Not too long ago, I heard something strange on the news.  I heard that there was a new-improved GI Bill before Congress...and that Obama supported it...most Republicans supported it...and that Bush and McCain opposed it.

Here's a bill, proposed during a time of record-low recruitment....proposed during a time when we are asking more and more of our troops...and this bill further rewards our soldiers with college assistance, and entices more people to join up because of these rewards...

...and McCain opposed it.  Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), a Vietnam War veteran himself, sponsored the bill...the good news is that it passed overwhelmingly;  McCain wasn't even in Washington for the vote.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. 

John McCain is "Mister Military."  So many people have expressed their desire to vote for him almost solely because of his bravery and heroism as a prisoner of war...and a belief that because he was in the military, he will perhaps have a better sense of how to command our military during wartime.

His excuse was weak: better college incentives would be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers:  "They are very hard to replace. Encouraging people to choose to not become noncommissioned officers would hurt the military and our country very badly."  In other words...after they have fulfilled their service obligations...they'll want to go to college and not go back to war...and that's bad.

A little research showed DOZENS of times that McCain has voted against measures that would DIRECTLY benefit veterans since 1987...here are some details that stand out to me as particularly distasteful:

-McCain Voted Against Increased Funding for Veterans' Health Care. McCain told voters repeatedly that improving veterans' health care was his top domestic priority, HOWEVER, he voted against increasing funding for veterans' health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R.1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)

-McCain Voted At Least 28 Times Against Veterans' Benefits, Including Healthcare. Since 1987, McCain has voted at least 28 times against guarantees of benefits for America's veterans. (2006 Senate Vote 7, 41, 63, 67, 98, 222; 2005 Senate Votes 55, 89, 90, 251, 343; 2004 Senate Votes 40, 48, 145; 2003 Senate Votes 74, 81, 83; 1999 Senate Vote 328; 1998 Senate Vote 175; 1997 Senate Vote 168; 1996 Senate Votes 115, 275; 1995 Senate Votes 76, 226, 466; 1994 Senate Vote 306; 1992 Senate Vote 194; 1991 Senate Vote 259)

-McCain Opposed $500 Million for Counseling Services for Veterans with Mental Disorders. McCain voted against an amendment for counseling, mental health, and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, post-traumatic stress disorder, or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)

-McCain voted Against Establishing a $1 Billion Trust Fund for Military Health Facilities. McCain voted against establishing the fund because he wouldn't support repealing tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)

-McCain voted against requiring mandatory minimum downtime between tours of duty for troops serving in Iraq. (S.Amdt.. 2909 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 341, 9/19/07; S.Amdt. 2012 to S.Amdt. 2011 to HR 1585, Vote 241, 7/11/07)

-McCain voted against a ban on waterboarding.  The bill required the intelligence community to follow the same standards for interrogation as are outlined in the Army Field Manual. (H.R.2082, Vote 22, 2/13/08)

And these are just the items that seem worst to me...he has voted against increasing the funding for Veterans Affairs REPEATEDLY, and he has voted against attempts to stop the outsourcing of VA jobs.

Well...nobody wants to question Senator McCain in his support of the military because they don't want to disrespect his sacrifice and heroism...

...but in light of HIS OWN DISRESPECT for other soldiers I will go as far as to say this:

-I've known a lot of people who were in the armed services.  Having been IN the armed services does not AT ALL qualify you to LEAD the armed services...any more than, say, working for the State automatically qualifies you to be Governor.

-A man who was held prisoner...and tortured...ought to be able to stand firm and say "we will not torture."  McCain used to take this position...I consider his change to support the Bush policy nothing short of BETRAYAL.

-A man who went to war and would deny other soldiers the benefits of proper pay, health care, mental health care, and college benefits, has forgotten the faces of his brothers.

If I seems as if I'm injecting a bit more invective than usual it is because this voting record sickens me...and it makes no sense.  McCain has said for some time now that this race is about character...well, what does this record say about his?  And McCain has been quick to point out that Obama did not serve in the military...

...no, he did not...but he was the one back in the beginning who said we should not put our men and women in harms way needlessly.  Obama did not say that Iraq could be won with a "smaller force" like McCain did...Obama did not say that it would be "fairly easy" as McCain did...Obama did not predict thatn "we're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad" as McCain did...Obama didn't say that when our troops leave Iraq is "not too important" like McCain did...Obama did not suggest our troops in Afganistan should just "muddle through" as McCain did.

