Obama's Speech on Racism - part 3

This is probably my last post on this speech. The first post basically summarized the speech. The second post commented on the first part of the speech (on racism). This part will focus on the last part of the speech, where Obama transitions.

It's important to note that I think Obama is highly intelligent and I noticed him at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He's a man with a future, but I am suprised that he as risen to this level this fast.

Obama's speech talked in great detail on Racism. But the actual speech was titled "A More Perfect Union". Many in the press thought this would be his speech to defend Rev. Wright or to distance himself. He did talk about Rev. Wright and to some small degree both defended him and distanced himself. But I believe that this all set the stage for what Obama sees as the way to form "A More Perfect Union."

Roughly 4500 words into his speech, Obama transitions. He says "we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division..." Then he points out "if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction." I agree. Racism and Rev. Wright are a distraction. Focusing on these issues (and others like them) take the focus off the real problems in our nation. Obama (and I) has a better idea "we can come together and say, 'Not this time.'"

So what does Obama think we should focus on? Here's where my opinion and the Senator's diverge. Obama lists 1) "crumbling schools that are stealing the future of (all) children" first. Then he talks about 2) health care, 3) the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life (and offshoring) and 4) "how to bring (soliders) home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged."

Here's my differences: 1) Schools should not be federally run. Nothing in the constitution says that every one has a right to education. Leave the schools up to the states and local authorities. Get the federal government out.

2) Health care is an issue, but more of an economic issue. I've talked about my view on healthcare in another blog post (see it here)

3) Job protection (shuttered mills) and offshoring - Obama doesn't say what he will do here. I haven't studied enough of his platform to figure it out. I see the economy as a second tier issue, my comments are here.

4) Obama says the war in Iraq should not have been waged and we should bring the soldiers home. I disagree on both parts. We (including the UN) told Iraq and the world NUMEROUS times that they should comply with certain resolutions and they did not. We looked like the bully who drew a line in the sand, but backed down when the other guy crossed it. Hussein was a ruthles dictator who ground people up in meat grinders. He wiped out most of the Kurds and let his own people die will he lined his pockets. We watched as other countries skirted the economic blockades and profited at our expense. My only complaint is that we waited too long. Actions should have been taken sooner.

As for withdrawing the troops, if we do that now, Iraq will crumble. We have a moral obligation to protect the people and to help rebuild. We did this in Japan and Germany after WWII. It will not be over soon. There have been problems in the way this has been handled, but we shouldn't penalize the Iraqi people because of our cowardice.

5) Nowhere in Obama's speech does he talk about National Security. I believe this should be the #1 issue in 2008 and beyond. He ignores terrorism and in other speeches says we should sit down with known terrorist leaders.

While Obama only spent about 400 words on what it takes to form "A More Perfect Union", I believe this represents his ideas. While he wants to move the focus off of racism, he wants to move to the wrong items. And the way he focuses on those items is wrong.

Oregon man says he's pregnant

Ok, most of you will just find this repulsive. Yes, you read the title right. Seems a man in Oregon is now (at least) 22 weeks pregnant. How did this happen? Well, it turns out the man is "transgendered" - that is he started out as a female. Somewhere along the way he decided to change sides, now he's considered a man. But he kept his female parts (I don't know or even want to know about male parts). I was going to post a link to the story, but even thinking about it is upsetting my breakfast. If you want to read more, do a search on "oregon man pregnant".

So, why would I blog about this? Well, first I'm avoiding writing my final note about Obama's racism speech. Procrastination may not solve anything, but at least it puts things off. And a second reason, is that I have a couple of good jokes about it.

Some folks have commented that they think I'm pregnant. Looking at my "bulge" (it's actually beyond a bulge), they will ask about it. I simply rub my protruding belly and say that I'm due in February (this works best in the fall). In fact, I still have a button that says "I'm due in February", so I can say this with confidence.

Then I tell the questioner my favorite story, that I've never seen an EPT test come back negative. My wife tried those things three times, they always showed positive. They've come a long way since 1984, when I first saw one. We studied that thing carefully for 10 minutes. At the proper "end time", the circle showed, but then was gone within a few more minutes. Our joy was tempered with fear that we had read it wrong, but soon enough, the doctor confirmed out happiness.

By the third time we needed an EPT, the test had gotten much easier and cheaper. My wife bought a double set, so she could try it a second time just in case. The testing was much quicker and much more clear, so there was no doubt and no reason to use the second test. I told her that I wanted to try it. I had never seen one negative and we had an extra one, so why not? Instead of allowing me to try it, she threw it away. (I've been told by others that they have seen these show negative and I've learned that this is not funny to certain women - use with caution).

My final joke about pregnancy is to tell soon-to-be mom's that childbirth is no big deal. I've been through it three times with no pain reliever at all, and I came through ok. I did take a little time off, but I went back to work in about a week and had no problems. (Typically, I make sure I'm more than an arm's length away before I say this).

Note to any female offended by these comments: Someday, I will post a blog about how I've worked with a few couples who couldn't conceive and I understand their pain.

Troublesome info

On a lark, I did a search on judicial records on an old friend of mine. The last time I heard from him was about 15 years ago, so I looked in the county he lived in then.

During high school we were best friends. Read that drinking buddies. I'm embarrassed to admit it, but we drank a lot. Mostly while driving around. He dropped out of high school and I went to college. He went back and got his GED. I attended his graduation, his mother, father and step-father didn't (his father lived a couple of states away).

He dated a girl I knew. He told me once he wanted to break up because all she did wanted to do was smoke marijuana. When he was 20, my dad took him to get his driver's license, his own folks wouldn't do that (not sure how insurance worked then).

Not long after that, he and his girlfriend were cruising around in separate cars when she flipped hers. Together they headed for Georgia and got married (she was to young to marry in SC without parent's permission). They were gone for a week or two, then came home and had a church wedding. I don't know how long they were together, but it seems like only a year or two.

When I last talked to him, he was drunk or high. He had a new wife and lived in a trailer park.

Fast forward to today. I found 15 different arrests over the last 15 years. Domestic violence (3times), DUI (3 times), Driving with suspended license (9 times) and a fewother miscellaneous offenses were scattered through the years (mostly DUI & DUS for last 10 years).

Also, it looks like as of two years ago, he lived within 10 miles of me. I'm not sure if he's still there or not. I'm not sure if I want to know. I've always felt like if I had stayed close to him that either he would have straightened out or I would have ended up like him.

Obama's Speech on Racism - part 2

Earlier this week, I posted a synopsis of Obama's speech on racism. I also drew analogies to Dan Quayle's speech on Murphy Brown. What a strange combination, but go read my post if you question in. (I did take a pot-shot at Al Gore - no apologies).

Today, I want to comment on the first half of Sen. Obama's speech (the second half transitioned to other politics) which was purely about racisim.

Basically, I agree with everything Obama said in this part of his speech. The senator for Illinois is very articulate and obviously educated. He made good reference to our Constitution and the way it was formed. He also realized that government may be able to end slavery, but it can't end prejudice.

Most impressive to me, is the fact that Obama doesn't believe everyone who utters a racial slur is in fact a racist. Obama talks about his own white grandmother who expressed fear of blacks and made comments that today are considered unacceptable. But from his tone, he still loves his grandmother, despite her prejudices.

I also support Obama's directions to help resolve some of the problems. He talks about the responsibilities of parenthood and the need for personal responsibility. He talks about about black & white getting along and realizing that racism is real, but not necessarily the source of every problem. And he talks about racism being a distraction to solving real problems.

I can find nothing wrong with anything Sen. Obama said about racism. He accepts responsibility himself and makes it personal. He challenges you and me. He also admits that government (or "parchment") is not the way to solve every problem.

I'll talk more about the other parts in his speech in another post.

Obama's speech on racism

Warning: This entry could surprise my friends on both sides of the political aisle.

If you're like me, you heard tons about Obama's speech on racism. I've heard nothing positive about it. I listen mostly to conservative talk radio and no one expects them to say anything good about Obama. I also listen to the big networks and they had nothing positive to say either. Years ago I tried listening to liberal talk radio and I just couldn't stomach it.

In 1992, Dan Quayle made his famous Murphy Brown speech. This was when Al Gore was still inventing the internet, so I depended on the main-stream media to read the real speech. By the time it came out, most political candidates had changed their tune and were supporting Quayle's ideas, if not his speech. What a turn-around!

I learned from that experience to go to the source. So today, I took time to read Obama's speech. You can find it here. To my surprise, I found very little in Obama's words with which I disagree.

Sen. Obama's speech included lots of words about Rev. Wright, but that was no more the topic than was Quayle's speech about a TV character back in 1992 (it was about a poverty of values, including absent fathers - which Obama mentioned also). Rather, Obama was talking for the first half of the speech about racism in America. I thought he did a good job expaining the situation. Yes, he spent time defending his views on Wright, but that's not all the speech is about.

