The Emperor's New Clothes

I have seen the liberal pundits wail in print today about the inexperience of the pick for Vice President - Sarah Palin. It is not without some merit that her youth and inexperience should be noted. Columnist Richard Cohen writes, "-she is eminently unqualified to be president of the United States. That 3 a.m. call had better be a wrong number." Well, well, I wasn't aware that vice presidents were to be the recipient of the 3 a. m. call. I somehow thought that was supposed to be the president.

This would be a good time for Democrats to go back and read Hans Christian Anderson's ageless fairy tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes". I think Mr. Cohen's remark is just as aptly applied to the Democratic nominee from Illinois. Obama by any reasonable standard doesn't have the knowledge and experience to receive the 3 a.m. phone call. Will he have Biden on speed dial and quickly forward the call?

The office of President of the United States is in the executive branch, Mr. Cohen. Experience in an executive capacity is a bit different from casting a vote on the Senate floor, especially if it involves flying hastily in from the campaign trail to vote on legislation you've probably not read. I'm afraid most of us would not count for much being a community organizer in Chicago as executive experience. I'm afraid "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" is canceled and his "phone a friend" option is rather suspect in the White House. Obama has the weakest credentials of any candidate I can remember, which goes back to Franklin Roosevelt. FDR had been a governor, Truman a Vice President, Ike a military commander, Kennedy a military commander, Johnson a Vice President, Nixon a governor, Ford a Vice President, Carter a governor, Reagan a governor, George H W Bush a Vice President, Clinton a governor, and George W Bush a governor. Only John Kennedy came close to Obama in his lack of executive experience at a significant level. So this is the man who is eminently qualified to be the president of the United States. Mr Cohen, the Emperor has no clothes on.

Then comes Sarah Palin, who by the way, is a nominee for vice president, not president. She has been a city mayor and a state governor. Every mainstream media report I've seen has referred to her as a first term governor. Pardon me, didn't Senator Obama first get elected in 2004 - since senator's have a six year term, doesn't that make him a first term senator? His record reflects a total of 143 days in attendance when the Senate was in session. Foreign policy experience? He might as well say he got it by sleeping in a Holiday Inn Express. He went on a rock tour to Europe and the Middle East and after being prodded visited Iraq, pressed a little flesh, and performed in Germany where he dissed the wounded soldiers to shoot a few hoops.

It is a shame that the left wing's desire to have an articulate, Harvard educated, black president has clouded their vision. Guys! The emperor has no clothes on.

What the Meaning of "Is", Is

Our former President, Bill Clinton, brought this candidly to our attention during his impeachment hearings ( you do remember this, don't you). Rhetorically speaking this is a good question.

For centuries philosophers have been struggling with perception versus reality. John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume and Immanuel Kant wrestled with the concept of what is real, what is material. In the years following, some consensus has developed to support the idea that for the most part, perception is relativistic, that accurate perception is always the perception of a relation.

The idea of social perception came to light in the 1940's. One class was of the sensory perceptions of such things as anger or danger, a second being those perceptions that are understood by reference to their social determinants. Of this second class of social perceptions it has been said that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver.

David Baldacci recently wrote a great novel titled "The Whole Truth". The story centered on an entity that basically created perceptions of fact that were totally fabricated, but playing on human nature and one's perceptions of what should be, could imitate fact. It is fiction but it is scary because it mimics real life so closely. Accepting the premise that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver, it is easy why Barack Obama can be either the messiah or the anti-Christ.

Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant all accommodated the reality of material things. There are such things as facts - facts being such things which can be substantiated by sensory, empirical or scientific methods - which can logically be accepted to exist.

This brings me to the problem with liberals. Their perceptions are derived from their preconceived desire for a certain result - not from fact. The myriad of legislation passed during the Johnson era reflected the liberal desire of what should be. Much of it fact has shown, didn't work. Clinton, more of a pragmatist and faced with an opposition party congress, accepted welfare reform because the programs in place didn't work. We've spent tons of money on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs and the issues addressed still exist, some even in greater depth than when the legislation was passed.