Why was McCain so far off on ALL of his assessments?  He thought there was "not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shias. So I think they can probably get along."  How can a man...who does not even know that the Sunnis and Shias have been fighting since THE YEAR 600, around the death of Mohammed...how can he know how to form a strategy for fighting in that region?

IN SHORT:  McCain does not think that knowing the culture and history of the people in the region is important.  McCain makes wild predictions about the time, scope, and costs of conflict...and is wrong about all of them.  McCain does not believe in properly taking care of our troops when they come home.

THEREFORE:  I can ONLY conclude that McCain...is the WRONG man to entrust with OUR military.

Have you heard of the the Fourth Estate?

The term was coined in France during the revolution, before it came into usage here.  Of it, Thomas Carlyle wrote:

"Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters' Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all...Printing, which comes necessarily out of Writing, I say often, is equivalent to Democracy...Whoever can speak, speaking now to the whole nation, becomes a power, a branch of government, with inalienable weight in law-making, in all acts of authority. It matters not what rank he has, what revenues or garnitures. The requisite thing is, that he have a tongue which others will listen to; this and nothing more is requisite. The nation is governed by all that has tongue in the nation: Democracy is virtually there."

In other words...the Fourth Estate, the press, is a vital component of our democracy because it is composed not of men and women of rank or money...but simply men and women with a VOICE.  And with their voice, they can hold the other three branches of government accountable.

So what happened?  Why does today's press seem to SERVE the government.  Why did they lead us down the primrose path to war without asking more questions?  Why do they report to us so little of what our government does?  Why do they simply accept the press releases of the administration and the political parties as the truth?

Once upon a time...journalists were a dedicated bunch.  They had to be because there was lots of competition, they were paid very little...and the only way to distinguish yourself was by getting the "big story"...so they fought very hard to do so.

Now, in the age of the 24-hour news cycle...there are no big stories.  Even the biggest revelation has the lifespan of a fruit fly as it is bombarded out of position by lesser distractions.  As the networks attempt to fill the hours of airtime, the balance shifts from NEWS...to COMMENTARY.  They need people to fill the gaps between the presentation of ACTUAL INFORMATION with as much "opinionated filler" as possible.

And now the news agencies are all owned by large corporations...this gives them money and power...but it means they also have a "business-driven political agenda" to follow.  And since "access is king" they are unlikely to let their staff directly challenge or embarrass an important figure...because they know that it means the next time...their people don't get allowed on the plane.

So what do you and I get to settle for? Watch this clip..but my God, don't watch all of it because it will suck the intelligence right out of you:



That's right...airheads babbling AT LENGTH over whether or not a cover photo of Sarah Palin was retouched enough.  Seriously?  We know so little about Palin the person and Palin's politics...and they are going to waste time taking about her picture on a magazine cover?

That's my point: when you only had a one hour newscast (and couldn't do another one for twenty-four hours)...you picked your five best items and the rest hit the editing room floor.  And you tried to have a five better news stories than the other guys...

...now...we get "banter."  Meanwhile the politicians pass laws that are not in our interest, the Justice Department does things that are illegal, the President abuses the power of his office while co-opting the power of Congress, the Vice-President co-opts some of the President's power, the Supreme Court attempts to redefine the Constitution, and thousands of American boys and girls get blown apart by rocket-propelled grenades because we sent them to the wrong place.

Where is our generation's Walter Cronkite...where is our Edward R. Murrow...where are today's Woodwards and Bernsteins (apologies to Bob Woodward...I know you are still alive and writing, but you've been coasting off of Watergate for years, pal)? 

Without their voices...without the Fourth Estate...there is NO DEMOCRACY.

Here you go...this clip is good for a laugh...or a good SCARE!

Here are some McCain supporters defending their positions...I take it all back:  these people are obviously terrifically informed and not even the least bit bigoted...



But at least they are not alone...lots of people agree with them:



Same ideas...different neighborhoods...

NOTE:  To my GOP-supporting friends, sorry...couldn't resist posting these.  They're too precious.

UPDATE 10.10 1:08 PM -
Here's Part II of the Strongsville, Ohio tape:



Jesus Christ...watch this other clip of McCain supporters.  These people...I just don't know what to say...

Yesterday, I was discussing with an old high school friend (a conservative) all of the heightened "guilt by association" attacks coming out of the election.

