The Primaries - My Predictions

So, only 6 days left until the primaries officially start. Then we'll finally start the weeding out process. One by one, the weak, or at least weak-hearted candidates will start to fall away. I predict it won't be too long before there are only 3 or 4 candidates left on each side.

For the Republicans, those four will be Giuliani, Romney, Thompson and maybe Huckabee. Although I realize he's ahead of my man, Fred, in the polls, I just don't think McCain has the temerity to stick with it to the convention. He looks tired - whether it's of the campaign or politics in general I can't say.

Among the Democrats, I think it's obvious that the big three will be Clinton, Obama and Edwards. I don't really know too much about that side of the race - it's kind of like paying attention to only the American or National League during baseball season. But what I do know says these three appear to be the only real contenders.

If you are interested, there is a website that appears to give a comprehensive and fairly impartial listing of the candidates positions on a wide variety of important topics. Go to http://www.issue2008.com/.

It's good reading.

Be well and remember to vote!

The Debate...Hmmmmmmmmm

Well...that was interesting. I watched the debate...the whole thing. As a
result, I walked away with several distinct impressions and opinions.

1: I went into the debate supporting Fred Thompson and I still do
afterwards. I like where he stands on the issues, I like his approach to
the job - following the constitution and I like his presence. I saw nothing
this evening to change that position.

2: I do not want Mayor Giuliani or Governor Romni to get the nomination. I
felt they were camera and mic hogs, they didn't answer questions, but just
gave monologues about their records. They felt the debate was there for them
alone...I, I, I and me, me, me. Grow up gentlemen, there were eight of you
there.

3: On that note, I don't feel the distribution of the questions to the
candidates or the placement of the candidates on the stage was fair to the
less popular or well known ones. I really wanted to hear more from them and
CNN should have given all the candidates get equal air time.
Representatives Tancredo, Hunter and Governor Huckabee all made very good
points on the few questions sent their way. Granted, their actual chances
for President are slim, but what they have to say needs to be heard because
they form part of the entire set of Republican principles.

4: Senator McCain may say some good things...but in general he always sounds
tired and annoyed to me. We have had almost seven years of a President with
many good ideas who couldn't give them away even if they came with free gold
bars because he is one of the poorest public speaker I have ever seen in my
life. We don't need that again.

5: I do not want Representative Paul to get the nomination. I disagree with
his stance on the war on terror. However, I appreciate, greatly, his
determination not to run as an independent candidate. Doing so would divide
the Republican Party and could possibly put Hilliary in the White House. I
made the mistake of contributing to that in 1992 by voting for Ross Perot.
I hope that doesn't happen again.

6: I liked the answers to the question about if Roe v. Wade were to be
overturned. That decision was not a bad one because it allowed abortion but
because the Supreme Court illegally usurped the authority of the states. It
also isn't the president's job and that point was made very clear. The
constitution won here. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, debate would be hot
- and that's a good thing. In the end, however, abortion would remain legal
- almost unchanged from what it is now. It would just be the states
deciding how and when...as is their right under the constitution.

7: Regardless of who wins the GOP nomination, I will vote for them - even
Giuliani, Romney, McCain or Paul. Sometimes a vote isn't as much for one
candidate as it is against another. I do not want Hilliary Clinton to be
president...at all...ever. Someone asked me if my only possible choice was
either Obama or Hilliary, which would I pick? I said Obama because at least
he is for some things. Hilliary, aside from being abrasive, is for nothing
and against everything. Also, the dynasty needs to end. We need new blood
in the White House and I do not want Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. 20 years of
those two families is enough!

That's my Layman's Point of View!

Your Papers, Please???

OK, there are days I feel like I have been living under a rock. Today is
one of those days. I JUST found out that in order to purchase Sudafed, I
would need to show my driver's license and sign a log book. Moreover, the
log book will be maintained by the pharmacist for two years. All this to
combat the crystal-meth problem. Well, I have no problem trying to take a
bite out of the drug problem in this country. Having grown up in the 70's,
people are amazed that I never experimented with drugs...not even pot.
That's right, I never just "not-inhaled," I never tried it at all. As a
parent, I'm even more in favor of stopping drugs. But something about this
law smacks of too much government control.

There have always been pharmaceuticals that could only be purchased from
behind the counter, presumably to keep them out of the hands of kids.
However, if this medicine could be potentially be used to make something so
dangerous, why allow its sale at all? Take it off the market. It wouldn't
be the first time the FDA pulled a drug from the shelves. At the very least
revert it to prescription status - those have always been tracked by doctors
and pharmacies anyway. The way it's being done now is too invasive.
Americans don't want to "present their papers" every time they turn around.
Maybe it's just the government's way to get people to wean themselves off
the stuff. Pharmaceutical companies are already producing cold medicines
with alternatives to pseudoephedrine in response to the law. It's a good
business decision.

The most confusing thing about this is making it part of the Patriot Act.
What is that all about? Isn't that for fighting terrorism? I like the idea
of making it easier to gather information on potential terrorists and to
share that information between intelligence agencies. But I don't think the
Patriot Act was ever meant to be an all-encompassing, cure all, "just
because we can add it here" thing. Where's the relevance? Including the
Sudafed restriction only gives more fuel to the fire that President Bush is
power hungry and illegally spying on private citizens.