At this point, I should indentify myself as a white American. Born and raised in the south and proud of it. I have looked back for about 4 generations and all of these ancestors were raised in the south. I don't know if any ever owned slaves, but I know some fought in the civil war (and not for the north). I do know that some of my relatives have harbored racist feelings and for that I am not proud. I'll also apologize to anyone offended by the term "black". I'll use that in this entry: it's what Obama used in his speech and it's shorter than "African American". I should also point out that I will assume that his speech matches the way Obama feels. I have no doubt that he has speech writers who wrote good portions of the speech, but he gets all the credit and all the blame.

Obama's speech was very well written and shows a good bit of intelligence. Four years ago, I realized that this man was going to be somebody. Starting with a quotation from the Constitution and tracing slavery through the halls of the Philadelphia convention, Obama spoke without malice about the process and the realization that "words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage."

Senator Obama gets it. Neither then, nor now, can "words on parchment" solve the problem. He also gets it that racism cuts both ways. He talks about "white racism" and "divisive comments" by Wright.

Then he transitions his speech. "Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze"
In other words, both black and white racism distract us from the real problems. I agree 100%. He says that "to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding." In all, I think he spoke more about reverse racism (anti-white) than he did about racism (anti-black). I haven't counted words and think that that too would "block the path to understanding."

What are the real problems? Obama sites these items: 1) Big Business, 2) Washington politics and 3) economic policies that favor the few over the many.

He identifies some specific actions for blacks: 1) embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past, 2) continuing to insist on justice and 3) binding our particular grievances to the larger aspirations of all Americans. This is also where he talks about absent fathers (where's Quayle when you need him?).

He identifies some specific actions for whites: acknowledge that racism is real with both words and deeds (investing in schools and communities, enforcing civil rights laws, providing "ladders of opportunities).

Then he transitions again by asking us not to focus on racism. Instead he wants us to focus on education, on health care, jobs (and offshoring) and bringing the troops home "from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged".

He also mentioned that Wright sees "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily (with) ... allies like Israel, instead of (starting with ) radical Islam."

So, that's a condensation of Obama's speech, I'll explore my comments on it in a couple of days. I'd be interested in your comments. I'd be especially interested in any comments on the comparisons between Obama and Quayle.

God Must be Busy

Ok, this song has been bothering me. And the title will certain bother others as well. I really like Brooks & Dunn. There song "I believe" is just awesome. But this one seemed a little different. My step-daughter breezed into town last night and shared the same feelings. So, I put on my super-researcher cape and hood, and began banging away at the keyboard to get to the root of it all.

First I found the lyrics (look here). I found a nugget of hope, right in the middle. See, the song is about a lot of bad things happening: The war in the mid-East, a single mom laid off, a twister, an amber alert. Just turn on the news and you'll get the feeling. And everywhere, people are praying to God for an answer. But God must be busy.

Then right there in the middle of the song, "They found that little girl. She was soaking wet,half scared to death on the side of some road." This left me with hope. Hope for the little girl (who probably isn't real, but still stirred my heart) and hope for the song. The next line said "Them prayers work, you know."

More searching turned up this blog post. Chi-Rho does an excellent job of explaining free will. There are good comments about doubt in the song. Not doubt on God's existence, but doubt that He is really going to help us. Another song says "God is watching us, from a distance" (research for another day). Is that the way it is?

But that nugget of gold, right in the middle says they found the girl. Such a little girl, only one family was concerned. They (like me) were just "a speck of sand" and "God's got better things to do than look out for one" family. But God listened. And God answered their prayer.

I immediately thought of one of my favorite verses, Mark 9:24 "Lord, I believe; Help my unbelief!" Notice the pause in there.

In my darkest times, I've cried out just like the man mentioned by Mark. Just like the people in the song. Just like Chi-Rho and Jim (whose blog I found this morning and I must add to my favorites). I know God hears my every prayer and answers. I know this. The next time I don't get an answer immediately, I'll just simply shrug my shoulders and say "God must be busy" with the assurance that He will get to me. In His time.

P.S. You know, with all the stuff going on in the world, He MUST be busy. Aren't you glad He's not TOO busy?

I want a do-over

Seems that a man in Australia wants a do-over. Ian Usher is putting his entire life up for auction on E-bay. The lucky winner will get his house and all it's contents, his car, his motorcycle, jet ski and parachuting gear.

The winner will also get Ian's friends and job: He's promised to introduce the buyer to his friends (after that it's up to them) and his employer has agreed to give the buyer a chance at his job (two week trial period, followed by three months, then permanent if it all works out).

Seems Ian had a bad break-up with his wife of five years and his life is just full of bad memories. Not sure how those get sold on E-bay, but he's expecting to get around $390,000 for the package. He hopes to head out of his house with his wallet and passport and board the next plane with an available seat and head off into the sunset (or sunrise depending on the time of day and direction).

I've always promised my kids that my house could be a "city of refuge" for them, but this is tempting. I posted a while back that I had desires to go off and become a hermit, but this is even more dramatic. Looking back and my blog posts, I've even posted that desire twice, two years apart, so it's not a new desire. And Drew Peterson is convinced that's what happened to his wife and there are books that tell you how to do it. It seems to me that the e-Bay way is a good one.

Global Warming - Let's sue Al Gore

I have to admit, I have doubts about global warming. Oh no, now I've offended everyone. My liberal friends will desert me saying that it's obvious, science have proved it, etc. And my conservative friends will likely desert me saying I've abandoned their cause.

But it seems John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has no doubt that Global Warming is a farce. And he's frustrated he can't get any traction in the main stream media. His answer? File a lawsuit in court, alleging fraud by the former vice president for selling carbon credits (read the full article here). Coleman says he's "confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

"As you look at the atmosphere over the last 25 years, there's been perhaps a degree of warming, perhaps probably a whole lot less than that, and the last year has been so cold that that's been erased," he said.

Wait - did he say that last year has been cold? Was this on the news? Did I miss that?

"I think if we continue the cooling trend a couple of more years, the general public will at last begin to realize that they've been scammed on this global-warming thing."

Let's hope so.

Coleman has long been a skeptic of global warming, and carbon dioxide is the linchpin to his argument. The compound carbon dioxide makes up only 38 out of every 100,000 particles in the atmosphere, he said. This is about double what it was before we started burning fossil fuels. It's gone up, but it's still a tiny compound. How can that tiny trace compound have such a significant effect on temperature?

I agree with Coleman. Let's get both sides together for a debate. As my Daddy used to say, let's get all the liars into one room and let them fight it out.

Noah got plastered

Did you know that Noah got drunk? They guy who built the ark and took the animals on the ark, got plastered. Three sheets to the wind. Let me give some background and then explain why I think he got drunk and why it's important.

You may remember the story about Noah. God told him to built a boat and take some animals on board. I always thought he spent 40 days in the boat, someone recently pointed out it was longer. I looked this morning, and if I did the math right, it was much longer. 7 days on the boat before the rain, then 40 days of rain and floods. 150 days after that and he the waters began to go down. 40 more days, theny 7 days and then 7 more days. If I got it all right (which is questionable) that's 211 days or about 7 months. (Exodus 6-8)

Noah was 600 years old when the flood happened. That's old. He took his family on the boat, wife & sons (presumably daughters too). Then he lived another 350 years and was a farmer. Seems he enjoyed his own product a little too much, he drank his wine and got naked and passed out (Ex 9:20). His youngest son (Ham) saw him naked and went snickering to his older brothers (Shem and Japheth). They were sutiably embarrassed for their father, so they walked into his tent carrying a cover. They even walked in backwards, so they wouldn't see their naked father laying there. The next morning, Noah woke up and extended a curse to the younger son and blessings on the older sons.

Why did Noah get drunk? Here is a man of God, listed in the roll call of the saints (Heb 11:7). As the song says, "Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord." I believe that Noah was lonely. He was an old man and there's no mention of his wife at this point. He'd been working in the fields, was tired and went to his tent all alone. His sons had their wives, Noah had no one. So he started drinking a little of his home made wine, probably kicked back to watch a little TV and before he knew it, he had passed out.

Why is this important? Well, if Noah can do embarrassing things, any of us can. My mother is 80 and sometimes she still embarrasses me. Things just happen. But she's still my mother and I love her. I have to follow Shem and Japheth's example and when things happen, I have to help cover for my mother, not walk around snickering like some Ham.

As I type all of this, I can't help but wonder, where were Curly and Moe in this escapade?

(Sorry if some of this seems blasphemous. It's just my weird sense of humor - or lack of)

Foreclosure relief

Back on January 28, I asked the question "When is a rebate, not a rebate?"

Now I ask about foreclosure relief. Seems there are two types of people who are being foreclosed on, first the man (or woman) who simply can't afford his (or her) house. Maybe he had some credit problems when he mortgaged the house and had to settle for a so-called subprime loan (I hate that term). Now the payments are going up. Or maybe some other bad luck has hitten, he's maxed out the credit cards, lost a job or other ways pinched. Bottom line, he can't afford the payments.

The second type of foreclosure is the person who looked for bargains, bought homes on the margin, with little or no money down. Now that home prices are falling, he owes more on the house than it's worth and the prices are likely to never (or at least not soon) go back up. His investment has lost money and he is looking to get out. He's decided to stop throwing more money at it and he will just let the house go to foreclosure.

