuals are available for selection?

So there you have it. My justification for, thus far, placing John McCain ahead of Barack Obama in my order of preferences for the Office of President of the United States. I'm not sure Obama has what it takes to lead our nation.

What's Wrong with McCain

What's wrong with McCain. After posting my last piece, which was so critical of the person (Barack Obama) whom I assume is going to end up being the Democratic nominee for the office of President, I think it is only fair that I give equal time to criticizing the Republican nominee, John McCain.

(See here) a Washington Post piece by Jonathan Weisman which reports that John McCain seems to have become a recent convert to George Dubyah Bush's fiscally irresponsible economic policies.

I shared hopes with former Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (Republican - R.I.) that McCain would return to a being centrist, moderate, supporter of fiscal responsibility. But to quote Chafee:

I was frankly surprised that he's kept it up after securing the nomination. I thought he'd move to the center, and I haven't seen it.

The attraction of John McCain for my vote is based upon his record as a Senator, that of being the maverick. While his present "borrow and spend" fiscal proposals might appeal to the conservative Republican Party base, they will make it that much harder for me to vote for him come November.

Right out of the gate, I lean towards John McCain in a match up between Barack Obama and him. However that does not mean I am motivated to support John McCain come hell or high water. If John McCain insists on grabbing the mantel and leading the charge in defending everything I disliked about Republican leadership over the last decade, Barack Obama might yet end up with my vote.

What's Wrong With Obama?

What's wrong with Obama? Why is it that I am so resistant to jumping on the Obama bandwagon?

As the Obama-Clinton campaign race developed, I kept finding myself gravitating towards Hillary Clinton. I really appreciated Obama's fine oratory, (that man can really stir up a crowd) however found little reason to prefer him over Hillary.

As the campaign got a little grittier, I actually started to dislike Obama. While Obama's and Clinton's proposals were so much alike, Barack promised he could deliver the change while insinuating that Hillary was somehow incapable. My own appraisal was that Hillary possessed, due to her experience, the ability to bring about the most change. Due to her experience, when dealing with Congress as President, she would know when to back down while continuing forward for the most change possible.

However Barack's campaign became "Vote for me and the changes I promise will happen. She can't do it." It was about then I started to really dislike the man.

Then it was revealed that the Barack campaign was just another empty run by a man wanting more power then he was ready for. It was revealed that while he promised to do something about NAFTA to the citizens of Ohio, leading officials in his campaign organization were secretly telling the Canadians he had no real intention of doing anything about it. Promises of change to the stupid voters, but wink wink, nudge nudge to the people in power.

Then the issue of the Reverend Wright came up. Turns out Reverend Wright holds many viewpoints that the average American might find offensive and the Reverend regularly preached his viewpoints from the pulpit. Barack Obama claims the Reverend Wright never preached anything offensive while he was sitting in the pew during his long term membership. (See here) where Real Clear Politics points to a YouTube clip where Barack denounces much of the preaching of the Reverend Wright.

My take? Evidently Barack Obama did not attend services at his church very often or he just was never caught on video sitting in the pew during the preaching. The Reverend's viewpoints disclosed in the videos I have seen exposes deep rooted thinking that would have been revealed even during attempts to preach the Gospel. It is absurd for Barack to claim ignorance on the viewpoints of his preacher, and his preacher was/is an America hating racist.

Forgiving Barack Obama for being the member of a racist congregation would be asking more of me then to forgive Trent Lott for saying a few words of praise towards Strom Thurmond during his (Trent's) infamous speech. Trent Lott was forced to resign as Senate Majority Leader due to that speech. I think the demand for resignation was just. However I am going to hold Barack Obama accountable to the same standards I did hold Trent Lott. I would find it extremely difficult to vote for Trent Lott for President. Just is difficult will I find it to vote for Barack Obama come November 2008 if Barack represents the Democratic Party.

There is NO EXCUSE for racism. There is reason to condemn any man (or woman) on things other then the color of one's skin. However I refuse to hold a black man less accountable then a white man. Racism is not OK just because your skin color is black.

Presidential Candidate's Fiscal Irresponsibility

(See here) an MSNBC piece written by Andrew Taylor that discusses the fiscally irresponsible campaign promises being made by all three remaining serious candidates for the office of President.

To me, fiscal responsibility is a large issue in choosing who I would like to see become President of the United States. Let me state that out of the starting gate, I still think the candidates that I favor, John McCain on the Republican side and Hillary Clinton on the Democratic side, offer the most promise of fiscal responsibility.

The piece points out that all three, through their campaign promises, are writing checks they can not cash. However Barack Obama seems to be the most flagrant offender in this category. I have heard how some describe that Obama seems to be offering a little bit of something to just about everybody. "If elected President I promise change. One of the changes will be free beer for everybody!"

I will also note that Andrew points out that Hillary is the most successful in showing how she would pay for some of her proposals:

Clinton's campaign generally succeeds more than the others at providing offsets — revenue increases or spending cuts — to finance programs such as her plan to provide health care for all.

However I think that those who fear fiscal irresponsibility can also take some reassurance that if John McCain were to be elected President, one need not worry that he would be able to deliver on his minimal proposals. He'd extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy? With a Democratic majority in Congress it ain't gonna happen. Perhaps he would be successful in permanently eliminating the Alternative Minimum tax, however that is being done each year by Congress anyway (with almost unanimous support - only Blue Dog Democrats sticking to their guns and voting against this latest year's "fix").

As for Barack Obama, he does have some interesting ideas. I am particularly fond of his idea to address looming shortfalls in Social Security funding by raising the cap that limits the Social Security payroll tax to the first $102,000 of income. In my opinion it took great courage for him to even suggest such a step. However for every good idea he comes up with, he has (in my opinion) a handful of ideas that would break the bank. Barack seems to be running a campaign based on some of the worst attributes of recent members of Congress from BOTH parties. He's both "tax and spend" AND "borrow and spend" at the same time.

So here's my summary on how a successful campaign would be should any of the three remaining candidates get into office:

- John McCain: He would be unsuccessful in achieving most of the fiscally irresponsible proposals he is making as long as the Democrats continue to dominate in either branch of Congress. Most of his proposals would be Dead On Arrival from the moment he took the Oath of Office.

- Hillary Clinton: She promises some expensive changes to our society however she seems to have put some effort into thinking about how to begin to pay for some of them. While she would benefit in getting some of her proposals through Congress due to Democratic majorities in both branches of Congress, these majorities are only due to some of the new majority being Blue Dog Democrats. Blue Dogs will ensure fiscal responsibility in everything she achieves.

- Barack Obama: He is the most fiscally irresponsible candidate remaining. His proposals are so outrageous that it hard to fathom how he is going to end up with anything but an extremely disappointed electorate when he ends up being unable to fulfill nearly any of the promises he has made. If he managed to accomplish everything that he has promised, we'd end up facing record deficits that will make some of us long for the "good ole days" of the not quite as irresponsible George Dubyah Bush Presidency. My guess is that he is going to have such a long list of promises that can't be met that he will have extreme difficulty in getting anything done.

Jim Gilmore Running for Senate in Virginia

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore (Republican) is running for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Republican John Warner.

Now we have two great men that are running for the seat. Along with Jim Gilmore, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (Democratic) is seeking the office.

I am proud that my state has two such distinguished and respected persons seeking the office. While out of the gate I lean towards Mark Warner, my vote is not guaranteed and I am looking forward to a spirited campaign. Let's explore the issues and then may the best man win!

It is worthy of mention that Jim Gilmore does face some opposition and his nomination as the Republican candidate is not yet assured, however he leads in the polls and it is my opinion that Jim would be the best candidate to represent the Republicans against Mark Warner (who is certain to get the Democratic nod).

I might be biased, living in Virginia, but I have been thinking that Jim Gilmore would also be a good fit as John McCain's running mate as the Republican ticket's Vice Presidential candidate. Jim has executive experience he gained as Virginia's Governor, his selection and serving as RNC Chairman should make him an acceptable selection for VP to most of the Republican base, and if they are not then satisfied it is just impossible to satisfy them. It is worthy of note that I heard Jim resigned from his post as RNC Chairman after he got into it with Karl Rove. That should gain him some points from some voters. Think about it. If Jim had remained and Karl had resigned earlier, perhaps the 2006 elections might have come out a little different!

Now, Jim's selection as VP candidate would involve some sacrifice on the part of Virginia Republicans because it is my opinion that only Jim would stand any real chance of victory when matched up against Mark Warner. However as an Independent I would be willing to make this sacrifice because I do not object voting for a person just because the person is a Democrat. It is my opinion that Virginia would still be well served and represented by Mark Warner. If we could get the two of them to run for different offices we might be able to get both of them into office and benefit from the services of both of these fine men.

Burger Bargains

Burger Bargains.

(See here) where msn money reports on continuing developements in the value menu wars amongst the big burger joints.

So where can a consumer get more bang for the buck when buying a burger? Thus far I will have to say the best value is obtained at McDonalds when buying the double cheese burger for a buck. Wendy's is not far behind with the new double cheese burger Stack Attack, however McDonalds still offers better value. The McDonalds' cheeseburger comes with more condiments included (the Wendy's Stack Attack does not even include pickles) and while I only suspect the McDonalds double cheeseburger has more meat, it is obvious to anyone with eyes that the Stack Attack has a tiny bun. My experience is that when I have a "healthy appetite" I can normally satisfy my hunger with three Mickey D's double cheeseburgers but with the same level of appetite I need four Stack Attacks from Wendys to get a full belly.

Burger King might soon have an entry that could seize the top prize. The msn money piece reports that the Burger King double cheeseburger will be 30% larger then the McDonald's offering. Left unstated is that I would imagine it will be flame broiled as well. It's about time Burger King started offering good value. All the Burger King value menu items up till now have left something to be desired. My only question is this, will the BK double cheese burger come with the condiments or will the 30% increased size come with a sacrifice of the pickles and ketchup or something? Thus far the BK double cheeseburgers are only available in select markets.

Calling All Moderates

Calling all moderates!

Victory in the Presidential Primaries is within our grasp. We might actually end up having two highly qualified candidates to choose between come November, however in these next critical days we need to act.

While some independent moderates might be tempted to presume the McCain candidacy is guaranteed, I would ask you to consider what would happen if Mike Huckabee makes a strong showing tomorrow in the scheduled primaries. With a strong showing, the extreme right wing of the Republican Party might start thinking they have an alternative to John. They might circle the wagons around the more ideologically pure Huckabee. The momentum could then shift to Huckabee and we would then be faced with Huckabee representing the Republican Party. Huckabee can't overcome the odds? Well who was willing to take the Giants without the point spread in the Superbowl and who ended up winning? Do not underestimate the threat to the McCain campaign from the Huckabee campaign now that Romney is out of the picture. Tomorrow McCain needs to dampen the rush towards Huckabee.

But what about the Democratic primary? Personally I could live with either of the two Democratic candidates that stand a chance of winning the nomination being elected President. It is my opinion that if the Democratic Party wants a Democrat to be elected as president, they had better nominate Hillary. It is my appraisal that Barack will be unable to withstand the barrage of half truths that he will be facing once he is the official standard bearer. I would be willing to bet better then even money that McCain would win if faced with a Democratic nomination of Barack Obama. Against Mike Huckabee, the odds makers would have to give me better odds that Mike could come out the winner when faced by Obama, but the odds would not need to be that much less then even money. The Obama campaign is going to face that much difficulty when the half truths start to be brought up about his upbringing. The overwhelming support he enjoys from the African-American community will probably even be eroded.

So what do we have to do? We need to be sure that come 2009 we get someone we can live with sitting making the decisions in the Oval Office. Tomorrow we throw our support behind John McCain. Once we push John over the top, we can concentrate on the Democratic nomination.

Now, it is my understanding that left leaning moderates have been trending towards supporting Barack Obama thus far in the primaries. Understand this. Barack Obama is going to have a strong showing tomorrow no matter how you vote. Momentum is already going to be his come Wednesday morning. However there are reasons to reasonably doubt Barack will ever occupy the Oval Office and these reasons go beyond the color of his skin. If the victor is going to end up being a Republican, which Republican candidate do you want it to be?

Remember moderates, the victor come November not only needs to keep his/her base but win a majority of the squishy center. I'm thinking that much of the squishy center is going to end up turning against Barack down the line once he faces serious opposition from the right wing.

Once we push John McCain over the top we can concentrate on attempting to assist the Democratic base to choose a competitive candidate.

Now, let me fully explain my agenda. My agenda is to get candidates from both parties that are capable of rushing towards the center. It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton and John McCain possess the potential of best being able to survive the rush to the center. Both candidates could remain competitive while they attempt to prove how they are the more centrist candidate... and thus potentially be able to come even further towards the center.

As for Democratic leaning moderates who prefer Obama, let me state that it is my opinion that an Obama candidacy is apt to result in a Republican victory come November. While you might prefer Barack understand that just because he wins the Democratic nomination does not mean he would automatically win the general election. He is going to be facing spirited and often dirty opposition. If your preferred candidate ends up losing, who do you want the victor to be?

John McCain tomorrow. We can decide who represents the Democrats afterwards. Neither an Obama or Clinton candidacy would be a disaster if either should ultimately win, however a Huckabee candidacy could result in serious disaster.

Calling all moderates!

These Wonderful Presidential Primaries

These wonderful Presidential Primaries.

Please excuse me as I chortle with delight about how the Presidential primaries have been going.

On the Republican side: while still not possessing a lock, John McCain is starting to look certain to be the Republican nominee.

On the Democratic side: Hillary Clinton (whom I prefer) and Barack Obama are running neck and neck. I will be delighted with either of these candidates winning the nomination.

Looking ahead:

Since John McCain looks to eventually be the official Republican standard bearer, it is probably not too early to start taking into consideration what the impact will be of who is selected to be his Vice-Presidential running mate. Due to John's age, the person selected to be ready to seize the reigns as Commander In Chief will be even more critical then normal. Rather then selecting someone to "round out the ticket" John is going to have to nominate someone like himself to reassure some of us voters (like myself) that the person making the decisions from the Oval Office for the next four years is someone we trust.

The Democratic nominee is far from being as certain. While I can state that I might find it possible to ultimately cast my vote for either of the two possible eventual nominees, I think there is still time to express my opinion as to which possible candidate would be the better of the two. First, let me state that there is little difference between the candidates positions on the issues. If you wish to split hairs, you can find some differences. However debating these differences is like splitting hairs indeed. The real difference between the two is which of the two candidates is apt to deliver on the positions the campaign on? My judgement? Although both candidates have only a short Congressional record to point to and judge upon, one has a proven track record of being capable of reaching across the aisle and including the opposition leadership in legislative proposals while the other does not. Hillary Clinton has the proven track record of reaching across the aisle while Barack Obama does not.

It has been the recent history within the beltway for polarized, partisan bickering that prevents anything meaningful and substantial being accomplished. The electorate wants change. Who can provide the change? Some think that Barack Obama will be the more uncompromising standard bearer for change while Hillary Clinton, the person who has the proven ability to compromise and bring about change, is dismissed because of this demonstrated capability.

For those in favor of Barack Obama, I have this question. What makes you think Barack is going to be more able to overcome filibusters in the Senate then Hillary Clinton will be? Hillary has the proven ability to work with the opposition to arrive at solutions. Barack does not. It is because of the demonstrated capability of working with the opposition for why I prefer Hillary (and for why I preferred John McCain). Barack has served long enough in the Senate to have demonstrated the same potential, however he has failed to provided any evidence that he can do so.

Do you want change or do you want an uncompromising Democratic President who is incapable of getting anything done?

It is my opinion that Hillary Clinton is the possible Democratic candidate who can bring about the most change, while compromising, while Barack, if he should be the nominee and then general election victor, could be the uncompromising President who fails to get anything done.

Hillary has the experience to reach the understanding that even the President of the United States is not a dictator. That under the American system, it is necessary to work with the opposition to get anything done.

Barack Obama can campaign upon Pie in the Sky if he wants, but it is Hillary's proven ability to compromise, which I think she developed from her years of experience near the helm of our government, that presents the largest potential to put your piece of the pie on your dinner table. Look at their Senate records. Let their records in the Senate speak for themselves.

While I, too, might prefer Barack Obama over Hillary on certain issues (when I start splitting hairs) I then must analyze which candidate has the potential to actually achieve some of the changes that are being promised. If Democratic voters really want change, they probably will be better served by a Hillary Clinton nomination and potential Hillary Presidency then by nominating Barack even if he were to win the general election.

Death of a Hero

Death of a Hero.

Bobby Fischer is dead at the age of 64. Once again I am reminded of my own mortality.

First I was forced to deal with the deaths of my adult life heroes, that being the deaths of my parents. Now I am forced to deal with the death of a childhood hero. Bobby Fischer has gone to meet his maker.

It was always a dream of mine to face Bobby Fischer over a Chess table. I always knew I would never stand a chance. In my dreams, it always ended up with with the victor, (Bobby) reaching over the game table, shaking my hand and stating "good game". I never dreamed it was possible to beat the genius at his own game. My dreams where only that I would force him to think about beating me. Forcing him to exercise his genius and actually have to think about it before he wiped me slick.

I was intrigued that Bobby had actually developed a method of playing the game of Chess that might actually have given me a chance (or at least a little hope) of beating him. He seemed to have developed a distaste (which I agree with) for how the potentials of a good Chess game had become more of a product of the contest was that the winner of the contest could be he/she who had more experience (and that experience could be gained through study) in the game then his opponent rather then a measure of raw intelligence.

Bobby Fischer proposed placing the pieces on the board at random (I would imagine both players were given the same random placement) and then starting the game. Have you ever heard of a level playing field? Sure, some experience of the strengths of each particular piece would be beneficial, but experience and book study of the game would be minimized to the maximum extent possible. Nearly endless possibilities. The playing field would be tilted away from experience towards raw intellect.

Now I am still a realist. I would imagine that even under Bobby Fischer rules for Chess, most times I would end up being defeated by Bobby Fischer. After all, the man was able to overcome more experienced and studied opponents at an extremely youthful age. However I would have relished the chance to measure myself against his genius by the rules he came up with. Who knows, perhaps I could have occasionally won a game or two and kept his interest. By his rules, I stood a chance.

I mourn the death of Bobby Fischer, one of my childhood heroes. I would hope that the President of our nation would, posthumously, grant him a Presidential Pardon. While I would imagine that he will be buried in Iceland, I want it to be made official that it is not Un-American to place flowers at his grave.

Bobby Fischer, rest in peace. After my own death I look forward to perhaps being able to take the man on by his own rules. God willing, I might even win occasionally.

Opportunity lost. Bobby Fischer is dead. In my limited lifetime, I no longer have the chance to sit down across a Chess table against Bobby Fischer.

I weep at the expiration of the life of Bobby Fischer. The expiration of boyhood dreams points to my own human mortality. Why did I never travel to Iceland and challenge him to a game?

I had the chance. I have no one to blame but myself.

Huckabee and the Fair Tax

First let me state that I am dead set against the Fair Tax in the manner that Mike Huckabee and most Fair Tax proponents propose it. They propose completely replacing all Federal taxes with the Fair Tax and eliminating the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I wonder just how willing to compromise Mike Huckabee might be willing to be in order to get his proposal enacted.

I will admit that there are some advantages to the Fair Tax. Mike Huckabee has pointed out one not very controversial advantage, and there is at least one other strong advantage that would be rather controversial.

Mike Huckabee has pointed out that portions of the underground economy might be subjected to at least some taxation. Mike specifically pointed to profits from activities such as prostitution and illegal drug sales being forced to pay taxes when the recipients of the profits sought to spend the money. I think this is indeed a valid positive aspect. I would point out that the economic transactions made during illegal activity probably would not yield any tax revenue, however when those who gain from such activity attempt to spend their profits for legal merchandise, their expenditures woiuld be subject to tax just like everyone else. I am certain that a large majority of our citizens, including me, would agree that this would be a good thing. Little controversy here.

Now let us explore in some detail a more controversial advantage.

Lifting the tax burden from businesses and employers will make American made goods more competitive both domestically and within the general global economy. Removing the federal tax burden from business should yield, through lower production costs, cheaper prices for American made goods. Greater demand for American made goods should yield increased economic activity, higher employment rates, and higher wages for the American worker.

I state this is controversial because some will see any attempt to shift the tax burden from the supply side to the demand side as being a negative. Such people see taxes on business as being a freebie. As long as you do not directly tax them and only impose taxes on big, bad business for the services they want, they cheer. They do not realize the indirect costs on society through the suppression of wage potential of workers and outright job loss imposed on the domestic economy. Such people have strong allies. Extremely respected former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that a Flat Tax only tax code would suppress demand for consumption (in Greenspan speak... you know he can't ever say something in common English) and he saw this shift as being undesirable for the economy. However I personally think that our financial guru just did not think it all through. Yes, there might be a difficult period while the economy adjusted, however in the long run, it should be beneficial.

While there might initially be some suppression of economic activity due to increased costs for goods, remember the global economy. At times it seems that just about everything bought in America is made somewhere else. Perhaps foreign manufacturers have the most to fear from the Fair Tax. In the long run, goods made in America, due to the elimination of the tax burden, should be more competitive both internally and externally. This should result in increased demand for the now more cheaply produced goods "Made in America". With increased demand for domestic production capacity will come increased competition for able employees and increased wages. Increased wages (after a period of adjustment) will replace the lost demand, however now an increased portion of the demand will now be met from domestically produced goods. Increased foreign demand for the now cheaper American made goods will help reduce (I do not have the courage to say eliminate) the trade imbalance.

Now comes the aspects of compromise that Fair Tax advocates must agree to in order to win my complete support.

First, I will not let you destroy the American Way. If you want a flat tax, move to Russia. It is my understanding that Vladimir Putin is experimenting with a flat tax. Please go join his experiment if you want to do it the Russian Way. Personally, I think Vladimir is flirting with a peasant revolt, but hey, maybe an autocratic form of government can impose what I would describe as an unjust tax system on the masses. If you want a flat tax, move to Russia. How does the saying go? "America, love it or leave it." If you want a flat tax, move to Russia and see how you fare. You might become fabulously wealthy as a result... until the peasants revolt and strip you of everything. Perhaps you will escape with your life.

The Flat Tax will result an increased tax burden on the middle class. I look at these increased tax payments as an opportunity. If we can get all of the Fair Tax advocates to pay increased taxes to balance the budget, this should also yield a positive impact for our society. A balanced federal budget will yield many positive benefits to our society.

However I am unwilling to turn my back on the American Way. I guess I should define my definition of the American Way. My Daddy's generation came back from World War II and threw their weight behind a system that I will go to my grave supporting. The poor pay little in taxes. The middle class pays some. The wealthy pay more. Effort and ability were rewarded, but with increased rewards came a responsibility to support the society that provided the wealth.

I am getting around to my compromise. Before I get to my proposal, let me point out a serious negative aspect of the Fair Tax. An unadulterated enactment of the Fair Tax would allow foreign investors to invest in and profit from the American economy without paying any taxes at all. Do we want wealthy foreign investors to escape unscathed? Should foreign investors be able to profit from American know how and American labor without paying anything into the society that supports the cash cow? I say HELL NO.

I do not object to the small time foreign investor escaping taxes. However the reality is that investment in the American economy is a big time player game. If the wealthy foreign investor is going to profit, the foreign investor should have to pay his share of the freight.