When I hear about stuff like this law, even if it's a year or two too late,
it makes me long for 2008 all the more. I'm not saying I want Bush and
Chaney impeached - because that would give us Pelosi. And I'm sure that
when viewed through the prism of history, the "Dubya" will be vindicated and
seen as smarter on some things than currently perceived. Nevertheless, I am
at times relieved that he only has a little more than a year left in office.
After seven years, I am getting tired of defending him from critics when he
keeps "leading with his chin."

My Personal Veteran's Day Remembrance and Tribute

During World War II, many families had multiple sons serving. My family was no exception. My father is the youngest of thirteen children, born to Italian immigrants who came through Ellis Island in 1905 with their first three children in tow. They settled in the coal-mining region of North-central Pennsylvania before eventually relocating to the North shore of Long Island in 1929. By that point, all the children had arrived...my father was two years old. On December 7, 1941, my father was about two months shy of his 15th birthday. His eight older brothers, however, ranged in age from 21 to 40. When war was declared and the call for soldiers came, five of them answered.

My Uncle John, the oldest to enlist at 34, worked for a construction company and enlisted in the Navy. His skills were put to good use in the Sea-Bees where he quickly attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer. The story goes that, when he was preparing the beachheads in the opening hours of the D-Day invasions, he got his helmet shot off and picked up the nearest one he could find. Unknown to him, it was an officer's. When another officer told him he needed to find another helmet, Uncle Johnny, I am told, politely refused and suggested if it was so important, that the officer find one for him. My family stayed with Uncle John at his house in Montauk Point a couple of times when I was young. Eventually, he retired to Vero Beach, Florida, where he lived to 95, passing away quietly in 2002.

The next in line was my Uncle Sammy, my Godfather. Uncle Sam was 31 when he was drafted into the Army during the first wave of the draft in 1940. He was discharged in 1941 after serving his year, but was recalled in 1942. Uncle Sammy was an MP and stationed in Iran where he served as his unit's cook. Uncle Sammy always had a kidding, wisecracking side to his nature that we all loved. I'm sure he developed that in order to defend against the inevitable tormenting cooks in the military receive. I remember many Saturday afternoons over at his house just visiting, as we would often do. We also had a few family reunions there in the 70's - that was a crowd! Uncle Sammy passed away in 1982 of leukemia. It was tough to see someone so vibrant get sick like that and it especially hurt that I was not able to donate platelets because I was only 16. Ever since I turned 17, I have been donating blood as often as I can in his memory, and made my first aphaeresis donation this year.

My Uncle Albert, nicknamed Shadow, was 27 at the time the war started. He was in the coast artillery serving in New Guinea. According to my Dad, when he wasn't manning the guns, he was one of his unit's resident mechanics, fixing trucks and jeeps. At some point later in the war, he had a brief reunion with Uncle John, possibly in Borneo, as that was a staging area for the proposed invasion of Japan. I have seen a few pictures of Uncle Albert but, unfortunately, I know the least about him because we never met. He passed away in 1950 at just 36 from complications due to malaria. I did, however, grow up knowing his daughter and her family, who were always at every family event. When we went down to Long Island a few months ago for another uncle's birthday, she was there with her husband. Though it had been years since we'd seen each other, it was as if no time had passed.

Uncle Roy was about 25 in 1941. He served in the Air Transport Command and was stationed in England and Scotland. He was a flight engineer and acted as gunner on a few bombing raids. His only son was several years older than my sister and me, so by the time we would visit him and Aunt Selma, the only other "kid" in the house was their mini-schnauzer Suki. Uncle Roy was always the most quiet of my uncles - it was a dignified sort of quiet. One very vivid memory I have was at my High School's Homecoming parade and game in 1984, the year after I graduated. The class of 1934 was honored on its 50th anniversary, and Uncle Roy attended. When the honorees, then approaching 70, were called up to be recognized during the half-time festivities, Uncle Roy stood out. He was tall and dignified, sharply dressed, without a cane, or even a limp - perfect military bearing! Uncle Roy lived to 83 years of age and passed away in 1999.

The last of my uncles to serve was Uncle Tony, born in 1920, who was in the 82nd Airborne. The story with him was that when his unit parachuted into France one or two days after the D-Day invasion started, he was one of the lucky ones who landed on the right side of a hill. On the wrong side was a Nazi machine gun nest. His unit also helped in the rescue at the Battle of the Bulge, along with Patton's tanks and other infantry divisions. Uncle Tony was seven years older than my dad was, and as such, had to deal with a younger brother tagging along all the time. His nickname for my dad was "Gink." When one of his friends finally asked him what that meant, he said, "The little sonofabitch is following me again!" Uncle Tony carried on the large family tradition and had nine kids - bringing my total first cousin count to 31 on my dad's side. After being sick for some time, Uncle Tony passed away early last year at 85.

My dad has an article hanging in his apartment...a clipping actually...from the local paper, the Long Islander (founded by poet Walt Whitman). The story is about how my grandmother joined the ranks of other local women with multiple sons serving in the armed forces. At the end, it mentioned her youngest son, Frank Jr. who planned to enlist in the Army Air Corps as a pilot cadet when he was old enough. That day never officially came. Because he had five brothers already serving, he wasn't allowed to leave High School early. So, even though he was sworn in earlier in 1945, he actually reported for duty six days after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

By that time, the Air Corps didn't need any new pilots, so they said they he could go home or pick some other field. Many of his friends in the same situation chose to go home, only to wind up back five years later for Korea. Dad, however, stayed and went to radar school. He remained in the Air Force (switchover in 1947) until 1948, leaving as a Corporal (Airman First Class). So, technically, that makes it six brothers who served during World War II. Dad says he really didn't serve in the war because he doesn't feel his time compares to his brothers' or others who were there during the real hostilities. But, the state of emergency was in effect for a few years after the war and anything could have happened. So, I give him credit for the time even if he doesn't feel it's deserved. Dad is still going strong at 80. In 1976, he and I made plans to celebrate the Tri-centennial together. I'll be 110 and he'll be 149.