Like the ideas of the '60's and '70's, their policy indicates their desires and ignores the reality of the chance of accomplishment. This is seen in energy, global warming ( if there is such a thing realistically controllable by man) and foreign policy. Obama's tax plan is really a plan for redistribution of wealth. It is Karl Marx in drag. It ignores the fact that Communism was a failure, socialism is a failure, and that the American free enterprise system has worked.

The question now is whether the Democrats can sell their perceptions to the voters or whether the facts can get enough people back to reality to elect McCain. Somebody in the McCain camp needs articulate that change to the Carter days is not the change people really want. What McCain needs is the Hippocratic oath of politics - "do no harm".

Hillary My Hillary

Well, the great suspense is past. The Messiah has anointed Joe Biden as his VP - yes the same Joe Biden who a few months ago said Obama didn't have the experience and knowledge of foreign policy he needed to lead the nation.

He sent a text message out at 3:00 AM to announce his choice. Some Clinton supporters took this to be an "in your face" response to the ad run by Hillary during the primaries questioning whether Barack was up to the 3:00 AM alert of a crisis. The feelings exhibited by Clinton constituents would indicate that there is a lot of work to be done if Obama is going to bring most of the Hillary backers into the fold.

Some supporters interviewed have indicated there might be some disruption at the Democratic convention. Hillary herself has said a roll call vote was necessary to validate the support she had in the primary. The fact of 18 million votes keeps popping to the surface.

So what is on her mind - and Bill's? One, they are not going away. As one who closely followed their Presidency, with all of its ups and downs, I'm convinced they will not just fold their tent and ride into the sunset. The best thing for Hill would be for Obama to be beaten by McCain. This would allow her to say "I told you so" and be ready to take the spotlight in the buildup for the 2012 convention candidate. With the visibility of the senate, carefully making votes with an eye to the politics of 2012, she would be in a great position to exploit what transpired in the next four years to her political advantage.

If I should be correct, the interesting thing will be to see how she goes about helping John McCain win. It is a game we can play strictly by speculation. Does she have facts about Obama which if known, could hurt him? Will it be by the traditionally proven technique of one step forward, two backwards, that she uses. Keep in mind the Mark Anthony oration of Caesar. Will her praise help bury him?

I, as one of the proletariat, certainly don't know. But it will certainly be interesting over the next ten weeks, to watch and see what takes place.

You've Got to See It To Believe It-Media Bias

Bias, like beauty, is, to a large part, in the eye of the beholder. If you will accept the fact that this is conceptually a matter of opinion, you might beg the question of objectivity. However, even conceptually, it is not completely beyond the scope of at least quasi objectivity.

To illustrate my point let's take the Saturday (8/16/08) discussion with the two major candidates, put on by pastor Rick Warren. I watched the two hour production in its entirety. It was divided into two, one hour segments. A coin was tossed to see who would be first. The other participant was placed in a sound proof room, per Rev Warren where he could not hear his opponent's comments. After questioning the first candidate and taking a short break, the same questions were asked to the second candidate.

This morning with my first cup of coffee, I read the AP write up of the event. I began to wonder if we were talking about the same event. The AP writer gave Obama approximately two thirds of the print. On the question of abortion, he went to lengths to soften Obama's pro-choice position emphasizing his objection to late term abortions unless the health of the mother is threatened. This in itself is contradictory to previous Obama positions. McCain, in my opinion, did an excellent job. His answers were succinct, addressed the issue, seemed well thought out - and more important to me - seemed to be what he really believed or how he felt about the issue. The AP writer used the succinct answers out of context to give the reader a different understanding than if they had heard the complete dissertation on the subject. Omitted completely was McCain's statement of faith involving his captivity and torture in Viet Nam. One hallmark technique of many biased writer is what I'd call the one step forward, two backward approach. This was a much used disinformation strategy during the cold war. You make a positive statement and then you follow it with two (or more) remarks that would refute or indicate as disingenuous the positive remark. For example, "The man pleaded innocent, though he has twice been charged with a similar crime and unnamed sources were doubtful of his sincerity." One such statement concerned the confinement of the second candidate to a room where he could not hear the answers of the other. To quote the AP writer, " Warren asked both men the same questions. McCain said he did not see or hear Obama's session, which might have given an advantage." McCain didn't say that Rev Warren did and McCain responded to the pastor's statement of fact.