Profits (income) received from the American economy beyond that which I would define as "reasonable" should be subject to additional taxes beyond the Fair Tax. If someone is going to get rich off of my society, I want to ensure he/she contributes to that which makes the economy possible.

So what would I propose? I would suggest that the continuation of the IRS is necessary to keep honest people honest. There are too many loopholes in the fair tax without someone looking over our shoulders. Decreased demand on keeping the "average citizen" honest by the Fair Tax will enable the existing IRS manpower to increase revenue through tightened enforcement on the decreased pool of claimed exempt economic activity. Increased chances of getting caught will result in increased honesty.

I also demand that after a reasonable level of wealth, that wealth would still be subject to income tax. I do not desire to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I do not desire to motivate a peasant revolt within America. Hard work should be rewarded. Flagrant wealth should be taxed. We peasants live in America. Thanks to the beauty of the American Way our citizens can revolt at the voting booth without taking up arms.

I love America. I love the American Way. I am appreciative that I am offered the opportunity to change (or object to the change of) things without having to kill anyone.

A Reasonable Stance for Peace in the Middle East

A Reasonable Stance for Peace in the Middle East.

Recently I have engaged in some criticism of the recent historical position and actions of the US/Israeli alliance on Israeli/Palestinian issue as it relates to the prospects for peace. Even more recently, I have witnessed some voices, including the voice of Israeli PM Olmert, speaking out in ways that I consider at least marginally reasonable.

I am going to attempt to define my own definition of a reasonable position on the prospects for peace in the Holy Land. My definition is not going to satisfy the right wing of our side because they blanch at even the suggestion of "two states for two peoples" and they consider all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) as part of Greater Israel and refuse to even give up one inch for a future Palestinian state.

Now I am going to self define myself as being a supporter of Israel. While the right wing might describe me as being an "Arabist" (like they describe Condi Rice) for my viewpoint, I am going to take solace that I probably comfortably fit into Israeli PM Olmerts definition of a supporter of Israel. I am going to say that it is PM Olmert who has changed his definition to include me. I did not change my position to match his definition. However Olmert had to change his definition in order to find majority support for his proposals in the Western World and in my opinion the developing majority opinion within the United States and even amongst Diaspora Jews. Now that Israeli leadership has emerged that represents majority Western opinion (and conceivably majority Israeli opinion) on the issue, it is time to reward such expressions of leadership with backing as long as such expressions (and actions) continue.

Make no mistake about it. Soft words accompanied by contradictory actions will be judged harshly. However if conciliatory words are matched with the actions required... if Israel takes the steps necessary for peace? Well, in my opinion, we must then give Israel credit, stop being unreasonable, and start giving voice to our expectations about what the other side must be do to prove they are worthy of our continuing support.

First I am going to point to some articles that support points that I wish to make.

To the question "Can Olmert deliver from the Israeli side?" I ask you to (see here) where Olmert states he can provide the leadership necessary towards the painful compromises that will be required to resolve the issue. Now I am not saying the leadership task that Olmert is going to take on will be easy. Strong elements within his current coalition are threatening to increase the stakes and attempt to crash his currently assembled coalition if he makes any progress towards real steps towards compromise. However Olmert does have the realistic threat of then excluding these right wing elements from his government and then continuing on with a coalition comprised of/with replacements gathered from left wing elements. Even the left wing has threatened to desert him at the first sign of progress. However it is my opinion if the Olmert government collapses, peace efforts should continue. If the ability of the Israeli government to represent itself once again is removed, the Western World is going to have to continue on with peace efforts absent a voice that can claim to legitimately represent the Israeli people. I am fairly confident such an effort would yield the best deal possible for the Israeli side even if the Israelis insist on ripping their tongue out and taking a vow of silence in the resulting peace efforts. Even if the Israeli government, as currently comprised, collapses? The path to peace still is still clear. We do not need an Israeli representative to lead the rest of us down the correct path.

But what happens if an extremist, right wing Israeli leadership quickly rises from the ashes of the Olmert government? Such a government should be forced to settle for DICTATED terms. It is my opinion that the international community has proven itself capable of providing inducements to other powerful entities within the world community to "change their evil ways" in the past. If the Israeli right wing wants to turn its back on the leadership of Olmert, perhaps it will be time to take off the felt lined gloves of encouragement and replace it with the steel fist of forced compliance.

Is the world community willing to support Israel in a just resolution of the conflict? (See here)
a Haaretz piece, written by Bradley Burston, that seems to point towards a developing consensus amongst supporters of Israel towards a just and reasonable end to the conflict. Please note that nothing expressed by Bradley suggests Israel needs to lay down and commit suicide. It is my opinion that this piece (as well as the previously sited articles statements to Israeli PM Olmert) supports a developing consensus in the Western World (perhaps including Israel) for a just settlement of the conflict.

However does not this piece hint at what the Western World might be facing in our efforts to bring about a just settlement? That perhaps the Palestinian side will be unwilling to settle for a just peace? I think it does. The only thing we can do is dangle the carrot. If the Palestinian side refuses to take the carrot, then perhaps we must allow the Israelis to keep going after them with a stick.

Israel must not be forced to accept suicide as being the price for peace. When a just settlement is offered, Israel needs go no further. It is my opinion that a continuing occupation of the West Bank is even justified (without continuing expansion of land that might be annexed into Israel) until the Palestinian People are following leadership that promises peace.

The Israeli right wing argues that expansion of settlements in the West Bank is justified by the failure of Palestinians to settle for peace. (See here) where the Israeli right wing promises to meet current peace efforts with resistnance. I argue that such continuing expansion during such attempts continues to fan the flames of passion that prevent the Palestinians from settling for that which is offered. While the Palestinians might be forced to compromise and accept some of the "facts on the ground" due to previous expansion by the Israeli right wing, that does not mean the Palestinians must be forced to roll over and accept an ever changing, endlessly expanding, definition of the "facts".

When the world community settles on the definition of just what "just boundaries" are, then we will have the boundaries of just what claims of "reasonable resistance" and "reasonable annexation" really are.

It is my opinion that the Western World made a grave mistake by allowing the life of Yassar Arafat to expire without negotiating a peace agreement with him. However it is impossible to go back in time, and now we are forced to deal with that which is left after the death of Yassar Arafat. While no Palestinian leader remains that could as justifiably claim to represent the Palestinian side of affairs, we must continue on with negotiating with fractured Palestinian leadership. Those Palestinians that follow the path of Abbas will be met with welcoming arms. Those that follow the leadership of Hamas in Gaza will have to deal with hardship and suffering.

It is on this premise that my opinion on what to do about the Israeli Palestinian conflict stands. Israel has the right to just self defense. Israel does not have the right to defend injustice.

I am willing to honestly judge the efforts of Israel and Palestine towards gaining peace. Perhaps I am all to willing to negatively judge Israeli efforts to reward the Israeli right wing with the trophy of new "facts on the ground" in their efforts towards a just settlement. I balance my decisions on judging justice on the pivot of how for nearly 60 years the conflict has gone on, and for nearly 60 years Israeli leadership has dominated without leading us to peace. For 60 years, the result of failure to accept peace (by one side or the other) has resulted in continuing expansion of the Israeli state.

It is time for the expansion to cease. It is time for final boundaries to be set. Efforts by the Israeli right wing to scuttle peace efforts must be met harshly, if need be. Then we can turn our eyes of judgement upon the Palestinian side and be just as honest.

Another Issue With the Fair Tax

Another Issue With the Fair Tax.

How would the Fair Tax impact foreign investors? Which foreign investors are awash in dollars? Right now the answer to that is China due to the large trade imbalance and members of OPEC due to high price for a barrel of crude oil.

So let's pick an example. Let's say an Arab Sheik from Dubai chooses to invest in Boeing. If the Fair Tax is enacted, Boeing will not be paying any federal business taxes (although the new jetliners they sell to the domestic market would be taxed). Our Arab Sheik would receive a return on investment for anything that is exported (a large part of Boeing's profit market) tax free. He then withdraws the profits, doesn't pay any income tax because income tax has been abolished, and takes the money back home to Dubai to purchase American exports that are also tax free to support his lavish lifestyle.

It would seem that our Arab Sheik can invest in America, profit from the investment, take the profits back home and purchase American made goods (like F-16 jet fighters) without paying a dime in federal taxes. Sure seems fair to me! Sure it does. (Sarcasm intended.)

Endorsing Clinton and McCain

My request for an absentee ballot went in the mail this morning.

Since I live in Virginia, I am able to choose which party's primary I desire to vote in. I am going to keep that secret. Unfortunately I am not allowed to vote in both. So my decision as to which primary I am going to vote in was based on attempting to decide now which primary my vote might have the largest impact in. I hope I do not end up regretting my decision.

I have a favorite running in both primaries. These two individuals were my favorites from early on in the campaign, and while I do not 100% agree with either of them on all the issues, and while both have made some mistakes in their campaigns, I am going to continue sticking with them. It would please me to no end if both of these candidates ended up representing their parties in the general election.

For the Democrats: Hillary Clinton. Why? Because I view her as being the most moderate, or centrist, of all those running. Sure, in order to be competitive in the Democratic Primary she seems to have tacked a little bit too far to the left to suit my tastes, however I feel that she is most qualified to get some type of bipartisan support together in Congress in order to get things done. Since she is only going to be filling the Office of President and will not be a Dictator, I am confident that moderate voices in Congress will end up pulling her proposals more to the center before anything ends up being enacted. It is my opinion that Hillary's demonstrated ability to be pragmatic will enable some of the changes that I might desire to see actually become a reality without risking that things will get out of hand. Hillary would still have to deal with obtaining a super majority of 60 votes in the Senate for anything she proposes. There is not much risk that even if the Democratic Party obtained such a super majority they would have done so by getting additional left wing extremists elected. If Democrats are going to be successful in continuing to get additional members of their party elected, it will only be by nominating moderates and conservatives for the seats. I also feel that Hillary is the most electable of the bunch. Sure she has the highest levels of negativity of all candidates from both parties, however that is only because she is the most well known of all the candidates. Everything negative that can be said about her has pretty much already been said. Since Hillary has already been through the Republican smear machine and an absolute majority does not already have a negative opinion of her, any further efforts to convince those left over without a negative opinion are unlikely to be influenced by the likes of Rush Limbaugh repeating everything all over again. None of the other Democratic candidates are as tested as Hillary has been.

For the Republicans: John McCain. While once again I do not support 100% of what John McCain stands for, I look at him as offering the best chance for wise leadership in the Oval Office if a Republican ends up sitting there. John McCain has a proven track record of being willing to work with representatives of both parties in order to get legislation passed in Congress. I love the maverick blood that courses through his veins. Sure, during his current campaign he has tacked somewhat to the right in an attempt to appeal to the right wing extremists in his party, however his efforts have not been successful in winning him right wing support. If he is nominated, it will be because he won the support of independents and the moderates within his own party. He will owe nothing to the New Republican extremists and he will be apt to return to the type of governance evidenced in his record in the Senate. I would be particularly pleased if Republican McCain sat in the Oval Office while he had to deal with Democratic majorities in both branches of Congress. My most significant concern about John McCain is his age. While some of our senior citizens remain mentally sharp well past his current number of years, this is not automatic. We have only to look at how Ronald Reagan deteriorated in his last years as evidence that electing an elder statesman to fill the Office of President does in fact involve some genuine risk. However it is my opinion that our nation would be better served, if a Republican is going to sit in the Oval Office, by taking on the risk with John McCain being that Republican individual than any of the other candidates seeking the nomination. I would point out that if McCain received the nod, it would be even more important then normal that he wisely pick a Vice-Presidential candidate to run with him on the ticket. Rather then selecting someone to "round out the ticket" he would need to choose someone younger with a developing John McCain type of record of governance who would be ready to seize the reigns if John's service in the office was cut short by age related issues.

By the way, I am still personally running for President myself. However my own campaign has not seemed to gather any traction. Last time I did any polling, I had managed to lock up only one vote, and that was my own. My own wife has said she would not vote for me - grin. So while I do believe I am the most moderate, centrist candidate of anyone running from either party (which would by itself probably keep me from winning in either primary) I am throwing my support behind those candidates other then myself who I feel stand a reasonable chance of getting elected and who would best serve in the office.

I still say with a great deal of pride that I am the only candidate from either party who won God's endorsement. It is my opinion that even the Reverend Huckabee can not lay claim to that one. But even with God's help, success is not guaranteed, and it would appear that success is not going to happen. For me to be elected it would take not just "a" miracle, but several miracles. Well I am not going to turn God into a circus act in order to get elected. God has already given me more help then I probably deserve. If the evidence of a "Divine Endorsement" already present was not enough to cause even a ripple then I am not going to go back to the well and ask for additional help.

Since it seems extremely unlikely (talk about an understatement) that my continuing run for the Office of President is not going to be successful, I am going to throw my support behind a couple of the candidates that do have some hope of success. My endorsements go to Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Fair Tax Revolt

Fair Tax Revolt, alternatively this could have been titled: Avoiding the Fair Tax.

If the Fair Tax crowd is successful in getting taxes raised on the middle class in order to give a big tax cut to the wealthy, what are we to do about it?

I say we protest. We protest by paying as little of the tax as possible. How could you avoid it?

Well, for me it would be fairly easy. I am self employed and I have already formed an S Corp due to the current tax advantages, so as my business interests are configured I already have the tools I need to avoid a large portion of the Fair Tax.

I only have to claim that as many of my purchases are a legitimate business expense as reasonably possible (and the definition of the words "legitimate" and "reasonably" will be for me to determine) since the costs of doing business are not subject to the tax. I will not have to worry about an audit or anything, because the Fair Taxers are promising to abolish the IRS, so I should be in the clear when it comes to avoiding the tax.

"But that would be unethical" some will scream. I'll be screaming back "But everybody else is doing it!"

Since a Fair Tax would lead to a huge underground economy, I am just going to have to make sure that I get my own fair share of avoiding the Fair Tax as everybody else gets.

I'm already in business for myself so I'm already set up for it. Now I just need to get to work trying to figure out how to justify a six pack of beer as being a business expense - just about everything else already qualifies - grin. Let's see... I purchased the six pack of beer to entertain one of my customers. Yeah, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. I bet I can even get my beer Fair Tax free.

We'll have a Fair Tax revolt!

Middle East Peace

Once again I am motivated to address a subject that seems to have fallen off the radar screen of many of our citizens. The subject is Middle East Peace.

I am going to address this subject from my developing opinion that the right wing within Israel (and my own nation, the United States) are as much an obstacle to a peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as is Hamas.

I am not going to try and defend Hamas. Neither am I going to try and condemn the organization. As far as I am concerned, the Internet is awash with English language condemnations of Hamas. However, what our side still seems to lack is condemnation of our own actions. Voices that scream we need to stop being hypocrites. If there were enough voices speaking from this viewpoint, our actions would match the words of existing voices. Perhaps what the world needs is just one more voice, and one more vote, against hypocrisy.

What is the hypocrisy?

The Israeli right wing takes regular advantage of how the Hamas Charter calls for the destruction of Israel. The Hamas Charter is unreasonable. However what does the Israeli right wing stand for? Will the Israeli right wing be willing to accept "Two States for Two Peoples" or are they as much a part of the problem as is Hamas?

It is my opinion that every criticism of Hamas can also be laid directly at the feet of the Israeli right wing. What would I point to as evidence in my opinion? The record of unrelentless expansion of Israeli settlements even DURING peace processes.

Now I am not completely condemnatory of most Israelis. It is my opinion that most Israelis really are moderates who would be willing to trade land for peace. However these so called moderates keep allowing the right wingers to incite the desire for vengeance even from moderate Palestinians.

Even while the withdrawal from Gaza was conducted, the expansion within Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) continued. One Palestinian cheek was stroked while the other was slapped.

Just how unreasonable can the Israeli right wing be? Just how intolerantly tolerant can the Israeli moderates be? Let's look at the peace efforts of my own at least right of center President of my nation (George Dubyah Bush) and what the right wing promises to him in the wake of his opening gambit back at Annapolis.

From israelnationalnews (Arutz Sheva) comes (this piece) by Ezra HaLevi that promises defiance of President George Dubyah Bush's efforts for a peaceful settlement.

As Arutz Sheva reports:

On Tuesday, January 8 – the day before the projected date of Bush’s Jerusalem visit – a massive building campaign in Judea and Samaria will be kicked off in Jerusalem’s southeastern Har Homa (Homat Shmuel) neighborhood. There, leaders and activists will declare Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem and in the entire Land of Israel.

From there, activists will leave, with vehicles loaded with building materials, for points throughout Judea and Samaria.

The leaders of the umbrella organization of several extra-parliamentary groups that have taken part in various grassroots activism since the 2005 Disengagement, say they intend to thwart plans to establish a Palestinian Authority state by creating new Jewish communities.

Now I think it is important to point out that the activities of settlers have incited violence. While they have quietly been teaching their kids how to deal with "them damn Arabs" their ever lasting expansion has served as proof of how evil "them damn Jews" are to Palestinian right wingers who are also raising their kids.

I will note the organizations that are seeking to provide the manpower and funding for their defiance. Arutz Sheva reports:

Participants include the Land of Israel Faithful, Youth for Eretz Israel, Women in Green, Homesh First, The Committee to Save the People and the Land, Komemiyut, Maginei Eretz, Mattot Arim, Land of Israel Forum, VeYirashtem Otah, local Action Committees and the Committee for the Expansion of Homat Shmuel (Har Homa).

Perhaps these organizations should be added to terrorist lists, and deservedly so, just like Hamas?

Quoting again from Arutz Sheva as it urged on supporters of the defiant:

Supporters the world over are being given the opportunity to purchase cinder blocks, cement, generators, tools, sand, gravel, pipes, chemical toilets, doors, windows, tin roofs, cement mixers and other building materials.

I guess we are supposed to believe that a relentless supply of an invasive quantity of bricks and mortar are less inciteful to violence somehow. "We're only building homes" they scream. Yeah, but, just who's property are you building on?

The above rant is going to do little to resolve the problem. The problem is that we have two groups of people that believe they have a God given right to the land. We have two groups of people that are willing to visit inhuman levels of suffering on the humans that oppose them in achieving their "God given rights".

I would only ask that my side be willing to wear some of the paint that splashes back at them while they attempt to color their opponents with a broad brush.

In Gibbs We Trust

In Gibbs We Trust.

I am going to delve into a little bit of what I find entertaining. I am going to explore the prospects of "my team" (that would be the Washington Redskins) of achieving a playoff berth this year.

Shortly after Joe Gibbs agreed to once again attempt to lead my team as coach, I saw a bumper sticker locally that had this simple statement "In Gibbs We Trust". I found myself saying "Amen brother, Amen." While I might not look to Joe Gibbs on how to run a Nascar race team, when it comes to football, Joe Gibbs represents my style of football.

What is my style of football? A smash mouth running game that opens up the passing game for big plays. Success with the run enables the big plays that can be made with limited reliance on the passing game.

Perhaps my version of football is too old school. Perhaps the new kids on the block will leave my thinking of how to play football back in the dust while they win the Superbowl and my thinking on how to do it relegates me to, from now on, being an also ran.

I would rather support Joe Gibbs in an endless pursuit of doing it the Redskins way without benefit of achieving the brass ring, then in endlessly trying to adopt new leadership that attempts to remold the team toward every last new way of achieving a Super Bowl victory.

It is my belief that Joe Gibbs represents the eternally wise way to come up with a contending team. Shove the football down their throats with the run game. When they attempt to stop the run game, go long and go deep for the big play.

I think the Washington Redskins are going to be over matched in their next game with the Dallas Cowboys. However Joe Gibbs has kept our team from embarrassing us. I am willing to stick with Joe Gibbs next year. Even if my team loses against Dallas, I am going to look forward to what Joe Gibbs can achieve next year.

You see, I agree with Joe Gibbs' style of play. I believe that if Joe Gibbs is provided with the talent pool necessary, his style of play will achieve victory. You can not blame Joe Gibbs for failure.

Win or lose against Dallas, I say we keep our wagon hitched to Joe Gibbs. Joe Gibbs represents the long time honored tradition of deeply physical, Redskin style, football.

When it comes to football, "In Gibbs We Trust". I say Amen, and I thank Joe Gibbs and the entire roster of Redskins players and coaches for an entertaining season. Icing on the cake would be victory against Dallas. But even with a humiliating loss, I am going to continue to argue for the leadership Joe Gibbs provides to my team. With Joe Gibbs providing the leadership, I can rest assured that the problem is that we did not provide him with the tools necessary to get the job done. Give Joe Gibbs the tools necessary to get the job done and victory will be assured, just like the old years.

No Child Left Behind

(See here) where the NY Times, in a piece written by Sam Dillon, reports that the major Democratic candidates for President have been bashing the No Child Left Behind act.

The article states that the three leading candidates all support maintaining accountability; but it would be interesting to explore just how the candidates would go about maintaining it. The only official campaign website belonging to the candidates that helps to shed any light on the subject is John Edwards' site which revealed that he would propose replacing the objective, standardized tests with a more subjective regimen of testing.

The standardized tests have been a focal point of much teacher criticism of the act. Teachers object that they must "teach the test" in order to get their students to pass. Oh the horror. Teachers are forced to teach their students what somebody else, like the students' parents, think the students should be taught. We can not have that now can we? (Sarcasm intended.)

If teachers are being forced to "teach the test" make sure the tests measure those areas that we want the student to be taught in.

However some justifiable criticism can be brought forth about the unfunded mandates contained within the act. So how would I go about reforming No Child Left Behind?

I guess I would pretty much start over. I would seek to only require that all high school diplomas be required to include certification as to whether or not the student receiving the diploma met a minimum skill level standard as measured by standardized testing. No other mandates. Just certification as to whether or not the diploma deserves to be hung on a wall or whether its value amounts to it being so worthless it might as well be used as toilet paper and flushed down the commode.

Perhaps additional tests could be made available for intervening school years, without use of the tests being required, for our educators to use as a tool in assessment of the performance of teachers and schools at each grade level.

There would be no mandates on how to go about teaching the students, that would be left up to the states to determine. The only thing that would be mandated is that the end result would be measured. Did the student receiving the diploma reach a certain, minimum level of proficiency? That is what the testing should measure.

If this results in teachers having to "teach the test" so be it. We will be testing students for the skills and knowledge we want them to learn, and if that requires totally dedicating the entire school year to mastering these skills, so be it. There is nothing to prevent the teacher from branching out into other areas of learning once confidence is reached that the students have mastered the basic skills.

I argue for maintaining the standardized testing. I strongly oppose expensive proposals (like John Edwards is in favor of) without continuing strict, objective, standardized testing to ensure accountability is maintained.

A Moderates View of Global Warming

A Moderates View of Global Warming.

An alternative title might have been: "Global Warming - Alternative Theories".

Before I go any further, let me identify myself as being somewhat of an AGW (anthropogenic global warming) skeptic (but not a denier). I try to not be a green house gas bigot who insists the issue has been decided and I try to maintain a healthy level of open mindedness to arguments that present an alternative explanation for why the Earth is experiencing warming. I do believe that the evidence is overwhelming that warming is occurring. However the debate is still open as to what is the cause of the warming. (See here) where Newsmax reports on the results of one study that was published in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which offers:

...observed patterns of temperature changes ("fingerprints") over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

Now this is not just an isolated opinion. (See here) a US Senate report, published by the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works which seeks to publicize the opinions of an impressive lineup of distinguished and learned fellows who hold opinions that global warming could be explained by something other than anthropogenic causes. For any high school or college student who is given the unenviable assignment to defend "the other side" of the Global Warming debate, this webpage will provide a wealth of quotable opinions from distinguished individuals. I will show a sampling of these opinions.