We both wrote at length defending our positions before realizing...we actually agree.  Sometimes, it's almost comical:  we get so used to defending ourselves from attack that we don't even realize when we are saying essentially the same thing.  In this case we both agreed that these kind of attacks are insidious...they lack the strength of reason...and they distract from the very real issues we WISH the candidates would talk about.  She made the excellent point that both McCain and Obama serve in a Congress where fellow members were in the KKK...if we judge people by their working relationships...well...let's just say nobody looks very good.

At this point my friend made a comment to the effect that reasonable people can OFTEN agree, regardless of their political views.

Of course...she's right.  That is, if two people are discussing things and they both:
-care about the facts
-admit when they don't know the facts
-exercise sound reasoning/logic
-are willing to concede valid points made by the other person

Kristin...thank you for reminding me of this.

And to prove the point she was making...I have a new conservative hero and his name is George Will.

George Will is one of the most influential writers in America, and he happens to be a staunch conservative.  A Pulitzer Prize winner, he was the Washington editor for the National Review (a "leading conservative journal of ideas and political commentary").  He is now a columnist for Newsweek, has written articles for hundreds of publications, and is frequently a guest commentator on ABC.

He is acclaimed for both his writing...and his intellect.  I may disagree with him often...but I will neither deny his writing skills nor his intelligence.

Why is this man a hero of mine?  Because he is willing to put fact, reason, and truth ahead of blind partisanship...as he did in yesterday's column titled "McCain in a Bear Market."

Some excerpts:

"...the Baltimore Orioles manager was Earl Weaver...[he] would shout at an umpire, "Are you going to get any better or is this it?" With, mercifully, only one debate to go, that is the question about John McCain's campaign."

"In the closing days of his 10-year quest for the presidency, McCain finds it galling that Barack Obama is winning the first serious campaign he has ever run against a Republican...gall was fueling what might be the McCain-Palin campaign's closing argument. It is less that Obama has bad ideas than that Obama is a bad person."

"This, McCain and his female Sancho Panza say, is demonstrated by bad associations Obama had in Chicago...[but the] Obama campaign is benefiting from a mass mailing it is not paying for. Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts...In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seem surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, 'like being savaged by a dead sheep.'"

"[McCain] proposes several hundred billions more for his American Homeownership Resurgence -- you cannot have too many surges -- Plan. Under it, the government would buy mortgages that homeowners cannot -- or perhaps would just rather not -- pay, and replace them with cheaper ones. When he proposed this, conservatives participating in MSNBC's 'dial group' wrenched their dials in a wrist-spraining spasm of disapproval."

Here is the entire column.  My recommendation: all of us, Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative, should focus our efforts towards listening to men and women of reason...because no party or ideology owns the truth.  The truth...just "is."

We should tell the talking heads...the  left and right biased news organizations...the demagogues...that we have no use for their kind anymore. We have no use for people who will defend any action, no matter how unjust, and will defend or make any statement, no matter how untrue, just because of loyalty to party.

All other media distractions aside, McCain's issue-related proposals are out there for all the world to see...

...if the number of lobbyists working on his campaign doesn't tell you that he is more committed to the big corporations than to "Joe Citizen"...well, then the policies on health care and now, mortgages, really should.

McCain's health care plan ONLY....no exaggeration....ONLY seems to benefit the insurance companies.  I wrote yesterday about how the McCain health care plan would:
1)  Fail to provide health care or health care insurance to any more people than already have it
2)  Force most employers to dump the group insurance plans they offer to employees and stop offering insurance as a benefit
3)  Force people to buy it for themselves as individual plans (at a price higher than his "tax cut" would provide)...and these plans will be of less value because they cover fewer things
4)  Cause people with preexisiting conditions to be charged a lot more
5)  Drastically slash Medicare...so don't count on that either

And now we have his mortgage plan which ONLY...and again, no exaggeration...ONLY seems to benefit the banks and mortgage lenders - the very companies that helped get us into this crisis!

When the McCain campaign first put "his" plan, the "American Homeownership ReSURGEnce Plan," up on their website, the plan stated that the government would buy up the bad mortgages and that lenders "must recognize the loss that they've already suffered."  In other words...the mortgages would be bought at THEIR PRESENT VALUE and banks would have to eat the loss...many would say as a penalty for their irresponsible lending.  Not a bad plan...too bad it was initially Hillary Clinton's...then was echoed by Obama...and now McCain is claiming it is "HIS PLAN."