Government is talking about some sort of foreclosure relief. In the short term, the banks are offering extensions before they enter the foreclosure process. This isn't really an extension, without this if a consumer contacted his bank he would already get extensions. Banks don't want to foreclose, they have enough houses and look at it as a lose-lose proposition. If they do foreclose, they lose money because they can't sell the house.

The short term solution is good because (hopefully) it will make some consumers wake up. They can re-negotiate their mortgage and possibly keep a house they might would lose. Sure it's a stop-gap, but it will help some.

Longer term, there are calls for banks to "forgive" parts of mortgages. I think this is a bad idea. If a house is now worth less than the mortgage, the bank "forgives" the execess mortgage amount. This rewards buyers who put little down or used bad mortgages. It also invalidates a contract. The buyer signed a contract to pay a certain dollar amount, now he's backing out. If the government forces banks to accept these contract changes, the banks lose and will likely not lend money as quickly in the future.

This mess was created over a period of several years, it will take several years to get out of it. Just because this is an election year doesn't mean an action has to be taken. Some people will lose homes, some people will not be eligible for loans. Some young couple who wants a home will be turned down and they didn't do anything wrong. It's just that now they look like a credit risk.

I encourage the government not to do anything to adjust mortages. I also encourage banks and other financial institutions to look carefully at future customers. Any who walked away from a house should be treated like the risk they are. Those who took out bad mortgages should also be treated as a risk.

Quote of the day

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

Will Rogers

I approved this message - Final message

Ok, I've outlined the various parts of my platform (if I were truly running for president), now it's time for me to endorse one of the actual candidates. At this point, there are basically only three candidates left in the race (Clinton, McCain and Obama).

This will also (hopefully) be my last post about politics for a while, I really don't like talking about it. Only when I get fired up about an event or feel the need to think "out loud" like I've been doing in this thread. Please feel free to go back and comment on any specific entries or on this entry if you have opinions that you wish to share with me.

If you read my platform planks my choice should be pretty obvious. I've said that the number one priority of the new president should be on National Defense, in particular, the Global War on Terror. I also believe we have an obligation to finish the job we started in Iraq. That's whether you believe we should have gone in there or not. This is followed closely by my focus on foreign affairs. I outlined which countries we should work with and which ones we should work on.

This tied closely to the third item on my list: isolationism, a policy I'm firmly against. I take this a step further and believe we must, from time to time, flex our muscle in the matters of other nations.

My fourth priority is the economy. Then there's the issue of healthcare, before I go into everything else that's left. I fully confess to not having all the solutions, but since I outlined priorities, the first three items get most of the attention.

Most of the republican candidates could have gotten my vote. Duncan Hunter kinda scared me with his too-strong opinion on defense. Ron Paul seems to advocate isolationism. I admit I haven't paid much attention to either of them. Mitt Romney's religion doesn't bother me and while I haven't paid much attention to Mike Huckaby, from what I know he could do the job well.

I only know a little about three of the Democratic contenders: Edwards is out of the race and it's non-too-early. His anti-big-business ideas stem from being a trial lawyer and I think he could really mess up the economy. I've never had the opinion he understood anything else at all. I have to give Obama credit for documenting his ideas. I've visited his website and I've read some of his plans for America. He honestly scares me with his ideas of sitting down with leaders of nefarious countries. He also will get us out of Iraq too quickly and cause a bigger mess than we started with.

Clinton scares me the least of the Democrats. She's intelligent enough to know that you have to compromise and even the "vast right-wing conspiracy" can make her see the light, given enough time. I do think she could enact enough well-thought-out-but-dangerous policies in the first 100 days to cause a lot of problems.

Based on all of this, my vote this fall will be going to McCain.

I should note that this is the first time in my life where I formally said who I was voting for. I typically keep my vote secret, even from family members. Hopefully, I won't regret this departure from the norm.

I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

Youth at church

Please pray for the youth at our church. One of the members of the youth was killed in a pedestrian vs. auto accident last night and it is going to hit the group very hard. The young man involved was my son's best friend. He's made some bad decisions lately, but has been trying to put his life back together. As my son said, "he wasn't even doing anything wrong."

I have met this young man several times and he definitely was a good kid with a lot of potential. Only God knows his heart, but I think he was a Christian. Yes, he let some bad influences into his life, I do too (it's called sin). But he was very polite and really seemed to care about people. He had a tremendous impact on a lot of other youth.

Universal HealtCare - I approved this message part 4.5

I've numbered this message part 4.5 because it comes somewhere between part 4 (the economy) and part 5 (education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits). My regular readers will remember that I'm outlining the policies I would follow if I were elected president. I should point out that not all presidential candidates do this. To my knowledge, only one of the current candidates has done this. Barack Obama has a book that describes his ideas. He also has extensive information on his website. He's accused of giving on lofty ideas in his campaign speeches. It's hard to tell from the sound bites if that's true, but I don't fault him for that. I think he's giving the public what they want, and doing a very good job of it.

Sen. Clinton has also written a book, and I presume it says something about what she would do as president. I don't think McCain has a book and I haven't checked either website.

But back to my platform, and this time it's on healthcare. Originally, I had grouped this in item #5 because I simply didn't think it needed much attention. However, more thought has led me to flip-flops, or at least partially. Let me explain some basic facts.

I know of 2 or 3 situations where someone has gone to the hospital without medical coverage. In one case, bills totaled over $200,00, probably closer to $500,00 when all was complete. In another situation, the person could have gone to a doctor or a doc-in-a-box, but instead went to the ER. They left without paying and count on the state tax refund to pay the bill (the hospital can garnish the state refund). Currently, a hospital must treat someone who can't afford it, and the state pays it. If they can get the money back later, they will try, otherwise the taxpayer foots the bill.

For those of marginal income, but who try to pay their bills, medical care can wipe out their chances for advancement. Costs are out of hand. I had back surgery two years ago, it cost over $20,000 for one night in the hospital. I didn't even see the doctor after the surgery before discharge.

Normally, I'd say this isn't a federal problem, but the states can't handle it and private industry has no incentive. The system has come to the point where we can do more medical care than we can afford. As the baby boom generation ages, this will only get worse.

To begin with, I firmly believe additional competition is required. Ratings for insurance, hospitals and doctors should be established so that the patient can determine the best choices. Rather than create a new agency, the AMA should govern the doctors and hospitals. There is no comparable agency or group for insurance, one will (reluctantly) have to be created.

Insurance should be just that, insurance. Elective surgery or anticpated hospital requirements should not be covered. (Take a deep breath here). That means normal pregnancies should not be covered. Instead families should pay for their own delivery. This will have to be phased in over time as the current cost is way to high. I would appoint a team of doctors and insurance-minded people to determine how to implement this (that means I have no idea).

Something has to be done to reign in the cost of medicines. I am a big believer in profits and I understand the amount of research that goes into creating a new medicine, but the number of medical sales people and the perks they give out goes way too far.

Obviously, I'm short on details. But let me explain some problems I see with other plans. Many focus on the "big business" as the evil, I instead embrace big business. Many would give everyone equal access, I would focus on individual responsibility. If I as a consumer want to purchase additional insurance, or purchas something that will give me better access to health care, I think that should be allowed. The idea that everyone gets the same access is socialist.

We conseervatives have long been seen as being uncaring. I don't want to be that way. I don't know of any real solution to this problem and I've put it low on my priority lst, but I intentionally didn't put it last.

Cell phones at school

I just got back from picking up my son's cell phone from school. Seems he was using it yesterday during class.

This school's policy is actually quite reasonable, if a little liberal. They allow cell phones on campus (after Columbine and 9/11 most schools do) but prohibit their use during the school day (presumably they would make exceptions during exceptional times).

If a teacher/administrator sees it out (my son's was vibrating inside his notes binder), it is confiscated and given to the front office. A parent can pick it up the next day. Second offense calls for it to be held for 30 days, third offense is 60 days, fourth is 90 days and fifth offense is until the end of school.

My punishment is harsher, no cell phone for undetermined amount of time (probably a couple weeks for this incident), then no cell phone at school for the rest of the year. He's also grounded for poor grades, so the actual punishment will be harsher.

The real key here is on preventing a reoccurrence of the "crime". The goal is to teach him that he shouldn't be texting while in class.

One Soldier's Story

This was related to me this past weekend by the soldier's uncle. I'm changing the name of the soldier to John. I don't think he would have wanted people to know his real name.

John grew up the son of a soldier. Not just any soldier, a Ranger. These guys are the toughest of the tough. Always assigned tough jobs. And always willing to go in. On Sept 11, 2001, John's father was working for the Pentagon. He wasn't at the Pentagon that day, but he could have been. John saw what happend and announced his intent to join the Army. He wanted to be a Ranger.

Only problem, John was still in high school. His parents told him to finish school, then they talked him in to one year of college. If he finished that year and still wanted to join up, they would agree.