Quoting Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki:

The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases.

Quoting One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India:

We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.

Quoting Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers:

Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.

Now it is not my agenda to argue that until the science is hashed out we should do nothing. However what if these skeptics are correct? What if green house gasses are not the cause - or not the complete cause - of global warming? If they are correct, does that mean we should do nothing? That any attempt to limit green house gasses is wasted effort?

Well, my argument to these skeptics is that even if mankind can not do anything about global warming, efforts to cut back on greenhouse gasses are not wasted time, effort and money. Even if green house gasses are one day proven to not contribute what-so-ever to global warming, some of our efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions are actually killing two birds with one stone. Some efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions will also aid us in "breaking our addiction to oil" and these steps are going to one day (and my opinion that "one day" is TODAY) going to have to be made anyway due to the reality that we are also going to have to deal with the issue of "peak oil".

All efforts to reduce our dependence on crude oil and natural gas as energy sources will be a wise investment for our society and for our entire species even if it turns out greenhouse gas emissions have zero impact on global warming. Since our society is not going to be successful in reducing all emissions overnight, it is my opinion that if there is going to be limited funding available for research and implementation of alternative energy sources, we should concentrate our efforts on first breaking our addiction to crude oil and natural gas which will simultaneously yield greenhouse gas emission reductions. Even if it turns out our efforts do not yield reduced warming due to human causes, the money and effort involved will still have been wisely invested. While we concentrate on breaking our addiction to oil and natural gas, we can continue to study and argue as to whether additional steps really are required. By the way, I also do not see any problem with also insisting that if we are going to continue to rely on the still plentiful supply of coal as an energy source, it will not be wasted effort to insist that this reliance be through developing "clean coal" technology with capture and sequestering of greenhouse gasses. While capture and sequestering might be an unnecessary expense, the rest of the use of the technology might not be a waste because it will still yield results which our society should view as being desirable.

While I do try to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, and I appreciate the efforts of those who courageously seek to explore alternative explanations for why our earth is warming, I will continue to argue that limiting greenhouse gasses does not automatically have to qualify as a wasted investment even if the skeptics are correct. We're going to have to start somewhere. I suggest we first concentrate our efforts on reducing greenhouse gasses by simultaneously breaking our addiction to crude oil and natural gas. Here the return on investment is guaranteed and even the AGW deniers will be forced to agree.

One need not be a tree hugger to realize that the development of alternative energy sources is a sound investment. And who knows, the skeptics might be wrong, and it might even help us to save our planet. That would turn out to be a wise investment indeed.

I believe that on the above expressed opinion, mankind should be able to form a consensus. It is my viewpoint that THIS opinion of what we should do is eminently reasonable, and that any remaining dissenters are just "gosh darned" (alternatively insert God damned) unreasonable. Now let's get to work on solving the problem, the clock is ticking.

Fair Tax Double Taxation

Fair Tax double taxation.

Let's throw a curve ball at "Fair Tax" advocates.

What happens to all the people who have money have tied up in Roth IRA's?

You know the people I am talking about. The one's that where motivated to convert some or all of their traditional IRA into a Roth IRA by paying the taxes (yielding a surge of government tax revenue) on the amount of money in the traditional IRA as they converted it into the Roth IRA. Promise was they would be able to redeem the Roth IRA principal and income later without paying any income taxes at all (there were other additional benefits promised with the Roth).

But what happens if we switch over to a "Fair Tax"? Isn't the principal that was switched over to the Roth IRA then going to be subject to double taxation? Instead of tax free future earnings, aren't all of the earnings, when they are spent, going to be subject to the 30% Fair Tax on expenditures also? (You can argue 23% if you want, but I'm ready for you.) Heck, a Roth IRA is going to be worthless. You might as well have your money in a traditional savings account.

Suckers! Well, if the government offered you something that was too good to be true (Roth IRA) you should have known they would find a way to change the rules on you to dip their hands back into your pockets.

Thelma Drake's Voting Record

Thelma Drake's voting record. You can not get anything fresher then yesterday's vote!

Thelma is my representative in Congress and I am particularly interested in how she represents me in the House of Representatives.

(See here) where the Washington Post reports Congress is sending an Energy Bill to the White House.

As reported by the Post:

Lawmakers said the energy bill will reduce America's heavy reliance on imported oil and take a modest step toward slowing climate change by cutting about a quarter of the greenhouse-gas emissions that most scientists say the United States must eliminate by 2030 to do its share to avert the most dire effects of global warming.

(See here) the roll call of the votes for and against the bill. Please note that all votes in favor were from Democrats, all votes against were from Republicans.

Once again (as her historical voting record will prove she is apt to do) Thelma followed the party line. She voted with the Republican Party leadership.

Now I wonder what excuse Thelma will raise for why she voted against the bill. Sure, probably anyone could nit-pick it apart and find something they do not like. However when the Republicans ruled, they did not raise overall vehicle fuel economy standards. (In fairness, they did raise standards for small trucks.) I would find it pretty difficult to believe that Democrats stopped them from doing so.

This vote provides evidence to support my reasoning for wanting to run Thelma Drake out of office. I want to vote for a leader, not a follower. I strongly support the increase in fuel efficiency standards and Thelma did not help get it done when the Republicans were in power, and now that the Democrats are at the helm, she votes against it.

As I said, perhaps she can provide some "reasonable" explanation for why she voted against it. But the proof is that the Republicans failed to take this step, which encourages conservation, while they held the reigns. If the Republicans had done so, perhaps they would still be the majority in the House.

The only way to reduce fuel prices is to lessen demand. Even George Dubyah Bush has said the American economy needs to break its addiction to oil. Increasing fuel economy standards will help break the addiction. Thelma wants to keep the needle in our veins.

David Huckabee for President?

David Huckabee is running for President? Sure seems to me like we are considering Mike Huckabee for President, not his adult son David.

Is there evidence that Mike Huckabee might have exerted political influence when his son was accused of hanging a dog during Boy Scout camp? Yeah. However by measure, Mike Huckabee never transgressed "power of politics" like one of his predecessors (that would be William Jefferon Clinton) did. The only thing the "hanging the dog" thing exposes is that Mike was motivated that his own son should not unjustly be subjected to unfair treatment only because he was the son of the Governor.

Let us examine the "unfair" attempts of Governor Huckabee and his "abuses of power" in the light of previous people who held the office. If you are willing to forgive Bill Clinton for abuses of power then you must also forgive Mike Huckabee. Do not try to defend the indiscretions of Bill Clinton while holding Mike Huckabee to a different standard.

Personally, I do not judge Mike Huckabees defense of his son (he only asked that his son be held to the same standards as the average citizen's son) within the same standards as my judgement of the indiscretions of Bill Clinton. I was willing to forgive Bill. Certainly I can forgive Mike.

Let's get past the past and get to the present. David Huckabee is guilty of having a gun in his carry on luggage. How would any other citizen be judged if they were also found to be just as guilty? David Huckabee had a permit to own and carry the gun which he was found to have attempted to transport in his carry on luggage. I am just as willing to forgive David Huckabee as I am willing to forgive my own Democratic Senator (Jim Webb) for the "weapon carried into Congress" episode Jim Webb's entourage was involved in.

Now, I have my own reasons for opposing a Mike Huckabee candidacy for President. If anyone seeks to thwart his run for Presidency I would advise them to take him on with the issues. He has some real problems with the issues. Seeking to judge him on the basis of his kid while avoiding the issues is not the way to go.

Mike Huckabee might not be successful in his run for the Presidency, however the record of his kid is not going to be what is going to stop him. His stance on the issues is his Achilles Heal.

Pennsylvania Act 44

Included in Pennsylvania's Act 44 is an attempt to make Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania a toll road.

It is my opinion that, in effect, this amounts to an unconstitutional attempt to impose a tax on interstate commerce.

First, let us examine the Constitution. Part of Section 10 of the Constitution, Powers Prohibited of States, states:

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Now this would seem to indicate that Pennsylvania could in fact tax interstate commerce if such a tax was authorized by Congress. But can Congress authorize such a tax? Let us examine part of Section 9, Limits on Congress, which states:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

So it would seem that Congress is not allowed to authorize Pennsylvania to impose a tax on interstate commerce.

How could a toll on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania be a tax on interstate commerce? Let's say a farmer in Iowa grows some sweet corn that the citizens of New Jersey would like to purchase. To get the corn to New Jersey, the product must transit through Pennsylvania. Should the state of Pennsylvania be allowed to charge more then it costs to build and maintain the roads in Pennsylvania for the goods going through the state? The Constitution says it can not!

Pennsylvania's tax on diesel fuel already stands at 38.1 cents per gallon which is the highest tax on diesel in the nation. Now, in fairness, Pennsylvania does not charge a ton mile tax which some states with lower fuel tax rates also charge in addition (or in the case of Oregon, instead of) to fund highway maintenance. However Pennsylvania also has large sections of interstate highways where, in addition collecting the fuel tax for miles traveled, a toll is collected. Even without collecting tolls for traveling on Intestate 80, Pennsylvania probably ranks as high as # 3 in the nation, (certainly at least in the top 5) for revenue collected for miles traveled through the state.

There is no way all the money collected goes towards highway construction and maintenance. Any money collected that goes towards anything other then highway construction and maintenance amounts to an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce.

So what do we do about it?

If Pennsylvania receives authorization to make I80 a toll road, we wait until the toll has been in effect long enough to collect several million dollars in tolls. Then we find a young, sharp, hungry lawyer who wants to become rich and famous and we file a class action lawsuit seeking the return of the revenue collected illegally. The lawyer can subpoena Pennsylvania's highway construction and maintenance tax receipt and expenditure records so he can prove that more money is collected then is spent on maintaining the highway infrastructure. The lawyer would receive his compensation from a portion of the millions in tolls that had been collected.

Pennsylvania has no justification for making I80 a toll road. It is impossible for the state to be wisely spending all the revenue already collected on highway construction and maintenance. The highways in Pennsylvania are not that good. Money has to be being siphoned off for other purposes somehow, and such siphoning is unconstitutional. It amounts to an illegal tax on interstate commerce. Citizens of New Jersey should not have to pay for services provided to the citizens of Pennsylvania only because goods they need and desire are transported through the state of Pennsylvania.

Now it is my understanding that a large portion of the revenue collected goes to fund mass transit. A sliver of the revenue collected going to mass transit probably could be justified because mass transit relieves congestion in metropolitan areas. Vessels (trucks) transporting goods through these areas benefit through reduction in congestion. However it should not be too hard for a sharp lawyer to crunch the numbers and prove the portion of revenue provided for mass transit exceeds the benefit gained.

Certainly imposing a tax on interstate commerce that transits the I80 corridor can not be justified because any benefits from funding mass transit will not be realized on this corridor.

If the state of Pennsylvania wants to ignore the Constitution, we'll take them to court!

Gasp, Romney is a Mormon

Gasp, Romney is a Mormon. Well that automatically eliminates him from consideration for my vote! (That last sentence was sarcastic - in case the sarcasm was not obvious.)

I do not think Mitt Romney is going to get my vote for President. Why? Because I disagree with him on too many areas that I consider important. If it ever looks like he would win the nomination I would go into detail about what I find objectionable about him. Chief amongst my objections would be how he flip flopped on so many issues and I disagree with some of the flops he made. In my opinion he did not find the light, he often lost it.

However the fact that he is a Mormon is NOT one of the things that causes me to tend to not want to vote for him. The fact that he is a Mormon actually might endear him to me at least slightly. Why is that?

Let me explain. While I would agree that Mormons have some strange beliefs (and many would say the same about me) I examine what is the end result. Are Mormons in their practice of faith a positive or negative influence for society? I look at them as being a positive influence, generally speaking.

Now much of what I know about the Mormon faith comes from during my time in service in the United States Navy. During a particularly troubling time of my service I had the good fortune of serving under a Leading Petty Officer (LPO) who was a Mormon. This man was a convert to the faith and he served as an Elder in his congregation. The man was not a pushover, however he seemed to possess endless patience as I first started to clean up my act. I credit my good fortune of serving under him as being part of the explanation for how I was successful in turning my life around.

Anyway, Jack (I won't give his last name) had an extremely friendly personality. While he did not initiate efforts to proselytize, he enjoyed sharing his faith and answering the questions of the curious (like me) who would engage him in conversation on the subject. Jack himself had experienced some blemishes during his youth, and from the Mormon faith he found purpose and direction.

One of the things that I learned about Mormons is that they are encouraged to lay in a store of food in their households so that if ever there is a societal breakdown, they will have provisions to rely on. He explained that in his basement he had a area dedicated for storage of things like dried beans that should last him at least a year if a meltdown ever happened. I have since learned that in Salt Lake City the Mormons even have a few large silos dedicated to storage of grain for their congregation if such a food source is ever required (they periodically cycle the grain in storage by giving away the stored grain to the needy to make room for fresh grain). Perhaps such a practice is a little strange, but it could also be described as wise. Such storage might come in handy if a societal breakdown did occur, or during natural disasters or if ever there should be a nuclear war.

Mormons strongly encourage (perhaps insist on?) their children serving as missionaries early in their adult years. While much of this missionary work is devoted to proselytizing, certainly their efforts result in "some good" being the fruits of their labor. I would point to my LPO, Jack, as being evidence of good results.

Yes Mormons have some strange beliefs, I would never myself become a Mormon because I would find it impossible to make the statement "I too believe...." to all the things they evidently believe in. However I do feel that nothing about their beliefs is going to prevent them from getting into heaven. I also believe that through the practice of their religion, society does benefit.

So Mitt Romney gets points for being a Mormon from me during his run for the Presidency. My problem with Romney is that the fact that he is a Mormon is the only thing I find appealing about him.

By the way, I later ran into a mutual aquaintance who knew something of "What ever happened to ole Jack?" after I left the command we had all served at. He informed me that Jack had, later in life, pretty much lost the faith. I was heart broken.

Wall Street Boos Bernanke

Wall Street Boos Bernanke. (See here) where a msn money piece reports the stock market took a dip after the Fed cut its federal funds rate from 4.5% to 4.25%.

Personally, I would not have been upset if the Fed had held the line and kept interest rates where they were. It is my opinion that Wall Street investors just want to the Fed to step in and provide easy money to bail out the market.

What does lowering the Fed rate do? It injects liquidity into the supply of money available right? Well there is plenty of liquidity out there. The value of the dollar has been dropping in the international money market because ALREADY there is not enough demand for the existing supply of dollars. Continuing to cut the Fed rate is like adding fuel to the fire, further dampening demand for the dollar and motivates a further drop in the dollar's value.

Now I am not concerned about the current decrease in the value of the dollar. All in all, it is my opinion that some type of correction of the dollar's value was required due to the trade imbalance. Costs of imports to the American economy should go up, costs of exports should go down yielding an improved balance of trade. Given a little time, American consumers might even start seeing "made in USA" on more of the goods they purchase at Walmart.

However the dollar going into free fall is not a good thing. If foreign citizens (and particularly foreign investors) start to see the dollar as a worthless piece of paper (and there have been rumblings that this is already starting) we are going to regret having allowed things to get that far out of whack.

Now I understand that Mr Bernanke and his group are trying to walk a fine line. The economy slipping into recession would in and of itself also decrease demand for dollars. I get that. However foolishly sounding the charge and rushing to the rescue of those threatened by the sub prime mortgage mess also would invite disaster.

There is plenty of money out there. The plunge of the dollar stands as evidence. Domestic investors just need to figure out a way to sop up some of the excess supply that is available out there in the international market. The Fed stepping in to provide a low cost alternative is not going help rebalance the supply and demand of dollars.

Isn't it from Wall Street where we normally hear the wise old sages lecturing us about allowing market forces solve all of our problems? Well the sages are starting to sound more like heroin addicts screaming "Give me my fix"; only the fix they need is cheap, easy money and I guess they could care less whether the economy goes down the tubes as long as their addiction is fed.

Anti-Gay = Gay?

Some people seem to have a problem with my opinions. Visit Science Avenger: Rabid Anti-Gayness = Gayness?
for one such example.

I respectfully disagree with Science Avenger's opinion on my own expression of opinion.

But I do have some facts to back up my opinions, whereas Science Avenger seems willing to point to opinion as being evidence of fact. I will point to, as evidence, his willingness to link to Wikipedia and a point of view (not a fact) to back up one of his statements.

First off, my own overuse of quotes. I agree that I probably do tend to overuse them. My intention is to highlight common uses of words when the common usage does not match the dictionary definition of the term. It is not my intention to use scare quotes. However if I am truthful, I guess my usage does not always match my intent.

Second, without quoting, I will remark upon Science Avenger's bringing up the argument that all "homophobes" (I disagree that being against homosexuality is a disorder) are closet homosexuals or something. I will admit that I consider myself a bisexual who chose (or was taught) to adopt a heterosexual lifestyle. I do not fear that I am strictly homosexual, however it is my understanding of my own human existence that at least some us (most of us could be argued) have a choice. I look back at my own adolescent years as I first started experimenting with human sexuality to base my opinions on "truth" ("scare quotes" intentional) when the subject of homosexuality is brought into the arena.

I will note that some homosexual extremists are entirely too dismissive of this point when some attempt to bring this point into consideration is made (the point that some have choice). I have even heard some claim that there are no such thing as bisexuals. They have claimed there are only heterosexuals and homosexuals - the rest are liars.

I will accept that some homosexuals can not in any manner become aroused by the thought of sex with a member of the opposite sex. However I heard one male homosexual explain that the reason he successfully engaged in sex with a woman (lesbian) in order to give birth to a child was because he "looked at pictures of naked men" during the intercourse. Yeah right. Personal experience teaches me that some heterosexual men choose to be heterosexuals. While I do not have personal experience to point out examples of where bisexuals might choose to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, I suspect this is also true.

Now it is my opinion that the heterosexual lifestyle is best for humanity. It is my belief that much of the morality taught in the Bible is in fact true, that a monogamous heterosexual relationship is best for the species. This comes from one who DOES NOT claim that the Bible is infallible.

However just because something is taught in the Bible does not mean that it immediately must be false. That last sentence may or may not be amongst the things that influences the Science Avenger's thought processes, however I sometimes suspect it is true.

Let us examine one "statement of truth" by the Science Avenger:

STDs are not a threat to wipe out humanity, and given that 99% of their spread can be controlled by individual decisions (ie wearing a condom, being celibate,
or being monogamous), that is not likely to change.

First I could take issue with the opening phrase. Perhaps STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) are not a threat to society because we can still hope that the lessons taught in the Bible about how to deal with human sexuality might take root. STDs however are a threat to the general well being of our species. Willingness to tolerate other than a monogamous heterosexual lifestyle has led to increasing transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. This occurrence could be tolerated by our species as long as a shot in the butt will cure the STD. However evidence is that STDs are increasingly developing resistance to all known treatments. Mankind has shown itself to not be as resilient in developing new treatments as the bugs have been resilient in developing resistance to existing medications. These are the facts (no scare quotes) and the refusal of Science Avenger to take such facts into consideration proves how he puts the blinders on when it comes to science and human sexuality.

Second, I note how that the answers Science Avenger comes up with to deal with the problem, "wearing a condom, being celibate, or being monogamous" are all values that are taught in the Bible with how to deal with human sexuality. The Bible also teaches us how we should instruct our children to deal with it.(In editing I am going to add that "religion" does not encourage the use of condoms. However the Bible does not argue against such use.)

It is my opinion that Science Avenger exhibits evidence that the real agenda of the Science Avenger is not to teach that science is right, his agenda is to prove that the Bible is wrong.

It is my opinion, that in order to deal with the looming health crisis brought about by sexual freedom, society might need to retreat back to the Scarlet Letter A, although I would subject "studs" to the treatment just like I would subject "sluts" (in the interest of sexual equality). Perhaps we will have to return to blood tests before a marriage license is issued. New treatments from medical science are becoming harder and more expensive to come by. Just how much expense should society have to pay in order to enable promiscuous sexual behaviour whether it be heterosexual or homosexual?

I also take issue with Science Avenger's appraisal of the "purpose" of evolution. I thought I heard something about evolution involving survival of the fittest! It is my opinion that the powers of human reason have been part of the explantion for why our species rose to the levels it did. I do not see anything wrong with our species continuing to exploit this power in order to help the chances of our species continuing to exist.

Perhaps I was taught wrong. I was taught that "human instinct" (quotes because I am unsure instinct is the explanation) comes in a pyramid. Personal survival stands at the top of the pyramid. At the bottom I was taught it is natural for a human being to worry about the survival of the species.

I will close with this point that Science Avenger attempts to make:

Consider worker bees and ants.

Oh yeah? What about these examples from nature? Let's see. None reproductive elements of insect societies exist as slaves to guarantee the existence of reproductive elements of their society. OK, homosexuals should be slaves to heterosexuals then? I think we can use our powers of human reason to decide this would not be a good outcome. Perhaps Science Avenger only used a poor example. However the poor example serves to prove the point of how poor his consideration of "science" is.

I would encourage anyone who has read the above to read everything that Science Avenger had to say on the subject by visiting the link to his article I provided at the beginning of this post. I am going to hear something about "quoting out of context" (which the Science Avenger himself is guilty of) and want to limit the damage caused by such a claim. Go read it all for yourself.

Waterboarding is Torture

Waterboarding is torture. That is my opinion.

However I was witness to an interesting discussion on Bill O Reilly's No Spin Factor which brought an interesting aspect of the debate on waterboarding into account.

I recall that actually this point was initially brought up by a female listener of his program. Her point? She defines the limits of what should be allowed in interrogations as being that which she would subject the interrogatee to in order to save her own kids. This point was broadened by Bill to his contention that each Presidential candidate should be asked how they would conduct interrogations if their own children's lives were at stake.

Sorry Bill. Interesting point, however I think that if we adopted the woman's definition of what is allowed we would slip way past what most of us define as torture.

To save the lives of my children?

OK, let's say we have two accomplices that I am 99% certain have information that if they would surrender it, would save my kids from otherwise certain death. What would I do?

I would tie up one of them in a chair so that he was forced to witness what was happening as I questioned the first one to be subjected to active interrogation. I would start off the active interrogation mildly. Polite questions with a humane period allowing for voluntary surrender of the information I needed. But if the information was not surrendered while being "nice"?

Stage two: mean and nasty rapidly graduating to cruel and inhuman. Perhaps I would start out with some of the measures that have been identified as already being utilized by our government. However some of these measures take time to wear the interrogatee down. If time was critical I imagine it would not take me very long to graduate to more effective measures of inflicting pain. Ripping out fingernails? Yup. Pulling teeth without novacaine? Yup. Using a hammer to smash his fingers and toes? Yup. You get the idea. After I was done and all that was left of the interrogatee was a quivering, trembling mass of flesh that no longer resembles anything human, I might execute him by putting a gun to his head and pulling the trigger.

Then I would turn to the second interrogatee and give him a choice. "You saw what happened to your buddy, which method would you like to endure first?"

Now that is what I would do. I would not be deterred by threats of prison. I am fairly certain that I would be willing to lay down my own life for the life of one of my children. I do not think I would be deterred only by my interrogation methods being illegal.