Other members of my family also served.

My Uncle Jack was married to my father's next older sister, Catherine, and served in Korea. It was his 80th birthday we just celebrated recently on Long Island. Most of my Saturday evenings during the '70s were spent at their house after church, watching TV or just talking and hearing stories. Christmas and New Years was usually at their house - informal - open house - but always tons of great food. It was the house my father grew up in and the walls were covered in pictures and full of memories and stories.

My father-in-law, Wayne, is 79 and graduated High School at 16 in 1944. He trained as a pilot in P-51s toward the end of the war and was recalled toward the end of the Korean war to train in F-86s. Wayne was born in Kansas and eventually settled with his family in Southern California. He always has a lot of great stores about someplace or other he's visited or worked during his years in civil engineering.

Today, I thought about all of them, Uncles John, Sam, Albert, Roy, Tony and my father, Frank, Uncle Jack and Wayne. I am very grateful they all came home safely. Even though not all of them saw actual combat, I can't ever forget the sacrifices they were willing to make for the rest of us. I am writing this because it's important for stories like theirs to be told and retold. These men are more than just veterans from a long-ago war. They are my family and I honor and thank them for what they did.

Baseball Woes

I was just watching some highlights of the 1969 world series. Maybe I'm
just waxing nostalgic, but things WERE different then. For example...

First, you got to watch the game. Today, you get to see only what the
network deems important, No longer do you follow the pitcher back to the
mound to see his expression or body language between pitches. Instead, you
see replays of each pitch and play in the field. It used to be that instant
replays were for really great moments, like Swoboda's catch. Today, every
pitch is treated like the play of the game and repeated 3 or 4 times. You
see it from left field, then the dugout view, then behind the plate, and
lest we forget the toe-cam just fwd of home plate. I'm surprised they
haven't strapped cameras to the bellies of trained pigeons. Of course, some
of the more wealthy teams would just hire military-type unmanned aircraft to
hover over the plate.

Second, the announcers just announced the games. They didn't ramble on
incessantly and feel it was necessary to spew every statistic about a
player. More than let the viewers watch the games, they actually let the
viewers HEAR the game...the WHOLE game. In those highlights, you heard the
roar of the crowd...crack of the bat, or alternatively, the ball hitting the
catcher's mitt. You could get your own thoughts going about the game
because you weren't being bombarded with stupid and useless chatter. Now,
you can barely think. It's almost better to shut the sound off.

Third, and most odd, I thought. There were these areas of the field that
were darker than others. Places where it looked like the stadium lights
weren't working. If I didn't know better, I'd say they were shadows where
the stadium's upper deck blocked sunlight from reaching the field. But that
couldn't be, because we all know that baseball games are meant to be played
at night! Especially World Series' games. But these games really looked
like they were being played about 4 or 5 in the afternoon. Unheard of! I
mean, so what these were two East Coast teams, you still need to push the
games late enough to let the West Coast watch, don't you? OK, sarcasm
aside, the games today are just to damn late! Enough said.

Baseball doesn't care about it's fans anymore...only the money. The greed
starts with the players and their salaries and goes right into in the front
office with advertising and broadcast rights. It's what happens, I guess,
when you let accountants run ball clubs. They care more about the bottom
line than the base lines. That's why sports stadiums are bearing corporate
names. How sad? How much money do these people need? Don't they realize
there is a generation of kids who have been priced and timed out of ball
games? 20 years from now, when today's kids have kids, they won't be
interested much anymore, and they won't pass the love of the game down.
Where will they be then? This is why, although I have been following the
Boston Red Sox in the series, I really don't care to watch much. It's my
own form of protest. I much prefer local, minor league ball, like the New
Britain Rock Cats. Reasonable games and prices, good fun, no greed or BS.
Major leagues have become too elitist. I just don't have any time for them
anymore.

Unanswered Questions...

So, I'd like Fred Thompson to run for President, and win, of course. Maybe
I'm so impressed I'm even considering donating money to his campaign.
Maybe. But, what if he doesn't run? Suppose he doesn't get the nomination,
or worse, he just throws in the towel (not likely, I admit). What happens
to the money he's collected? I assume he doesn't just get to keep it, but
what does he have to do with it? What are his options?

Does it go to...
* Charity?
* Another candidate?
* The GOP general fund?
* The party's nominee?
* A future Thompson campaign?

Who decides? It's a simple question. But I can't find answers. And the
Fred08 website doesn't respond readily to e-mails, so they haven't told me.

Does anyone have an answer?

Is Nothing Sacred?