During his first year of college, John did exceptionally well. But he didn't spend time studying. At the end of the school year, he took a summer job, but when summer was over, he decided to enlist. His parents supported him. He went to boot camp and excelled in everything. Then artillery school, then jump school. Again excelling at everything. After that, he went to Ranger school. The fall-out rate in Ranger school is high. There are always more candidates than there is room. But John excelled, and easily made it into Ranger school.

He did a tour of Iraq and came back. His uncle (who told me this story) took him to the airport when it was time to go back. John told his uncle, "You know I'm getting them over there so we don't have to get them over here, right?"

What a testimony to his country. John didn't make it back alive from that tour. He's now at Arlington Memorial Cemetery.

One soldier's story.

Gun control and the patriot act

While listening to reports on the recent school shooting, it struck me that many people, on both sides, hold conflicting views on gun control and the patriot act.

For example, I favor the patriot act and most of the "add-ons" that follow the patriot act (e.g FISA). These limit rights by regular citizens such as myself, but I support it in the interest of national defense and because I think the limitations are reasonable.

On the contrary, I am against (generally) gun control. I don't see the value in it, and I think it unneccessarily limits a freedom guaranteed in the constitution. I worry about a government that restricts this freedom - is "big brother" out there?

I'm not trying to justify either position here, I'm just acknowledging the seeming contradiction. But as I thought about this, I thought about my less-conservative friends. Many would hold opposite views on both of these subjects, but still be seemingly contradicting.

Juniper and Lamplight

Listening to an old Simon and Garfunkel tape (you remember those?) I heard the phrase "We walked on frosted fields of juniper and lamplight."

Now I know what juniper is, it's an evergreen. In my mind, all evergreens are pines or cedars. Juiper is a cedar. But what is lamplight? Is it a flower? I can't find it and google is no help.

There's also a phrase "Pressed in organdy; Clothed in crinoline of smoky Burgundy."
I had to look for "organdy" and "crinoline". Impressive. (look for it yourself)

I've heard the song many times before, but never looked for the words. Now I'm even more impressed. What a neat song. Those guys could write some good love songs. Not too sappy. But deep. Oh the song title is "For Emily, whenever I may find her".

Senate hearing on Steroids and HGH

A few days ago, I posted an entry about the Russians flying bombers over our naval vessels. Even with that going on, the Senate is concerned more about Roger Clemmens, steroids and HGH.

I think the Senate has misplaced it's priorities.... When election time comes, we should misplace our votes.

I approved this message - Part 5 (Final?)

I'm almost finished explaining the platform I would follow if elected president. This is the last planned message and is intended to address healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits. Previous mssages addressed 1) National Defense, 2) Foreign affairs, 2b)
Immigration, 3) Isolationism and 4) the national economy.

I grouped together the topics of healthcare, education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits because, frankly I don't believe these issues deserve a lot of discussion. I put the topics listed above in order of priority and these other issues just don't measure up. I have changed my mind somewhat on healthcare, I'm going to put that as topic 4.5 (bewteen 4 & 5) and come back to that after this discussion.

However, many people want to know the presidential candidates' opinions on these topics, so
this entry will discuss my views on education, abortion, global warming and carbon credits.

Education. I'm for it. I think education is important for the success of every individual and for our country. For the record, I have an MBA, my wife has a Master's of Ed. She's a school teacher. My sister is a guidance counselor. I may be biased (so sue me). I think education is important, but I don't think it's a federal issue. No where in the Constitution, which the President is sworn to uphold, is education mentioned. I think education should be left to the states with minimal federal intervention.

I also think education is overblown. We tell people "you have to have an education" then charge them $50,000 or more for 4 years of college and don't give them a way to pay it back. Every school that offers a for-fee education should be forced to show a good-faith estimate of how long it will take to pay back the education. If the education is for fun (I plan to take some of those courses), that's ok, you just should know that taking oboe lessons will never make you more money. Of course, since the federal government will be out of education, there will be no federal mandates on this.

Abortion. I'm against it. I will be glad to change to pro-choice, once we figure out how to give the baby a choice. (this next part will probably offend some of my conservative friends). I will not make abortion a litmus test for choosing judges, cabinet members or friends. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I have purposely put this issue as #5 (and last) in my priority list. Frankly, the president has better things to do.

Global warming. I think it's a farce. I'd appoint Al Gore amabassador in charge of sewers.

Carbon credits. What a laugh. I need to find the companies issuing the credits and buy stock in them.

Don't get me wrong, I am an enviromentalist. God gave us this world and told us to take care of it. Frankly, we've done a lousy job. Someday (soon I hope), He's going to come in here and fire us. We should do all that we can to conserve natural resources. We should strive to be stewards of what He gave to us. But let's also remember that He gave it to us and told us to dominate.

Well, I'm sure to lose some votes over this post and I didn't have that many to begin with, so I better quit while I'm behind.

I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy

In my recent post on foreign relations, I identified Russia as being our (the US) greatest long term enemy.

If anyone doubts that, they should read this article titled "U.S. Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers Flying Near Ships"

This is scary. Apparently, "one Russian Tupolev 95 buzzed the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 50 nautical miles out."

It's the economy stupid (Platform building #4)

I couldn't resist that headline. For those with a weak memory, that was the mantra of those who swept Clinton-1 into office after Bush-1 led the nation in Iraq-1. When the troops all returned, the economy stumbled. Bush-1 seemed to ignore the issue and lo, the mantra.

Now with the mortgage crisis, rising credit card rates and bank fees (in the paper this week), slowing employment, etc. I'm surprised the mantra isn't gaining more ground than it did 16 years ago. As Bush-2 has taken us into Iraq-2 (which has taken much too long), the American
people have become discontent and the econonmy stands to have a lot of attention this election year.

As a part of my platform building, I too will address the economy. Notice however, that I have placed it as a fourth priority. Yes it's important, but it falls behind defense, foreign affairs and isolationism issues.

So, as a presidential candidate myself, what would I do about the economy (or more accurate, what do I think a presidential candidate should do)? I see the economy as encompassing the subjects of jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending.

First, our economy runs on jobs. Jobs that produce something. During the recent economic boom, too many jobs were created that produced nothing. Day traders were the epitomy of the description of our boom. Also, hedge funds and the like. Not that there's anything wrong with
that, it's just that they don't produce anything. When I go to the store to buy an item, I help jobs of several people. There's the salesman in the store who convinces me htat his item is better than his competitors and helps me pick the appropriate size and style for my needs.
There may be a cashier at the store to check me out. There are several managers that also get paid based on my buying something. Then there's the guy who drove the truck to the store and deliverd the items. Back at some factory, there's the guy who made the item. And all the people
that help him.

There's also the guy who built the truck that delivered the item and the guy that built the machines that was used to make the item. Should I go on? Basically, all of these people produced something or sold something that was produced.

The lack of these type jobs has created new problems. The mortgage crisis is one such problem. People have purchased houses, done some work on them and then re-sold them. Now notice that they did some work. They did produce something (a better house). But they flipped the house
hoping to make a quick buck. One of my favorite radio personalities is Dave Ramsey and he often quotes Proverbs 28:22 which says (in my translation) "He who hastens to get rich, will not go unpunished." Many people have bought houses they can't afford, counting on the fact
they could refinance the mortgage before it adjusted. However, when houses around them lost money, they found they could no longer refinance. In many cases, these peopler were talked into the homes by unscrupulous realtors, appraisers and bankers.

How do we build an economy of jobs? Through appropriate taxation. Too many of our taxes focus on taking money from "big business". Instead, we should focus on letting "big business" do what it does best, making something. When they make something, they create jobs. People with
jobs tend to buy things. When they buy things, businesses make more things. This is a good thing.

As a part of this, we should encourage businesses to offer job training. By training their employees, business show re-investment to grow their potential business. It also shows the employee that he should not stop learning.

I have to do an aside hear about the business of education. I have a BS and an MBA degree, my wife has a BS and MA. I have two children with Master's degrees and one that will soon have a BA degree. If you count sons & daughters in law, there are 3 more BA/BS degrees. Can you tell
I think highly of education? But it should be education that PRODUCES something. There are too many "education" facilities that work hard to give you classes, but they work harder to get your money. By getting student loans for you and giving you classes that don't produce
anything, they sentence you to years of poverty paying back that student loan. I heard a lady call in to a radio show that had more than $80,000 in student loan debt to become an oboe player. She will never earn enough as an oboe player to come close to paying that back.

There's nothing wrong with education for fun or personal growth. I've taken classes like this myself. This is called a hobby. But you must be able to pay for it.

Now that I've covered jobs and training and touched on mortgages (more details on mortgages here), all that's left is a little more on housing, taxes and spending.

Housing is a good thing. Everyone should have a house. Or a condo. Or an apartment. But not everyone can afford to BUY a house. The government should help first-time buyers. (Some of my conservative friends just had a heart attack). Part of the help should be to help understand a mortgage. Understand that if you don't pay it back, you will loose. In the past, FHA helped people like this, but I'm not sure they do anymore. I would increase the responsibility of this organization and make home-owners proud to say they use FHA to help buy their home.