I did find the format interesting. The questions were taken from thousands of emails from Rev Warrens listeners and church members. Both candidates were asked identical questions. The questions were not "got you" type questions or were not slanted to gain a particular response. The respondents were given adequate time to give their views but falling back on a "stump speech", per Rev Warren, was not tolerated. It was a civil discourse involving pertinent issues to the listeners. I would like to see at least a half dozen more of the same thing prior to our having to go to the polls and vote.

Double Standard

The Mayor of a major U S city is charged, jailed, more charges, a major scandal. Would the press mention the party affiliation of the public official? Well I guess not since neither CBS, NBC or ABC mentioned that the Detroit Mayor was a democrat. If the it had been Mark Foley, there would have been twenty references in one story as to his party affiliation. Did you know that Sen Craig was a Republican? If you didn't you're brain dead. It was mentioned every time his name was.

I have some self respect. If I worked for one of the main stream media, including the Associated Press - the news gathering entity for much of the country - I could not call myself a journalist. When you stop presenting the facts as you know them and stop letting the readers interpret them as they wish you are no longer a news reporter but an opinion writer. This is sad for the American public.

During the cold war, the Soviets were masters of misinformation. The approach of one step forward and two backward was perfected to an art form. An example, " X won the election, but there was a rumor of voting irregularities. An unnamed source saw a trained dog in the voting booth allegedly pulling the Republican lever. Republicans have been accused of using dogs to impersonate registered voters.

These are the guys that yell first amendment rights at the first restraint of their diatribes and rantings by anyone. Where are the ink stained fingernails of the reporters of the old days. Where are the guys ( and gals) who worked their way up from the press room or copy writing etc to become reporters. Today's reporters are all too often upper middle class kids, whose parents could afford the luxury of sending their kids to journalism schools at prestigious universities, knowing that they might not be able to get a job and support themselves.

All I can say is thank goodness for the internet and talk radio.

Oil, Oil Everywhere But Not a Drop to Drill

This is a drama that doesn't need to be. Politics has always been theater in which fact takes second stage to perception and reality is incidental. But the sad thing is that the press, who is supposed to thrive on fact has given way to opinion and innuendo and done this without shame.

Here are some facts that don't seem to matter.

We are sitting on a sea of oil. The known reserves in the Rocky Mountain region, off shore and in the ANWAR are enormous.

The time to bring oil to market by drilling is not ten years but two to five years, according to experts.

Pollution is not a big factor. Drilling is 99.9 % safe. According to the MMS the amount of seepage from natural causes is a hundred times the average spill rate from drilling.

Speculation is a factor but not a manipulative one. People speculate in a free economy all the time. To break the back of speculative price inflation all that is needed is the probability of increased supply from more drilling, not government regulation. All that would do would be to drive the markets from Chicago overseas.

The truth is that the Democratic Party is in the pocket of the extreme environmentalists, who want high oil prices to reduce the use of fossil fuel for their perception of reduced carbon, which they accept as an inviolate fact of global warming. This is in the face of increasing evidence, not that there is global warming, though this could be in doubt, but to what degree man influences it, and to what extent man can control it.

An example of this is the story recently from a prominent university research program of a new technique to remove a lot of the carbon from the burning of coal. The "Friends of the Cumberland Mountains" protested. They don't want clean coal they want no coal. What these environmentalist "whakos" want is for everyone but them to revert to the cave man status- though those were the most environmental unfriendly people of any.

So, the facts say drill now, drill often, and get independent.