So, I go the market and one of the things I am asked to get is a "sweet" for
desert. "Something Halloweeny." I go down the aisle with all the Halloween
candy and get some choice goodies. On the end-cap, I see the sides of boxes
that make me pause...candy canes. I turn the corner to be faced with a
four-foot wide, seven foot high display of candy canes. I shake my
head...candy canes out before Halloween? Well, I say to myself, at least
it's just candy canes. I turn to back down the candy aisle and am
dumbfounded by what I saw next. All along the middle of the aisle, across
from the Halloween candy at which I was just looking, were Christmas
decorations. My back was to them the whole time. Christmas trees, or
rather "Holiday" trees. Come on, can't you even wait until after Haloween
is over? Let me enjoy one holiday before you start inundating me with the
next!

Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said

I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred
Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't
understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to
be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other
polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and
energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and
responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those
defined by the Constitution.

Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate
talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and
adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart
of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now,
many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the
case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President
and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of
the President has absolutely no authority?

Let's think about this. The <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>
Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the
three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means
absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or
overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of
crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to
make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties.
Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is
Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.

For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers
(cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With
respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action
to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some
attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the
Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which
consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the
President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military
action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or
employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For
the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"

So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation
and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money?
Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate
must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure
to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really
belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases,
the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public,
the press and the candidates.

Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's
responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the
sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's
human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it
easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job
description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear
anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and
editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our
Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in
office.

The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job
description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the
candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they
can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the
candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the
President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the
Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few
really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are
competing.

But, Fred does!

A Somber Anniversary

Yesterday morning my company, like most American's companies, had a moment
of silence to remember the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
and the soldiers now fighting overseas. Ours was at 8:46 AM, the time the
first plane struck. It's hard to believe it's been six years. Honestly, it
feels like it's been longer...much longer. It seems like history -
something you learn about in class that happened long ago to other people.
Sometimes, I equate it to learning about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know
better, but I can't shake the feeling of remoteness. Ironically, just
like six years ago, I was sitting in a training class at 8:46 AM. You'd
think the added sense of deja-vu would have made me feel more connected to
the day, but it didn't. After some serious thought I realized why I feel so
far removed from that day...one word...complacency.

I suppose it's natural to feel somewhat complacent about something that
happened six years ago. I mean, it wasn't yesterday. But to feel so
completely distant from it, like I remember hearing about it rather than
remembering it, makes it very surreal. It wasn't surreal for my friend who
got off his morning train at the WTC station at 8:46 AM to confusion and
fear, only to emerge on the street into a war zone. Or for my other friend
who, while coincidentally looking out of his office window at 7 Liberty
Plaza at 8:46 AM actually watched the first plane hit. It was very real for
my cousins, also, both NYC firefighters who showed up later that afternoon
for their regular shifts to continue fighting the blaze and, for weeks
afterward, assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. All four of them,
gratefully, for me and more importantly, their families, survived.

All the while, here I was, safely tucked in Connecticut, a long distance
spectator. Now, six years later, that distance seems so much greater.

The signs of that day are all around us. From security lines at the airport
to terror alerts to metal detectors to Al Qaeda videos to the war itself.
No where was it more obvious than in Washington, D.C. This spring, my
family took a vacation there. It was very sad to see a city specifically
designed for openness and accessibility hiding within itself behind jersey
barriers. Gone are the days when you could just walk into the Capitol or
the National Archives, or wait in line for a same day tour of the White
House. I don't know if we'll ever get that innocence back again.

Maybe that's really what I'm feeling - a loss of innocence - and with it
went all the expectations of safety and security I grew up feeling were mine
just because I was an American. That could be why I feel so detached from
the events of September 11...it's complacency born of a forced realization
that we are targets. Maybe I feel this way because I've so convinced myself
that we can never and have never truly been safe that I think what happened
was just natural or inevitable. Hey, it's going to rain again some day, why
get all excited when it happens and melancholy looking back? It's part of
life. But things like 9-11 aren't, or at least shouldn't be. Not for us, or
anyone.

People say we have lost our liberties over the past six years, but I think
what we've really lost is our sense of freedom. We're scared, so we hide
and stop doing things the way we used to. We guard ourselves more, close
ourselves off more. We mistrust and grumble. We immerse ourselves in
pop-culture because the reality of the world is too scary, and we think that
maybe, just maybe, if we hide from it and divert our attention, it won't
catch up with us. Imagine that...a nation of 300 million suspicious,
possibly paranoid, reality-TV watching shut-ins. No wonder we're at each
other's throats...we have cabin fever. We keep fighting and looking for
someone or something to blame for how we feel, but we're aiming at the wrong
targets.

The President isn't our enemy, neither is Congress, nor the Supreme Court,
nor the Patriot Act, nor the soldiers, nor Republicans nor Democrats nor
minorities nor whatever. Complacency...that's the enemy. These other
things are parts of our culture, something too many of us have been
avoiding for too long. Oh, we talk, or rather, argue politics, for example,
but are we really involved in it? Do we really understand it? How long has
it been? Twenty years? Thirty? One hundred? We talk about fighting the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the war here. The war for our
freedom starts here.

We need to start fighting ourselves - not each other like we have been - but
our individual selves. It's time we fought the complacency within each of
us that keeps us shut off and became involved again in our lives and our
country. Instead of watching our neighbors, how about watching out for
them? Rather than protesting something going wrong, how about celebrating
or working to further something that is going right? Why spend money on the
latest fad: save it or invest it or donate some to charity. Become involved
in your community and/or church. Don't snipe at the political opposition,
engage them in a thoughtful debate, taking the time to listen and consider
their point of view.