Taxes are a bad thing. Unfortunately, they're required. Some people are excited about the "flat tax" or the "fair tax" (which sounds like an oxymoron). I don't get excited about any kind of tax. I also think that congress has never seen a tax it didn't like. I don't think a radical change in the tax methods would help anything and would likely invite more problems. I know a CPA who used to say that he got excited every time that he heard congress talk about "tax simplification", it meant more business for him. Basically, I would work to decrease tax rates and eliminate some taxes without making radical changes.

Spending by the government is another bad thing. The government spends more than it takes in, when I've tried to do that, I've created new problems. Part of our current economic problems have been caused by government spending. Each government program should be evaluated to see if it can be cut or how much it can be cut. But not every program can be cut and some should be increased (e.g. defense). We can't spend our way to prosperity and we can't cut our way there either.

That's my overall economic view. I'd be happy to discuss this with you. Just post your comments here. I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.

I approved this message part 2b - Immigration

As I promised Ashley B back when I posted I posted on Foreign Affairs, I'm going to post a comment or two on immigration. This topic goes well with my discussion on Foreign Affairs and I had originally planned to bring it up then. Thanks to Ashley for reminding me.

When I look back at my previous posts, I commented somewhat on immgiration back in June (see that post here). At the time, I was complaining about the argument that so many make, that there are jobs that Americans simply won't take. I won't repeat everything I said there, but to summarize, I said this argument was baloney.

With that argument taken away, the question is what to do about the immigrants? Well, the first thing is to acknowledge that all Americans trace their roots back to immigrants. If you believe the Biblical account of creation, and I do, we all trace back to somewhere outside Baghdad (wouldn't Saddam be proud). Every other account I've seen also traces humanity to somewhere in Mesopotamia. Either way, we're all immigrants.

That means we should allow immigration, but for economic reasons, we should limit it. But wait, there are already laws on the books to handle that, why don't we just enforce the laws. Beginning the day I take office, I will endeavor to STOP illegal immigration. Instead of deciding for myself which is best, a wall, electronic surveillance, etc, I will trust the head of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to make that decision. Then I will empower him (read that $$$) to accomplish the goal. If it's not accomplished within one year, a new head of ICE will be found.

Once that matter is settled (the first day in office), I will take up the matter of illegal immigrants currently in the US. This is quite delicate. These individuals are human: man, woman or child and we have used their labor for the last several years. Yes, they are law breakers, as my conservative friends will point out. But they came here with hope. They should not get preferential treatment over legal aliens, but as humans we can't simply deport them all.

I will be accused of providing amnesty, but I believe we have to let them stay as legal aliens for a time. I believe (not certain) that legal aliens can stay for up to two years on a work visa. The illegals should be given this same length of time as a "pass". Then, if they are willing to exit the country, they can reapply for legal immigration. Due to the number of people involved, it may be necessary to phase in the two year "pass" so that they don't all exit at the same time.

Any comments?

The State of the Union

I promise, I will get back to my presidential platform building soon, I just had a few pet peeves pop up and I can't stand it..



Tonight was the State of the Union address. As required by the Constitution, the President must "from time to time" address the Congress. Think of it as the CEO telling the Board of Directors where he plans to take the company. It's a good time for him to challenge the congress on the direction he wants to take the company. He is, after all, the President.



I have several pet peeves with this whole setup. If I do this right, I will offend my conservative friends as much as my liberal friends.



First of all, this is supposed to be an address to congress. For most of Bush's 50 minutes, he did pretty good at this. But then he lapsed into talking to the TV.



Second, it's supposed to be "from time to time". Bush has done a pretty good job speaking to the American people when it's required, do we really need a State of the Union every year?



Third, why have a response? Why must the party not in power feel the need to contradict the president and give their own view? Frankly, the few times I've listened to (or read) the response, it just sounded bitter. This year, the Democrats even carried it further, generating a pre-sponse in some cases and generating a written response immediately after they President spoke. Who are they fooling? That's not a response.



Lastly, the political pundits. I made the mistake of listening to two tonight. One called Bush's speech and understandably marginal speech by a lame duck. Give me a break. Walter Cronkite didn't use that many cliche's. Even Dan Rather could be more original.



None of this addresses the CONTENT of the speech, rather it addresses the STYLE of the speech and it's responses. Maybe if there was truly some content, I would have commented on it.

When is a rebate not a rebate

Currently, congress and the president are clamoring all over each other to give a rebate to the American people. The current plan is $600 per individual, $1200 per couple and $300 per child. A family of four could get a check for $1800.

I'm not holding my breath. In fact, I cringe every time I hear the news.

The first thing that bothers me is that it is NOT A REBATE!! (Pardon the shouting, it's really not good for my blood pressure). I checked and dictionary.com has 12 definitions for rebate, the first being "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." Many of the people targeted by this so-called-rebate actually never paid anything in taxes. So a partial refund to them would be $0. Actually, that's a complete refund.

The next thing that bothers me is the reason for the so-called-rebate. It's so people will spend it. Hmm. with the push towards digital TV's, that would make a nice down payment. I can see the ads now "We will cash your so-called-rebate check for you and use it as a down payment." Mark my words and when the ads come out, come back and show me (or maybe I'll show you).

Yes, some economic stimulus might be needed, but I'm not sure this is the prescription. How about a national economic education plan that says you can't spend yourself out of debt?

I approved this message part 3 - Isolationism

This is the third plank in my platform building. The subject matter is isolationism vs becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations. There is one presidential candidate who is currently advocating that we stay out of the business of other nations.

The quote about entanglement goes to Thomas Jefferson when he said "Let the general government be reduced to foreign concerns only, and let our affairs be disentangled from those of all other nations except as to commerce ..."

Good ole' TJ made a lot of sense. The more we get into the business of other nations, the bigger the mess.

But even in TJ's day, there were exceptions. The Barbary Wars were fought during his day and another quote from him was "Millions For Defense, Not One Cent For Tribute." Basically, these bad guys (evil doers if you allow me the term) were raiding American ships and taking hostages. Common policy at the time was to pay ransom (tribute) to the bad guys. TJ disagreed. He helped built up a good Marine force and fought the Barbary wars. Ever hear the Marine song? The shores of Tripoli (modern day Libya) is where one of the famous battles was fought.

In seems to me that today is not so different from TJ's day. Oh, we don't have pirates raiding ships, but we do have them flying planes into buildings. And they don't demand ransom, but they do make other demands.

So based on TJ's wisdom, I think it's sometimes necessary to become entangled. This lesson was also learned after WW I, when the US sought to stay out of WW II. But we got drafted with the sinking of the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor. Same goes for 9/11.

Some may disagree, but that takes care of us getting entangled in Afghanistan and Iraq, probably in other Middle Eastern Nations. And possibly in other nations, to avoid another 9/11. But what about the affairs of other countries? Say a country in Africa or South America where possibly a dictator kills his own people?

This becomes dicey. These nations probably pose no serious threat to the US, they can't fly planes into our buildings, nor attack from the sea as the Japanese did. Our standards and our democracy may not fit them.

I believe that there are some issues that transcend governments and nations. There are times when, as human beings, we should step in and either 1) provide assistance or 2) provide defense. This means that we should provide aid when a country needs it, provide food to the people. It may be necessary to work around the leadership of the country and work with some people who fight against the leaders. And there may be a time when it is necessary to topple an existing government. If this was reviewed in the 1930's & 1940's, Hitler's extermination of the Jews would be a good example, in the 1970's Idi Amin (killed an estimated 500,000 and at one time bodies floated on the Nile in quantities sufficient to clog a hydro-electric dam).

If an existing government is toppled, it may be necessary to rebuild, just was we rebuilt Germany and Japan after WWII.

Note that Iraq falls into this category (in addition to the defense). Saddam was definitely a bad dude. With machines that were effectively meat grinders for entire human bodies, the man needed to be removed from power.

Where do you draw the line between an Idi Amin/Saddam Hussein/Hitler type and a Kim Jon Il? Which leaders/nations should be taken out and their countries rebuilt? Well, you can't face them all at once. You have to tackle them one at a time. And you have to hope that, like Libya's Muammar al-Gaddafi, some of them will have a change of heart before you get around to them.

This is Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

I made the bed

I just completed a task that I deem to be silly - making the bed. Seriously, we slept in the bed last night and it is messy, but who's going to see it? Tonight, we'll get in the bed and mess it up again, so why make it? Ben Franklin once said that a job done well need never be done again. Good Ole' Ben obviously never made the bed. Tomorrow morning it's going to need it again.

There's no one coming over and even if they did, they wouldn't come upstairs. No one would know if I skipped this menial task. No one except my wife (my son too, but he couldn't care less).

So, given the way I feel about it, why would I do this? Simple - my wife asked me to. Since I'm the last one up, I get to make the bed. If I get up before she goes downstairs to leave, she will make it, or we get to make it together, but since I slept a little late, she asked me to do it.