But then...something strange happened.  The McCain's website was updated to read that the mortgages would be bought from the banks at face/original value!  This is a big difference...now the banks actually get REWARDED for giving the bad loans with our TAXPAYER dollars!  When questioned on this, McCain aids dismissed the change as the simple correction of a mistake or typo...said that the way it read before "doesn't reflect the intentions of the initiative."

Well...you don't have to be a finance expert to see what the "intentions of the initiative" must be:  to make sure that the banks are not only bailed out with our money...but that they SUFFER NO LOSSES and even PROFIT from the bailout as well.

In essence...McCain stole the Democratic plan, but when he realized that it helped the homeowners and not the banks...he changed it so it would help the banks and not the homeowners!

I know...both candidates are accusing each other of BEING IN BED WITH WALL STREET.  Well, if some of you don't realize:
-from listening to Phil Gramm (McCain's economic advisor)
-from looking at the list of McCain advisors who are/were lobbyists for Wall Street and other giants
-from the incidents of influence peddling
-from the deregulation policies
-and from these two policies regarding health care and mortgages that MCCAIN is the one in bed with Wall Street...then I'm not sure how to help you see it.

Jesus...if I were McCain, I wouldn't have even mentioned my health care proposal at the debate.  The more everybody looks at this plan, the more it is clear that he should have tried to keep it his dirty little secret.

The highpoint:

-If single you get a $2500 tax credit...if a family, you get $5000.

The lowpoints:

-If your employer provides you with insurance...then now you get taxed on the benefits the same as your income.

-Oh yeah...your employer will get taxed on the premiums they pay to provide you the insurance benefits.  This means a lot of employers...will now be unable to provide the benefits anymore and will be dropping them.  Experts estimate that 20 million people will lose their job-provided benefits.  This is because McCain wants everybody to leave group insurance and buy their own individual plans from the insurers.

-He wants to cut $1.3 trillion dollars off Medicaid along with his cuts to Social Security so those of you already unable to get insurance through your employer (and the 20 million of you that soon won't be able to anymore), or those of you who are retired...well things are going to get a little rough.

-For those who lose insurance:  the $5000 tax break won't be enough to buy it for yourself with the tax cut money because it'll cost about $12,000 for your average family of four.

-If you have a pre-existing condition, and a lot of people do...your costs will be significantly higher under the individual plans.

-And McCain's deregulatory plan for health insurance...that allows people to purchase across state lines?  Well, that is so the all insurance companies can relocate to the states that have the least amount of regulations about what they have to provide to you.  That way you can still be "given the choice" to buy from them...but now their policies will be worth less because they will now only cover the bare minimum they are required to in that State, not what they are required to IN YOUR STATE.

-And LAST BUT NOT LEAST:  McCain's plan would cost $3.6 trillion over 10 years...making it the most expensive of the plans proposed.

Weighing it all together, experts agree that the plan would be very expensive, would have a net result of the same number of people being covered as are already covered today...except everybody's policies would be worth less because they will cover less.

Wasn't part of the idea behind reforming health care to make it better for the consumers, not the insurance companies?  Weren't we also trying to get health insurance to more people?

Like I said at the start...I think along with the economy, foreign affairs, and professional behavior...health care may not be McCain's area of knowledge and skill.

The email and phone systems within the McCain campaign must be down.  Yesterday morning, McCain Aides told Politico.com:

"...going forward, the candidate wouldn't focus on the former domestic terrorist nor invoke the name of Obama's controversial pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

That same morning, McCain aides put out a press release where a man talks about how "Barack Obama's friend William Ayers firebombed my house...Barack Obama's friend tried to kill my family."

That same day, McCain and Palin in an interview with FOX News mentioned Ayers repeatedly and McCain said that the American people should ask Senator Obama for more information about his relationship with Bill Ayers.

That's a new record:  McCain's campaign both took and left the high ground within the same hour.

Their excuse:  "We're calling his character and judgment into question."

Well, like I said, if McCain wishes to play "guilt by association" I believe both he and the Governor of Alaska are making a big mistake.  Let's take a look at how McCain's associations reflect on his character and judgment:

-Charlie Black:  One of McCain's top advisors.  As recently as this year, still a member of his old lobbying firm.  As a lobbyist, represented the brutal, corrupt, and even genocidal dictators of Angola, Somalia, the Phillipines, as well as a number of middle-eastern royalties and companies.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Appears McCain is friends (by association) with genocidal and oppressive third-world dictators.