In the end, we'll probably find more freedom and security by doing these
things than we have known for a while. And maybe we'll put an end to that
awful complacency that tells us that what happened six years ago in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania was just inevitable and that we had it
coming. If we gain anything from 9-11, it should be to always remember that
such things were, and forever ought to be, the exceptions, not the norm.

A Different Perspective

Sean Hannity used to (and may still) interview people on the street every
Thursday afternoon on his radio show. The segment was called "Man in the
Street" and had as its main purpose demonstrating how ill-informed many
Americans (especially liberal and younger ones) are about their country,
leaders and history. At the same time, it showed how well versed so many
are in pop-culture, sports and gossip. These well done segments were both
entertaining and enlightening, and quite scary. It's sobering to hear
person after person not recognizing photos of George Bush, Dick Chaney or
Condoleezza Rice but having no problem recognizing Michael Jackson or
Brittany Spears. Truly frightening!

Sean would frequently express worry that these people were cancelling out
the votes of Republicans - a sentiment I shared - until yesterday. You see,
my mind inverts things...thoughts...constantly rolling them over and over
and providing different ways of looking at them. Yesterday, while I was
driving home, this thought must have gotten the Tony Robbins
positive-thinking treatment because I suddenly realized that I am actually
cancelling out THEIR votes. WOW! What a difference? In one flash, I went
from victim to crusader - Defender of the Right (pun intended) and all that!
I was pumped.

So, now armed with this new perspective, I have gone from worried to
hopeful. After all, there can't possibly REALLY be more Americans believing
the liberal-wing nuts instead of ascribing to conservative principles. With
that, my new mission is clear - get our numbers talking. To any
conservatives out` there who feel that you have no say, start writing
letters, speaking to friends, and making your voices heard. The Republican
Party needs you to be silent no more!

Fred Gains Ground!

Well, it was only a matter of time. Fred Thompson is now (statistically)
tied with Rudy Giuliani for the lead among the GOP candidates. While I
don't place much stock in polls as final determiners, this one does show
several things: first the general dissatisfaction Republicans have with the
other candidates, and second, the potential Fred Thompson has to win this
race. Let's face it, he was second without actually running, now after only
a week, he is tied with the leader. With this kind of momentum, the
possibilities are looking pretty good.

Now, to keep things moving, Senator Thompson needs to push for his 1-on-1
debates - and lots of them. He should start with Huckabee since he was the
first to accept, then keep working through the crowd. Hey, while he's at
it, debate some Democrat contenders also. There's nothing in the rules that
says he can't. I know other polls show Hilliary and Obama leading over
Fred, but the people just need to see the man in action.

Why Don't People Think Anymore?

I was on my way home from work and came to a "T" intersection with a stop
sign for me - the side road. I needed to turn left, so I stopped at the
line, then pulled up to see around the corner in both directions. Just then,
a driver that wants to turn right pulls up on my right a bit ahead of me and
blocks my view so I can no longer see right, but he can see left. So I pull
a little further ahead, restoring my view and blocking his. And this
numbskull has the nerve to shoot me a dirty look.

DUH!

If I'm turning left, I need to be able to see both directions. And if it's
safe for me to turn, then it is, by default, safe for the dumb-dumb next to
me to turn also. But just because it's safe for him to turn right, doesn't
mean that there isn't a car coming from that direction preventing me from
turning left.

Why don't people think??? Is it that hard to work out the logic, and maybe,
also apply a little consideration in the process?

The Huckabee - Thompson Debate...Let's See It!

Senator Fred Thompson said in an interview after formally announcing his candidacy that he would prefer a Lincoln-Douglass style of debate rather than the current multi-player, sound-byte oriented style. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has said he accepts the challenge. So let's see it! This would be a welcome change from the current debate style and if it occurred often enough with the players shifting, it would give voters a great opportunity to really see the lesser candidates and hear real discussion on the issues.

Again, one-on-one, single topic, hour long. Real discussions - real answers - I'm all for it.

So...when's it gonna be, Fred?

Senator Craig, Stay Resigned

I maintain my position on Senator Craig's restroom incident - that the
police officer was over-zealous, the transcript was ludicrous and one sided,
and that he shouldn't have plead guilty and shouldn't have resigned.

Having said all that, now that he HAS resigned, he should not do an
about-face. I say this for the same reasons I say he shouldn't have plead
guilty and shouldn't have resigned in the first place...it made him appear
weak-spined. Now, waffling on whether or not to stay in office only makes
him appear more so.

This isn't an indictment of Senator Craig's career, service or general
character - no doubt the recent events have sent his life and mind spinning.
However, he needs to stick by his decision to resign - there can be no
turning back.

Senator Craig, go ahead and fight your legal battle over the guilty plea -
and best of luck there! But as for your Senate seat, go gracefully. Doing
so will allow you a final measure of self and public respect.

Put Your Standards Where Your Mouths Are!

Once again, important issues are being pushed off the front page in favor of
selections from the seedier side of life. The main-stream press and high
blogsphere are having field-days with Senators Craig and Vitter. While
Senator Craig's guilt looks in-question to me, Senator Vitter's has been
confessed. Still, do these things need to be discussed to the extent to
which they are? Day after day, the same stale sound bites followed by the
same tired analyses. Why? To sell papers or ads and keep us interested.
Hey, sex sells, and no one knows that better than a journalist. When it
comes to influencing public opinion, the press puts Madison Avenue to shame.