And I know that when she comes in this afternoon, she will notice it. She may not say anything, but if she does it will make my day complete. Regardless, she will notice it. And anything that I can do to make her just a little happier, well it makes me happy. Not that I do this for the reward, no even if she doesn't notice I'd still make the bed. Simply because she asked.

Somedays, I don't make the bed. I always have a good excuse, I forgot or I was too busy. I usually explain it to her. She doesn't get mad, occasionally she will remind me how important it is to her (I still don't understand). But I know she will forgive me and she will not hold a grudge. She's wonderful that way.

Even in all her wonder, she's not perfect. I think she's beautiful, strong and wonderful, but I know she's human and therefore must have faults, even if I don't see them (and certainly wouldn't mention them if I did).

So why write about this? Well, the last several days, I've been involved in a multi-way discussion on God's Grace and Truth. (Read about it here). While making the bed, I realized that my making the bed was somehow tied to the topic.

Sometimes I don't understand why God asks me to clean up a part of my life. It seems silly. No one will notice and it really won't make a difference. Sure I can clean something up, but it's just going to get messed up again. So why do it?

Because I love Him. I know that He will notice. And maybe, just maybe He will say somthing about it. But even if He doesn't, I'd still do it. I don't do it for the rewards, I do it because He loves me.

Unlike my wife, He is perfect. He has no faults. Some of the folks in the other discussion just don't get that, but it doesn't change the facts. So if He's perfect and my wife isn't (she's close), how much more should I do for Him?

Oh, and if I don't do what He asks? He'll forgive me. I always have a good excuse, I forgot or I was too busy. I usually explain it to Him. He doesn't get mad, occasionally He will remind me how important it is to him (I still don't understand). But I know He will forgive me and He will not hold a grudge. He's wonderful that way.

God, please forgive me when I fail you. I know it happens way too often. Please point it out to me when I do. I want to please you, even when I don't understand the reasons. Amen.

Now, I think I'll go check that bed one more time...

Weekend Gambling - the evils of gambling

This past weekend, my wife and I slipped out of town over the mountain to nearby Ashville, NC. We were hoping to play in the planned 4inches of snow, but alas, less than one inch fell, no playing. We did manage to do a lot of talking and planning, which was our major goal.

On Saturday afternoon, our weekend was shattered along with a window on our car. Seems someone saw my wife's pocket book on the floor and decided he wanted it. (Lesson#1 - always hide valuables). We immediately called Buncombe County Sherrif and started calling credit cards (Lesson #2 - you & wife should have different credit card numbers). After four calls from the business man and two hours of waiting, the deputy showed up to take our statement. No evidence was collected. He gave us no hope of recovering any of the stuff and reported that there were several such incidents (then why aren't they trying to stop it?)

Our afternoon/evening shot, we ate dinner at a local restaraunt (using a different card I have) and we went back to the hotel with the window poorly plastic-ed over. The next morning, my son (who was still home) called and said they caught the guy. A nearby township had caught the guy who broke in and they had my wife's purse. He had broken into another car and the people got quicker response. They saw a van on the street that had been parked near them, the man was stopped and arrested in possession of my wife's purse.

The police officer told us that the man had gone to Harrah's Casino and gambled & drank all his money away. He then drove 40+ miles on the interestate before trying to get some cash. He was arrested for DWI, Breaking & Entering & posession of stolen property. It will be up to Buncombe County to determin if he's arrested for B&E of our car.

This brings me to the evils of gambling. I admit, I can find nothing Biblically wrong with gambling. I even wager a small bet from time to time. When I went to Vegas last August, I played slots (around $20 if I recall). But the price of having a Casino in the area is that thugs like this guy will come around.

When you gamble away money you need for something else, you're wrong. The casino's cater to these people and they should share in the blame. When a casino comes to your area, you can expect more trouble like this.

Oddly enough, one of the discussions my wife & I had was around moving, possibly to the area we visited. Our minds are set, that's not where we want to be. Sure the same thing could happen anywhere, but we don't need to improve the odds for the bad guys.

I approved this message - Foreign affairs

I've been extremely busy and unable to get to my second point until today. But, as previously noted, my popularity seems to have managed quite well even in my absense. 100% approval rating of my previous comments and Google front page status can't lie - I'm in it to win.

But enough grand-standing. Both of my regular readers will recall that I'm outlining planks in my political platform for my presidential run. By doing so, my goal is to actually establish WHY I support a certain candidate as soon as I identify that candidate.

My first point was on national defense, this post is on foreign affairs. Now I truly believe that if one of the active candidates makes it to the White House, her husband will be involved in several foreign affairs. However, I'm talking about, not about sexual relationships, but our political relationships as an American nation with other nations. (Note that I did not speak about any candidate, but the candidate's husband. And I didn't even mention a name.)

I believe that foreign affairs and how they are handled is the second most important topic affecting the president. How we interact with other countries affects our national defense (#1 priority) is directly related to isolationism (#3) and greatly affects our economy (#4).

I am concerned about relations with the following countries/areas: Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration).

Russia is still our long term greatest enemy. As the second nuclear power in the world, they still have a strong political hatred of America and work hard to promote our other enemies. We need to establish semi-regular summit meetings to see where we agree and to strengthen our relationships. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The economic market in Russia is not as big as other countries, but it is still significant. With joint ventures between our two countries, we can accomplish much more. We have no reason to fear them and no reason to hate them.

Our greatest short term enemy is Iran. Looking at our history with Iran (going back to before the last Shah), we don't manage our relationships with Iran very well. Our best solution with Iran is to avoid confrontation, but to continue our position of strength. We need to allow Israel to do whatever they want to Iran (which will probably result in the destruction of Iran if allowed 100% of Israeli will). While Iran is greatest short term enemy, we can outlast them and develop strong ties with them when (or if) their government changes.

It is difficult to know how to work with Pakistan. On the one hand, they have been one of our allies in the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, they haven't been a strong ally and at times have aided the enemy. We should work to encourage democracy in Pakistan and push them for greater cooperation. We should limit our direct involvement in Pakistanian matters and work to gain other allies in the event Pakistan moves away from us.

I link India and China together. In my mind, but countries should be treated alike (with the exception of human rights). Both countries have much to gain by working with the US. By holding taxes and tarrifs as a potential punishment on both countries, we can work for change. Both countries need to do more to respect child-labor laws and to respect American copyrights and patents. They have more to lose than the U.S. does if we hold their feet to the fire for fair trade.

Now a word about human rights in China. That country still pratices strong repression of religion. We should work to encourage some degree of freedom of religion and to restrict persecution. The countries forced reduction in birth rate, is touchy. As a country, they do need to reduce population growth, but the methods are not right. We should encourage greater relaxation in adoption by other countries.

Mexican relations are poor now, and there is no reason. As one of our bordering countries, we should work with Mexico to strengthen relations. We should work together to form an immigration policy that fits our needs and is palatable to Mexico. There is a great feeling in this country that Mexicao doesn't want us to have a policy, that they appreciate getting rid of some of these people and that they appreciate American money going into Mexico. We can erect a wall, both physical and economic, but instead we should work with the Mexican government.

South America and Africa are still frontier land. As a people, we need to be concerned about the tyranny in some of these areas, the diseases and the problems. We need to spend more on supporting these areas and on education. Educate the people on everything from the three R's to how to build a government, how to maintain an economy and how to build.

That's my foreign policy statement. I'm sure there's parts I left out. As soon as I have a secretary of state, I will work to develop this policy further.

Approval rating climbs

Yes, my approval rating is at 100%. Or rather, my disapproval rating is 0% - no one has complained about any of my ideas on national defense. If you haven't read it, I wrote a long discourse (evidently too long for others to read) on what I think presidential candidates should do regarding national defense.

I received an email this morning that said that, not only had my approval rating increased, I am now on the first page of google. When you google my name, my blog is the fourth hit. This is a TREMENDOUS improvement!! And I owe it all to my constituents (both of you).

I promise to get back onto this presidential platform soon. My job is such that in January or February I spend a week or two closing out the last year and then starting up the new year. This year, the process hit earlier and it's been the past week and coming week. Hopefully, work can die back down next week.

Thanks again. Remember, I'm Randy Barnett, and I approved this message.

P.S. Not sure why this person "googled" me this morning. Maybe she's checking up on me.... Does that mean I should check up on her??

I approved this message - National Defense

As I've been promising, I am laying out what I think are critical issues for the presidency of the US. As this thread gets closer to the actual facts, it gets more serious. None of the issues are as serious as national defense.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was attacked without provocation. There are some politicians who believe we brought this on ourselves. They are wrong and should be immediately discredited, if not charged with treason. Looking back, this should be a "Pearl Harbor event". We were attacked on US soil, but there were several smaller attacks that should have been wake-up calls. This happened before 12/07/41, but then as now, they weren't recognizable for what they were. Now in the light of 911, the events are seen as a prelude.

911 should also be a "Pearl Harbor event" in that it should propel us into the Global War on Terror. That phrase has gone out of style, but that's what it is. There are terrorists everywhere who are attacking us and our way of life. Only by being proactive, can we take the war to them.