I do not think the proposed measurement of what should be allowed is a good yardstick to use. If that is the measurement, then I guess we would certainly have to cross the line into making it legal to interrogate using the most cruel and painful interrogation techniques possible. Techniques that EVERYONE understands is certainly torture.

I do not think it should be legal to utilize "all the above" methods of interrogation. Nice try Bill O Reilly, but no cigar. Anyone who uses such methods should be subject to a trial by jury. Perhaps the jury will forgive him. If the jury finds him guilty? Well, there would remain the hope for a Presidential pardon.

Waterboarding is torture. Torture should be illegal. But that is just my opinion.

Rush Limbaugh is a Clown

Rush Limbaugh is a clown.

Recently I spent some time traveling in my pickup truck. My pickup's FM portion of the radio is broken, so I was forced to listen to the offerings available on the AM band.

One of the programs available was the Rush Limbaugh show. It didn't take me very long to be reminded just why I so rarely listen to Rush anymore. While I am in my "big truck" (tractor trailer rig) I have so many other choices to choose from due to the availability of Sirius satellite radio, so why should I listen to what I find so irritating?

I am grateful that other right wing voices still are available on radio. I still enjoy listening into and taking into consideration "reasonable" right wing voices so that I do not have to listen to clowns like Rush Limbaugh.

One of the other programs available was Rill O Reilly's No Spin Factor. Bill had broached an interesting subject and I settled in to listen to the discussion. In fact, I believe Bill provided me with the fodder for my next blog entry.

But Rush Limbaugh is still a clown. Some might "reasonably" call him a good entertainer, but my opinion is that the subset of "entertainers" he belongs to is "clowns".

Iraq Will Dictate American Withdrawal?

(See here) an Associated Press piece that appears at the Jerusalem Post website that reports the Iraqi government is wanting to spread its wings and assert its authority over the issue of a continuing presence of American forces in Iraq.

I am open for the "will of the Iraqi people" to be represented at the table during any discussion of how long American forces will remain in Iraq. However I am mindful of the fact that the minority Sunni portion of the population is under represented in the current Iraqi government.

If the Iraqi government wants to be understood as being the "last and final" representative of the will of the Iraqi people, they need to engineer and hold new elections whereby the Sunni portion of their population is once again offered the chance to seize adequate representation within the government. Absent such efforts to provide proper inclusion of the Sunni perspective will be weighed against the concerns of that segment of the population when negotiating with the existing government.

I am intrigued by one gauntlet thrown down by the Iraqi foreign minister. One aspect that he would include in negotiations. The aspect is that, as long as the presence of US troops is endured, he would insist:

There will be negotiations about the conduct of these (US) troops and their rights, privileges and also questions of command and control...

I would be willing to only slightly compromise on this issue. While in Iraq, US forces would remain under the command and control of American leaders. Perhaps I would be willing to agree to the US only establishing "safe havens" within Iraq (commonly called bases) whereby they have infinite rights of self defense. Perhaps the Iraqi government would be consulted to agree on broad areas of operation outside these safe havens. However even outside these areas, at least for the time being, US forces would remain under American command and control, with broad protections from the infant Iraqi judicial system. American forces are only effective and can only continue to offer positive outcomes through remaining under American command and control.

I am starting to become at least slightly more positive in my outlook for the prospects of Iraq to not descend into chaos based upon a willingness of the current Iraqi government to express confidence in their own developing military and police forces.

Encouraging Anti-Semitism

(See here) where Israeli settlers are thinking about proclaiming a new state of Judea if Israel reaches a peace agreement with Palestine!

What would be the advantages to the settler (or Yesha) community in establishing such a state?

Being a profoundly religious Jewish state offers advantages in confrontation with Arabs which secular Israeli nation does not possess. Judea would be free to clear out Arab indigenous inhabitants. Following Hebrew biblical guidelines, Judea could use military measures otherwise unacceptable in the modern world...

Did you get that? Being "profoundly religious Jewish" means you can "clear cut Arab indigenous inhabitants." And some people became offended when Jimmy Carter used the word Apartheid to describe what was going on in the occupied territories. This is evidence that Jimmy Carter got it right. That at least some of the settlers really do not possess "purity of motivation" in their attempts to settle the occupied territories.

The above quote came from Obadiah Shoher. Obadiah Shoher is the pseudonym of a mysterious author, originally from the former Soviet Union, who has created the popular Samson Blinded blog and publication of a book by the same name.

While some might claim that Obadhiah is just an "extremist" and is in no way representative of the Yesha community, I will claim that his viewpoint is not that far from representing the Yesha community. It is just that the Yesha community tries to soothe with words while their actions support Obadiah in his proclamations.

Now I am not anti-Semitic. My own inclination is to greet anyone who identifies themselves as a Jew in my nation with a smile. You see, in my nation, evidence is that the Jewish influence has been a good thing. If I am guilty of "pre-judging" someone only because they are Jewish, well, actually I might be guilty of the opposite of anti-Semitism. Jews in America have stood so long for that which is good that I just can not help myself.

But I draw the line at support for the settlers. If you support the settlers, you oppose me. I support Israel (thus far) however I do not support the settlers. Evidence is that the settlers continue, through word and action, to oppose a reasonable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Let me close with this. Obadhiah thinks:

Judea can forget the notion of civil rights and obey Jewish religious law.

Is Jewish religious law that much opposed to civil rights? Are Jews, through their support of such voices and such actions from the settler community not inviting anti-Semitism?

Preventing the Need for Abortions

(See here) where a NY Times piece by Celia W Dugger reports that both sides of the abortion issue seemed to have joined together in a reasonable, rational attempt to prevent the need for abortions.

Congress has passed a foreign aid spending bill that they believe would reduce abortions in poor countries through allowing the federal government to donate contraceptives to foreign groups that provide family planning services abroad, including those that offer abortions.

However the move is opposed by pro-life extremists and the entire bill might be vetoed by Dubyah Bush due to the inclusion of this aspect.

What motivated pro-life Democrats to support the bill?

Five of the anti abortion Democrats in the House, including Representatives Jim Langevin of Rhode Island and Henry Cuellar of Texas, wrote to leaders of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advocating that the committee keep the provision in the bill on the grounds that “it will help reduce the need for abortion, the number of unintended pregnancies, and the spread of H.I.V./AIDS.”

Let's give them a round of applause. They are motivated to prevent abortions and here common sense tells them by providing contraceptives, they might reduce the need for abortions. They are willing to work with pro-choice members of Congress when these members also signal that they desire to limit the need for abortions.

But what is the justification given for opposing the provision?

But in the impassioned debate in Congress earlier this year, Republicans said that giving contraceptives to such groups was the same as giving them money and would free up resources that could be used for abortions.

What is the hang up with "such groups"? If the pro-choice crowd is willing to help us decrease the need for abortions, aren't we a step ahead? Wouldn't the contraceptives be made available to pro-life groups and "free up resources" for them to pursue their agenda?

I think I know what part of the problem is. While some pro-life groups insist that "life begins at conception" they even oppose the use of condoms that would prevent conception. These extremists in Congress want us to sign on to their extremist viewpoint that it is wrong for even a married couple to use a condom for birth control (like the Pope thinks).

Well I say these extremists should not stand in the way of when opposing sides on the argument of abortion can find common ground. I describe myself as "pro-restricted choice" and I want to see the numbers of abortions decrease. Increased availability of birth control is a common sense method of decreasing the number of such abortions. I strongly stand against anyone who while claiming to oppose abortion opposes actions that could actually result in a decrease in the numbers of abortions performed.

Must we bow to the pro-life extremists (like the Pope) that feel recreational sex, even by a married couple, is a sin? That married couples must abstain from sex unless they want to have a baby?

What is the lesson here? The lesson is that if you really are pro-life and you really want to reduce the number of abortions you are better off voting for a pro-life Democrat then you are casting your vote for the pro-life Republican. If you cast your vote for the Democrat you might be rewarded with some progress. Pro-life Republicans have signed on with the Pope and seem to think it is sin to even prevent conception in the first place. By signing on with the pro-life Republican you might be signing on to his/her extremist ideology.

Now, I want to start searching for a little "truth" in the stance of these pro-life extremists who represent us in Congress. Just how many of them have families approaching a dozen or even more? My own father was a devout Catholic and he ended up with 11 children because he practiced what he preached. If our members of Congress who have an extremist pro-life voting record do not also have large families I smell a rat.

By the way... just how many children did Dubyah and Laura have?

No Illegal Israeli Settlements?

There are no illegal Israeli Settlements?

(See here) a NY Times piece by Isabel Kershner reports this may not be the case.

At least in this case, private ownership by a Palestinian citizen can be proven.

Note the justification given for the continuing expansion given by one of the settlers, who is identified as being Yedidya Slonim, 16, who although still is at a tender age still offers evidence of Israeli settlers raising their children to incite violence. Yedidya gives justification for his actions as being:

“God gave this to us,” he said. “Now that we’re here, I don’t think we’re going to move.”

Now some settlement expansion is not as clear cut. Some expansion involves confiscation of communally shared tracts without clear ownership being able to be proven. However in almost every such case it ends up with the Israeli government taking over this public land and then providing private ownership to Israeli citizens due to "rights of conquest". According to the Geneva Conventions there is no "rights of conquest". At other times (you do not have to search long) such confiscation is also justified with "God gave this to us...".

I do not condone the terrorist for blowing up innocent civilians. However I ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of the Palestinians who suffer from such injustice. If YOU suffered from such injustice, what would YOU do? Personally, I might not react in exemplary fashion.

ALL construction in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) should be halted. We can not trust ourselves to be allowed to be drawn into the debate of what such construction "should be allowed" and that which is prohibited. Until the completion of negotiations on just where the final borders will be drawn, we can not trust ourselves. ZERO, ABSOLUTELY ZERO, continuing construction in the West Bank by Israel should be allowed in the occupied territories because "our side" has proven it can not be trusted when we attempt to thread the needle.

Can Israel be trusted to halt expansion if such a promise is made? Will the settlers yield to the authority of their elected government? Will the majority of Israelis expect their own military to hold the militant minority accountable if they flaunt the law?

The above expectations are what Israelis expect of the Palestinians. I think it is only reasonable that Israel meets that which they expect of their opponents.

Huckabee Continues Surge In Iowa

(See here) where Newsweek reports that Mike Huckabee has continued his surge in Iowa and now holds a two-to-one lead over Romney.

As I have stated previously, I would find it extremely difficult to vote for Huckabee because he is in favor of the "Fair Tax". The "Fair Tax" would increase taxes on a "average American family" (married with two kids, $43,000 in income) by over $2,000 even if this average family only takes the standard deduction and does not itemize (which they might be doing if they were purchasing a home instead of renting). The Fair Tax is supposed to be revenue neutral, and it would use the increased tax receipts to fund a tax cut for the wealthiest citizens of our nation. (Disclosure: My own taxes would go up even substantially more because I do itemize and because I am self employed with much of my income shielded from payroll taxes through formation of an S-Corp.)

However what many of his opponents point to in opposing him is his record for raising taxes while serving as Governor of Arkansas. One of the taxes raised was fuel taxes for highway maintenance. Now I am a truck driver who regularly has traveled the highways of Arkansas so I believe I can shed some light on this issue. I am self-employed and I have to pay the increased fuel tax.

Prior to Huckabee (and the Arkansas legislature) raising the fuel tax, Arkansas was was gaining a little notoriety as having the worst highways in the nation. This was not just my own personal opinion, this was the majority viewpoint of truck drivers who have the experience to compare road conditions in the various states. Arkansas had not always worn this dubious honor, however other states that might have given them competition in the past had improved maintenance to where Arkansas was by then the hands down winner of the distinction. Things had gotten so bad on Arkansas Interstates that it had become almost a torture to travel through Arkansas on the crumbling highways.

So what was the result of the tax increase? Well, in Mr Huckabee's opinion, his state:

...went from having the worst to the best roads.

Now that is a little bit of a stretch. Ask truckers which state has the best highways in the nation and it is going to be extremely unusual for you to find one who claims Arkansas leads the nation. However things have improved considerably. Some work is still left to be done, however things are improved and improving.

Another point of consideration is whether the level to which Arkansas increased fuel taxes is justified. Here we find a mixed bag of results when Arkansas is compared to neighboring states, with Arkansas probably falling into the bottom half of "bang for the buck". When the comparison is broadened to nationally, the increased level is not totally unreasonable, even when things like the topography of the states and the need for snow removal are factored in. Arkansas might even squeak into the top half of the pack.

Arkansas really needed to do something about the condition of her highways. One method of increasing highway maintenance revenue which was considered was to make Interstate 40 a toll road. It is my opinion that tollways are not the way to go, with an increase in fuel taxes being the fairest way to raise additional revenue.

I will note that it has been reported that, in a referendum, 80% of Arkansas voters approved of the fuel tax increase. It is my opinion that Arkansa's citizens, like the majority truck drivers, realized something needed to be done.

So those of you who want to scream about Mr Huckabee raising fuel taxes and who do not live in the state need to shut the heck up. Arkansas's citizens wanted the tax increase and even the majority of out-of-state truck drivers are willing to pay the increased tax level to fund the improvements that ARE being made.

But back to the "Fair Tax" issue. Mike Huckabee still will not get my vote due to his support of the proposal.

Middle East Peace - Alternative View

Since I have at least a small pro-Israeli bias in my viewpoint (I hope my home does not end up being bombed by an Israeli right winger for saying that) I have sought to explore the alternative viewpoint.

(Here) is an Aljazeera piece written by Jim Miles that does justice in providing a reasonable alternative viewpoint from the "Palestinian perspective".

Now I will not attempt to claim that Jim Miles' article is "balanced". I will only claim that from this voice which argues for consideration of Palestinian goals, some headway could be reached.

I do not have the inclination to dissect all the points Mr Miles makes. Let's start off with the openers. In the second paragraph of the article we can read:

In the past, the Israelis have quite willingly agreed to negotiations, going even further at times as with the Gaza “withdrawal” as another smokescreen to continue with their settlement policy of both expanding existing settlements, allowing more illegal outposts, declaring more and more of Palestinian lands as military areas, and continuing with their house demolitions, roadblocks and detention of the Palestinian people. Nothing has changed, still going nowhere.

Mr Miles makes little of the Gaza withdrawal. It is part of the "smoke screen" he claims. Well if there is a smoke screen the smoke is coming from the exhaust of Qassam rockets fired into Israel out of Gaza. But he does have a point. While the withdrawal from Gaza did happen, the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements within the West Bank did occur. So what happens if the expansions are called to a halt, at least pending the outcome of negotiations? If expansion stops will hostilities from the Palestinian side be halted as well?

If there are no further hostilities from Palestinians, there will no longer be justification for "house demolitions, roadblocks and detention of the Palestinian people". I realize that there is some justification for hostilities from the Palestinians. However when "two states for two peoples" is within the realm of possibility are they willing to throttle back on resistance to the occupation? Or is there something more that motivates them then ending the occupation of the West Bank? The Israelis already withdrew from Gaza and what springs forth from Gaza in the aftermath does little to promote future withdrawals from other occupied lands.

Do not point the "finger of blame" unless you are willing to acknowledge that the rest of the fingers in your hand point back at you (discounting the thumb - grin).

If Israelis cease expansion of settlements in the West Bank could Mr Miles promise that resistance to the occupation would, at least temporarily, halt pending the outcome of negotiations?

I am wanting a "cease fire". I realize that expansion is one of the weapons that Israelis use. Such expansion should not continue during the cease fire. But what if the Israelis really do stop the expansion for the duration?

Impossible you say? You can not get all the powers behind you? It is just as "impossible" for the Israelis to stop the expansion. If Olmert manages to pull a rabbit out of his hat, I am going to be watching with eager anticipation when Abbas takes his turn on the stage.

Is Jesus A Myth?

Is Jesus a myth?

I have encountered totally unreasonable arguments from atheists who attempt to argue that Jesus never existed. They do not attempt to argue that he was not God, but that no such person ever walked on the face of the earth. Jesus is a myth they claim.

Evidence is to any reasonable person that once upon our world trod a "man" by the name of Jesus. To argue against this is like arguing that never existed upon this earth a man called Alexander the Great.

From ancient times we may have imperfect accounts of leaders who's existence shook the world. Some of what we think we know about Alexander the Great, for example, might not be wholly correct. However we can take what written history there is about his reign and compare it to the evidence that we can uncover and come to the "reasonable" conclusion that, yes, Alexander the Great once breathed air on this planet we call Earth.

So what about Jesus? Did he ever exist? It confounds me that anyone could even attempt to make such an argument. Attempting to make such an argument almost seems to be an attempt to clamor for attention and nothing more. We have the accounts from the Bible! Perhaps the accounts are inflated or something however what is the evidence provided from the inflated accounts?

The Bible is uncorroborated evidence? Well from Jesus we have the new religion Christianity springing. Who opposed this new religion? The Jews? The Romans?

From the Jews, the opposition, we hear that instead of an "Immaculate Conception" that Jesus was a bastard and Mary was a whore. Their historical account does not attempt to prove that he never existed, only that he was not what Christians believed him to be.

From the Romans we hear accounts of the newfangled religion that was starting to infect the farthest reaches of their empire early on. If the "myth" of Jesus was only a product of human imagination, then the seeds sown of this imagination quickly took root from the time it first touched the fertile earth.

Earth shaking. World changing. Jesus might not have been God, but he existed, and his existence changed history as your existence with your feeble arguments will not.

Perhaps Jesus was only a bastard, son of a whore. But he existed. If he was only a bastard, son of a whore, my admiration for what he was able to accomplish only increases.

What Is Wrong With Huckabee

What Is Wrong With Huckabee

Alternatively I could have titled this post "I'd Vote For A Flaming Faggot Before I Would Vote For Huckabee" except the title would have been too lengthy.

(See here) where Newsmax reports Governor Huckabee is surging in the polls.

I myself was intrigued by the Huckabee campaign. What eliminated him from contention for my vote can be best shown by visiting his own campaign website. (See here) where his website explains his position on taxes and the economy. Governor Huckabee does not even try to hide what I find most objectionable (he at least gains a point for honesty) when the very first point made is:

I support the Fair Tax.

To me this tells me that Governor Huckabee, the Southern Baptist Minister, is willing to "Sell his soul to the devil" in order to be elected President of the United States. He represents that which I find most objectionable in the recent history of how the Republican Party, with Evangelical support, has been leading our country.

Mr Huckabee would like to increase taxes on the middle class in order to give ANOTHER TAXCUT to the wealthy. I find it hard to understand how this "minister" can find the personal justification for so negatively impacting the plight of the majority of his fellow ministers who still have to worry about paying their own mortgage while attempting to help others in need.

While Governor Huckabee might actually balance the budget, his proposal would do so in REVERSE Robin Hood style. He will steal from the Middle Class to deliver ANOTHER TAXCUT to the wealthy.

Governor Huckabee might counter with the argument that his proposal will actually yield more tax money coming from the Upper Class or something. I would counter this argument with two points.

First: If the so called "Fair Tax" is actually "revenue neutral" as proponents of the proposal claim, it achieves this result on the backs of an increased tax burden on the Middle Class. If it is "revenue neutral" and increases taxes on the middle class somebody is going to benefit from this middle class tax increase. I wonder who these fortunate individuals might be? Well Governor Huckabee either is not aware or does not give a hoot.

Second: The "Fair Tax" would neuter the ability of government to motivate the wealthy to do good things for society. As an example? Society should help the poor to obtain housing. (If you do not agree with this societal objective, please go away!) Government proved long ago that "big government" is inept in managing public housing projects. What is part of the solution? Provide funding and tax breaks to business to do that which government seems to be incapable of doing on its own. We can motivate the entrepreneur (small or large) to provide safe adequate housing for the poor with funding and tax breaks. To the motivated individual we PROVE that we value his efforts to meet our objectives of providing housing for the poor through funding and tax breaks. The Fair Tax would eliminate this ability to motivate those who have the motivation or inclination to help us, as a society, meet our objectives by eliminating the ability to reward those who do good things for society.

And Governor Huckabee is a "Southern Baptist Minister" who crows about his support for the Fair Tax. To me he represents that which I most strongly dislike about all of the "New Republicans" that have been responsible for so much of what is wrong with our nation today. Instead of attempting to get the wealthy into heaven whether they like it or not, he wants to grease the skids for their path into hell.

As far as I am concerned, Governor Huckabee has sold his soul to the devil in his attempt to reach the office of President. With my vote, I am going to attempt to prove to him that he made a bad investment decision. Place your bets on God. If you place your bets on the devil? Well the Bible teaches us that "good" is going to win in the end. We might have to wait for the Second Coming to achieve victory, but if it comes anytime real soon, Governor Huckabee is going to be amongst those "left behind"!

Funding SCHIP

Earlier I posted (see here) the text of my Emails to my Senators in the federal government where I voiced my opposition to funding expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) through an outrageous increase in tobacco taxes.

Here is the text of the reply I received from Senator Jim Webb:

Dear Mr. Obermark:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP, H.R.976) and your views on the importance of providing health insurance coverage to Virginia's low-income and uninsured children.

I strongly believe that we need to strengthen access to quality health care in the United States. Medicaid and CHIP have made progress in improving children's health insurance. However, nine million children are still without health care. It is crucial for Congress to maintain strong financial support for CHIP for low-income children and expectant mothers, as well as other health safety-net programs.

Last year, 167,000 low-income children in Virginia received health insurance coverage through CHIP, and there are another 100,000 uninsured children eligible for coverage. The CHIP program in Virginia, called the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security plan, has been successful in educating and enrolling low-income children and families.

Although the bill's funding source, an increase in the tobacco tax, unfairly singles out tobacco use and the tobacco industry, the merits of CHIP outweigh those concerns. Thus, I voted in support of CHIP's reauthorization. On September 27, 2007, Congress passed this bill so that approximately 3.2 million additional low-income, uninsured children receive health coverage over the next five years. However, the President vetoed this bill on October 3, 2007. As Congress deliberates the next steps to take on the CHIP bill, your views are helpful to me and my staff.

My staff and I appreciate your correspondence on this important issue. I would also invite you to visit my website at http://www.webb.senate.gov/ for regular updates about my activities and positions on matters that are important to Virginia and our nation. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future.

Sincerely,

Jim Webb
United States Senator

Since my own concern was that the method being considered to fund the increase, that being 100% of the funding coming from an increase in the tobacco tax, would unfairly penalize his own state's economy by decreasing demand for tobacco products, I think I was just told that Mr Webb does not care about Virginia tobacco farmers or those citizens in Virginia employed in the tobacco industry. I am not a single issue voter and in many ways I have been happy with how my newest Senator has been representing me. However this is one area where he is going to receive a "less then satisfactory" mark from me. I feel my Senators should have a strong concern for the welfare of their own state's economy and I do not feel Senator Webb has a strong enough understanding of how important tobacco is to the economy of Virginia. I am one of the citizens who helped Senator Webb get his new job and who voted to run Senator George Allen out of office, and Senator Webb is letting me down on this issue. I am going to be receptive to anyone who runs against him that has a better understanding of the importance of tobacco to my state. Senator Webb might still win my continuing support, but with his stance on tobacco taxes it is going to make it easier for me to consider anyone who might run against him.