-Rick Davis, et al:  McCain's Campaign manager, as well as advisors Aquiles Suarez, Charlie Black, John Green, Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., and Wayne Berman ...all former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lobbyists.  And by "former"...I mean Davis was still getting money from them last month.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT:  Appears McCain peddles influence.  Appears McCain is close buddies with the very people who caused the current crisis.

-Randy Sheunemann:  McCain's Top Foreign Policy advisor is a registered lobbyist for Georgia and Taiwan.  Recently, McCain threw our country's military support behind Georgia against Russia (although it was not yet his to give)...and he just told Bush that the aid package to Taiwan is not big enough...it should also contain submarines and F-16's.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Appears McCain peddles influence to friends...again.

-Phil Gramm: McCain's Financial Advisor...lobbies for UBS, the foreign investment firm that just asked Congress to include it in the bailout.  Guess what?  Their wish was granted.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Appears McCain peddles influence to friends...yet again.

-Charles Keating:  Good friend of McCain's and central figure in Keating Five Savings and Loan scandal.  Went to jail for fraud and racketeering, while thousands of families lost all their savings...McCain slapped on the hand for interfering with the regulators going after Keating.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Sigh...it appears McCain peddles influence to friends...again and again and again.

-John Hagee:  Endorsed McCain, and appeared at several campaign appearances arm-in-arm with McCain.  Known for preaching anti-semitic, racist, anti-gay, and anti-catholic hate speech.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Appears McCain is good friends with hate groups.  All of them.  Anti-semites....racists....homophobes....anti-catholics...all of them.

-Anthony Bouscaren:  Served with John McCain on the U. S. Council for World Freedom for several years.  Member of the Pioneer Fund: a eugenics group focused on white supremacy.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: And again it appears McCain is openly friends with hate groups.

-Jay Parker:  Also served with John McCain on the U. S. Council for World Freedom for several years.  Registered foreign agent for the Aparteid government of South Africa.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT:  Wow...it appears McCain found a way to combine his love of hate groups with his love of oppressive regimes...he supports an oppressive regime that is based on white superiority.

-Oregon Citizens Alliance:  McCain attended their fundraiser in 1993 despite warnings from other Republican senators and his own staff who called it a "ticket from hell."  The Alliance is a fervent anti-gay hate group.  McCain attended the fundraiser and sat next to Marilyn Shannon (see next item).  It was reported by an Arizona paper as "Hate Group Finds Friend in McCain."
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Appears McCain found a nice public forum to show his interest in group hating.

-Marilyn Shannon:  Sat next to and introduced McCain at the Oregon Citizens Alliance fundraiser...the GOP delegate for Bush...now GOP delegate for McCain.  When introducing McCain, praised a woman who was a part of a group that planned the bombing of abortion clinics, and who shot a doctor who performed abortions.  Shannon offered a prayer for the shooter and called her "a fine lady" for shooting the former Navy flight surgeon.  The judge in the woman's trial declared "you are a terrorist."  McCain has said and done nothing to distance himself from Shannon or her support of terrorism.
CHARACTER AND JUDGMENT: Is this the TRIFECTA?  It appears that John McCain supports hate groups, terrorism...if we could only get influence peddling in there...oh wait, the same year he killed a bill to defend abortion clinics against terrorist attacks...that's the TRIFECTA!

I'll say this:  McCain has opened up a terrible Pandora's box.  His insistence on attacking Obama regarding a tenuous association with a reformed terrorist has INVITED all of McCain's opposition and the media to start playing the "well, what are McCain's questionable associations" game...

...by lowering the standard of the discourse he didn't just lower the standard for criticism of Obama, but he also lowered the standard for criticizing HIM.  So don't ask me to PROVE how close McCain is to these men and women...McCain and Palin feel no need to PROVE that Ayers and Obama are friends (no proof has EVER been given) and McCain and Palin  feel no need to PROVE that Obama ever attended one of Wright's anti-American sermons (nope...no proof has ever been provided). 

This is McCain's "game"...and these are McCain's "rules"...and they'll quit being used against him when he takes his campaign back to the high ground.  Which he WILL NOT do...I'm not sure he knows where the high ground is....he doesn't have the CHARACTER and JUDGMENT.

Researchers have long wondered where to look for the source of people's political convictions.

It usually starts with a nature vs. nurture debate...as many arguments seem to do.

