The Blog Less Traveled

Well, this election just got a little more interesting. The selection of Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate will certainly add a little spice to the presidential race. She was definitely seen as a dark horse candidate by most political observers. The press will be burning the midnight oil over the next few weeks digging up everything it can about her, good and bad. Overall, I think that she is a net positive for McCain. She has proven to be a capable and formidable executive and campaigner. She doesn’t shy away from issues and takes strong ethical stands and makes fiscally sound decisions. I think what I like about her most is how she comes across as a real and genuine person, not some politically calculating individual. She definitely doesn’t fit the profile of a typical female politician – mother of five, good looks, a basketball player, hunter, fisher, etc. A refreshing change, don’t you think?

She has two potential weak points. The current ethics investigation in Alaska may or may not be of any consequence. Her experience in foreign policy is another matter. As I’ve said in a previous posting, I’ll take character with intelligence over experience almost any day. There are enough advisors and policy experts out there to get someone up-to-speed. Plus, if lack of direct foreign policy experience is going to be a showstopper for the #2 position on the Republican ticket, what does that say for the same lack of experience for the Democrat’s #1 position? I thought it was pretty funny how the first statement out of the Democrat’s campaign was her lack of experience. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! When those words got thrown back at them, they suddenly realized their “Duh” moment and backed off.
Of course, some will say that this is strictly a political calculation on McCain’s part. He wants to appeal to women voters and some Hillary supporters disenfranchised with her exclusion from the Democrat’s ticket. I’m sure there’s a certain amount of truth to that. It does take some of the air out of the Democrat’s balloon. However, on balance, I think she makes the Republican ticket a better and stronger one.

And now for my prediction. Assuming that McCain can hold his own against Obama in his two debates, I predict that the Republicans will win the November election if Governor Palin does a fairly good job in her debate against Senator Biden. Let the games begin!

I remember during the presidential election campaign in 1992 that the Democrat’s theme was something along the line of “It’s the economy, stupid.” People supposedly weren’t all that interested in foreign policy or other non-monetary matters. They were only interested in the economy and how it affected them. Although it looks like this election cycle will be a repeat of that theme, I’d like to offer the Republican campaign the “It’s the character, stupid!” for their theme.

I’ve always felt that the character of an individual trumped all other qualities when running for office. For that matter, I think it’s the defining characteristic for most things in life, not just in running for political office. Anyway, I’m not saying that knowledge and experience aren’t important when dealing with foreign policy or economic issues. They certainly enhance your credibility in tackling these problems, especially in our current environment. Now is not a good time to be learning via on-the-job training. However, having said that, I think that anyone who can think on their feet and has a basic grasp of these fundamental policy issues can make the transition rather quickly and with little negative impact on their office. Anyone can get up-to-speed by surrounding themselves with competent advisors and trusted colleagues. But they better be very competent and trusted in the present situations we face.
No, the problem is taking this information and experience and making the right decisions with it. A person with character bases their decision on what is morally and ethically right. It’s simply a decision to do the right thing. It’s that little voice in your head that always pops up and gives you pause if you’re about to make a decision that doesn’t quite seem right. I think we’ve all had experiences in life where we wanted to take the easy path or make the best choice for ourselves but ended up making a decision that was not in our best interest but deep down felt like it was the right thing to do.

Don’t get me wrong. Neither candidate is a paragon of virtue. We all have our failings in life. We’re only human. However, when I look at the candidates, their contributions and choices in life, their mentors and friends, then the choice becomes very clear for me. This election will be at a critical juncture in our country’s history. The stakes are as high as they’ve ever been. Do we come to our fork in the road and turn left toward a one-way street of socialism and feel-good policies or do we make a right turn toward individual and collective responsibility for our countrymen and ourselves? The decision on whom to vote for this election has never been easier.

Now that the Olympics are over, did we get a true glimpse of the real China or a high-priced imitation? The games sure looked impressive on TV. The opening and closing ceremonies were well choreographed and quite colorful. The “bird cage” and other athletic venues were impressive looking. The various scenic shots of the landscape, the palaces and the Great Wall were certainly a marvel to watch. But was this the real China?