My biggest fear is for the next 911. Whether biological, nuclear, or tactical weapons are used, if we do nothing, another attack will be coming. I suspect a series of smaller attacks, hit a shopping mall at Christmas, hit a random school, would get as much attention as the first 911. The next president needs to be ready.

Part of this can be addressed with laws around the Patriot Act. There are also laws regarding FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act. These laws allow the US government to spy on people like you & me when they suspect National Security is at risk. Some of the provisions of these laws are up for renewal. There should be no question about their requirements. Some would argue that they un-necessarily spy on US citizens. I would argue against that. Not a single case has been brought forward that would indicate anyone's rights have been violated.

In addition to the Global War on Terror, the next president needs to address the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan. First to Afghanistan. It's evident to me that the reason the Soviet Union failed in Afg is due to our under-cover support. When that war was over, a vacuum was left in the political makeup of the country. The US failed to step in and fill that vacuum or support any strong government, and the Taliban were allowed to rule. The result was a breeding ground for terrorists.

Now the same thing is ready to happen in Iraq. With Saddam Hussein out of power, we can either rebuild the government or we can let it fall to chaos and another Taliban-type rule. If we abandon either of these countries, we can count on terrorists breeding like mosquitos in a swamp.

The rebuilding of these two countries and the positioning of troops must continue. The troops must not be brought home until the job is complete, which may be several years.

Also in the area of national defense is our response in other areas of the world. However, as already seen in Libya, our response in Iraq and Afg. will have an effect on leaders elsewhere. Our response should be the same, if these countries promote terrorism, we should work to rebuild the country, either politically or militarily.

Part of this applies to one of our allies, Saudi Arabia. The Sauds have long enjoyed our support, yet some of the biggest mosquitos (terrorists) have been bred in their country. The schools teach an anti-American curriculum and the children grow up hating us. With all the money we spend on oil, we should demand a better supplier.

Which brings me to the last subject in the area of national defense, oil. Our nation's economic dependence on oil is a contributing factor to the current dilemma. Only by developing nuclear energy, solar energy and wind energy (I sound like a tree hugger) can we remove this dependence. However, doing so will lessen the economic lifestyle of our middle eastern neighbors and is likely to cause more unrest. We must work with the governments of the affected countries to lessen their dependence on our hard earned cash. Just like an addict on heroin, simply cutting the US cash-addicts off cold turkey will cause withdrawl pains and they may lash out at us, causing increased terrorist activities.

This has been a long post, I appreciate your reading it in entirety. I truly believe that national defense is the single greatest issue facing the next president.

I'm Randy Barnett and I approved this message.

P.S. Why didn't someone correct my previous posts where I said "I endorsed this message"?

I endorsed this message - Platform building

Last week I announced my candidacy for the president. Then I explained that I was actually just planning to lay out what I thought was important for the candidate I intend to choose.

It seems from all the commercials I'm seeing, that Change is the answer. From the man who claims to have been the first to ask for change, to the lady who says she has the experience to change, all of the candidates, Democratic and Republican, are clamoring for change. Reminds me of the old adage about babies and politicians both needing to be changed often, and for the same reason.

I'm going to begin, not by asking for change, but by laying out my ideas. Before I begin, I want to lay out the areas I think should be addressed. This post won't tell you my opinion on any one topic, but instead will list topics I intend to cover later. They will be somewhat grouped, but that's subject to change (there's that word) later on.

I should note that I've already appointed someone to be my Secretary of Defense. I am step-related to a former soldier who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He's the most knowledgable person I know in this area.

In my platform, I intend to address these topics:
1. National Defense - 9/11 and America's response, the next 9/11, is there a Global War on Terror, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts.
2) Foreign affars - Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, Europe, Africa, South America, China (including trade) and Mexico (including immigration)
3) Isolationism vs. becoming entangled in the affairs of other nations (John Adams reference?)
4) National economy - Jobs, training, mortgages, housing, taxes and spending
5) Healthcare, education and abortion, global warming, carbon credits (hopefully, I'll explain why I grouped these)

What did I leave out? What do you, the voter, want me to address?

Thanks to those who responded earlier, I sincerley hope this gets some attention.

My name is RB, I endorsed this message and I'm running for president

When I turned 35, I announced to all my friends and neighbors that I was running for president. I had examined all of the recent candidates and announcements and decided I was equally qualified.

However, it was not an election year, so I soon bowed out. Now, 14 years later, I'm reannouncing my candidacy.

Since I'm entering the fanfare a little late, I'll plan a slow entrance. I'll start by announcing and deciding my platform. This will help all of my followers (thanks mom) decide which of the current candidates should be elected to hold my place until I'm truly ready. In fact, he or she could revoke the constitutional amendment that placed term limits on the presidency so that once I win the office, I can retain it forever, in the spirit of my senator, Strom Thurmond.

So, over the next several weeks, I'll post my ideas on the presidency and what I believe are important subjects to be covered. Since I'm a formulas and function kind of guy (see my post on functions), I'll also put some sort of priority or weighting with each idea. This way and astute reader could write a simple function for Excel to decide which of the current candidates best fits my model.

Regular readers will know that I've already stated there was one candidate I could NOT vote for, that's Rudy G. See my reasoning here. They may also note that I've suggested Jenna Bush for president (see here), but it's going to be a while before she's eligible. Other than these two items, I haven't decided who I will vote for. I fully expect to make that decision as a part of this exercise.

So be looking for my posts. Tell your friends and neighbors, dogs and cats, dead uncles and aunts to all vote for me (it works in Chicago). Seriously read my posts and comment on them. If you disagree with me, feel free to say so. I reserve the right to flip-flop as often as Clinton and Romney have been accused. After all, one man's flip-flop is another man's shoe.

Happy new Year

I've been working lightly the last two weeks and now it's time to start back in ernest. The holidays were wonderful, even if it ended with a loss at the Chic-Fil-A bowl.

I quit doing New Year's resolutions several years ago. I tried to restart it a few years back, but couldn't get anyone to work with me. It always seems that any day is a good day to start being healthy, saving money and creating whirled peas, why blame it all on New Years.

Happy 2008 to all

Do opposites attract?

You've heard it before, opposites attract. I've even seen a few cases where it seemed to be true, my wife & I for one. My daughter & her husband are another. She's a planner, he's free wheeling. She expresses her emotions, he holds them in. As for my wife and I, let's just say we have a strange and wonderful relationship -- I'm strange and she's wonderful.

I heard once a saying (I think from Larry Burkette) that in a marriage if both people are the same, one isn't needed. So what makes a good relationship?

I think you have to have a common background. Some fundamental values that match up. It also helps if you genuinely LIKE each other. I've seen cases where a couple were in love, but didn't like each other. After a while, they tire of each other. I've seen cases where the fundamental values didn't match. When times get tough, they go separate ways. When all that's left is the basics, the basics just don't match.

I've known a couple who were in an arranged marriage. In their culture, this was the norm. When they were young, the parents chose them to be together. They had a choice when they grew older, but they decided if the parents set this up, they would go through with it. Today, they are doing very well with two children. They actually liked each other and they had the same fundamental values.

I also believe it takes a commitment to stay together. Both people have to have the commitment. I've long said it takes two to keep a marriage together, but only one to split it apart. Without a commitment, there are two many times where it would be easy to walk away. Or walk to someone else.

Merry Christmas

Hope all of you have a wonderful Christmas!

How old is that manager?

Lunch today was on the road, at McDonald's. Hey it was good enough for our former president, it's good enough for me.

Anyway, the sign says they are hiring managers, crew members, openers and closers. For the openers and closers, it said they had to be 18.

But there was no disclaimer on the managers. Can they be 16? I know a 16 year old can work there. A lot of the managers ACT 16 (or even less).

How would you interpret the sign? How old does the manager look at your local Mickey D's?

Man shoots iHome

That's what the headlines should have read this morning. I don't know how many times that thing has gone off when my son has been somewhere else. With a sound something like a smoke alarm (but not quite as loud), it's hard to ignore.

It's also hard to figure out how to turn the stupid thing off. Lots of buttons, turn "dials", etc, they just don't seem to work. Then when I get it silenced and return to bed, I begin to drift off again only to realize that I only hit the snooze, not the off button.

I fugure a .45 slug in the top of it should manage to silence it for good. Since I bought the thing, it shouldn't break any laws. And I think it could be considered a mercy killing.

Ok, I'm offended

I work for a large company, one of the Fortune 500 companies. Today, I received a Holiday message from a Vice President over me. There are three levels of management between us, two between him and the Chairman, President and CEO (all one person).

The greeting said "Season's Greetings", "Happy Kwanza", "Boas Festas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Joyeuses Fetes" and "Feliz Navidad".

Where's the Merry Christmas? They can't argue that they're trying to keep the religous aspect out, Hanukkah is a religous holiday.

So why do they ignore Christmas? I'm offended.

Maybe I should send him a note back to say Merry Christmas.

War in Iraq

I don't often post about the War in Iraq or the Global War on Terror. Too much like talking about politics.