My Proposal for Middle East Peace

I am not going to point to any specific articles that point to my own pessimism on the prospects for peace in the Israeli/Palestine issue. To prove my point would take numerous links. Let's just say that if you had been paying attention and you were reasonable, you would be pessimistic too.

I am going to point to one link however that gives best voice to my own frustrations about the prospects for peace. (See here) a Washington Post article written by Edith M. Lederer that reports that the United States has withdrawn a UN Security Council resolution proposal that could have added momentum to the Annapolis effort.

Well, we are witnessing a retrenchment of forces after Annapolis. Both sides, after participating, are starting to state to their constituencies "But I didn't really mean...".

And now Israel has won US action to get the United States' proposed United Nations Security Council resolution on the issue pulled. A proposal that almost surely would have won backing from the Security Council.

We're being drug back into the mud people. The same uncompromising positions that have troubled us in the past are being resurrected.

Now I will admit that Israel might be correct in her fears that such a resolution might remove the US from a mediation role with that role then being assumed by the United Nations (although if this was to happen it would only be because the US failed). So if Israel is not wanting the UN involved then I insist that the United States is going to have to seize the wheel. We can not expect to reach our destination of peace if we allow one of the two squabbling kids in the back seat to do the driving. Do you get my point?

If the goal of the Bush Administration is to actually achieve a peace deal (or make it painfully obvious which side is "unreasonable") before he leaves office, he (he being Dubyah himself) is going to have to take an active role in the negotiations.

I suggest he get a copy of what was negotiated at Taba after the failed Clinton efforts. What was offered to Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian People during the Clinton attempt was inadequate. What was offered to Yassar at Taba, while improved, was also inadequate. Let "our side" improve the offer to where even Yassar, if he had been reasonable, would have been a fool to turn it down. It is my opinion no such offer was made to the Palestinian People at Taba.

Negotiations should be opened from the point of agreements that were reached at Taba. What should be offered to the Palestinian People is an improvement on that which was offered back then. Chief amongst the improvements is that any Israeli settlements remaining within Palestinian areas will be subject to Palestinian laws and Palestinian governance. We are not wanting a map that looks like polka dots.

Now George Dubyah Bush has at times spoken out in support of what I myself am supporting. Only problem is that what we have heard was words and little action. Now Dubyah is promising action, and if the promise is mere words then I just wish he would tell us: "It was just all a joke." Failure after such a broad spectacle of support at Annapolis is only going to make the problem that much more difficult for the next President to resolve.

I applaud George Dubyah Bush for the spectacle of Annapolis. It was a great spectacle. Now let us see the substance.

My Religious Beliefs

I guess I need to identify my own religious beliefs.

Let me state that I came close to giving this post a different title because of my hangup with the word "belief". I almost think that describing some of what I "know" to be true as a belief actually does not do it justice. In the end, I decided my "hangup" with the use of the word probably is not true of most people; that by using the word nearly everyone would know what I meant.

How can I simply and briefly describe my religious beliefs? Well, I "know" God exists. Any attempt to describe my beliefs beyond that would not be either simple or brief. If you want the simple description stop here, because I am going to get into the complications if you read any further.

I have sometimes attempted to come up with a simple label to describe my own religious beliefs. Best I have yet to come up with is: "Born-again Protestant Jew".

Why "born-again"? Because I feel I might be "born-again" in the manner which I think Jesus meant when he used the term. I do not claim kinship with most "born-again" Christians, who will, I am sure, scoff at my even thinking of using the term. However to anyone who has such thoughts I will only state "I think that I am born-again and I think that most of you who claim to be are not." Now notice I used the word "think" because that is the best word to use in such a statement. I am not certain that it is true, I only suspect it.

I am going to skip to the last word of the label. So why Jew? Because I look to Jesus for spiritual guidance and enrichment. I love Jesus. I am uncertain that Jesus was/is God, however that lingering doubt does nothing to lessen my love, respect and admiration for the man. In fact, if Jesus was not God, then perhaps what some Orthodox Jews say about Jesus and the claimed virgin birth by his mother are true. They claim that Jesus was a bastard and that Mary was a whore (and yes I am a personal witness to such claims). Well if this were true, then considering the times and society within which Jesus trod while on this earth, my admiration for what "the bastard" was able to accomplish is not diminished at all. In my relationship with Jesus I call him "Rabbi". Some who describe themselves as Christians get all bent out of shape when I mention that; however I will state that if you read the Gospels you will note that many people who actually met Jesus while he was breathing air like the rest of us addressed him as Rabbi. Jesus did not seem to have a problem with that. If it was OK with Jesus then it is OK with me. Many Jews will perhaps also scoff at me using the term but to them I will state: "Many times I have witnessed to when those who already call themselves Jews have reminded me that Jesus was Jewish. Since I call him Rabbi (a Jewish term) and my Rabbi was a Jew, I do not see any harm with describing myself in such a manner."

Why Protestant? Because there is a large segment of existing Jews that already describe themselves as Reform. My "beliefs" do not coincide with theirs (for example there is no such thing as a kosher pig, and I am not giving up my pork) so I must come up with a different adjective to help me to describe my Jewishness. At one time I did consider attempting to become a Reform Jew, but I decided against it. It would probably take years of study and call for a willingness to change some of my behaviours in manners that I would be unwilling to do. You see, as I read the words of my Rabbi Jesus, I continuously realize that I come up short when it comes to the practice of love, kindness and compassion. I feel that as I worship my God, better practice of these attributes would be most pleasing to Him. When I have better perfected my practice of these attributes then perhaps I will be ready to take on a new challenge. However it is my opinion that I am going to struggle with perfecting these areas for the rest of my life and will never reach perfection. You see, my Rabbi not only pointed to "Love thy neighbor as thyself" as one of the most important commandments, he spoke of "Love one another as I have loved you." It is hard enough to find enough love to reach the former, perhaps that would be possible for me. But even if I manage to reach the plateau of loving my neighbor as myself, Jesus then points to what for me I fear will be an impossible pinnacle to reach.

Medicine For the Economy

If Ben Bernanke had any hair on his balls, he would raise interest rates.

But of course, the amount of hair on one's balls does not equate to equalling the number of brain cells in your head.

Here's a prediction. Put your money in money market accounts. The return on investment is going to sky rocket. I'm not saying you will be guaranteed a profit if the Fed continues to follow a hyperinflationary monetary policy. I am only telling you that your losses will be less. If the Fed acts wisely, real after inflationary returns will be realized.

The big banks are threatening that they will crash the economy if the Fed does not provide them with easy money. They think "we" should guarantee their foolish investment decisions. They screwed up and now they want "us" to guarantee them a profit. If it does not happen, they're threatening "through market forces" to squeeze the American economy and force a recession.

Whelp, I say it is about time for the American economy to take a little medicine. Ronald Reagan led us into a time of high interest rates in order to cure that what ails us. Such a time is once again upon us. The excesses of the latter Greenspan days of "easy money" left us weak after our years of partying. Now we have hit bottom. It is time to take some medicine. Most worthy of suffering the consequences of the adjustment are those who grew fattest and "over indulged".

Mr Bernanke needs to, at a minimum, hold the line on the Fed rate. A small increase might be needed, but at least holding the line is MANDATORY. If the Fed continues to increase the liquidity of the financial market all hell is potentially going to break loose.

The financial market took bad risks with easy money. Now they want "us" to bail them out.

"They" are threatening to choke off the supply of money. Well "we" can replace that source of money through an expansion of money available through Ronald Reagan era money market accounts. If the big banks can't figure out how to continue making a dollar on the continuing good credit risks, we can find someone who can. We'll provide the liquidity.

If Ben Bernanke wants to save the dollar, he will not lower the fed rate. Lowering the rate would signal that we have an idiot at the helm of the Fed and we need someone more intelligent at the wheel. Wall Street needs to take its medicine. The medicine might be bitter, but "they" deserve it.

By the way, I've heard foreign investors are getting returns of 11%, with strings attached, as they attempt to return money to our economy. If your money market account is not delivering similar returns, something is wrong. Perhaps you do not have a genius in charge of your money market account.

The Falling Dollar

First off let me state that I think a portion of the reason Mr Greenspan resigned was because he forsaw the current crisis and he did not want to deal with it. He helped build the house of cards, and he had no idea how to keep it from being blown over.

And into the picture steps Ben Bernanke. He's looking at the mess Greenspan left him and he is looking at a nearly impossible mess to clean up.

Word is (see here) that Bernanke is considering another decrease in the Fed overnight rate to resolve problems he sees in the financial markets.

Is Ben considering the overall impact on worldwide values of the dollar from such a move? He's trying to increase liquidity? Isn't the worldwide market signalling that already too much liquidity exists? Isn't the availability of existing dollars in the market too much without Mr Bernanke throwing additional dollars into the fire?

Mr Bernanke seems to be pursuing a hyperinflationary monetary policy. Some decrease in the value of the dollar is beneficial to the long term health of the American economy. However a freefall value of the dollar is foolish. Mr Benanke is considering adding fuel to the fire with a decrease in the fed rate. Mr Benanke is seeking to provide that everyone in every investment will make money by providing enough dollars for this to happen. Yeah everybody will make money in such a market. Just everybody will also lose in real value in their savings.

The dollar has fallen enough to benefit the American economy. It will take time for the benefit to be realized. Any additional descent could lead to the currency being viewed as worthless. I am not sure the American economy will benefit by sliding back to the barter system. I have plans for dealing with this, however things would be simpler if the dollar retains at least some value.

Mr Bernanke, please do not add fuel to the fire. We need adjustment, however we do not need a fireside sale of the dollar. There is plenty of liquidity of dollars that could be provided by foreign recipients of those dollars.

Who Should Be Vice-President?

OK, I'm entertaining myself by running for President. Truth is, at least as I see it, I am at capable of keeping God tuned in while I do so, so I am going to continue to enjoy myself in this futile attempt to be elected President of the United States of America in 2008.

No other candidate has won God's endorsement! I'm laying claim to that one.

So anyway, I've been thinking about who would I select to be my Vice-President? It did not take me too long to decide on who I preferred, and I am going to include you in on my selection process.

My intention would be to have my Vice-President serve as the second most powerful person in the country. Do people think Dick Cheney wields power in the current administration? Whelp, if I were elected President they would not yet have seen the beginnings of the possible powers of the office as it was manifested in the service of Dick Cheney. If I were to attempt to fulfill the enormous responsibilities of the office I would need some help. I would have to assemble a team of advisers to help me and while other advisers (Cabinet leaders) might be hired and fired, one adviser could be always counted on to always say what they meant because there would be no threat of termination for telling their version of "the awful truth". That adviser would be the constitutionally protected office of Vice-President.

So... if I am going to select a Vice-Presidential candidate, I have to choose wisely. I need someone who will be an asset instead of a burden. If I am going to shoulder all the responsibilities, I need someone who will help me and not hinder me. I will not take into account how many electoral votes I might reap by my selection. Taking such a consideration into account would only result in my having a "traditional" Vice-President who is sent off to his office and told (or at least asked) to shut up. My Vice-President must feel empowered to have a voice of their own and not be afraid to grab his/her share of the bully pulpit to join in the debate.

So, who would I select?

Some time back after taking the question into consideration I came to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton would best serve as my Vice-President. Since then I have had time to reconsider and I am almost delighted that she is faltering somewhat in the polls in certain crucial early primary campaign states. I do not want to be accused of selecting her only because she is the front runner. If she is ground into the dirt, she is still my selection. The lower she sinks in the polls, the better it is for me.

Why? Because she best rounds off and would help me cover some of my own inadequacies (or weaknesses if you prefer). I would not want my selection of her to be dismissed as being a shrewd political move meant to attract votes. I would want the selection to be judged as my attempt to empower me to provide the best governance possible. When I look at the slate of those running for office I see no other that will so successfully round off my rough edges like Hillary could do.

But what if she declines and refuses to play second fiddle?

Well then I have some other names on my list and at least a few you might find surprising.

Thus far, second on my list is Senator Kent Conrad (Dem) from North Dakota. I really appreciate Kent's honest and skillful viewpoint on budgetary matters. While he does not balance out some of my other weaknesses (I could work on that on my own), his voice when it comes to fiscal policies would be invaluable.

Third on my list (with many nipping at his heels) is former Virginia Governor Mark Warner (Dem).

Are there any Republicans on my list? Well, if there had been enough of them, perhaps I would have decided to run as a Republican instead of as a Democrat. If I were forced to draw deep into the pool of potentials, John McCain and my own Virginia Republican Senator (who has announced his pending retirement) John Warner would make the list. Why these two are not higher in the list is due to age issues. Ronald Reagan proved to us that age does matter. (John McCain would have been a fantastic President eight years ago!)

But what about Barak Obama or John Edwards? First off, never John Edwards for reasons I won't go into. Obama? He's a rising star on my list. His proposals on solutions to the Social Security crisis has won him points from me on courage and realism. Early on I dismissed him due to his inexperience, however I am starting to rethink my appraisal of him. However I doubt that he is ever going to rise high enough to top Hillary. But the man is offering evidence that he has a noggin on his neck.

Ron Paul and the Libertarians

I have been intrigued by the Ron Paul candidacy. For those of you not familiar with him, Ron Paul is running for the Republican Party nomination for President. He seems to draw most of his limited support from the Libertarian (I prefer the descriptor Libertine) branch of the Republican Party.

Anyway I came across a comment from a Ron Paul supporter who stated that Mr Paul had a plan to deal with the Social Security crisis that is looming. The crisis that will be caused by the large number of members of the Baby Boom Generation reaching retirement age. I wondered what kind of plan a Libertine would come up with so I went to the Ron Paul campaign website to take a look at the plan the Ron Paul supporter was so proud of.

(See here) where I found Mr Paul's plan. Please note you will not have to read a detailed, multi-volume manifesto or anything, it is fairly short.

The plan description opens with:

Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.

OK, this is a reasonable opening statement. Nothing really controversial here. Who could reasonably disagree that the system is "broken"? I guess one could point out the system is not yet "broke" if Mr Paul, by using the word, meant to convey that the system "already" has run out of money. However that would be quibbling since, even though right now the system has yet to run out of money, it IS headed towards such an outcome before much longer if changes are not enacted... so... it's a pretty good opening statement. It conveys that Ron Paul recognizes that there is a problem and that he is concerned about finding a solution to the problem.

So how would Ron Paul "fix" the problem. Well first we have to listen as he describes what he stands against before he gets to what his proposals would be to solve the problem. In the third paragraph you can read:

The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.

I find this interesting. Seems to me that the only way to fix the Social Security train wreck is to either increase income or reduce outgo, however with just one short sentence Ron Paul has seemed to almost completely empty his toolbox of most of the tools he could use to fix the problem. Well, how then does he propose to fix it? (There might be one almost logical solution.) Let's get into the specifics.

First proposal:

Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.

How in the heck did this one get into a list of proposed solutions to the Social Security crisis, I wondered. It is mostly irrelevant. If one wants to keep the Social Security side of the budget completely separate from the general fiscal federal budget (like Ron Paul seems to want to do, as will be shown later) then this proposal does not belong here. Receipts from taxes on Social Security benefits end up on the general budget side of the ledger and do not impact the solvency of the Social Security side of things one iota. Perhaps one could reasonably make a fair argument that taxing these benefits indeed are unfair (and an also reasonable argument could be made for the opposite) however that debate does not belong in a list of solutions to the Social Security system crisis. My own belief is that Mr Paul included it because it would have some appeal to those most interested in the subject and that would be those who are retired or who are approaching retirement. I would point out to seniors that anyone who is completely dependant on Social Security income when they retire does not currently pay any tax on benefits. Those who are taxed on Social Security benefits have significant sources of retirement income from other sources.

Second proposal:

Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.

I have two points to make on this. First point: If there is, as there has been for awhile, an excess amount of Social Security taxes taken in, what is the harm in the Social Security side of the ledger "loaning" the money to the general budget side of the ledger as long as the money will eventually be repaid? What is the government supposed to do with the money? Build a mountain of greenbacks in some vault until the day the money is needed? Now I do think such loans should be "official" such as in the form of interest paying treasury bills, but it is my understanding that is how this so called "accounting trick" is done anyway. It sure seems like there are conservative investors who prefer the sure and certain return of interest and repayment of principal that is available from treasury bills. Perhaps a higher rate of return is potentially available in the stock market, however that return is not guaranteed. Second point: If nothing is done about the looming Social Security crisis, the amount of Social Security excess receipts is going to quickly dwindle, the system will start to draw down on the amount of money loaned to the general side of the ledger, and then will actually go into the red itself. I do not see how this proposal is, at least this late in the stage of the game, going to have any real impact in avoiding the crisis.

Third proposal:

It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.

I guess I have not been listening to enough right wing radio or something because I am not familiar with how illegal immigrants qualify for Social Security benefits if they have not been paying into the system. Seems to me that in order to qualify for a Social Security retirement payment, one must first qualify by having paid in for a certain number of quarters or you get zilch. But perhaps they qualify for disability payments or something so maybe some minor improvement to the looming Social Security deficit could be realized through this proposal. However I am wondering if there is more to this proposal then meets the eye. Would it deny Social Security payments to those who indeed have worked and paid into the system the minimum number of qualifying quarters? You see, I do not look at the "wave" of Latino immigrants as necessarily being part of the problem to the Social Security system and foresee that exploitation of this "wave" could be part of the solution to the problem. The looming Social Security crisis is going to be caused by the population bulge of Baby Boomers retiring. There will not be enough youngsters left paying into the system as the Baby Boom generation retires to support all their elders in retirement. But what happens if numerous young immigrants pay into the system? Wouldn't some of the variables in the equation then be impacted? Now I do not think that this avenue offers any major potential towards resolving the problem. However I do not see how the "Latino tide" makes the problem any worse. It is my opinion that this proposal by Mr Paul is just an attempt to throw red meat to his base. I strongly doubt it is going to contribute in any meaningful way towards solving the problem.

Fourth proposal:

We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.

Now we're getting to some real meat. Ron Paul just threw red meat to this dog. Mr Paul wants to save Social Security by destroying it. He thinks that by making the problem worse (reducing income) he can solve the problem. The man has exposed himself as either a blathering idiot, or a blatant liar. He can not have it both ways. He has to come out for saving the system or abandoning it. This proposal would eliminate any chance of avoiding the Social Security train wreck, and in fact cause the calamity to occur that much earlier. I can understand that there are some who hate the Social Security system when they look through their prism of disliking anything that hints of socialism (it is Social Security as in socialism) but it grates my nerves raw when someone couches proposals that would lay waste to the Social Security system behind words of concern for the welfare of the system. Ron Paul does this.

It is my opinion that adoption of the complete menu of Ron Paul proposals would lead to the rapid insolvency of the system. He voices sentiments of concern for the system, but plans for its destruction. As I stated previously, these proposals expose him as either a blathering idiot, or a blatant liar. But what else would you expect from a Libertine?

Why I Deserve Your Vote

Why I deserve your vote for the office of President.

First, let me state that I realize that by stating my position on the issues I guarantee that I am not going to win the votes of every American citizen. Just by stating a position on some issues will cause a candidate to lose votes. However I am not going to let that stand in the way. If I am going to ask for someones vote (and if you are reading this I am asking you for yours) then I think it is only fair that they (you) know where I stand so that they can make an informed decision.

I believe that my stances on issues will identify me as being the only "true centrist" (or moderate) from either party. I do not come up with this self description by always taking the compromising or centrist fence sitting position on the issues. Some of my stances are right of center and some are left of center. Sometimes my views and opinions almost shift to the extremes of one side or the other. My views are not crafted to appeal to voters or win an election. In fact, my "crazy patchwork quilt" of stances might prove to make me unelectable. So be it. What follows are brief descriptions of my positions.

Abortion: I describe myself as "pro restricted choice". I believe in women's right to choose but I am not adverse to restrictions being placed on this right. I will not go into great detail on my own ideas for what to do about this "problem" here... but let me sum it up by saying that if "both sides" of the extremes of this issue are allowed to "have their way" of zero compromise, then I am going to side with the pro choice crowd.

Gay rights - gay marriage: I am reluctantly tolerant of homosexuals in our society. I am dead set against homosexual marriage. Perhaps the gay crowd would desire to label me "homophobic" and I wouldn't have a problem with this. In fact, I might even grin when this happens, shout out "guilty as charged" and wear the label as a badge of honor. Whenever this issue comes up my argument is going to be "It just is not right. It goes against nature (or God's design if you prefer)."

Gun control: It is my viewpoint that gun control has gone far enough. I believe the reason for the Second Amendment is so that if ever a tyrannical government sprang up in Washington, the Second Amendment was put there so that we could "grab our guns" and march on Washington to throw the bum (or bums) out of office in order to restore our government to the people. I will point to how even the NRA (National Rifle Association) was more willing to compromise on this issue after the massacre at Virginia Tech then I would have been willing to be. However, I am willing to follow the leadership of the NRA on this issue. When they say it is time to compromise I am willing to listen. I do not at present personally own a gun nor does anyone in my immediate household however my right to purchase one if I should desire is one of my most cherished rights.

Global warming - Energy Independence: I believe these two issues are intertwined and thus will speak on them jointly. I will point out that I spoke of the need for America to "break her addiction to oil" before the words were ever uttered by our President, George Dubyah Bush, in his public speech. It is my opinion that the future of America depends on energy independence. At the same time we seek to develop alternative fuels to break our addiction on oil, I think we should simultaneously attempt to reduce green house gas emissions that seem to contribute to global warming. I say "seem" because I am not 100% convinced that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, or at least the complete cause, for global warming. I do believe that global warming is obvious to anyone who attempts to look at the issue in a reasonable manner. I also bow to all the experts who say that greenhouse gas emissions are, if not the complete cause, then at least a contributing cause, of the warming that is happening. If some, or all, of the warming is due to some other cause, then we can resort to asking for God's help through prayer. However prayer is not the answer when mankind can take steps that could lessen or even alleviate the warming. How does that song go? "God helps those who help themselves."

Fiscal responsibility - Taxes: I am dismayed by those who want to make all of the George Dubyah Bush tax cuts permanent. I am horrified by those like Huckabee who want to replace any semblance of a progressive income tax with a national sales tax (one such proposal is the so called "fair tax") or a flat tax. I also firmly believe in a balanced federal budget being crucial to the long term health and solvency of the American economy. My proposals? I am open to compromise. We either get spending under control or we raise taxes. Truthfully, I am going to state that in order to get a balanced budget through Congress it probably is going to require some of both. However if I were President I would veto any Congressional budget/spending proposals that did not promise to yield a balanced budget within short order without the aid of smoke and mirrors (fancy accounting tricks). There is one area however that I might be willing to compromise because compromise might be necessary. If it could be shown that during the glut of recipients to Social Security benefits caused by the Baby Boom Generation it became necessary for the Social Security side of the budget to borrow money for a relatively short period of time, and if this time period could be shown to be of known and not ever-lasting duration, I might be willing to allow "some" borrowing for this purpose alone. If it could be shown that after this glut of retiring Baby Boomers the system would return to solvency even with accrued interest and repayment of the principal over time, I could budge or compromise. However I would count on fiscal truth tellers like Senator Kent Conrad to keep us (and me) honest.