Current estimates put the cost of hosting the Beijing Olympics at 40-60 billion dollars – almost 3 to 5 times the cost of any previous Olympics. Additionally, numerous factories were completely shut down and others were operating part-time. Only a month or two ago, the pollution level in Beijing was that of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington and Atlanta, combined. The photo above was taken at Tiananmen Square before the Olympics started. Tens of billions of gallons of water were diverted from outlying farm areas to provide enough water for the city to irrigate the millions of new shrubs and trees planted as well as to provide safe drinking water for the citizens, tourists and athletes. “Safe” food had to be diverted for the influx of people. It will be interesting to hear of the sacrifices that were made by many of the people in the outlying regions who didn’t have a choice in the reallocation of resources. I also wonder what the long-term economic impact will be on the areas whose resources were diverted or completely shut down during this timeframe.

To appease the International Olympic Committee, designated “protest” zones were set up around Beijing to allow legitimate protests to be heard. However, to use a protest zone, a permit had to be approved. Guess what? Not a single permit was approved and many who had filed for a permit were arrested or deported. Web access was severely restricted to any type of site that had any negative connotations in the eyes of the Chinese government. Most hotel phone systems were being monitored.

Naturally, most of these things were never mentioned during the telecasts from NBC. We wouldn’t want to upset the Chinese government, would we? Virtually all the special story segments showed how great and beautiful and harmonious it is to live in Beijing.

So, was this the real China? Looks like Chinette to me.

Above Empyrean is a recent novel written by Bruce Herschensohn. It’s based on a scenario in which Islamic terrorists have taken over the U.S. Although it certainly can be characterized as a thriller-type novel, it is much more. The author presents a very clear and reasoned history lesson on U.S. conflict and provides much food-for-thought concerning the use of diplomacy versus a military response. The writing style makes this book a very easy read and his humor and wit is evident throughout. There is even a budding romance and spiritual component to the story. I found the book to be very entertaining as well as educational.

I believe this is a must read before the November presidential elections. I think it cuts through the current politically correct mindset we seem to be bombarded with in our media and our elected politicians. Highly recommended.

I’ve been out of town the past week. I just got back from a road trip to Vero Beach, Florida. My brother-in-law and I drove a car down last Tuesday (22 hours straight — woo hoo!) and flew back the following Monday. We took care of business and managed to sneak out just before Tropical Storm Fay hit. It was definitely a lot warmer than Michigan this time of year. It felt good getting back to the cooler and drier weather.

I no sooner got back home and the next day my wife left for a planned visit to see our daughter. Needless to say, we didn’t see each other very long. Gassed up the car, had an ice cream, talked a little, watched some of the Olympics and went to bed. A quick hug the next morning and off she went.

Now that she’s gone, it’s kind of lonely at the old homestead. I do enjoy my peace and quiet but I still miss not having her close by. Funny how that works. We’re pretty much together 24/7. When you’re together that much, you take each other for granted. There are definitely times when we get on each other’s nerves. It’s only natural. People need their alone time every now and then. You just don’t appreciate the people you’re close to until they’re not there.

Fortunately, this is just short-term. If you’re together with someone you care about right now, let them know. Be thankful, be grateful.

The Lone Ranger is captured by Indians…

The Indian Chief proclaims, “So, you are the great Lone Ranger. In honor of the Harvest Festival, you will be executed in three days. But, before I kill you, I will grant you three requests. What is your first request?”

The Lone Ranger responds, “I’d like to speak to my horse.”
The Chief nods and Silver is brought before the Lone Ranger, who whispers in Silver’s ear and the horse gallops away. Later that evening, Silver returns with a beautiful blonde woman on his back. As the Indian Chief watches, the blonde enters the Lone Ranger’s tent and spends the night.

The next morning the Indian Chief admits he’s impressed. “You have a very fine and loyal horse but I will still kill you in two days. What is your second request?”

The Lone Ranger again asks to speak to his horse. Silver is brought to him, and he again whispers in the horse’s ear. As before, Silver takes off across the plains and disappears over the horizon. Later that evening, to the Chief’s surprise, Silver again returns, this time with a brunette, even more attractive than the blonde. She enters the Lone Ranger’s tent and spends the night.

The following morning the Indian Chief is again impressed. “You are indeed a man of many talents, but I still kill you tomorrow. What is your last request?” The Lone Ranger responds, “I’d like to speak to my horse….alone.” The Chief is curious, but he agrees; and Silver is brought to the Lone Ranger’s tent.

Once they’re alone, the Lone Ranger grabs Silver by both ears, looks him square in the eye and says, “Listen very carefully you stupid horse, for the last time … BRING POSSEEEE!”

I find that “changing” only one word in the Democrats’ latest slogan makes it much more believable. Here are a few examples.