There aren't many that would argue that it is "nature:"  that there is some inherent biological basis for people's relative conservatism or liberalism.  However, I did read an interesting article recently...which actually did suggest a connection on an "instinctual level."  Participants in a study were connected to a machine that measured their perspiration...then show a series of images.  Occasionally the image would be of something that provokes an instinctual fight/flight response...like a picture of a snake, spider, or maggots.  What they found:

"greater sensitivity to the images was linked to more fervent support for a conservative agenda—including opposition to immigration, gun control, gay marriage, abortion rights and pacifism, and support for military spending, warrantless searches, the IraqWar, school prayer and the truth of the Bible."

In other words...the more easily scared you are...the more likely you are to be a conservative.  While the idea makes me grin, especially given the conservative penchant for fearmongering and xenophobia, it is pretty hard to take the study seriously.

The people in the "nurture" camp like to point at demographic data, like household income and race to paint a picture that a person's childhood environment shapes their political leanings.  One interesting statistic in support of this involves the Weekly Reader school publication.  The Weekly Reader poll of children from kindergarten through high school has accurately predicted the election winner 12 out of the last thirteen times.  This makes sense...children would likely echo their parent's choices for president that they have overheard in household conversations.  They are also likely to (at least initially) adopt their parents' attitudes about a number of key issues.

But I still don't think this fully accounts for people's, often fanatical, support for their political views.

What do I think does account for the fervor?  Imagination...

I argue that American liberalism is for those who can imagine having the lives of others...conservatism is for those who cannot.

Have you ever noticed that a conservative's attitude towards anyone foreign or different than them racial, ethnically, socioeconomically, or politically is generally one of distrust and even open contempt?

EXAMPLES:
-"If THOSE PEOPLE want to work in this country they should come legally...otherwise they don't deserve any rights...any education...any health care."

-"If THOSE PEOPLE want health care, they should get a job that has health insurance!"

-"If THOSE PEOPLE want a better job, they should have gone to college!"

-"If THOSE PEOPLE want to get off the streets they need to put down the bottle and stop being so lazy!"

I say these conservatives are able to hold onto these views...because they so unrealistically believe "that couldn't have been me," or "that can't be me."  They are healthy, earning, and their lives are good...and they truly can't imagine their lives being otherwise.

But think about this:  If you make more than $2 dollars a day...congratulations- you are wealthier than 60% of the world.  Why are you so lucky?  Well, number one...you were born in the United States.  You don't really get to take credit for that...sorry.  Oh, and if your parents made pretty good money (again, just $2 a day puts you ahead of a lot of people)...well you don't get to take credit for that either.  If you were raised in a home that your parents provided that had heating and cooling, televisions, running water...all studies show that it made a big difference in your childhood development and the opportunities available to you...but you don't get to take credit for it.  If your family had a car...a computer...bought you books...if your parents themselves were educated...any of these things made a big difference in your development and your chances for success and...

...well, you don't get to take credit for one damn bit of it.  These things just fall into the category of "things your lucky ass was born into."  Had you been born anywhere else, and to anyone else...especially any of the 60% getting by on $2 a day...or who perhaps live in any other country (since we are the ONLY country that guarantees public education to EVERYONE)...well let's just say your chances of schooling (much less advanced schooling) just went right out the window.

What?  You just think it is in other countries?  35 million live below the poverty line here in America...and millions of others are just above it....that includes 13 million children. 13 million children that could have been....you!   If you had an imagination...you might be able to imagine being one of them.

But if you can't imagine a different past...how about a different future?

What would you do if you lost your income?

What?  Think it can't happen?  Well, I know you don't want to admit this, but people just like you lose their income every day.  They get laid off...or they have a disabling accident and they can't work...or maybe they just have a bad illness...

...sometimes they can't find another job right away?  How long would your savings hold out?  What would you do for medical insurance?

What if I said you can't go to mommy, daddy, or other family and friends for assistance?  See some people don't have a mommy or daddy to go to. 

The medicaid rolls are full of people who said, "I don't need public health insurance...I get it through my job."  The unemployment rolls are full of people who said, "If I lost my job, I'd just find another one."  The family assistance and food stamps rolls are full of people who criticized others for "being lazy and having babies for money" or who said "I wouldn't have more children than I can pay for."  FEMA has handed out billions of dollars to people who said "I'll be ok...I have home insurance."

Do you see what I'm saying yet:  the "everyone has to carry their own weight" and "survival of the fittest" idea looks good on paper until you are the one who needs a hand up...then suddenly you are looking for volunteers and a few tax dollars so you can "get back on your feet."