It isn't just sex, however, that sells. Financial misdealings, money in the
freezer, war records (or lack thereof), birthday party wishes, drugs,
partying children, plagiarism. The list goes on. I'm not condoning
immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but all the coverage does make
innocence rather irrelevant. People are tried and convicted in the press
and the not-guilty never seem to get separated from the guilty. Certainly,
the press never attacks vindicating and apologizing with the same zeal they
attack accusing. Why? Again, guilt sells, innocence bores. To some caught
in the crossfire, it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way life goes, I
guess. Especially in politics.

While it's true that we want our elected officials to be people of high
merit, we can't expect them to be any less human and fallible than
ourselves. People make mistakes and within reason, we need to try to
forgive, or at the very least, be somewhat understanding. Lets not forget
that elected officials are also fellow citizens. Just because they chose to
serve doesn't mean they should forfeit all rights to privacy. And let's
face it, illegalities and ethics issues aside, many of the things discussed
are private matters - best left out of print and off the record. Some of
the issues brought to light are just ridiculous. It's one thing to try to
defend against something worthy of a fight, but how do you defend against
the absurd? It makes me realize the truth in the saying "Anyone truly
qualified for a political office doesn't want it." Can you blame them? If
we want people to continue step forward and serve, they need to have some
assurances that they will not be convicted solely on accusation - especially
stupid ones, and if they do make some mistakes, that they'll be given the
chance to apologize and/or make amends.

But if people who are supposed to serve the public trust are to be held to a
higher standard, where does that leave journalists? Aren't they, too,
supposed to serve the public trust? Don't they, too, have a responsibility
for fairness, restraint, honesty and integrity? If they are going to
question other's ethics and morals, shouldn't theirs be subject to similar
scrutiny? So to the people of the press, before you ask your next
accusatory question or write your next career ending article, ask yourself
"is it worth it?" "Who else will be hurt by what I say or write and do they
deserve it?" "Is it journalism, or sensationalism?" "Am I serving the
public trust or just trying to sell papers and maybe win a Pulitzer?" More
importantly, ask yourself if you are truly qualified to stand in judgment of
others. Ask yourself if you could pass a similar personal test. Do you
truly have the moral high ground? It's time you apply the same standards to
yourselves that you apply to others. Subject yourselves to that through
which you put others. I, for one, don't believe you have the stomachs, or
empty closets for it.

Don't Go To The Bathroom In Airports!!!

The word is out! Don't go to the bathroom in airports or you may be arrested for lewd conduct.

Senator Larry Craig resigned from his senate seat because an over-zealous police officer held his interpretation of events over the Senator's and decided to played judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. He called the senator a liar. How did he lie? I listened to the tape of the questioning between Senator Craig and the officer...it was ludicrous! "You touched the bottom of the stall between us." "Your foot touched mine." "Your palm was up." "I see this type of stuff in here every day." Whoa...sounds incriminating to me! Let's lock the sicko up and throw away the key!!!

I'm talking about the cop, actually...not Senator Craig.

If the Senator did anything wrong based on what I heard on that tape, it was giving up too damn quick. Explain something to me. How can the police officer say he was NOT trying to entrap people, but then say he sees this type of stuff every day? Sounds like a prolonged sting peration to me. Either that, or the officer has some explaining to do about his OWN intentions in the restroom. How great would it have been if the conversation went as follows?

Officer: Your foot touched mine

Craig: No it didn't, yours touched mine.

Officer: And your hand reached down. And I saw your ring.

Craig: Why the hell were you looking under my stall?

Officer: I saw you looking into the stalls while you were waiting.

Craig: Were you checking me out even before I sat down? You really need a new hobby.

Officer: I'm disappointed in you, Senator.

Craig: I'll bet. It seems you had hoped for a livelier afternoon. But you're really not my type. I like women - my wife, in particular.

Officer: Never mind, wise ass, just go catch your flight (sound of ripping ticket)

Craig: Thanks, officer. By the way, you should know it's probably illegal to solicit sex in a public restroom. They probably have bars for this type of thing...

Obviously, I don't know the officer's intentions, and have no real basis for making any accusation, but this invented dialogue shows how absurd this incident is, and how easily one side can dominate a discussion, putting the other on the defensive and making them sound guilty.

Welcome, Fred!

Well, now we're going to see a campaign. Fred Thompson will be announcing
his candidacy this Thursday, and I can't wait! I'm not deluding myself into
thinking that just because he is entering the race that he has it locked
up...far from it. But, he has a good chance and I hope he gets it. Even if
he doesn't get the nomination, he is definitely going to shake things up and
get Republicans focused on more important issues. Given the problems we've
been having lately, we need that focus badly.

So, welcome, Fred. Make it count!

Please run, Fred!

I've made my decision. I want Fred Thompson to run for President of the United States of America. I know there are people who are going to argue this with me, but I have good reasons. Mostly, I agree with him on many issues. Notice I said many, not all. I don't believe it's possible to fall in line totally with a candidate's beliefs. I agree with President Bush on many issues, but certainly, not all. However, when choosing a candidate to back for public office, we must weigh our options against all the issues currently in need of attention and make our choice. Most often, we must compromise some desires in order to get most of what we want.