Senator John Edwards – finally admits to extramarital affair after constantly lying to the public and denying it. The following was Edwards’ response in 2007 to CBS News anchor Katie Couric’s question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse:
“Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans — including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it’s fundamental to how you judge people and human character — whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you’ll stay with them. … I think the most important qualities in a president in today’s world are trustworthiness — sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And — and certainly that goes to a part of that.”

Senator Ted Kennedy – He’s all for the environment and alternative energy but has been fighting tooth-and-nail to keep a wind turbine farm from being constructed a few miles from his own home. Also, he has basically gotten away with murder or at the very least voluntary manslaughter. He drove his car off a bridge after drinking at a party and without a valid driver’s license and left his mistress-for-the-night to drown at the bottom of the pond. Didn’t report the accident for over eight hours. The first people he contacted after the accident were two of his lawyer friends. The only thing he was cited for was leaving the scene of an accident. Four years later, at the height of Nixon’s Watergate scandal, Kennedy thundered from the Senate floor, “Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?”

Senator John Kerry – “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

President Bill Clinton – one of only two presidents ever impeached. After lying to the public about his sexual encounters with a White House intern, he later lied under oath on more than one occasion. His pardon of friends and felons only hours before leaving office speaks volumes of his true character.

Vice President Al Gore – goes trotting around the country and the world in his private jet and SUV spewing tons of carbon telling all the “little” people about global warming and how everyone needs to sacrifice. Maintains a residence in Tennessee that uses more energy than 10-20 normal homes.

General Wesley Clark – Concerning his support of the Congressional resolution authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq, Clark said to the New York Times, “At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that’s too simple a question.” Again, when asked by a Times reporter, he said, “I don’t know if I would have or not. I’ve said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it.” However, when asked the next month by CNN whether he would have supported a Congressional resolution on the Iraq war, he said, “The answer is very clear. The answer is, I would have voted for a resolution that took the problem to the United Nations. I would not have voted for a resolution that would have taken us to war. It’s that simple.”

These are the standard bearers for the Democratic Party. Democrats should feel proud. I could list dozens more, but I’ll get too nauseous. Yes, there are some Republicans that have been guilty of less than stellar behavior, too. However, they don’t normally stay in prominent leadership positions in their party. They’re usually honorable enough to go quietly. Democrats seem to be enamored with these people and think their transgressions are perfectly normal. Do you really think the current Democrats’ slogan, “Change We Can Believe In” really means anything?

A few months ago, I wrote that one way to fix our political system was to term-limit our Congress. Putting limits on them would reduce their propensity to deal with issues based on how it would affect their chances for re-election. Unfortunately, with all the seniority in Congress, the chances of getting them to pass legislation limiting their terms are slim-to-none.

With this in mind, I’ve come up with a simple solution that would effectively provide the same outcome without any help from Congress – Always vote for the non-incumbent! This will provide the exact same benefit as having term limits. Whether you’re Republican or Democrat, just vote for the person not currently in office. This sounds a little crazy, but hear me out.

One objection I’m sure many of you are thinking of is that if, for example, I’m a Democrat, and a Democrat is currently in office, I have to vote for a Republican. Not necessarily so, or at the very least, highly unlikely. During the primary season for your party, just vote for the incumbent’s opponent. If the challenger wins the primary, this will effectively allow you to keep voting for your party. Ideally, I would like to see the two-party political system disappear. There’s too much divisiveness and voting going on strictly based on party lines. In its place, I would put in a system where the top four vote-getters during the primary season are put on the ballot. No party affiliations whatsoever. Each candidate would garner their votes based on their stand on the issues. The perfect situation would be for some non-partisan panel to come up with a list of questions on the most pressing issues for that state/district and require each candidate to provide a written response for publication in the local newspaper.

As I’ve said before, limiting a politician’s term will hopefully make them focus on their real duties and responsibilities of the office that they hold. A perfect example of this loss of focus is the adjournment of Congress yesterday. Rather than tackle the energy crisis facing the American people, Congress voted to adjourn for five weeks. In doing so, the Democrats avoided having to vote on any energy package that would have alienated their environmental friends. They weren’t looking out for the American people; they were worried about re-election and offending all their big money campaign contributors. I don’t think our forefathers envisioned or would have approved of a system of lifelong service as a politician. Too few politicians are holding too much political power. It’s time the American people wake up and reclaim their power by voting.

This may not be a perfect solution, but I think it’s a lot better than what we have right now. What do you think?