I see my responsibility for other people's general welfare as an extension of my hope that they will show some responsibility for mine.  I am my brother's keeper...because I am smart enough, and IMAGINATIVE enough to realize that if not for a quirk of fate, his life could have been mine...

...and I can IMAGINE how wonderful of a country this could be if we all worried a little bit less about what everybody has "earned" and a little bit more about what they decently "deserve." 

And if you looked hard enough and honest enough at your life...you'd see much of it wasn't "earned" at all...it was a gift.

I've said it many times recently...this series of "guilt by association" attacks that McCain and Palin are pursuing is DESTINED to backfire...



Yeesh...I didn't even realize that the Alaskan Independence Party was THIS scary or that Palin was THAT supportive of them.

Seriously...all partisanship aside...these people are scary, it is scary that her husband was one of them, and it's scary that she thought they were just "super-dooper."

Most of us do not wholly trust the polls we see on TV...unless, oddly enough, they agree with us.  Sometimes I think that desire to be a part of the majority is so innate, so strong, that we will accept any results that show that we are, indeed in agreement with most people...because the alternative is just too upsetting.

Another reason for distrust...anyone who has studied statistics knows that it is JUST TOO EASY to lie with them.  A favorite example of mine:  lets say that a study says that on average, people own 20 televisions.  Sounds unrealistic, right?  But what if they only surveyed two people and one of them had one TV and the other had thirty-nine?  In that case, their statistic is mathematically "true" but obviously misleading.

Or it could be that they used one of the THREE DIFFERENT definitions of average: mean, median, or mode.  Let's say the numbers we're using are: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 20, 22, 24, 25, 25, 25, 26, 26, 26,  and 28.  If they used the "mean" (what we usually think of) then they added all the values together and divided by the number of people surveyed....the average would be about 13.  If they used the "median"...then that just means the middle value.  So the average would be 20.  And the "mode" is the number repeated most...and the average would be 1.  How can the average be 1, 13, and 20?  Welcome to "how to lie with statistics"....

The reason I bring this up...I haven't been buying the polls they've been feeding us since this election started.  Since we began, they have been telling us that Obama and McCain are "neck and neck."  The first reason I didn't accept this, is because it is simply too convenient for the media to have a close race.  It is much harder to sensationalize and market an election that is not even close.  Secondly...McCain's just not that great of a candidate, and early on I detected a lot of Republican apathy mixed in with everyone else's contempt for the current administration.  Many of my Republican friends think he is an incredibly weak choice and don't even plan on voting....some are even supporting Obama!

Well, today the picture became a bit clearer:  a pollster admitted to George Stephanopoulos that there are at least three major things they can't seem to measure:

-The number of young people who will vote.  Even when all stirred up...they often stay home.  Will they this time?

-The number of african-american people who will vote.  There is a belief that a lot of african-americans will vote for the very first time...but there's no way to know for certain exactly how many of the newly registered voters will actually go to the polls.

-The number of people who are just plain racist.  Polls tend not to reveal who is not going to vote for Obama just because he is black.  A lot of these people may claim to be undecided...most don't want to admit that they are racist to a pollster.

Wow...do you think those numbers, whatever they wind up being, will make a difference?  Any ONE of those three groups being much higher or lower than expected could change the whole ballgame.

To add to this...more and more people (especially younger people) are in what are called "cell-phone only" homes...and therefore they don't get called by the pollsters at all.  And there's also the people who don't have phone service at all or whose service is cut off...there obviously no way to measure their potential votes.

Let's face it...the news media love to throw numbers on the screen, and it seems like every year they have more wonderful, colorful, animated charts...and I swear some of them are just a little bit TOO into their new touchscreen displays...but that doesn't mean every number they show us ACTUALLY MEANS ANYTHING.  Some of the data represents curious but irrelevant statistics, and I believe some of it constitutes nothing less than election tampering:

EXAMPLE...the news announces a candidate is behind in the numbers and so all his or her supporters run to the polls while the other candidate's supporters stay home thinking their vote isn't needed.

In reality...they're guessing.  That's right - these are guesses, based on models (sometimes bad ones)...it's speculation based on historical data combined with a lot of assumptions...and then a little showmanship thrown in to heighten the suspense.

Me?  I'll wait until election day...the numbers I care about: counted votes in locked boxes (or databases depending on your district).