Here are just a few examples of where I agree with Senator Thompson:

1. Illegal aliens should not be given any preferences just because they happened to make it in to the country and evade capture long enough. They certainly do not deserve the rights or benefits of a citizen or resident alien, nor especially protection under our laws. Remember, they flouted our laws to get in here in the first place, Now they (supported by the ACLU and Democratic party hierarchy) want those same laws to wok in their favor when it suits them? I don't think so. A sovereign nation has the right to control the flow of people into its borders and to deal with those who enter illegally.

2. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Every time taxes get lowered, people save more, invest more, spend more, work more and general revenues to the government actually increase. Every time taxes go up, people stop saving, investing and spending...tax increases, unemployment and inflation follow. This is not theory, it's economic and historic fact.

3. The death penalty works, and is fair. We must not as a society or nation dictate to states how to prosecute criminals. Local judges, not federal ones, must be allowed to make local decisions based on locally passed laws. Pressure groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International must not be given federal forums to lobby against issues rightfully belonging to states.

4. Abortion is not a national or Presidential issue. It should be left to the states. Rowe v. Wade was not wrong in its support for legal abortion, but rather in it usurpation of state authority over how to best manage this delicate and personal issue locally.

Detractors say "he's an actor playing the role of President." To that, I say..."So what?" These same arguments were made a generation ago about President Reagan. They have as little relevance now as they did then. Let's face it, actors have always been involved in things outside sound stages - often with great success. Does that mean that we should not pay attention or support them?

* Are Oprah Winfrey's efforts to help the poor in Africa to be chided because she is an actress?
* Should we have not contributed to hurricane Katrina relief just because Sean Penn said we should?
* Were Tom Hanks' efforts to promote human space flight shallow because he played an astronaut in a movie?

Certainly not! Celebrities actually have distinct advantages in politics: knowing how to handle the media; being able to sell themselves and, as follows, their ideas; being able to speak clearly and engagingly in public. These are some things our current President lacks in abundance - and I say this even though I voted for him twice. President Clinton, on the other hand, could sell flannel long johns in the desert, make you feel honored for the chance to buy them and eager to put them on. Had he not not run for public office, President Clinton might have made it big as an actor or salesman.

Some people will say he was a lazy Senator. To this, I say that having your name on as many pieces of legislation as possible is more about self aggrandizement and less about active legislating. Supporting a bill by voting for it is doing the job he was sent to do. Some say he made his money as a Washington insider, and now wants to play the outsider. Well, he is an outsider because his approach to running for and being president would be outside the normal pattern of behavior for most candidates or Presidents - low key, firm, and approachable. He also has a better understanding of the tactics of lobbyists, having been one himself, and is better suited than most for handling them.

Besides all that, I just feel like I can trust him. I feel completely comfortable with the thought of him as President. I haven't felt that with any candidate since 1980 and 84 (Reagan).

While I am still learning about all of Senator Thompson's positions, I have heard enough to know I like what he is saying. Most candidates, regardless of party, want the same end results for our nation and citizens: liberty, prosperity, security and happiness. What we really vote for is the method, or path, we want to take to get there. In the end, we vote for who we feel will lead us where we need to go in the most efficient and/or appropriate way. I believe Fred Thompson is that person.

So, Fred, won't you please run for President?

NASA Needs PR Help!

A few words of explanation about Science and Engineering:

Science is about investigating, discovering, explaining and understanding. Engineering is about imagining, planning, creating and inventing. Scientists probe the mysteries of the universe and look for the laws that govern how things happen. Engineers use those laws to make things happen on command. Scientists ask "Why?" Engineers say "Because!" I'm a mix of the two. With a BS in Aerospace Engineering and a MS in Mechanical Engineering under my belt, I have worked in a variety of fields. Sometimes I've been an engineer, sometimes a scientist, sometimes both. Both jobs are tough, but they can also be very rewarding...much like writing. One thing engineers and scientists don't always do well, however, is selling their work.

Discovery and invention require money. Without it, ideas die, and gadgets just gather dust on shelves. No one organization I can think of suffers from this dilemma more than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA. Born 50 years ago from the former National Advisory Council for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA was to be the agency that would lead America to the stars. In just 12 years, we went from rockets that blew up on the pad, to the moon...six times. It looked like there were no limits. But that was thirty eight years ago. Today, we are stuck in Earth orbit going around in circles at 17,500 miles an hour. Such is the current state of our space program. The reason? NASA is suffering from PRDS - Public Relations Deficiency Syndrome.

Here's an example. To date, over 100 extra-solar planets have been discovered. Recently, one was found possibly approaching the size and composition of Earth. What do the scientists always say when interviewed? "This can help us figure out how the universe began?" I know I'm a techno-weenie and supposed to be really into this stuff...but...SO WHAT? What good is this to us? Is NASA planning on starting their own universe somewhere? Maybe the government is looking to license the technology, or franchise it out in "Universes R Us" stores. Maybe do-it-yourself kits, like Tinker Toys® or Legos®.

I understand the implications such information holds, and the possible benefits. And the general public, by-and-large is not stupid, many of them get it, too. But, as the people who have to foot the bill, we need, want, expect, and are entitled to more. If NASA wants to put us in space again, then they must gather public support for it and the reasons must be more compelling, and promise more tangible pay-offs than just knowledge. But as smart as these rocket guys are, they just don't get it. NASA needs to explain things in ways that address specific problems.

For example:

- Perfecting methods to discover extra-solar planets can help develop methods for future spacecraft navigation.

- Being able to detect and view Earth-sized objects around distant stars increases an interstellar ships chances of detecting and avoiding interstellar material that can damage it.