The War in Iraq: Personally I like the position that Senator Hillary Clinton speaks of when she addresses the subject. She states that we should withdraw quickly but we must withdraw responsibly. If she were elected and delivered on her promise? She would win my eternal gratitude. However I am not sure she can lead us (and the world) in the steps necessary to deliver. Unlike her, I spoke against the War in Iraq before the invasion ever started. Unlike others who spoke in favor of the war and now want to cut and run, I think we must do as best we can to clean up the mess we made. Most worthy of condemnation is the position of Senator Joe Biden who stated he voted for the war to prevent the war. If America is unwilling to stick it out for the hopefully short time required to bring about as good a resolution as humanly possible I say to the impatient that we as a nation can no longer be trusted to wield great power in the world. That we should retreat to "Fortress America" rather then allowing our self to run helter skelter around the world creating situations that result in disaster without being willing to make the sacrifices necessary to yield positive results. Was the Iraq invasion wise? No it was not. For some of the reasons it has been so bad is amongst the reasons why I voiced opposition to the war before we started. One thing that I could promise is that if continuing involvement of American forces is required additional help from forces from other powers in the world are going to be required. Implicit in the request for additional help will be the underlying threat of America withdrawing to Fortress America if such help is not forthcoming. It is my opinion that much of the world will be scared stiff at the mere possibility of such an action and will be forced to follow American leadership on this issue.

Israel - Palestine: Unlike many other Presidential candidates, which seems to include every last one of them running for the Republican nomination, I do not condemn the efforts George Dubyah Bush is making with the talks in Annapolis. If I have any criticism of his efforts it is that "it's about damn time". Unlike others, I applaud the efforts our President is making. I think it is possible to, in a short period of time, bring about a true and lasting peace - OR - prove that one side or the other is so unreasonable in their demands as to make it painfully obvious to any "reasonable" spectator which side is at fault for failure. My only concern is that I am unsure that our President really has an understanding of the numerous issues that would need to be involved in a resolution of the conflict and whether he possesses the leadership qualities necessary to yield positive results. However I am going to cheer him on for even making this attempt. Go Dubyah Go!

Immigration issue: I am rather torn by this one. Both of the extremes on both sides speak "some truth" and I have a great deal of difficulty making up my mind on it. I do not believe that we are any where near the time for "open borders" with Mexico. However I think we could spend sums that would dwarf the amounts spent on the War on Iraq along our southern border with Mexico and not resolve the problem. I think compromise is called for. After the compromise, instead of fortifying the border with Mexico, I would call for making it brutally painful for anyone who was found guilty of willingly offering employment to an illegal immigrant. I do believe that some system of "guest workers" will, through necessity, be part of the compromise. One thing that is painfully obvious to me is that change is necessary. Without change, our nation will be swamped with illegal immigrants. However a knee jerk reaction to "throw the bums out", those bums being all of the illegals already in our society, would be disastrous as well. My own proposal? Finding a compromise solution that quickly allows those already here to stay in one manner or another; whether that be only through a guest worker program or through a path to citizenship. This would quickly be followed with increased enforcement and resulting penalties for those who continue to flaunt the law on the hiring of illegals. With no promise of a job, with no possibility of improvement of their lives, we can stem the tide of illegals into this country. Unlimited (and illegal) immigration into our nation is unsustainable. However controlled immigration of those with a strong work ethic is vital to our long term vitality. I realize this position sounds like a load of mush (or shit) to many. However I stand by my position that every dollar spent on eliminating the magnetic pull of the promise of a job to an illegal immigrant is ten times better then every dollar spent fortifying the southern border. The elimination of job opportunities for illegals rests with threatening the prospects of those who already have everything to lose and that would be those offering the employment opportunities.

Health care: I would like to think that we can come up with an "American Way" of dealing with the health care crisis that is looming on the horizon. Health care costs are spiraling out of control. I am going to attempt to point the finger of blame where the out of control costs rests. It rests with the consumer of these services. As long as consumers are willing to sacrifice their last nickel and mortgage their house for an additional few days of life, providers are going to be willing to provide the services necessary to do so because there is a buck to be made. They have no motivation to provide more economical services because all they have to do is tell you that your life is in danger and then "common sense" flies out the window driven by a fear of death. Let me make my point clear: Society is not required to pay for your expensive medical procedure when it offers minimal potential for long term increased quality of life after you have lived a life of excess. We as a society can not afford it. Many point to socialized medicine as being poor quality medicine. I say that every citizen has the right to poor quality medicine. If you want better quality then what is offered, you have the right to reach into your own pocket and pay for it. I am in favor of any path that leads towards every American citizen getting at least basic health care services provided to them no matter whether they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth or not. Poor quality health care should be the right of every American citizen. If you want additional quality, you have to be willing to pay for it. With reduced demand, with increased personal expenditure required, health care costs might be reigned in. Basic services should be provided; additional services should cost extra. Perhaps we should go down this path slowly in order to prove to the public that the resulting bureaucracy required will not more then consume the cost savings. However other societies have proven that doing some other way then our existing way yields more bang for the buck. I am hopeful that we Americans will not prove ourselves incompetent when it comes to health care.

The above is just the opening salvo in my run for the Presidency. If you like what you heard, there is more to come. If any of it infuriated you? Go find someone else; good luck in your pursuit of the perfect candidate.

Feeble Run for Presidency

My feeble attempt to run for the Office of President of the United States.

Whew, perhaps I can already say it is over. I was given my "sign from God" that I should run for President and I made my feeble attempt. Nothing came of my attempt. Perhaps I should already give up. Thus far perhaps the only thing I might have accomplished is convincing anyone who is aware (perhaps I can take solice in the number of such individuals is rare) of my attempt that I am off my rocker.

Now I am not going to state that I realistically expected to be successful. I will publicly state that as I watched what I requested as a sign become reality, I started to regret the decision. I knew that any attempt to reach the Office of President by someone like me would be futile. That even an attempt to do so would be viewed as a crazy action by at least a majority of our citizens; perhaps such a point of view being nearly unanimous. If I had not been witness to (perhaps "been a personal recipient") of numerous "signs from God" in private prior to this one very public sign, I too would have stated of myself "He's got to be nuts!"

Well, at least I have to admit I did it to myself. I need not have asked for this very public sign that has been given to us. I could have remained mute and just accepted the generosity of God, but I had to insist on asking for more. How does the saying go? "Be careful what you wish (or in this case pray) for, you just might get it ." Now I am, in a sense, obligated to follow a foolish path. What foolish path? "Proving" just how crazy I am by running for President.

But my efforts thus far have yielded absolutely nothing.

Whelp. If I am going to continue with my "feeble" effort I guess I better put a little more effort into campaigning. I can't just throw my hat in the ring and expect everyone to promise to vote for me without identifying why I am the person who deserves that vote.

I am not going to get carried away with it. I am not going to mortgage my house so that I can travel the nation or something lining up support. But I am going to try to make a genuine run for the office. My "genuine run" almost certainly will be way too little. Probably I will not even make a ripple. So be it.

I received my sign and I am now obligated to run.

With my next post I will start with a series of "Why I deserve your vote and how I am different from all the other candidates" posts.

I Will Run for President

Due to the urging of God, I am running for the office of President of the United States.

I have decided that I will attempt this effort first in the Democratic caucus in the state of Iowa. If this attempt is going to be "serious" I need for some volunteers to serve as delegates in the Democratic convention. While I am hopeful that eventually I will find a way to fund such delegates expenses at the convention, I can not promise this. If the snowball starts rolling, I think I can find a way to fund your expenses. But if the snowball melts as it starts, I have to admit that you will be on your own.

"We" need to prove to the Democratic Party that we are a force to be reckoned with in Iowa. We are getting a late start.

Only by coming "out of nowhere" in Iowa can we convince the American electorate that we are a force to be reckoned with.

Why Democrats? Because nearly every person that I would select as vice-President is a Democrat. Because it is easier in the Democrat Party for moderates to swamp "the base" then it is in the Republican Party.

However, if I manage to "steal" the Democratic majority in Iowa I will have proved my metal. With such an effort I will have proven my ability to impact the national vote. The threat will be "me" as the Democrat or "me" as the Independent.

I need help. I need Iowa citizens who are willing to serve as delegates at the Democratic National Convention.

My Sign From God

While the 2007 hurricane season is not officially over until November 30th of this year, I am motivated to claim an endorsement (or sign) from God now. Why am I speaking up now? Because, due to my occupation, I only rarely have access to the Internet while I am on the road.

Now I am going to publicly claim that I have received signs from God privately in the past. These private signs were so amazing that I could not rationally discount them. God exists. He proved his existence to me privately by providing signs I demanded to prove his existence. In an almost selfish action, I asked God to provide YOU with at least just one sign that was as powerful as the multiple signs that he has provided to me. Evidence is that God has granted my request.

God has granted (at least thus far) my request for a public sign.

So it seems I have been granted my very pubic sign by Him who I worship. Now I am obligated to at least attempt to fulfill the action I proposed I would do if I was granted the sign.

What action did I propose? That I would run for the office of President of the United States. Why would I run? Because I want to "save the world" both for mankind and for Him who I worship. Without the "Office of President" I did not see any method of being successful in my agenda. In prayer, all during the hurricane season, I presented my case (some might say argued) to God why it was necessary for me to be President to achieve my (and His) goals.

Actually I am going to be a little bit truthful. As it started to appear that my request for a sign might come to pass, I started to regret my decision. My public request for a sign was at least partially motivated by my request, which I made prior to my public admission of my prior private request.

You see, even if I were to be elected President of the United States of America, I came to the conclusion that I could not "save the world" without God's help. If I were to be successful, that at least without the outward examples of his help, it would be futile to make any attempt in the face of his opposition. I needed a public sign that while God might stand aside as we destroyed ourselves, that if we attempted to save ourselves he might even help us. My sign proves that God is motivated to help us if we are "good". We do not have to be perfect. I am a wretched human being. I am proof that God does not demand perfection.

I am not going to get into an argument over what is "good" from your viewpoint and what is "good" from my own viewpoint. I am only going to point to my "sign from God" and then ask you to point to yours.

I got my sign. And now I am going to run for President. With God's help, success is not guaranteed, but success is an option. Mankind still has freedom of choice and mankind can still choose to turn its back on God.

Decry me if you want, I will point to my sign. If you believe in God, the only rational way to devalue my sign is to describe it as coming from Lucifer or something. If you attempt this I will demolish everything you stand for as coming from the Devil himself. If you are Christian, I am not the anti-Christ. I love Jesus (I call him Rabbi) and will expose how you stand against my spiritual leader and how you stand against if not "everything" then "much" of which he preached in favor of.

I am not going to make God into a circus act. I am not going to stand like a circus magician who rolls up his sleeves and then states: "And for my next act...." for your entertainment.

I am mulling over whether one more "sign" might be necessary for success. Whether mankind (or at least the American citizenship) deserves one more "proof" of the will of God.

Give enough monkeys a typewriter and with an infinite amount of time, one of them will compose Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on it. But if that same monkey, given a new sheet of paper, and he also composes the Declaration of Independence immediately afterward?

Will such a "Second Sign" be necessary? Will God allow it?

Jesus was able to provide many "signs and wonders" to the people of his day. In response to the Saducees, he stated no sign would be given to them. Why? Was it only because Jesus realized that such a sign would only provide "them" with proof he was a demon?

If I request a second "sign" after the first what would it accomplish? Would it make believers out of Evangelical Christians who oppose me? Nope. They will just describe me as the anti-Christ because I do not completely agree with them. But I argue with God that it will provide proof of the supernatural. That at least if "they" do not recognize me as his servant, it would provide proof that a supernatural struggle between good and evil exists.

My own opinion is that "GOD IS GOOD", but He has one hell of a temper. (Have you ever heard of the "Wrath of God"?)

My prayer? Lord, your humble servant is going to achieve the impossible with Your help. You have publicly endorsed my attempts to save the world for mankind and for You. While I ask for your help in this endeavor, I also fear them. Please have mercy on us.

God's will be done.

Annapolis or Apartheid?

Annapolis or Apartheid. An alternate title could have been: Two States for Two Peoples or Apartheid.

Israeli MK Benny Elon is at it again promoting his Israeli Apartheid Plan. Previously labeled "The Elon Peace Plan" Elon is now promoting a warmed over version of the plan which has been retitled the "The Israeli Initiative". An alternative and more easily digested description of the plan can be seen (here) at the Wikipedia website.

The Israeli Initiative is gaining some publicity as an alternative to the "Two Lands for Two Peoples" initiatives that are being pursued by others, including American President George Dubyah Bush and American Secretary of State Condi Rice.

(See here) where a piece authored by MK Benny Elon himself appears on the Jerusalem Post website. The piece also received further publicity as being legitimate when it appeared (here) at the israelinsider website.

(See here) where the Arutz Sheva website reports that at least one senior Israeli Labor party official, Eli Sadan, the head of the Labor party's religious and traditional Jewish sector, is promoting the Israeli Initiative as a "realistic peace plan".

Now let me lift a brief description of the plan from the Arutz Sheva article:

Under the proposal, Jordanian citizenship would be granted to Palestinian Authority Arabs who would remain in their villages in Judea and Samaria. Jewish Israeli citizens would also remain in their communities in the area, which would be under Israeli sovereignty.

Doesn't this echo the actions of the Nationalist Government of South Africa (who's actions coined the term "apartheid") when they enacted the Bantu Homelands Citizens Act of 1970? This act:

Compelled all black people to become a citizen of the homeland that responded to their ethnic group, regardless of whether they'd ever lived there or not, and removed their South African citizenship.

(The above description was lifted from www.about.com [here]).

It is my opinion that the Israeli Initiative can only be described as an apartheid initiative.

It is my opinion that the only thing the Israeli right wing (and their supporters) can come up with as a realistic alternative to "Two Lands for Two Peoples" is apartheid. That the only way they can envision keeping Judea and Samaria without a horrific holocaust style expulsion of Arabs by Jews from the "occupied territories" is through a system of apartheid.

Since the right wing would never agree to annexing Judea and Samaria and granting all the occupants and all the returning Palestinian refugees full citizenship rights, they resort to an apartheid plan that would allow them to remain while denying them the rights of citizenship.

In my opinion it is either Annapolis (and Two Lands for Two Peoples) or it is apartheid.

Now, which side is going to be willing to shoulder the blame for the efforts being undertaken at Annapolis failing (if they fail)? If Israel follows the leadership of Benny Elon, it will be easy to point the finger of blame.

Funding SCHIP

Earlier I posted (see here) the text of my Emails to my Senators in the federal government where I voiced my opposition to funding expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Insurance Program) through an outrageous increase in tobacco taxes.

Below is the response I received from one of my Senators, that being Senator Warner. I am still awaiting a response from Senator Webb (it is one month and counting).

Dear Mr. Obermark:

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about health insurance for children. I appreciate your thoughtful inquiry.

I have long held the view that it is important for all Americans to have access to high quality healthcare at an affordable cost. While most Americans have access to quality health insurance, particularly through their employer, others turn to federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Still, today, approximately 46 million Americans do not have any form of health coverage. In my view, Congress must examine ways to reduce this number.

Since 1997, one of the most successful programs in reducing the number of uninsured children in this country has been the State Children’s Health Insurance program (SCHIP). This important federal-state partnership, which is supported with $5 billion a year in federal funds, helps expand health insurance coverage to children from low-income families who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid and who do not otherwise have private health insurance. In addition, states have the option of providing coverage to low-income pregnant women.

I am proud to have been a strong supporter of SCHIP when it was passed by the Congress and signed into law in 1997. Currently, SCHIP provides health insurance coverage to 6.6 million low-income children nationwide, including over 80,000 in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Still, it is estimated that more than 2.7 million children are eligible, but for various reasons, not enrolled in the program.

The SCHIP program expired in September 2007; however, the program is currently funded through a continuing resolution which expires December 14th. In order to continue this critical program, Congress must reauthorize the law. Due to increasing costs of health care, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that $14 billion, in addition to the $25 billion in the baseline budget, over five years will be needed to simply cover those children currently enrolled in the SCHIP program.

Consequently, on November 27, 2006, I sent a letter to President Bush requesting an increase in SCHIP funding in his Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) Budget. In addition, on March 21, 2007, I voted in favor of an amendment offered by Senator Baucus to S.Con.Res.21, the Senate Budget Resolution, to increase funding for SCHIP by an additional $15 billion over 5 years. The amendment passed by a vote of 97-1, with my support. On May 17, 2007, the Senate passed the conference report to S.Con.Res.21, which completes work on the FY08 Budget Resolution.

The Senate recently considered legislation, H.R. 976, to reauthorize the SCHIP program beyond September 2007. The bill, which passed the Senate by a vote of 68-31, with my support, retains coverage for the 6.6 billion children currently enrolled in the program, as well as provides funds to enroll an additional 3.3 million uninsured children. To meet these goals, the legislation provides an additional $7 billion a year for children’s health care. The bill also includes several reforms to the SCHIP program in an attempt to ensure that coverage is only provided to children from low income families and low-income pregnant women.

The cost of H.R. 976 is fully paid for through an increase in the federal tax on cigarettes and cigars. While I am supportive of increasing health insurance coverage for children and pregnant mothers from low-income families, I am concerned about relying solely on revenues from new tobacco taxes, which are especially regressive in targeting those who can least afford higher fees. For this reason, I supported a proposal offered by Senator Lott which would increase SCHIP coverage without a corresponding increase in the tobacco tax. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated by a vote of 35-61. During the debate of H.R. 976, I also supported an amendment introduced by Senator Graham that would cause the tobacco tax increase to expire after five years. The Graham amendment, regrettably, was also defeated.

On August 1, 2007, the House of Representatives passed its version of legislation reauthorizing SCHIP. Next, on September 27, 2007, the Senate approved the conference report to the SCHIP legislation by a vote of 67-29, again with my support. On October 3, 2007, H.R.976 was vetoed by the President. To become law, two thirds of all members voting and present in each chamber of Congress must vote to override the President’s veto. Since, H.R.976 was a House-originated bill, the House acted first to override the veto. On October 18, 2007, the House failed to override the veto by a vote of 273-156.

Please be assured that I will be certain to keep your thoughts in mind should H.R.976 or similar legislation come before the full Senate.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

With kind regards, I am

Sincerely,

John W. Warner
United States Senator

I am mulling over replying to this response. If I reply, I will post the text.

An Open Letter to Virginia Beach Democrats

I didn't even bother to try and get an absentee ballot for this coming November's elections.

Why bother? Virginia Beach Democrats didn't even bother to field candidates in my district to run against the Republican incumbents who are now serving.

Now it probably would have been a pretty hard choice for me to decide not to vote for Bob Tata as my Representative in the Assembly. I would have been willing to consider voting against him, but the choice would not have been automatic. But voting against Senator Wagner would have been easy. That fellah is the same guy who, while serving on the Transportation Committee, seems to want to put tolls on every mile of Virginia's highways or something. Instead of increasing the fuel tax, he wants to change Virginia's freeways into tollways.

Come on Virginia Beach Democrats! You guys and gals couldn't come with somebody to run against Wagner? Yeah, you probably would have had to field a "moderate" or even a "conservative" Democrat for him (or her) to have any chance at all... but isn't a moderate Democrat preferable to Republican Wagner?

I wanted to run Wagner out of office but the Democrats didn't even bother nominating Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to run against him!

Surely it would not have been that hard to find a Democrat that was willing to run? Surely you could have given us a choice of SOMEBODY to vote for as an alternative?

But nope, my representatives in the Assembly and Senate run unopposed. I didn't even bother getting an absentee ballot to voice my frustration and opposition.

Too bad the Virginia Beach Democrats are so weak.

No New Hope for Middle East Peace

(See here) where Haaretz reports that there is little hope for George Dubyah Bush's efforts to obtain peace in the Middle East to amount to anything.

The Orthodox Jews have already drawn their line in the sand. If any of the "core issues" in the conflict are discussed, they are going to revolt. God help us if we (we being the alliance of America and Israel) actually attempt to resolve something.

My own opinion is that the Orthodox Jews (not all Jews, just the conservative Orthodox ones) seek to do is prolong the conflict. Any real attempt to resolve the conflict is anathema to them. They prosper in achieving their goals by prolonging the conflict. Their goal is a greater Israel which includes all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

They seek to prolong the conflict because only through conflict can their aims be achieved. Anything that resembles a reasonable result of negotiations is poison to them. They insist that our side, our side being the American and Israeli side, must be totally unreasonable in negotiations. Then they will point at the results of this unreasonable stance (violence from the Palestinian side) as being justification for their own inhuman actions.

Our American President, that would be George Dubyah Bush, has called for negotiations on the Israeli Palestinian conflict which are to happen in Annapolis shortly. I would hope that America judges the preordained failure of these talks fairly. Which side came to the table unwilling to negotiate? Evidence thus far is that Israel might be the culprit.

There is no point in negotiations if the "core issues" are off limits. We are looking for an end to the conflict, not for justification for bullshit. If Israel is unwilling to come to the table with the goal of resolving the issue, the failure of the talks will rest on Israel's plate.

I am in favor of negotiations. I am also in favor of holding those responsible (including Israelis) accountable for failure of negotiations to achieve anything substantial. It appears the Israeli side is unwilling to approach the table with anything that could be defined as being reasonable. Perhaps the unreasonable Israeli position should be excluded from the talks?

Military Mutiny

Recently the topic of a military mutiny has been coming up in discussing what might happen if George Dubyah Bush orders military action against Iran.

(See here) one such article that appears on the Slate website.

My thoughts? Those in uniform better think long and hard before they stage such a mutiny. Here in America, those in uniform snap to attention and salute when given orders by those civilians who are given authority over them by the Constitution.

However there is some wiggle room here. Those in uniform swear that they will "support and defend the Constitution". Action against Iran will almost certainly risk great conflict. This "great conflict" could most certainly be described as "war" and only Congress, according to the Constitution, has the ability to declare war.

So perhaps Generals would be doing the right thing to "mutiny" against the unlawful orders of a tyrant who sits in the Oval Office and thinks he is a dictator or something. However if this same member of the military service thought he had the right to refuse to obey orders for the same military action (no matter how unwise) authorized by Congress, he should resign from the military now and seek other ways to influence things.

Perhaps he (she) could run for office. Perhaps he (she) could write a book, take to the talk show circuit and become wealthy. However so long as they continue to wear the uniform, they are bound to continue to snap to attention and obey the lawful orders they are given.

I will rise to the defense of any such member of our uniformed services that refuses to obey orders because of an oath to defend the Constitution. However I will be willing to take up arms against any such member who refuses "lawful" orders with which he disagrees.

If Dubyah orders significant action against Iran without Congressional authorization, the military should stand down. If Congress authorizes it? The military should stand up even if it is a horrible mistake.

But that is just my opinion.

Funding SCHIP

Here is the text of a letter that I wrote to both of my Senators in the federal government concerning the proposed expansion of health care coverage to more Americans through the SCHIP legislation:

Dear Senator,

I have noted that you voted to over ride the President's Veto of the SCHIP legislation.

First, let me indicate that actually I am in favor of expanding health care coverage to more Americans.

However I take issue with how Congress, including you, intends to pay for this expansion.

I find it hard to understand how you can rationalize that the residents of our state should have to be penalized more heavily, or bear more of the burden if you
prefer, of paying for this expansion then the residents of most other states.

I am sure that you are aware that Virginia is a tobacco state. Numerous residents of our state depend on tobacco for their livings. This includes tobacco farmers and those employed in the tobacco industry.