But I couldn't help but notice a few changes. The British are moving out of Basra, because they are no longer needed. And yesterday, Major General Joseph Fil, a commander of multinational troops in Baghdad told reporters that things had changed in Baghdad.

"The number of attacks against citizens in Baghdad has dropped by almost 80 percent since November, 2006," said Fil.

Now isn't this a good thing? Yes, it's going to take some time and yes the cost has been high. And I predict there will be times of increasing violence. But this is a good thing.

American troops should be pulled out as soon as possible, but we must be careful not to pull out too quickly. We made a mess when we pulled out of Vietnam, we shouldn't repeat one of our past mistakes.

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow..

No, it's not snowing here in the south. I did see some snow a couple weeks ago when I was up in DC (my plane waited over an hour on de-icing at Dulles Airport).

But I saw a news report this morning about the ice/snow storm that has hit the north east. In Maine, the governer has even asked people to stay inside.

In the south, we get made fun of everytime it snows. We get an inch or so of snow and everything closes down. But in this case, Maine closes down. Oh, they say that we close with an inch of snow, there snow is much worse.

But, I'd be willing to bet that we have about the same number of closures per year as the Maine-ites.

So a word to northerners everywhere, don't poke fun us at when we close down. We want our snow days just as much as you do. We just have to take them when we can, with only an inch of snow.

I am Legend

We went to see this movie tonight. If the showing we were at was representative, it will make a lot of money this weekend.

Overall, it was a good flick. I'm an SF fan, so last-man-on-earth movies are nothing new to me. But, hey, it's got Will Smith, so it ought to be good, right? My wife was terrified at some of the scenes, she nearly came out of her seat. My sister (who hasn't seen it - we talked after the movie) said she thought it was a horror movie. In some ways, it was. But the horror was reasonable horror (what an oxymoron!)

What surprised me the most was the religious references. They were done in good taste, if a little bit hurried and pushed. Even Smith's character declaring there is no God made sense. And religious folks will be glad the way it was all handled.

Overall, a good movie. Made for the big screen, with surround sound and all (there was glass falling behind us in one scene - neat). Spend the $9 (or less for a matinee), don't wait for the DVD. And warn your wife that it could be a little bit bloody and jumpy.

Freedomswatch part 2

I got an email tonight that said that NBC has agreed to accept the Freedomswatch ads. (Last Friday I posted a note about the NBC refusal. See my previous post here.)

NBC said "We have reviewed and changed our ad standards guidelines and made the decision that our policy will apply to content only and not to a referenced Web site. Based on these amended standards the Freedom's Watch ad will begin to run as early as Sunday."

See the full article here.

I don't often do petitions, and now I'm wondering about the sanity of signing a petition asking for ads....

Crossing the Rubicon

I heard a new phrase today and it generated all sorts of mental images. The phrase was crossing the Rubicon, the idea is that you deliberately go past the point of no return. The origination of the phrase is to Julius Caesar's day, where he sent his army across the Rubicon River, starting his invasion of Ancient Rome. Once his people crossed that river, there was no turning back, the war had begun.

I heard the phrase in a commercial for an anti-divorce book or program to be used by couples. The individual said that he and his wife discussed divorced and nearly "crossed the Rubicon".

I know two couples whose marriages are in trouble and this image fits very well. One couple has already crossed the Rubicon, the second is close, if not already past. The image is that they are headed to this point, in some cases with increasing speed and the force behind them continues to push them. At some point, and you could almost draw a line, they have no way out.

An oft used equal phrase is burning bridges and a less used phrase is burning boats. I think it was Cortez who ordered his boats burned when invading Mexico to keep his troops from attempting to retreat.

Did Drew Peterson kill his wife?

All over the news, you'll see stories like this one about Drew Peterson in Illinois who is accused of killing his fourth wife. Her body hasn't been found, but they have exhumed his third wife's body and at least one investigator believes he killed her too (I found an interview with wife#2, but gave up finding anything on wife#1, the reports are just too sick). Mr. Peterson thinks wife#4 ran off with another man and just doesn't want to be found.

Now, teleport across the pond to merry old England where it's reported that John Darwin who has been gone over five years and presumed dead. The wreckage of his kayak washed on shore in March 2002 and a coroner pronounced him dead. His wife Anne, collected the life insurance money and recently moved to Panama. Now John has turned himself in claiming amnesia.

So what ties these two stories together? Is Anne Darwin's wife, Drew Peterson's next target? Or did Stacy Peterson, run off with John Darwin? No, nothing so sinister, no great conspiracy. I am just fascinated with the idea that people can run away and never be found. It turns out there are even books written about the idea: "Hide Your Assets & Disappear: A Step-By-Step Guide to Vanishing Without a Trace"

Let's see, didn't I say something a few days ago about moving to the mountains and becoming a hermit? (blog post here) If Santa wanted to bring me a book, maybe the above would be a good one...

http://www.freedomswatch.org/ - TV ads

NBC refuses to run some ads produced by Freedom's Watch. The reason they give is that the organization depicts it's web address at the end and the web site has some potentially sensitive issues.

Let's be clear. The ads that were requested are NOT politically oriented. They simply say "thank you" to the soldiers. Some also wish the soldiers a merry Christmas. At the end is a link to the freedomswathch.org website. You can view the ads here. If you disagree, please let me know and explain why. If you agree, sign the petition.

The website does show other TV ads which may cause some people to disagree (these are NOT part of the current dispute). Basically, it's an anti MoveOn.org commercial. These ads clearly voice the opinion that the War in Iraq is related to the War on Terror which is related to 9/11. Now some will disagree with that. I will not voice my opinion in this post, because I think it's not relevant.

What is relevant is that NBC, MSNBC and CNBC are refusing to air ads that thank our soldiers. The ads are being shown by CNN and FoxNews.

(F0r the record, being a market-driven philosophy based individual, I believe NBC has the right to refuse any ad. But having the right, doesn't make it right)

Home again, home again...

My two weeks of ridiculous travel is over. I'm home for a while. I do have one out-of-town trip next week, but it's only one night.

It's good to be home.

Impeachment

Yesterday when I should have been working, I instead procrastinated and went off on some odd tangents. I wanted to list the presidential candidates (17 of them) and then I saw Dennis Kucinich and beacuse of his funny sounding name ended up looking at news about him. He's proposed an impeachment of VP Cheney. So what does impeachment really mean?

Most of this I knew already and most of my readers will know most of it, but I decided to put it together in one place.

Generally, impeachment is thought of as kicking someone out of office. This is wrong. Impeachment is the process where an official is brought to trial. The impeachment trial can result in conviction or aquittal, conviction means kicking someone out of office.

The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives (what a fine bunch). Typically, the resolution is sent to the judiciary committee. It may also wind through a couple other committees. A simple majority of those present and voting is enough to proceed.

At this point, control passes to the Senate (another fine bunch). They sit in judgement over the accused. Conviction requires a 2/3 majority vote. Here's the interesting part. If the president is impeached, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. In other cases, the VP presides.

So (in theory), the VP could preside over his own case.

In looking at some of the history of impeachment, it looks like James Madison had a good bit to do with that part of the Constitution. Thanks to him, impeachment can only occur due to "treason, bribery, other high crimes and misdemeanors." Incompetence is not impeachable. Jefferson's manual offers some information on impeachment as well (food for another procrastination).

There have been 17 cases of impeachment at the federal level, 13 of these for judges and justices. Of the judges, 7 were removed from office and 2 resigned. One senator was impeached, but he was removed from office by Senate rules before the impeachment proceedings. In 1876, the Secretary of War (now called Secretary of defense) was impeached, he resigned and then was aquitted.

Only twice has a sitting president been impeached. Andrew Johnson (Lincoln's successor) was impeached, but aquitted and Bill Clinton was impeached, but aquitted. Clinton was impeached on two counts: Perjury and Obstruction of justice. Two other counts were attempted, but did not make it to aquital: a second count of perjury and abuse of power. (Next time I procrastinate, I'll research those four charges)

Contrary to popular opinion, Nixon was not impeached. Impeachment proceedings were in process and would likely have resulted in impeachment, but Nixon resigned instead.

There have been 63 resolutions presented for impeachment including resolutions to impeach George Washington, John Tyler, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Nancy Pelosi has implied that impeachment hearings against Bush & Cheney are not going to happen. It appears to this researcher that she just doesn't want her tenure bogged down in the proceedings. Since any vote is likely to be split down party lines, I would agree with her. Of course, I'm not sure there's much progress being made anyway, so I can't see much damage either way.

Hermit

This time of the year is always difficult for me. I know it should be the happiest time of all. I get to see my family more than normal, everyone is in a good mood and I get to do things that please them.

I think it's tough because of the stress. I want to do things just right and they don't always work. Some family gets hurt or offended, someone else doesn't like what's going on. And they all bring their problems to me.

I get the urge to move up to the mountains and tell them that if they want to see me, come on, but leave their gripes and complaints at home.

If my comments these next few days seem a little snippy, I apologize in advance. Don't complain about it though, you'll only make it worse.