- Long range detection methods will also improves our ability to find Earth-bound objects much farther away - giving us more time to react.

- Being better able to determine the composition of distant planets and atmospheres allows us to better search for resources on our own planet, and monitor our environment.

- Putting men back on the moon could lead to permanently manned manufacturing facilities which would not contribute to the pollution of our atmosphere, water and land.

- Lunar-based telescopes could be bigger and more elaborate than those in orbit, allowing improved capabilities for the first few bullet items above.

- Manned space exploration would increase the need for on-ship recycling of all manner of waste into usable materials that don't pollute. This would trickle down to Earth and help us control our waste.

- Large scale manned and unmanned exploration will prompt major improvements in clean and efficient energy sources such as fuel cells and solar power.

There, that wasn't so hard was it? And I don't even work in the space business. Imagine what those guys could think of if they try. Maybe they already have, but they just need to find their voices. This isn't lip-service, either. There are true, real and highly tangible benefits to the Earth for space exploratin. But, as the Mercury Astronauts realized in the movie "The Right Stuff," "No bucks…no Buck Rogers." If NASA wants to go anywhere and do anything, they need to step up and start talking to the American people about what's in it for them.

It sounds like Michael Griffin needs to plan a trip to Madison Avenue before the moon!

Emotional Guardrails

I've been quiet recently. Mostly, my paying job has kept me very busy. However, at those rare moments when I found myself with both the time and energy to write anything happily coinciding, I have been at a loss to know what to say. Quite frankly, it all just seems so ridiculous. Here is one example of something that has been bugging me for some time. I am tired of being confronted...no...assaulted with instructions on how I am to behave. Be courteous...don't offend anyone...consider the other's opinions...and my favorite...the incessant safety reminders. The list goes on. These "emotional guardrails" are meant to provide a safe and secure environment in which we may live peacefully together and walk happily hand in hand, smelling the thornless roses and kissing the stingless bees.

The problem with this type of sappy, happy-slappy stuff is that while it may be fine for kindergarten right before milk and cookies and nap time, it doesn't make it in the real world. Life is messy, dangerous and people can be downright mean. It's bad enough our schools have sterilized our children's environments to the point where they can no longer take a punch, literally or figuratively, but now they are trying to do it to adults as well. You can't just tell people to be careful and hope they never fall. They will fall...and when they do, it's going to hurt.

When I was growing up in the 70's, I was fortunate enough to have parents from the Greatest Generation. They knew about tough...they knew because they lived it. My parents gave me advice and warnings, and then sent me on my way knowing I would fall, get hurt (emotionally and physically), embarrass myself and fail. When things happened, they weren't automatically fixed for me. Most often, my parents would explain why the thing happened, then tell me to go make it right. This approach gave me scars, again, both emotionally and physically but I wouldn't trade them because they helped thicken my skin - something sadly lacking in many people growing up today.

I'm certainly not advocating that people start engaging in reckless, dangerous, discourteous or hateful behavior. Far from it. What needs to happen, however, is that as best as we try to get along or be safe, we need to be prepared for failure, how to deal with it and, most importantly, how to get past it. We also need to understand that sometimes, the failures come from outside our immediate sphere of influence. Sometimes we and those with whom we are immediately associating are trying our best. Sometimes, it's someone or something else causing problems. We need to be prepared for those situations, too.

We live in a world with many people who don't share our concerns or dreams, and on a planet that doesn't know or care that we are even here. Both our fellow inhabitants of Earth, and even the Earth itself can cause us pain. Again, life often is messy, disorganized, chaotic and, yes, downright dangerous. We can't always change other people or the planet to suit ourselves, and we will be forever debating the merits of trying. But, we can change ourselves. Alongside things like courtesy, respect, caution and compassion we can and must adopt in ourselves and instill in our children the additional characteristics of determination, perseverance and
resilience.

Immigration Reform is Fine - But How About Government Accountability?

Recently, I've been researching and compiling my family's history. On a popular genealogy website, I found information about my grandparents & great-grand parents dating back to the mid-1800's. It has been a lot of fun. My mother's family immigrated from Germany and my father's from Italy. One interesting similarity I proudly noted is that the records I found always said "Date Immigrated," rather than "Date Snuck In."

The distinction between these two phrases is clear: There are no such things as "Illegal Immigrants." Immigration is a legal process supported by the Constitution, codified in laws, and {supposedly) enforced by the government. People who come here without following the rules are criminals. Why has this point been missed by our elected officials? The government was wise to put a set of milestones for the government of Iraq into the war funding bill. How about a set of milestones for OUR government in the immigration reform bill?

First, the government should be required to show measurable progress toward improved security - and that those steps are working. Not just checks in the box. Why not put the National Guard on the Canadian and Mexican borders? We use the Coast Guard to patrol our nation's wet borders. Certainly it's appropriate to use soldiers to also patrol the dry ones. Second the government must also show that it is actually starting to enforce the laws already on the books, and the new ones it is passing. Otherwise, they aren't worth the paper on which they are written.

We've too long in this country given the government (Democrat or Republican controlled) a pass on doing the job we ask it to do, or that it has promised to do. We've been settling for excuses and lip service rather than results. We are the bosses and they are accountable to us. It's time they start proving they are worth all the time we spend electing them. They need to be accountable for their responsibilities - especially when it comes to something like security.

Portions of this post were part of a recent letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant.