Why I tend being an independent

I grew up in Chicago, was there in the park for the convention of 1968. My old man didn't want me there, but understood why I had to be.

I was also in Chicago when a few years before that Martin Luther King was doing some housing marches and one of them was down Fullerton Avenue in our very Catholic, very Polish, and very white neighborhood.

In the days leading up to the march, our neighbors and their children, the guys I hung with and played pickup ball games with, could be heard mumbling the typical racist remarks. "What's that n--ger think he's doing?" "Let's go throw rocks at that n--ger and all his n--ger friends."

My Dad took me aside. I think he did the same with my two brothers. He told me in no uncertain terms that if I went anywhere near Fullerton Avenue, the barber strop he had hanging in the closet would be used not to hone any razor, but would definitely hone my bottom. He never took that strop out of the closet, but we all knew it was there.

He told me, "The man has a right to walk where he wants, to say what he feels."

It was the first time in my life, in that time, in that neighborhood, that I had ever heard a black man referred to as a man and not the pejorative term. I guess I never really listened to my old man before. I thought he was just like all the other yahoos in the neighborhood. Man, was I ever wrong.

My old man taught me tolerance before it was chic. He taught me the value of free expression before I read the opinions of Oliver Wendell Holmes and others. He taught me to think for myself and not let my friends, or neighbors, or relatives, or anybody change what I know is right and good in my heart and soul and mind.

I like to think that my thoughts and beliefs and political leanings are a product of my own making, my own education, things I have seen and experienced over the years. And in part those things have made me an independent. Mostly, though, it was my upbringing, my old man. And maybe a barber strop that was never used.

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

I don't like Hillary

Over at the DNC site, someone named Jim in a recent post asked for unfiltered attacks on Hillary, which he later tempered by asking that I, and others, give reasons why Mrs. Clinton should not be President.

I apologize for not answering sooner, but, as you know, life got in the way of this less weighty endeavor. And the time away gave me a chance to mull over my thoughts before replying blithely.

Mrs. Clinton is definitely qualified to be President. She, as does any of the candidates, meets the Constitutional requirements. She has served as a Senator for more than one term. She has introduced and cosponsored legislation which she believes is for the betterment of the country. She is no more, nor less, "qualified" than any of the other candidates. They all have a record of public service and life experiences on which to draw. So, Mrs. Clinton is qualified.

But, I will not vote for her.

Some have touted her trips to foreign countries as first lady. This, some say, make her eminently qualified on foreign policy. Uh, she was hardly anything more than a tourist on those trips. As far as I, or the American taxpayers, know she had no policy making role on any of them.

No, I will not vote for her.

At the most recent debate among the current Democratic candidates, she chided Mr. Obama as being naive for suggesting that he would meet with leaders of countries that right now are considered as problems, such as North Korea. She said something to the effect that such meetings could be used for propaganda purposes by such countries. Isn't that exactly what the Bush administration said when the Speaker of the House made an overseas visit to an unfriendly country? And didn't Mrs. Clinton say she would open diplomatic conversations with these same countries back in April? Sounds like talking out of both sides of her mouth to me.

Nope. She ain't getting my vote.

A recent poll of registered voters, both Democratic and Republican showed that 52 percent of them won't consider voting for Mrs. Clinton.

Seems to me that a lot of other people ain't voting for her either.

When her husband was running for President he made much of the fact that we would be getting a twofer deal. So, I think I am safe in assuming that much of what he did can also attributed to her then, and now. I was not a big Bubba supporter. During his presidency, Nat Hentoff, a respected writer and expert on the Bill of Rights, called Clinton a "serial violator of the Constitution" and referred to him as the worst President in history for the Bill of Rights. Given his penchant for attacking Bush regarding Constitutional violations, I would think that Hentoff has probably revised that assessment and moved Bill down to number 2 on the list of worst ever. Still, I find it ironic that those who rightly decry what Bush is doing to the Constitution never acknowledge that the guy before him was engaging in the evisceration of our rights, too. I simply do not trust Hillary to do the right thing regarding civil liberties. And I don't think she will do a thing to correct the mistakes of her husband or the current President.

Much has also been said about economic growth during the Clinton terms. I teach. The national average salary for teachers doubled during the Reagan years. By the NEA's own statistics, teacher salaries during the Clinton years remained stagnant. So from a personal economic standpoint, I don't see anything that Hillary has proposed that will do much for me, and if we're honest, that is what any voter really considers when pulling that lever.

Almost all politicians get their money to run from donors with some type of special interest. Hillary is no different. She is getting larger donations from drug companies and the health care industry. They will expect her to back their interests, and I suspect that she will. She is not stupid and will do what is necessary to keep the money rolling in to her coffers.

In short, I do not like her. There. I've said it. I think she will be bad for the country, bad for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

I most definitely will not vote for her.

Somewhere in the comments in Jim's original post, some one said "I have no tolerance for independents..." I think that is a mistake. Yes, any election is about winning it. But recent elections have been decided by independent voters, not partisan ones. Members of the Democratic party will vote for their candidate, pretty much regardless of who it is. Members of the GOP will do the same. But the independent voters will have to be convinced about who to support and turn out for. Right now, for me, it ain't Hillary and won't be.

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

A passing

This has nothing to do with politics or candidates, nor should it.

In World War 2, my wife's grandmother became the first Gold Star mother in Wisconsin. Later she became the first three Gold Star mother. She lost three boys in the conflict and one lost his legs and later took his own life. Two other sons were in that conflict. One passed away five years ago and the last one two months ago. One of her daughters gave birth to the woman who has been my wife for nearly 35 years.

The lines of her family have given the lives of its men to the service and honor of this nation. That tradition carried on with other men and women in the military, even today, with our nieces and nephews in the reserves and regular Army.

It is with great sadness that I note that my wife's mother, part of that long line of women who understood passing of loved ones, has now also passed into the next life, into the loving arms of her Creator and those loved ones who preceded her.

She was 84. Her great heart and loving spirit went in peace. She was the last of that Gold Star mother's children, but that line, that spirit, that stalwart American soul lives on. I see it the woman I love and in our children. It will not fade away.

My vote counts more

My vote counts more than I think.

I was doing one of those online survey/test things related to politics. I forget the web address, but it was one of those things that are supposed to reveal your "true" political leanings. I've taken several such things and, without much variation, I always come up with some slight leaning to the left, but mostly stick around the middle, which is why I refer to myself as a "centrist libertarian." I'm not sure why, but it makes me evaluate where I stand on things, particularly when election time rolls around. And I look for candidates come close to where I am.

I'm not a sycophant, dutifully adhering to a party line with my vote. I can honestly say that I have never voted a straight party ticket, and can't envision myself ever doing so. I've said here before that I think the key to 2008 is the independent vote. It always is. I think, too, that a strong third party candidate can, depending on how he or she is perceived by independents, swing an election one way or another. Bill Clinton probably won his first term as President because Ross Perot took voters away from the first George Bush. Al Gore, although he garnered more popular votes, lost to the second George Bush in part because of Ralph Nader running for the Green Party. For that, Nader was vilified by most Democrats for running again in 2004.

I truly do want to vote for a Democrat next year, but my vote is not guaranteed. It is precious to me. I'd rather heed the advice of Eugene Debs: "It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

***
This and other pieces also appear at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay, or to read other pieces please visit there.

Obama gets cheered in Detroit

Obama drew cheers at the NAACP convention in Detroit as stated in this AP report: Link

But I found this part of the story troubling:

After the forum, Fox News microphones picked up Clinton and Edwards discussing their desire to limit future joint appearances to exclude some rivals lower in the crowded field. "We should try to have a more serious and a smaller group," Edwards said.

Clinton agreed. "We've got to cut the number. ... They're not serious," she said, then thanked Obama and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich as they walked by. Turning back to Edwards, she added that she thought their campaigns had already tried to limit the debates and "we've gotta get back to it."

I say the more options out there for voters to choose from, the better. I want to hear Kucinich and Gravel and all the rest, not the arrogant, canned pabulum of the top.

***
This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

Our real economic future?

Maybe all those dire predictions about our impending doom globally are correct. But, if we put our stock in all those climate "experts," should we not also put stock in the financial "experts" who also have a doom and gloom outlook for this country if we continue on the entitlement course we have set for ourselves?

The US Comptroller General David Walker is forecasting a future of dire consequences for failing to act fiscally responsible. 60 minutes originally aired this in March and rebroadcast it on July 8.

CBS sixty minutes report

I am reminded of the FRAM oil filter commercials about paying now or paying later. What is it going to take to get both Democrats and the GOP on board to deal with this before we all end up flat broke and busted?

Now before everyone gets bent outta shape about Walker, it should be noted that he took office in 1998 during the Clinton administration, and the Comptroller General serves a term of fifteen years, designed to keep the General Accounting office bipartisan and not prone to cronyism and political bias. The office deals with the numbers, and in this case, the numbers don't lie.

It seems to me that we are in deep doo doo, and our elected officials, from Washington on down aren't doing diddly to solve the problem. When we talk about what we are leaving our children and grandchildren, isn't this legacy just as important? Is any candidate speaking to this really or just paying lip service and skirting the issue?

***
This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

My Vote

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

I get a kick out of the way some people have accused me of being a GOP plant. The only plants around here are those non-thinking individuals who will blindly follow the leader no matter where he or she will take them.

I suppose it could be said that that is the mark of a good leader, one people will follow blindly without question. Bubba Clinton has his adherents no matter how many flaws he had as a person and a President. They will go to their graves denying that he ever did anything wrong. But, I think one's own moral compass is what should determine one's vote, not the leader or the party.

My moral compass is not either of the major parties. My moral compass is me.

I see strength in my own moral compass every time someone accuses me of being a conservative. I see it when my neighbor accuses me of being a liberal. I see that this is where 2008 will be decided and I am kind of enjoying this sense of power. I can now understand why the GOP wants power and wants to keep it. I can now understand why the Democrats want the same thing.

My power is in my vote and, yes, I have made up my mind already for whom I will not support nor vote �" ever. I have stated numerous times that I cannot find anything in Hillary Clinton to support. I have not seen anything in any of the GOP announced candidates either. And the more I learn about the potential candidates of both parties, I do not like any of them either.

Does that mean that if the Dems put up Hillary I will not vote for her? Yes, it does. So what? It is my vote and I will cast it for the person I want to lead this nation. And I consider almost any of the announced Democratic candidates far more suited than Hillary Clinton to run the show. And, save her, I consider almost any of them infinitely superior to any of the announced GOP candidates.

So if the Dems want Hillary, that will be their choice. Come November, 2008, I will make mine. It won't be her. It won't be the GOP either. I will vote, but I will look at another lever to pull. Now that is real power, and I am really looking forward to exercising it.

Another "Live" Concert

This also appears at the blog site of the Democratic Party. To read any comments that people have made about this brief essay please read it there.

On July 4 we celebrate yet another year of our independence as a nation and as a people. Almost every person, regardless of age, race, religion, or gender has heard, or knows by heart, Jefferson's words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Over the years I have been on this planet, and a citizen of this great nation for those same years, we seem to have forgotten those words and what they really mean or should mean.

So it's disheartening to read stuff like this:

Live Earth is a musical show being put on ostensibly to bolster the global warming alarms being raised by Al Gore and other environmentalists. Former Vice President Al Gore, whose Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" jump-started the debate about global warming and environmentalism, says Live Earth will be the start of a "worldwide, mass persuasion communications campaign" that will last up to five years. (Link)

What happened our right to Liberty? The liberty to think what we want without having to have a "mass persuasion?" Are the holes in the global warming theory (and make no mistake, it is a hypothesis, a conjecture of what might happen) so big and the evidence so flimsy that we now need to be persuaded on a mass, global basis?

I'm sorry. People can believe Al Gore all they want. They can start buying Priuses or other energy efficient vehicles, cut their lawns and shovel their sidewalks by hand, recycle, and whatever else they want to do to save the planet. All the more power to them.

But when people like Big Al start talking about "mass persuasion" it should be a big red flag to people who truly believe in freedom of thought. It's just propaganda. And propaganda is nothing more than brain-washing. And woe to anybody who disagrees with the propaganda.

And some people want Al to enter the race for 2008? He scares me more than Hillary sometimes.