By raising tobacco taxes you vote to deprive these citizens of their livelihoods.

Besides, seeking to fund this expansion through an onerous increase in tobacco taxes is financially irresponsible. With such a drastic increase, numerous smokers are going to be priced out of the market and are going to decide to quit (I am a smoker and I will be one who quits) so the anticipated revenue is not going to be realized.

I request that in any negotiations for an increase in the SCHIP program you represent ALL the citizens of your state. That you insist that if the majority of Americans want such an increase then this same majority should be willing to pony up and help pay for it. The increase should not be a case of the majority unjustly taxing the minority and most certainly you must insist that your own state's economy must not be unfairly penalized.

I pray that you remember that you represent Virginia, and that Virginia is a tobacco state.

Who Gets Into Heaven?

Who gets into heaven?

As I travel the highways of my great nation, I frequently tune into Christian radio stations and listen to preachers preach and theologians express their opinions. One topic that frequently comes up is that, in their opinion, one must be a Christian in order to be allowed into heaven once you approach the pearly gates. They can quote from many Bible verses to back up their opinion.

However there appears to be some room for disagreement on this subject. In fact, if we are to believe the Bible, it might be accurate to scream out: JESUS HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION.
To support my own opinion, I am going to examine at least one portion of the Gospels on the subject. Let us open your Bible to Luke 10:25 where we will find The Parable of the Good Samaritan. If you lack a Bible, you can find the text on the internet without too much effort. I urge you to read it for yourself as while I intend to discuss it, I am not going to post it in its entirety.

Jesus gave us this parable after being asked the following question by an "expert in the law":

Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?

So how does the parable go? I am going to paraphrase for brevity. Again I encourage you to read the text for yourself. My version:

A man was traveling from one city to another. During his trip he was beset upon by robbers who stripped him of his belongings and left him lieing battered and bleeding alongside the road. When "good Jews" (described one as being a priest and the other a Levite) came upon him during their own journeys and saw him, they crossed to the far side of the road to avoid him and continued on. But then a Samaritan came down the road and encountered the man. He rushed to his side, dressed his wounds, took him up and put him up in an inn and took care of him. Before he departed the man's side, he paid the innkeeper to look after him with promises to return and cover any additional expenses that might come up.

Now it is important to point out that Jesus used a Samaritan as an example of one who's ACTIONS were worthy of entrance into heaven. You see, Jesus was a Jew. We can safely assume that the person who asked the question was a Jew. However Jesus specifically pointed to compassionate actions by a Samaritan as being especially worthy of commendation while he seemed to point an accusing finger at "good Jews". Please understand that a Samaritan is not a Jew. Samaritans worship the God of Abraham, however they are not Jewish. Samaritan communities (their communities are so small it might be more accurate to describe them as neighborhoods) exist within the Holy Land. They still stand apart from the Jews. It is my understanding that many modern Samaritans will still ostracize their daughters if the daughter marries a Jew.

So must one be a professed Christian to get into heaven? Jesus seemed to be saying that kindness and compassion... walking the walk instead of just talking the talk... were going to be more important to God when you get to the pearly gates then which religious label you paste on your forehead before you approach.

I have wondered how Jesus would tell that parable if he was faced with the modern world. Perhaps it would be titled one of the following:

The Good Buddhist.
The Good Hindu.
(Gasp) The Good Moslem.

Or perhaps, if he lived in America, he would stick closer to home. Perhaps it would be:

The Good Mormon.

One thing of which I am certain is that if Jesus lived in America today, he would use as examples of those crossing to the other side of the road so called "good Christians" who through their actions proved they were Christian in name only. If Jesus was God (personally I am not sure) one thing we could be fairly certain of is that He might withhold a certain measure of justice only for those who sought to use His name to justify evil.

I could go on preaching on this subject at some additional length, but I do not want this to become a novel. If anyone wishes to engage me in conversation, I would be happy to extrapolate.

My conclusion? One need not be a Christian to get into heaven. A good agnostic is more apt to get into heaven then is a bad Christian. Bad Christians better hope God is as forgiving as Jesus, maybe He will be willing to forgive them.

There Are No Moderates

Recently it has come in vogue especially within the Democratic Party to scream "There are no moderates" as progressives seek to gain their way in politics.

Sigh. Looks like we are going to have to repeat history or something. The liberals (progressives if you prefer) in the Democratic Party are unwilling to share power with moderates (or centrists if you prefer) and apparently they too (they being the liberals) are going to have to get a spanking in the political arena.

Please understand that it is my opinion that the reason people (like me) have been willing to vote Democratic recently is because we felt betrayed by the Republicans after we voted them into power. We were entranced as they spoke about "tax and spend" Democrats only to discover that perhaps they were even worse when their method of "fiscal responsibility" was to cut taxes, borrow the money, and keep on increasing the spending. I myself describe them as "borrow and spend" Republicans.

We grew tired of preachers quoting from the bible ("the bible says") to justify taxcuts for the wealthy (but even the poor must tithe to pay the preacher's salary) while the federal deficit mushroomed because nobody was willing to cut expenditures while we cut taxes.

Now instead of taking advantage of Republican (conservative) weakness, liberals (trying to repaint themselves as progressives) are offering us the same menu of choices that caused us to reject them and start voting Republican in the first place.

You do not have to always agree with me. But if progressives are unwilling to "reform" themselves so as to appeal to moderates, them I am willing to once again consider voting for the "new" Republican candidate.

If progressive Democrats are that cock sure of themselves, I dare them to nominate someone like Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader and watch as their Christmas stocking comes up empty. I am all to willing to consider the Republican candidate who might lurch towards me then consider the Democratic candidate who tacks towards you!

I am willing to share power with liberals. That I am willing to share this power with liberals is evidenced in my willingness to vote for Democrats for office. If by voting for the Democrat I witness an unwillingness of liberals (or even worse progressives) to share power with those whom I voted for, I am willing to shift my vote.

How unreasonable will the liberals be? The more unreasonable they become, the more enticing the Republican candidates such as Giuliani, Romney and Thompson become.

Are Democrats willing to share power with moderates? This is the test. If Democrats insist upon a strictly ultra left view in their candidates? Well then perhaps we moderates can reconsider and find more fertile soil in right wing soil. Perhaps Republicans have already learned their lesson.

I can not predict the future. One thing I can say with a great deal of certainty however is that the path for future political influence for "progressives" does not wind through strictly liberal territory. They must be willing to share power. If liberals are not willing to learn from the failures of conservatives, perhaps the conservatives have been taught a lesson?

Presidential Endorsements

(See here) a Newsmax piece that Al Gore has yet to endorse a Presidential candidate in their run for the presidency.

My question is this: Just how much is an Al Gore endorsement really worth?

Al Gore is apt to eventually come out in favor of whoever the Democratic nominee is anyway. It is not like we are going to be left hanging wondering whether Al Gore is going to endorse Newt Gingrich (should he be the Republican nominee) as opposed to endorsing "John Doe", the eventual Democratic nominee.

Al Gore, the Democrat, is going to endorse "John Doe" (or perhaps "Jane Doe") who leads the Democratic ticket.

I do not need a crystal ball or anything to predict this future outcome.

Personally, an Al Gore endorsement of any candidate right now would not be worth much of anything to me. But Jimmy Carter? If Jimmy Carter (who I love so deeply) came out in favor of a candidate with whom I was not in favor of, I would want to listen to what he had to say and try and understand the reasoning behind it.

My advice to Democratic hopefuls is that they make pilgrimages to Plains, GA in an effort to win Jimmy's endorsement as early as possible. The earlier he strikes the more valuable the endorsement. Every day of delay is a dilution of the endorsement.

I would hope that my candidate (that would be Hillary Clinton) seeks to camp out on the outskirts of Jimmy Carter's property and wear the man down. Look to the leadership of Cindy Sheehan for an example. Hold prayer vigils and seek to engage him in dialogue to win his endorsement. When you have won THAT man's endorsement this early in the election cycle you will have won something truly valuable. If that man endorses one of your opponents, I am going to reconsider my support for you based upon what he has to say.

I do not allow Jimmy Carter to make my mind up for me, but when that man speaks up I listen up!

Figuring the Fuel Surcharge

I have witnessed a number of hits to my blog related to searches for how to figure the fuel surcharge that is charged back to customers on freight hauled by truckers.

Now, I "receive" but do not directly "charge" a fuel surcharge. I am an owner operator who has his truck leased on with one of the large trucking companies, and it is they who do the figuring on billing for the fuel surcharge that I end up receiving. But I am aware of how they go about doing it, and as a public service I will attempt to explain it.

Different trucking companies figure out the fuel surcharge they bill for in different ways. To quote from the Energy Information Administration:

Fuel surcharges are negotiated privately by the shipper and the trucking company.

However if you are in business for yourself, you will want what you charge to generally be competitive with others in the industry, so let me educate you on how some of the big boys go about figuring it out.

Some of the "big boys" charge by regions, but for sake of simplicity most of them still just pay based on the national average price for highway diesel. Where do they get this average price from? From the government. You can get this information (at this website) from the Energy Information Administration.

Now after you have the average price you must have a "reasonable" formula for figuring out what you are going to charge. Most companies seem to have a price of about $1.15 a gallon for being the "reasonable price" from which they figure out how much to charge for a fuel surcharge. How did they come to settle on $1.15 a gallon? Because that is about what the price had been for diesel just prior to fuel surcharges first being assessed.

One other factor that needs to be identified is the fuel economy of the truck involved. Most companies seem to use an industry average of about 6 miles per gallon, however I have heard of some companies that use 6 1/2 MPG. You can probably safely use 6 without being accused of being unreasonable. You might be able to justify an even lesser fuel economy if you are hauling time critical freight (like produce or something) and your delivery schedule requires you to drive at higher speeds (never, ever violating the speed limit of course) resulting in your truck getting lesser miles per gallon. However if you are going to use a lesser figure, you had probably best discuss it with the customer involved ahead of time so that there are no misunderstandings.

You will also need to come up with an accurate method of determining the "standard" number of miles required to make delivery. Some companies charge by the Household Movers Guide mileage while others charge practical route miles. I have even heard of a few that charge by actual hub miles, but it might be a little difficult to get a customer to agree to pay what you charge if you keep insisting on taking the longer scenic route. You're probably better off sticking with at least practical route miles.

So here's the formula: Average diesel price minus $1.15, divided by 6 MPG (and rounded down), then multiplied by the number of miles between shipper and consignee.

Let's go through an example and let's use the most recent week for which, as I write this, the Energy Information Administration has released the average fuel price. For the week of
09/03/07 the government says the national average was $2.893. $2.893 minus 1.15 leaves 1.743, 1.743 divided by 6 MPG equals 0.2905 which we round down to 0.29 or 29 cents per mile. Let's say the length of haul is 1,000 miles, 1,000 times 0.29 yields $290.00 we would bill the customer for fuel surcharge.

Now the company I am leased to always charges by what the latest weekly average was on the day the freight was picked up, not on the day it is delivered. This means that when fuel prices are on their way up, and you pick up late in the week, the fuel surcharge might lag by a penny or two. However when fuel prices are dropping you might be a penny or so to the good.

I have heard of where some sole proprietors and smaller companies seem to have negotiated almost unbelievable fuel surcharges from their customers that would seem to cover their complete cost of fuel. I do not know whether to chalk this up as just another "tall tale" you hear on the CB or whether these claims are factual. I guess anything is possible, since, as I earlier quoted "Fuel surcharges are negotiated privately by the shipper and the trucking company." So if you are a good negotiator or your customer is desperate and you have them over the barrel you might be able to get an extra sweet deal... however you might not then get much return business either.

Michael Vick and the Minefield

I am going to attempt to wade into the minefield of race relations and the Michael Vick killing dogs issue.

I am going to put myself firmly in the center of the minefield and do some lecturing (preaching) on the subject. I will walk with confidence knowing ahead of time where all the mines exist. With as much confidence, I can stand there with a clear path out of the minefield without any harm to myself from having been there.

Michael Vick needs to be held accountable for his actions. We, the American People, will not stand by while he escapes unscathed for some form of accountability being enacted for what he has done.

Now anyone who tries to explain that Michael Vick should be excused for his actions because he is black or something needs to get a spanking. If Michael Vick is excused BECAUSE he is black it sets back the cause for black Americans in their pursuit of equality and empowers white racists who have no problem saying "nigger" in their conversations (instead of saying "N-word").

Michael Vick gets no special consideration ONLY because he is black on this issue.

In my mind, Michael Vick's conduct is completely indefensible. Perhaps some argument could be made about "sport" and allowing dogs to compete against one another in a manner they were "naturally" inclined to do by putting them in a ring and allowing them to attempt to kill their opponent. It is my belief this argument would have been weak, but it could have been made and it could have convinced some.

But Michael Vick did not stop there. If the dog that lost was not killed in the ring, he executed them. If they were unfortunate to not have had their throats torn out in the ring, but yielded to their opponent by tucking their tails or something, like they instinctively do when they are beat by the superior dog, he executed them for having done so.

Michael Vick did not just put these dogs to sleep by putting a gun to their head because they were worthless or "put them to sleep" by injecting poison into their bloodstream, he killed them through especially cruel methods. He either drowned them or hung them. Both of these methods are especially cruel and involve unneeded suffering.

What did Michael Vick do? Did he gather all his "gladiator" dogs that had not yet fought and teach them a lesson? Did he put them in a circle to watch as he executed the losers to motivate them to never give up because death in the ring was preferable to death at his hands if they happened to lose?

Michael Vick does not seem to understand that in the society he lives in dogs receive special protection. Most of us nod our heads in agreement when someone describes dogs as being "man's best friend" (although we will get some argument about even this from cat lovers).

Michael Vick's conduct needs to be punished. That man was rewarded with a multi-million dollar salary for playing a game because he was gifted with extraordinary abilities from God to play that game. What did he do with the gifts given to him by God? Did he only selfishly indulge himself in his great fortune? Nope, if that had been the case I could have lived with that. He would have not been any worse then the average white guy. Most of them do that.

Now I am willing to be reasonable. Let Michael Vick serve no more time in prison (only because he is black) then anyone else who has engaged in similar activity. But Michael Vick is special. Whether he likes it or not, as quarterback of the Atlanta Falcons, he serves as a role model for many of our children. As role model, he needs to serve as the role model that improper behaviour results in punishment. If he is unwilling to serve in this role, I guess he should have decided to become a politician or something. "Becoming wealthy beyond your wildest dreams" is not an excuse for evil behaviour. I will point to Albert Pujols (another minority athlete) as proof that untrained wealth does not automatically yield improper behaviour.

If Michael Vick had been white instead of black I would expect that he be punished. I am unwilling to excuse him only because he is black. I have met too many black people that knew how to live their lives in an acceptable fashion for me to excuse Michael Vick for his conduct only because his skin color is a little darker then mine.

I want to hold Michael Vick accountable to the same standard that I hold Paris Hilton.

I think Michael Vick should be put in jail for at least a couple of months. I think the Atlanta Falcons should take the 22 million in bonuses Michael Vick would have received and donate them to the SPCA or PETA (let's spread the wealth) or something. Then after Michael Vick has been taught a lesson, let him return to the arena and entertain us.

Pro Israeli Hypocrisy

Recently I listened in on Jan Markell's "Understanding the Times" radio show that airs in several radio markets as well as on Sirius Satellite Radio's Christian Talk channel on the weekends.

On July 28th, Jan aired an interview with Elwood McQuaid as he hawked his new book "For the Love of Zion". I was waiting until the interview appeared in Jan's archives of her broadcasts, which normally show up on her Olive Tree Ministries website. However for some reason the segment of her broadcast that includes the interview with Elwood does not appear and has been replaced with a "Web Bonus Special". I was going to lift a few quotes from the segment for this piece, alas I guess I am going to have to rely more on my memory of the interview without the aid of exact quotes.

Anyway, Jan and Elwood were discussing the Israeli - Palestinian conflict from a very one sided point of view. Elwood, with Jan chiming in with agreement, pointed out how right wing Palestinians (such as Hamas) are unwilling to settle for sharing the land with Israel, that they have as their ultimate goal the reclaiming all the land including those portions of Israel that lie within the "green line". There was also much other criticism of the Palestinians.

What amazed me is how all the criticisms of right wing Palestinians could be turned around and used as justified criticism of right wing Israelis and those other members of the right wing (such as conservative Christians) that support them. An example? Right wing Israelis are unwilling to share the land with Palestinians. The areas that would be surrendered to the Palestinians for their own state are "Judea and Samaria" and are part of the "Promised Land". Read the description for Elwood's new book that is contained in the above link and note how it states "Israel should not give away any more land in an effort to broker peace".

To me it is extreme hypocrisy for the Jewish and Christian right wing to engage in criticism of the Islamic right wing while they hold positions and engage in actions that are almost mirror images of that which they criticize.

Is the criticism of the Palestinian side warranted? Yes, I do believe that it is. However people like Jan and Elwood need to stand in front of a mirror, examine their own motivations and actions (and of those whom they support) and hold themselves accountable to the same standards they hold their opponents.

As a side note, I will also note that Jan and Elwood also engaged in criticism of left leaning Christians (which, according to Jan, includes most if not all the mainstream Protestant denominations and all the Catholics) who seek to hold Israel accountable for indefensible actions and positions.

Personally, I would encourage Jan (and Elwood) to remember that most Christians think of Jesus as the "Prince of Peace" and encourage her to pray and meditate on the subject of what leads her to stand in the way of a peaceful settlement of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. Perhaps she is correct that a peaceful settlement is not possible. However if she is correct, this will become obviously apparent if the Palestinians prove unwilling to settle for a reasonable solution. However if she is not outrageously biased in favor of the Israeli side, she will then have to accept that it would also become obviously apparent as to which side is the obstacle to peace if the Israeli side failed to offer such a "reasonable" solution. Such a "reasonable" solution has yet to be offered to the Palestinians and the Jewish (and Christian) right wing continues to throw up road blocks and serve as an impediment to such an offering.

Mild Hurricane Season?

On the Fourth of July, I went public with a request for a "Sign from God" that I had earlier asked God for privately.

Earlier this month I was in Southern California listening to a Christian Radio station where I heard a conversation between two radio show hosts. I am not exactly sure what brought up the topic, but one host seemed to address "signs from God" or "predicting the future" when he stated something like "Hey I can do that as well. I predict that tomorrow the drought for Southern California will continue." "Wow, such confidence" I thought to myself sarcastically. The host predicts the obvious, that which the weather experts themselves predict. Perhaps I would have been impressed if the host had predicted something like "Over the next four weeks, the drought in Southern California will be broken" and this prediction, flying contrary to the predictions of weather experts, turned out to be true.

Anyway, to sharpen the point of the spear that would be driven home if I get my "Sign from God", which would be a mild hurricane season for the continental United States (particularly the east coast) this year, I wish to point out that all the so called weather experts prior to the opening of the hurricane season, predicted an active one for this year. Part of their explanation for last year's mild hurricane season in the Atlantic was the El Nino warm water phenomenon in the eastern Pacific which strengthened unexpectedly. There is no El Nino this year.

Even now, after a weak opening of the season, the experts still predict an active season. (See here) a Reuters piece that appears on the MSNBC website that reports on this.

I only point this out because, now that I have gone public with my request for a sign, if God grants my request, I feel that many, if not most, will dismiss it as being a mere coincidence. Even those who profess strong faith in the existence of God (like the Southern California Christian radio show host) will be dismissive.

I am uncertain if God will grant my request for a sign. If it fits into his will, his plans, perhaps he will do so. Let me explain myself. As unlikely (without the advantage of hindsight) as it is for the Continental United States to have a mild hurricane season, but experience such a result anyway, is just the type of things I have witnessed when I requested "signs from God" over the past several years. I started with requests for specific "improbable" events to happen and progressed to demanding the nearly "impossible" only to have these events happen time and again. With the advantage of hindsight, I guess each of my private requests for a sign, standing by itself, could be dismissed as mere coincidence; however when I put the multiple times that which I asked for occurred, it would indeed be delusional for me to dismiss it all as just an amazing string of coincidences.

So this time instead of asking for a private sign, I am asking for one in public. I struggle with understanding why God would grant me signs (proof) that he exists while he denies such proof to others. There is nothing special or "holy" about me that I can identify that would make me more worthy of such extraordinary attention from the Lord then any other human being. I am indeed a wretched example of a man. Is God attempting to motivate me towards some special plan he has for my life? Does He expect some action from me in return for the extraordinary proof provided that He exists?

So by "going public" I am attempting to put God on the spot. If he has special expectations from me I do not think I can achieve these expectations without his help. With God's help, well, the preachers preach that all things are possible. I am asking God to help me to achieve that which he seems to expect of me. Even with God's help, I do not think my task will be easy, however it then might be within the realm of possibility.

Absent this sign, perhaps God still has expectations of me, however perhaps these expectations are not as enormous as I now feel they might be. Perhaps the reason He has granted me "special attention" is that I am especially worthy of pity or something. Perhaps He only wants to motivate me to live a "good" life and nothing more. I think that I can achieve, as long as He does not expect "perfection" out of me or something - grin.

Sign From God - Strike Two

Sign From God - Strike Two.

OK people. I have to admit my (you will have to take me at my word) amazing record for getting "Signs from God" might be at an end.

I can not say that every time I asked for a "Sign from God" I received one. However my "batting average" was pretty phenominal. I can honestly claim that it hovered somewhere near .950 (or 95%). And never prior to yesterday did I swing and miss twice in a row.

In the past, after failing to receive a "Sign", my confidence in the existence of God was in danger. So I would retreat back to "Lord, if you exist, then give me a sign." That always worked in the past. But yesterday, even this sure fire method was fruitless. God almost seemed to toy with me as he proved to me time and again it was possible for Him to grant my demand and almost teased me with my sign just being outside my grasp.

When it became obvious that I was not going to receive my sign, I changed my "demand" for a sign to a "request" (or prayer) for an outcome I desired. Even here God toyed with me before finally granting my request.

Now I think I have learned a lesson. My second request for a sign (to prove that He existed) really wasn't necessary. My failure to receive a sign twice in a row (even after I retreated back to the "sure fire" method) can not convince me that God does not exist.

I am not going to go into this too deeply. In the first "strike" I asked God for approval (encouragement) to pursue a certain course of action. Now failure to receive this sign might have only been God telling me "NO". I have to admit, what I proposed was extremely foolish. Some might have even described the course of action I proposed to God as being "insane". I was looking for God's encouragement to be downright crazy.

God said no.

So I fell back on mister "sure fire" to prove to me He really meant what He said. One way or another I was going to get a sign.

Every time, prior to yesterday, when I demanded a "Sign" from God to only prove he existed, I was successful. If that had been necessary this last time, I think it too would have been successful. But the truth is that I have to deal with reality. Even with the absence of receiving a sign due to my most recent demand, I can not "finally admit" God does not exist. It would have been impossible for me to have received all the Signs I was granted, in prior instances, if God does not exist. My "batting average" (or I guess it is really God's batting average) is still just too phenomenal to be mere coincidence.

Now I have decided I am going to put God on the spot. I have normally requested my signs very privately (although there are a couple of exceptions). Dangling in the wind is "Strike Three". (Three times and you are Out!) Since I have been unsuccessful twice in a row, I have no confidence that I will receive this sign. I would not even dare ask for it now, since my confidence is shaken, but this "demand" was placed some time back. Since it is out there, I am going to go public with it. Will I receive my sign or will I finally strike out?

I have struggled with why God has provided me with those signs he has given me. Does he expect something, some action, from me? Why am I special? God does not grant Signs to most people. Out of all those that ask for signs, why did He pick me to receive not just one, but many? Does he have expectations of me? In return for the confidence ("Yeah though I walk through the valley...") I am supposed to do something?

The sign I am waiting for is that America does not suffer from hurricanes during this current hurricane season, or at least not more then perhaps a couple mild level "one" storms. Now understand that all the meteorological experts have predicted at least an above average hurricane season this year. They have explanations (which make sense to me) for why last year's season was mild for America, and for why this is not going to happen this season.

I am not going to go into why I was not surprised by the mild hurricane season last year. I have my own explanation, but I am going to keep that private.

I am putting God to the test. If there is something special about me, if God has unreasonable expectations of me, this next hurricane season is going to be mild for the United States of America.

In my reasoning, if God has "unreasonable expectations" from me, he is going to have to provide proof that what he expects of me is possible. If he does not meet my "demand" I am not going to cease believing in God. However, I am going to stop worrying about what I am supposed to do in return.

God gave me my signs. If He expects something from me in return, I am putting him on the spot. I know God exists and that heaven awaits (unless I somehow screw up royally). Now, does he expect something from me?

If I get my sign, I am still under the yoke. If I fail to receive this last sign, I am freed from the yoke. I can live out the rest of my life free from the burden of trying to figure out how to repay God for rewarding me with proof that he exists.

Then why did God provide me with the signs if He did not expect something from me in return? I guess then it was only because He particularly pitied me. I guess then I am just so pitiful that I merited special attention from God.

Publicly I say this prayer: "Lord, if you want me to "Save the World" or something I need my sign. If I fail to receive this sign, which I now make public, I am saying it is impossible for me to do it. If you put a yoke on me with unreasonable expectations, I need your help. Do not make me chafe under the yoke. Lord, many will proclaim that I am just insane even if I receive this sign. I am willing to defy their judgement in the face of yours. Lord help me. I cry out to you. Have mercy on your poor servant."

If I do not receive the Lord's help, I am freed from the yoke by my reasoning. Now I only need to deal with the wrath of God if by putting Him on the spot I have angered Him. I am shaking my fist in the face of the fury of God.

Lord, if you have expectations from me that I, as a mere human, think are unreasonable, I ask for your help. If you give me the sign, I am willing to sacrifice everything.

Science Avenger: The Fading of Intelligent Design

(See here) where the Science Avenger crows about some victory he thinks "scientific" evolutionists have achieved against "creationists".

The Science Avenger evidently believes in evolution. Well, then let us examine just how much he is willing to bow to "science" and "evolution" and how willing he is to sacrifice the bullshit "liberal" viewpoint.

What does the Science Avenger think about homosexuality? Will you be willing to sacrifice the homosexuals for your viewpoint of evolution?

Do those that practice homosexuality do anything to further natural selection?

Does the Science Avenger preach evolution and then "encourage" homosexualty?

Homosexuality is a dead end in evolution. No argument that "scientists" can put forth to try and prove mankind should, from an evolutionary standpoint, accept homosexuality can withstand their own point of view. Homosexuality is a dead end. I can accept accepting homosexuality. I can not accept encouraging it.

I have a problem. By evolution us humans were given the ability to reason. Is it "reasonable" to encourage the dead end of evolution that is offered through homosexuality?

Can science and religion coexist? I think it can (because reality is reality) as long as science bows down to their own reality.

My God's reality is your reality. You just have to bow down to your own reality. If mankind is going to prosper (through evolution - God's reality) we have to discourage homosexuality. Homosexuality is a hindrance to natural selection.

Perhaps we can "tolerate" homosexuals just as we "tolerate" other failures of evolution. Get my point? I encourage that society accepts the failures of evolution. I am unwilling for society to encourage the failures.

Stem Cells

Are you willing to allow experimentation with stem cells? Yes or no. Do not try to confuse the issue by drawing the line on experimenting with "adult" stem cells or "embryonic" stem cells.

Is experimentation with stem cells going to be allowed or not?

Stop being hypocrites.

There is no difference between "adult" stem cells and "embryonic" stem cells. Even if you force medical researchers to deal with only "adult" stem cells, you are only going to force these researchers to develop "cloned" embryos to achieve their results.

Now personally I do not see anything wrong with research obtained from embryonic stem cells. I think that anyone who thinks it is OK to do research on adult stem cells (and these people are also most often against "cloning") is a hypocrite.

A "cloned" embryo that results from an "adult" stem cell has as much potential to become a person as does the "embryonic" stem cell. Meanwhile American medical researchers are prevented from experimenting on the "real thing" up until American medical technology advances to the point "adult" embryos can serve the same purpose.

If you are going to allow experimentation on adult embryos, you might as well allow it on infant embryos. Do not force medical researchers to deal with your bullshit, twisted and unrealistic ethics.

Shocking - No Sign From God

Yesterday I asked God for a sign. I didn't get it. Well, actually this is a little complicated, I might still get my sign, since I offered God a choice. I might still get my sign, however I will now have to be patient. What worries me is that if I still get my sign, I will personally benefit from it. I have never attempted to ask for a "sign" previously from which I would benefit.

Let me attempt to explain this. I have "prayed" to God for "favors" from which I would benefit, and have sometimes had my "prayers" answered. However "answered prayers" are not a "sign". Answered "prayers" are requests for favoritism from God when I will understand if the request is not granted. However, I look at my requests for "signs" differently. I have a pretty good track record for getting my "requests" (perhaps "demands" is a better word) for "signs" to be successful.

Getting back to what has happened over the past 36 hours. I asked God for a sign. I'm trying to figure out what went wrong. I am fairly confident that if God had granted me my sign I would have heard about it by now.

I am confused. I am actually shocked that I did not get my sign. You see, I have to deal with reality. I have to deal with the fact that "most" people when they ask for "signs" to prove God exists are not granted them. God leaves them in the dark and forces them to depend on "faith" that He exists. But for some reason, God has repeatedly given me signs. Now, perhaps I am not alone in getting "signs"....

Break, break, break.... I have just witnessed a miracle. I have to deal with reality. I have to bow down before God. God is so much smarter then I am. Praise the Lord. I am humbled and grateful for the lesson God has given me. God is great!

10 Commandments for the Road

(See here) a list of the "Ten Commandments" for the road that appears on the MSNBC website as reported upon by the Associated Press.

These "Ten Commandments" for the road come from the Vatican. As hard as it might be to quibble with the Vatican, well... you know me... I am going to quibble - grin.

The Vatican document evidently included many recommendations towards the faithful in how to deal with travel on the road. This document culminated in the "Ten Commandments" for drivers, so I guess everything else discussed in the document was only a "recommendation" (such as saying the rosary while traveling).

However let an experienced truck driver, or at least an American truck driver, examine the "Ten Commandments".

First off, I take issue with "commandment" number four. Here it is:

Be charitable and help your neighbor in need, especially victims of accidents.

Sorry. At least at one point in time, during my truck driver career, I attempted to be charitable to my "neighbor in need" when I felt my action might be able to assist this neighbor. However I now have to deal with governmental regulation that might mean that if I dare to stop to assist the "neighbor in need" I might no longer be able to meet my delivery appointment. Failure to meet my delivery appointment means I might have to wait for hours, or even days, to make delivery. Failure to make delivery could cost me several hundreds of dollars, potentially reaching beyond a thousand dollars. Should I stop to save the stranded motorist the couple hundreds of dollars it would cost them for road side assistance from an experienced mechanic when the result might be that it will cost me more then the cost of the assistance of the experienced mechanic to the stranded motorist? There is a reason modern truck drivers are reluctant to still be the "roadside angels" they once had the reputation for being. In the "old days" charity didn't cost anything but time. Now-a-days time for the truck driver equals money. Why should the truck driver stop to give assistance to your family when it is going to cost money for his own family?

I will note one exception which is noted in the commandment. It mentions "especially victims of accidents". I doubt few truck drivers are so pressed for time (and income then be damned) that they can not stop to rend assistance to the victims of accidents where injuries might be included and adequate assistance is not already on the scene. We truck drivers might, thru necessity, now have hard hearts, but our hearts are not yet cold.

Here is the only other "commandment" which I have a problem with. Perhaps I do not fully understand what is meant by it. Number seven:

Support the families of accident victims.

Let's examine this one. Does this commandment mean to emotionally support the families of these accident victims on the scene? No argument from me there. But this commandment seems to hint at something else. Perhaps I am supposed to support the families of these accident victims financially. I do have a problem with this. If the family was "wealthy" and is used to a fortunate lifestyle from the breadwinner, however the breadwinner is killed and does not have any life insurance, is it my responsibility to "support" that family? How much support? To the point of continuing the lifestyle they are used to or only keeping them from starvation?

Why single out the victims of auto accidents? Is the family that loses their breadwinner due to cancer or other illness less worthy of "support"?

If I lose my life in a truck accident, will "good Christians" ride to the aid of my family after I die in the truck accident? This worry is not without merit. Truck driving consistently rates in the top ten of most dangerous occupations in America. I noted with interest that in a recent analysis, the occupations of police officer and even fire fighter did not crack the top ten.

All in all, I will grant that the "Ten Commandments" for the road might be a decent place to begin as you start up your automobile in the morning. Where I find fault with these commandments, well... I have to remember that they were written by Christians. Maybe they are just trying to motivate fellow Christians to follow Jesus or something. No harm in motivating people to follow Jesus.

I do love Jesus. I just wish that in my so called "Christian nation" more Christians were willing to follow Jesus. My experience in my "Christian nation" is quite the opposite. My experience in my "Christian nation" is that it is "every man for himself".

Defending Bill OReilly

(See here) where the Science Avenger takes radio and television talk show host Bill OReilly to task for a piece he wrote about his interview with well known atheist Richard Dawkins.

Now, I did not get the chance to view the interview with Richard Dawkins, nor did I get to read the original piece that the Science Avenger quotes from or attempts to link to (the link does not work); however I am still motivated to defend Bill OReilly because I respect him so much.

I also have heard some interviews with Richard Dawkins as he made the circuit attempting to publicize his most recent book The God Delusion. I witnessed one interview (I believe it was on National Public Radio) where Richard was treated most respectfully and given ample time to put forth his argument in favor of an atheistic point of view. My own opinion of Richard Dawkins? He is as unreasonably atheistic as many God Fearing Bible thumpers are with being unreasonably Bible thumpers!

Now let me explain my own point of view. I think it is entirely reasonable for a person to be an agnostic. In fact, for at least a portion of my life, thusly (agnostic) was how I chose to describe myself. I bought into the argument that while it is impossible to prove God exists, it is also impossible to prove God does not exist. That was until God proved to me that He (or is it a She?) does exist in a way that I would have to be delusional to not deal with the reality that there is a God. What was the proof? I won't go into that. Even if I explained in detail my "signs" that God exists, a devout atheist or even an agnostic would just say "Yeah right". I know that back when I was an agnostic, that this is how I would have viewed the testimonial I could offer up. I would have dismissed my own testimonial as either a fabrication or a delusion. My "signs" (notice plural) were for my own consumption only to prove to ME that God exists. I do not believe they were provided to me to convince others.

What about Bill OReilly? Is he unreasonably religious? Is the Science Avenger just as guilty of being a bigot in defense of his atheism as Bill OReilly is in defense of his belief in God? Again, I did not get to read the original OReilly piece (I am not about to subscribe to the Bill OReilly website Premium Membership package in order to do so) so have to limit myself to the Science Avengers quotations from Bill's piece.

The Science Avenger starts with:

Right out of the gate, O'Reilly departs from reality:

Atheism is chic, it's cool, it's the latest craze. The book stores are chock full of authors declaring that "God is Not Great," that God is a "Delusion," that you are a moron if you believe in the Deity.

He (Science Avenger) then includes, in his defense of the almost unreasonable publicity that atheists receive, the statement:

We are a minority that numbers anywhere from 3-30% of the American population, depending on how the question is asked. At one extreme, very few people are sure there are no gods, at the other, a sizeable minority hold no formal god belief.

I'll use his own words against him: "very few people are sure there are no gods". I think that these "very few people" are the only ones who would qualify to describe themselves as atheists. As for the "sizeable minority" who "hold no formal god belief" it is my opinion that this group is mostly comprised of agnostics. It is unfair for atheists to try to lay claim to the agnostic crowd as being included in as those who share their beliefs.

Here is another unreasonable statement the Science Avenger makes as he tries to make his point:

Notice there is no reference for BO's claim that atheist authors believe "you are a moron if you believe in the Deity". There's good reason for that: he made it up. We are quite capable of recognizing the intellect of those that believe. We just believe they are wrong.

OK Science Avenger, perhaps "moron" was a poor choice of words for Bill OReilly to use. He should have stuck to "delusional". Richard Dawkins uses the word "delusion" in the title of his most recent book and you use the word "delusion" in the title of your own piece criticizing Bill OReilly. I have heard Richard Dawkins speak as he publicizes his book. He is not, in my estimation, a "reasonable" atheist, his argument is that anyone who believes in God is delusional (or perhaps only a moron - grin).

Then comes this quote from Bill:

Believing in God is not very stylish in mainstream media circles these days.

The Science Avenger then launches into the demonstrations some football players display after they cross over into the endzone for a touchdown. What does this have to do with how the media DISCUSSES religious faith when the subject comes up? Or perhaps the Science Avenger thinks these religious displays by sports figures should be censored out from the broadcast?

The Science Avenger also states:

And did you see the powder puff treatment Ken Ham's creation museum got, even from the NY Times!

First off, I too have engaged in criticism of Ken Ham, (see here) where I engaged in such criticism of his preachings. However my own experience with how specifically the "Creation Museum" and the general subject of the creationism versus evolution debate is dealt with in the media is that it is dealt with in a manner that is not completely enlightening. Every time the subject comes up, the opposing viewpoints are represented by the extremes in the debate. I have yet to witness (other then on EWTN, the Roman Catholic radio network) the viewpoint represented that faith in God does not prevent belief in evolution! Even within the Evangelical community itself, there is some disagreement on just how valid the Genesis account of the creation of the universe is. There are nuanced opinions even within "Creationists". Ken Ham has engaged in criticism of Dr James Dobson for pointing out the discrepancy that if the account of creation contained in Genesis is accurate then God did not create the sun until the fourth "day" which begs the question of "How could there be a first, second or third "day" without any sunlight?"

I also wish to explore what Bill OReilly's own beliefs on the subject of evolution might be. I have never heard him go into the subject in any great detail, however Wikipedia gives a history of his education (see it here). Please note that Bill's childhood education and even his first years in college were experienced at Roman Catholic educational institutions. It is my understanding that most parochial, Roman Catholic schools teach religion in religion class and evolution in science class. Roman Catholics (or at least the Vatican) do not have a problem with accepting evolution as being fact.

I am going to skip over a few quotes of Bill's piece and the comments about them. However one quotation from Bill is worthy of note; Bill wrote:

"Jesus is a real guy," I said. "I know what he did. I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with him rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here."

Now note just how reasonable Bill OReilly is being. He is pointing to how the preponderance of the evidence points that in fact, once on our planet trod a "man" named Jesus. It is from this same "man" that the religion called Christianity sprung. Bill OReilly is just not sure if this "man" was in fact "God". Bill OReilly is not timid with thus describing his own religious beliefs. As much as Science Avenger tries to paint Mr OReilly's broadcasts and statements of opinion as being attempts to "sing to the choir" (the "choir" being his supposed audience) such a belief would run counter to the belief's of the only audience that Science Avenger seems to think Bill OReilly has.

Science Avenger then opens up the closing of his piece with this one:

Then of course Bill trots out a creationist oldie but goodie:

But the atheists will never get it. The universe and the earth is so complex, so incredibly detailed, that to believe an accidental evolutionary occurrence could have exclusively led to the nature/mankind situation we have now, is some stretch of the imagination. I mean, call me crazy, but the sun always comes up, while man oversleeps all the time.

Science Avenger seems to have problems considering the fact that some of us that believe in God might also believe in evolution. That when we look at evolution, we see the "fingerprints of God".

Here are some of Science Avenger's closing remarks, specifically about the last quote I gave from Bill OReilly:

Uh, Bill, the sun one day isn't going to come up. It's got a finite life span. It might be billions of years, and that's a big big number, but it's not infinite, however much it may seem that way to you. Likewise, evolution is a very long, slow, bit by bit process, and that may be hard for you to grasp. It might seem like just one big accidental occurrence, but in fact, it is not very accidental at all. Selection is the opposite of chance. The unfit systematically, nonrandomly, die out. So no, it does not take much imagination at all.

So in my own closing, I ask this question: Who's the bigger bigot? Is it Bill OReilly or is it the Science Avenger? For anyone needing a refresher on the definition of "bigot" from Merriam-Webster:

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Seems to me Bill OReilly is less of a bigot when it comes to the subject of religion and evolution then is the Science Avenger. Bill OReilly's viewpoint seems to witness to actual willingness to consider "the other side" while the Science Avenger already has his mind made up and his statements witness to an unwillingness to any longer even consider an opposing viewpoint. Bill OReilly at least gave Richard Dawkins the opportunity to give voice to his own point of view.

Introducing the Science Avenger

Recently I stumbled upon a relatively new blog, titled Science Avenger which I wish to point out to others. The "Science Avenger" seems to be an unapologetic atheist who strongly defends the scientific viewpoint as being a valid anchor within which to understand our world and existence. While I might disagree with some of his viewpoints, I find that he puts forth his point of view in an interesting and articulate manner.

Since, as a believer in a God, I enjoy "testing my faith" I intend to revisit his site often as long as his posts continue to be of the quality that several of them I sampled displayed.

I have included a permanent link to his site here on this blog.

Presidential Politics

I am dismayed by the way, thus far, the nomination process for our political candidates for the office of President of the United States has been going.

I have watched as those candidates who I wished could run from the center from their respective parties ran towards the extremes of their respective parties.

An example? John McCain ran away from what "we" liked and ran towards the extreme of his party. Not only did he not energize the conservative base of the Republican Party towards his candidacy, he alienated those who supported him by doing so.

How about Hillary? Seems that she has to run extreme left in order to defeat the threat imposed by the Obama run. By the time she ends up winning the nomination from the Democratic Party, she will have run so far left she might no longer be acceptable to the "we" members of the center. With all of Hillary's coat-tails, if she wants to attempt to run as a centrist in the general election, she needs to run as such in the nomination process. Perhaps she has already swung so far left that she will no longer appeal to many moderates. Her only hope is that the Republicans nominate someone so far to the right that a vote for her would be the lesser of two evils.

Is it too much to expect a candidate to just run on "here are my opinions, judge me as you will"? And then expect the candidate to not adjust their opinions according to what their opinions need to be to be elected? I guess I am asking for too much. For some reason the lure of the power of the Presidency entices the candidates to adjust their sails to however the prevailing winds blow.

Teddy Roosevelt on Immigration

Recently I came upon a comment somewhere which quoted from Teddy Roosevelt on the issue of immigration. I was intrigued by the quote and sought to further explore what this past President of our United States had to say about the "threats" immigrants back in his day posed to his nation and how he attempted to lead his nation in dealing with the "threat". What the heck, by my estimation somehow our nation managed to deal with the "threat" of new immigrants posed back then. Is it wrong to credit some of the success in dealing with this "threat" as being due to the leadership provided by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt?

Now the quote I came across as being attributed to Teddy is fairly accurate, however it seems to redact and insert other of his comments for impact, but it does justice to the comments he made somewhere along the line. While I can agree with the some of the redactions made to the comments for brevity's sake, I can not agree to the further insertion of comments taken out of context.

I am going to link (see it here) to a Snopes.com piece that explores the validity of the comment that I am going to quote. The piece even provides a link to a .pdf file of a document that comes from The Library of Congress to prove the validity of the quote.

What did Teddy Roosevelt have to say? Here is the quote:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin.But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American

If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American.

We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

Now if you are astute, you will note my own piece contains redactions. However note the quote does not contain additions. I only left out the portions that pertain to Old World immigrants. Things like the Red Scare and the fear of Old World conflicts.

But what interests me is how Teddy Roosevelt was dealing with the Deutsch(German)-American scare during his time. Teddy only threw down reasonable expectations for Deutsch immigrants to abide by. Become American. Learn English.

Well, evidently my Deutsch-American forefathers understood this. While I come from strong German roots, what little Deutsch (German) I know came from a high school class that I took on the subject (most of which I have since forgotten). It seems that the "scary wave" of Germans coming into America was absorbed and became part of the "great melting pot".

My demands on Mexicans coming into America is no less then the demands my own forefathers faced. My demands? They become American. They learn English.

To further sharpen my demands, I will again quote from Teddy:

If I could I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow-citizens of my grandchildren.

Immigration Bill - Dealing With Malcontents

In dealing with the immigration issue, one needs to deal with a plethora of malcontents. The "Grand Compromise" is not enough for them. Everybody had their own ideas about perfection.

In dealing with right wing objections to the "Grand Compromise" I have sought out the opinion of Bill O'Reilly, who I consider to at least be a reasonable right wing kind of guy. At least this man has come up with a plan (which proponents of the "Grand Compromise" have asked for) which is worthy of consideration.

Here I will attempt to take into consideration Bill O'Reilly's "Four Point Plan". I am going to weigh this plan seriously.

Point one:

1) secure the southern border with 700, not 300 miles of barrier, double the border patrol and back them up with 10,000 National Guards people. That would effectively shut down human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

We can put up a fence along all the dry land along the Mexican border and it will only marginally help. Will we then also put up a fence along all the borders of the United States that fall on the seas? Bill wants 10,000 National Guards people to man the fences. My estimation is that this is not going to be enough. Even if the dry land border fences are made impregnable, we will be dealing with enforcing the sea boundaries of our great nation. Who's going to pay for all this manpower? 10,000 National Guards people would be expensive enough, but just how expensive is it going to be to pay National Guards people to survey every inch of our borders?

My answer? Well I am going to get to that. The answer lies in Bill's point number three.

Point two:

2) require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it's a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.

OK, we'll use the post office as a point for registration. However my concerns are about how long the lines will be at the post office! Should the "average citizen" be forced to wait in lines numbering the hundreds of people in order to only buy stamps? But... those registering do need to be pointed to somewhere generally available to register. Since there are post offices in every nook and cranny of our nation, the post office would seem to well serve as this point of registration. However, this special event should not undermine the ability of the post office to conduct business as usual. The post office might need special funding to deal with this one time event and who is going to pay for it?

Point 3:

3) Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn't have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.

OK, now it is time for applause. If we control the demand, the supply will follow this demand. Some things need to be worked out, because I do not believe that anything like a "tamper proof ID card" exists. Even if such a thing existed, it is going to be a hard sell to convince every American citizen they must carry such an ID card (or would only hispanic citizens be required to have this card?). However here is the real meat. Stop the employers from hiring the illegals at substandard wages and you limit the demand. Make it more risky to the bottom line of the businessman (with the possibility of real jail time) and the businessman is going to stop hiring the illegals because it is unprofitable to do it.

Point 4:

4) Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who's helping America and who
isn't.

Come on now! We're going to come up with a new bureaucracy bureaucracy to examine the record of each prospective new citizen? Doesn't the current bureaucracy already serve the purpose