Author: Betsy L Angert

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

On February 15th, Barry boarded the plane.  He was deep in thought and noticed few of the people around him.  The prior evening had been exceptional.  This sensitive man celebrated Valentine’s Day with friends, with family, and best of all with himself, a person he had grown to love and respect, an individual he barely knew for all of his life, himself.  

More recently, Barry had become a more balanced individual.  He is now constantly on the move, not merely in a physical sense, but in a more real manner.  The successful businessman, the sensational father, the phenomenal friend, the scholar who climbed the career ladder well, in the not so distant past, never felt truly fulfilled.  Now, he thought of himself as a work in progress, a being who has transitioned beyond his wildest dreams.  Yet, he trusted there were still many roads to travel.  He wondered; would he make it.  On this day, unbeknownst to him, Barry would find his answer.  Yet, he would also be prompted to ask more questions.

Before the plane left the gate, Barry marveled; he had grown, and not in width.  No longer was his priority to please others, even at his own expense.  Barry believes now, as he always did.  It is best never to cause harm, not to others or to himself.  Self-sacrifice was once the way Barry barricaded himself.  He hid his emotions, his feelings, in truth, his fears.  When with others, he acted as though he was empathetic.  The people pleaser wanted to be identified as benevolent.  In a desire to avoid more authentic associations, Barry binged on food.  Early in his life, he grew fat.  Better to blame his weight for what he could not do, then place the onus on others.

As he approached the plank, Barry became aware of those near him.  He began to ponder the persons in his presence.  He observed, in appearance, many of the passengers, were as he once was. Only two short years ago, he was among them.  He was an obese American, one of the almost 90 million exceptionally overweight citizens.  Then, when he thought of his weight, and all the ill effects his bulk caused he felt hopeless. Over time Barry has lost most of his bulge, today he again felt the pain of excessive pounds.  The plane full of people was too heavy to fly out as scheduled.  The weight of the aircraft dictated a necessary change.  

The flight pattern would need to be altered.  Customarily, jets left to the East.  Aircraft passed over a power plant before the highest speed and preferred altitude was reached.  As a precautionary measure, a plane as heavy as the one Barry now sat on could not be allowed to soar low over an electrical grid.  Were the airbus to crash, surely, it would explode.  Sparks would set off fires.  Everyone on the plane would be killed.  Over the intercom, the pilot proclaimed, excessive weight could be a deadly issue.

The crew and air traffic controllers would do what was needed to ensure safe travel. The plump passengers would not be publicly embarrassed.  Nor would any commuter be forced to feel responsible for the situation.  No one person or his or her poundage would be singled out.  Politely, the pilot presented the problem and assured all abroad, he and the tower had taken great care to secure a suitable solution.  The plane would take an alternative route over water, and all would be well.

Barry reflected on what the aviators feared might be the future of those persons anxious to depart from south Florida.  He thought of how similar this situation was to his past.  The once rotund man understood.  In his own life, when he carried extra pounds, there was much he could not do safely.  Then, just as he did now, Barry accepted what was an awkward truth.

In the initial moments, while on the taxiway, Barry was patient.  He endured as he had for most of his years.  Adjustments would be made.  Hours later, he, and the others would move forward, albeit a little more slowly than they would have was the plane not redirected.  Barry and the more bulbous passengers were comforted by the care and attention to detail.  A safe runway for departure, given its current weight, was all those on the aircraft wanted.

Had the plane or more accurately the people on it, been a bit lighter the whole adjustment and delay would never have happened.  Nonetheless, what was, was, and that was alright for those aboard this plane, or at least it had been

Nearly forty minutes earlier, the formerly corpulent Barry was among the hordes of people who boarded the aircraft.  Barry noticed a family, or three persons familiar with each other, were as he once was.  Each weighed over 275 pounds.  He thought; “There but for the grace of G-d go I.”  Barry noticed others of various sizes and shapes, all large.  Yet, he thought nothing of their conditions or circumstances at the time they entered the plane.  He had other thoughts on his mind.  He wanted to return home.  Cuddle with the kitties.  Clean his house, Prepare for a busy workweek.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were his only concern as the Valentine’s Day holiday week ended.

The more he had learned to accept himself as a unique and complete person, the less he allowed food sand drink to be his distraction.  He felt no need to dive into the free chips or cocktails the airlines offered.  Barry realized other sought solace in these complimentary sweets.

People seemed pacified by food and the opportunity for greater folly.  Funny, Barry thought, in the past, if a plane were stuck on the ground, during last night’s Valentine’s Day festivities, or on any other occasion he too would have ingested chocolates as he suspected most on this plane would do.  On a day devoted to travel, as this one was, or on an evening dedicated to love, as last night was, Barry, his beloved, or the big woman who sat beside him on a 737, might have exchanged, “Sweets for the sweet.”

Thoughts of his blood-sugar and the adult onset diabetes that became his life long ago would have been ignored. A meal, a chance to steal a bit of snack time, life might be an excuse to celebrate togetherness.  One little innocent confection could do no harm.

Not too long ago, Barry may have sipped an alcoholic nectar with those he cares for and who are fond of him.  Intoxicating beverages that build blubber certainly would have passed his lips.  He might have believed as many he knows still do.  People are less inhibited when drunk with delight.  Intimacy is more possible when the fruit from the vine imbibed.

Many courses of flavorful fattening foods, a meal fit for royalty, surely would have graced a Valentine’s Day table.  Today, on his tray table, condiments would have collected.  The best way to the heart is through the stomach.  The airlines knew that.  Perhaps, that is why the flight attendants walked through the cabin with baskets of peanuts and crackers.  No one would be upset by the delay if hunger was staved.  Surely, 24 months earlier, Barry would have been content to wait as long as the food kept coming.  He too might not have thought of a potential crash or the hazards of a weighty plane.  

Barry pondered.  Possibly, for most of this crowd on the plane, his past habits were their present reality.

Up until recently, Barry believed the pounds poured on to him as if by osmosis.   He did not deliberately seek out sweets, starches, or saturated fats.  They found him.  His refrigerator was full with what he saw in the markets.  Grocery stores were stocked with gooey goodies.  Restaurants served sumptuous delicacies.  Friends and family feasted upon fodder, all of it filling.  Wherever Barry went, it seemed he needed to only look at food, and the weight gain would follow.  

Today, while on an airplane immobilized by the load it carried, he thought of his earlier bulk and that of others.

Barry empathized.  He felt the pain of those who carry unwanted pounds.  He understood the challenges.  It is difficult to develop new habits or to think you can rise above the clouds when you are fat and forlorn.  Barry recalled how he had accepted much that was dealt to him when he was flabby.  What else could he do?  Not long ago, his options were limited, or so he believed.

With much encouragement from the one he shared his Valentine’s Day with this year, last year, and on the February 14th before that, he learned to believe in possibilities, in his own ability to eat, drink, and move through life differently.  His best friend had also faced weighty issues in her lifetime.  His life-partner’s lengthy struggle with food, folly, and an inability to move forward was one he witnessed firsthand.  Barry watched the woman he knew so well work through her inertia.  She languished, anguished, and ultimately left her hefty sense of helplessness behind.  Her efforts helped Barry to believe that his life could be better.

It was not so long ago, Barry began to exercise, to eat healthy foods, to free himself from the habits that hurt him.  Were he a plane, in the past, Barry’s weight would have grounded him.

Today, Barry knew he could not do as he had done years earlier.  He would not stay motionless.  Nor would he say nothing of the circumstances.  He would not resign himself as the load of commuters had.  He wondered whether his own history taught him that extra weight need not be a reality.  A heavier load need not be a burden to be endured.

Unlike the 100 plus others, who seemed settled with the fact that they could not leave the ground, at least not for another two hours, Barry was not.  Just as he had decided not to settle for a life in which he battled his bulge, Barry concluded he would speak to the Captain.  He would ask the pilot to invite ten to fifteen passengers to leave the aircraft.  If this number deplaned, the usual traffic pattern could be put in place.  The persons who remained on the vehicle could travel safely and in a timely manner.  Those who voluntarily exited would not only receive recompense, they would also be assured a safer travel on a lighter plane.

Once Barry voiced his willingness to make a change, to lighten the load, and to leave the aircraft, he was able to garner support from other travelers.  The pleased pilot said he would return to the terminal and allow the few to exit.  The crew was grateful for the diversion. They knew how the temperature and the tempers of those stuck on a plane, still, on the tarmac could rise.  The persons who stayed on the plane were elated.  Fat though most of these may have been, at least they would be able to move a bit more freely through the air with thanks to the benevolence of one who used to be as they were.

Barry pondered the parallels as he walked through the airport.  He had hours to wander and muse as he waited for the next flight.  Determined not to be idle; a circumstance he disdained since he lost his own excessive weight, Barry walked.  As he strolled, he realized he would need to find nourishment.  His breakfast would not hold him through the day and into the evening when he would again board a plane.

As he unsuccessfully searched for other than starchy, fatty, sugary foods in the airport, he became frustrated.  Barry realized there was not a restaurant in the building that carried healthy victuals.  He rented a handcart, placed his luggage on it, and briskly sauntered to another terminal.  He had time.  Besides, it was good to be able to move about and enjoy the sunlight.

As he ambled about, Barry thought of how obesity affects the life of a plane or person.  He saw the many who sat stationary in the terminal.  Most of these individuals were chubby just as those on the plane were.  Barry realized he had been so concerned with his own weight issues he had not noticed what now seemed obvious.  In America, overweight was the new normal.  This point became more real as a security guard approached him.

The officer told Barry he appeared suspicious.  Who was he to walk around the airport, to move about so freely?  People did not do that, not today, and certainly not in a terminal.  Barry shared the story of the plane too heavy to fly the normally prescribed route.  He explained it would be hours before he could board the next flight.  Barry said he last ate very early in the morning.  He was desirous of fruit, or some healthy food to eat.  The sentinel said, Barry was to do as the others, more weighty passengers had.  Sit.  Be still.  Pack on the pounds.  Build the bulge, and be satisfied with confections, soda filled with high fructose corn syrup, and starchy foods.  The security guard assured Barry, there was no fresh produce to be had on the premises.  “I have some Valentine’s Day candy,” the official said.  “Here, have a piece.”  Barry smiled.  He said, “No thank you.”  He walked on and wondered.  When is weight an issue for an individual, a culture, a country, or better still, why is it not?

References for a weighty reality . . .

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

She said, “If one is to pass, it will have to be my sister.”  Jennifer would not allow a baby to die.  Although the newborn had yet to take a single breath, and was still safely tucked away in her mother’s belly, Jenn decided the infant must live.  Had she been an employee of one of more than 584,000 health-care organizations her word would have been considered a “right of conscience.” Jenn would not be held responsible if she refused to treat the soon-to-be Mom who was also her sibling.  
A Bush Administration rule would protect physicians, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who decline to participate in care they think ethically, morally or religiously objectionable, from any repercussions.

Medication, information, or any other assistance need not be given to someone a medical staffer considers immoral.  If the Bush Bill is allowed to stand, those who take the Hippocratic Oath and those who work with Doctors need not do a deed they believe violates personal beliefs.  On December 18, 2008, the White House decreed it would protect all Health Care Workers.  This provision is thought to be a gift from G-d for those who are as Jennifer was, pious believers.

As a devoutly religious soul, when confronted with the choice of who might live or who would die, Jennifer decided the relative she knew and loved for all her life could go.  Jenn announced, “Babs had been a beautiful child, terrific as a teen.  As an adult, Barbara was the best.  Her existence on Earth had been short.”  “Yet,” Jennifer cried with tears in her eyes, “Now, it is time for the baby to realize the joy of an Earthly existence.”  Jennifer had faith.  ‘G-d knows’ were the words she oft uttered.  It is not ours to question why.  “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.  Blessed me the name of the Lord,” was the sentiment secure in the heart of one who saw herself as mere mortal.

However, hurt by the thought that their beloved Barbara might pass, and Jenn would embrace such an event, relatives attempted to reason with the woman who would refuse her own sister’s life.  Jennifer, certain of her “Right to Conscience,” made it clear she knew.  The baby-to-be must have the same chance to evolve that Barbara had.  She or he, since at that moment the sex of the fetus was unknown, must survive and thrive just as G-d planned.”  Jennifer reminded her relatives, “Barbara was in her twenties,” at the time of this crisis.  Jenn was near thirty, old enough to have experienced life, and established enough to be considered for her wisdom.  The religious woman recognized, she too had rights. Now, under the new Bush Administration imposed rule. Jennifer, or hospital staffs of today, will have more power to exercise their conscience then they had in the past.

Leavitt [Mike Leavitt, Secretary of the Department Health and Human Services, which issued the novel rule] initially said the regulation was intended primarily to protect workers who object to abortion. The final rule, however, affects a far broader array of services, protecting workers who do not wish to dispense birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraceptives and other forms of contraception they consider equivalent to abortion, or to inform patients where they might obtain such care. The rule could also protect workers who object to certain types of end-of-life care or to withdrawing care, or even perhaps providing care to unmarried people or gay men and lesbians.

While primarily aimed at doctors and nurses, it offers protection to anyone with a “reasonable” connection to objectionable care — including ultrasound technicians, nurses aides, secretaries and even janitors who might have to clean equipment used in procedures they deem objectionable.

However, in that moment, , the family was aghast.  They could not come to terms with what Jenn believed best.  Thankfully, Jennifer did not have the authority to choose what would be done, as medical workers might if the “Right to Conscience” is made law.  Family, and the patient herself, had the power to select what for them seemed the best treatment.

Apprehensive, as she contemplated assessments that seemed purely emotional, Jennifer, worked to put her personal feelings aside.  She trusted human sensibilities could not be her priority.    G-d would show her the way.

Her faith in the Almighty, and Jenn’s belief that a new life cannot be aborted, were her only considerations.  She had no animosity towards Barbara, not then, or ever.  Indeed, she loved her sister’s sensational soul.  Even in the moment she declared, it is better that Barbara’s life be sacrificed, Jenn thought of her young sibling as a close friend.  Yet, no matter how she felt about the person who was so real to her, Jennifer was sure G-d would want the newborn to survive.  “He” had given Babs a good life.  Now it was time for her to go home, to be with her savior once more.

It hurt Jenn’s heart to think of her sister’s departure.  When Babs was but a tot, Jennifer, the older sister, served as a second Mom to the sweet little bambina.  She was as fond of Barbara throughout their younger years, just as she was on that day. However, her affection for the woman who now held an infant in her womb could not negate what Jennifer thought G-d had decreed. A new life must not be killed.  

During that turbulent time, Jennifer might have said as Deirdre A. McQuade of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared when news of the “Right of Conscience” proposal was released. “Individuals and institutions committed to healing should not be required to take the very human life that they are dedicated to protecting.”

This moral, ethical, Christian woman trusted as many do today; people enter this world and then, when they have completed their mission, the Lord invites them to return home to the heavens.  We all must depart when it is our time, Jennifer intellectualized, or justified what she thought to be true.  Had this conversation taken place in late December 2008 any hospital employee, even a hospital custodian could refuse Barbara care.  All those years ago, Jenn was certain she would have let her sister die.  

David Stevens of the Christian Medical Association would concur.  As the “Right of Conscience” becomes reality, a leader of the faithful reminds opponents, “We will do all in our power to ensure that health-care professionals have the same civil rights enjoyed by all Americans. These regulations are needed, do not change the law, but simply stop religious discrimination.”

Jenn did not think she needed to be a victim of circumstance.  She too would wish to invoke her “Right of Conscience.”   She did not share her family’s sense of fairness.  Favoritism for the born seemed principled to one so dutiful.  Jenn thought it essential to honor the divine, and not discriminate against her for the values she held dear.

An allowance for a mother did not make sense to Jenn when she was but a young lovely.  Nor does the unexpected exodus of a baby seem reasonable to the more mature Jennifer.  Nonetheless, the daughter of Eve, who today maintains her faith in Jesus wonders whether a medical professional should have the power to chose what is right for another human being.  At this time in her life, Jennifer fears what would have been had the “protection” for someone such as her been in place.  Today, she inquires; what of the patient.

As she aged, Jennifer experienced what she could not have imagined all those years earlier.  Barbara, who lived, gave birth to one, then another bouncing beautiful baby.  As an Aunt, Jenn learned to love these children as if they were her own.  Upon reflection, she felt sorrow when she thought of what she might have missed had her sister passed.  Time with her treasured sibling Babs had truly been a treasure.

Jennifer also realized she was the Aunt to a lesbian woman.  No, the niece was not Barbara’s daughter.  Jenn’s sister Kathy had two children.  Susan, born before Babs was ever pregnant, developed into an intelligent, insightful, inspirational female whose gender preference was also female.

Years ago the religious person she is would have perhaps rejected and other relative.  However, she could not.  It was never a thought in her mind.  Jennifer helped raise the younger lady, now classified as gay.  Oh, how she was.  Susan was and is a bundle of joy.  Yet, a hospital worker may think her gender preference alone is despicable.  Jenn wondered of the care her loved one might not receive in a time of need.  She knew that a “Right of Conscience” provision might protect a physician, a nurse, a pharmacist or a janitor, but what would become of Susan if she were to be hospitalized or even enter a clinic for emergency care,

Then there was Susan’ significant other to consider.  The two became Mom’s, twice.  Susan carried each child to term.  Their children, conceived through artificial insemination, were the apples of Jenn’s eye.   What might have been were a medical worker to invoke her or his “right of Conscience” when Susan was a patient.  Great Aunt Jennifer shudders to think.  Instead, she takes pleasure in the time she spends with the littlest ones.  She frequently volunteers to baby-sit for children who, had a health care worker snubbed Susan, might not exist.  

Jenn has come to realize she feels no obligation to be there for her family, gay or straight.  She no longer ponders protections from what the Almighty did not prevent.  Her conscience is not troubled by the circumstances.  Jennifer had grown to see G-d, and all life in a different light.  Perchance Jenn thinks, she had become more enlightened.  However, no one could have told her then, when Babs first baby was born, that one day her beliefs might change.

Often, over the years Jenn had to grapple with her truth.  She remained forever faithful to the Lord and his teachings.  Tradition, for her was paramount.  She did not think herself omnipotent; yet, earlier in her life she was certain of what was right.  Her scruples dictated her decisions, and Jenn, of then, was decisive.

Today, as she is confronted with novel truths, she wonders of what might have been the error of her ways.  More than one physician has advised Jenn to seek relief for feminine problems.  Although, she is considered a middle age woman, Jennifer has only engaged in intimate sexual contact with one man, and even then, for only one year of her life.  Near celibate, it has been a score since Jennifer might have thought to use a contraceptive to avoid pregnancy.  Today, however, she is urged to ingest the birth control pill.  Were it not for the pain she experiences without the medication, Jenn would simply say “No!”

After much personal conflict, trials, and tribulations, Jennifer decided she would succumb. Yet, as she attempts to fill her prescription she is confronted with what was once her truth.  Might this believer in G-d repeat, “We reap what we sow.”  Jenn who teaches in a Catholic institution cannot obtain medicine that might prevent fertilization of an egg.  That she has no eggs to fertilize is for her Insurer and employer a moot point.  The Bush Administration thinks the regulations that restrict Jenn are just.

The rule comes at a time of increasingly frequent reports of conflicts between health-care workers and patients. Pharmacists have turned away women seeking birth control and morning-after emergency contraception pills. Fertility doctors have refused to help unmarried women and lesbians conceive by artificial insemination. Catholic hospitals refuse to provide the morning-after pill and to perform abortions and sterilizations.

Experts predict the issue could escalate sharply if a broad array of therapies becomes available using embryonic stem cells, which are controversial because they are obtained by destroying very early embryos. Obama is poised to lift the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

“Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” said Mike Leavitt, Secretary of the Department Health and Human Services.

As Jennifer reflects, she knows not whether to laugh or cry.  She has rights; she has a conscience.  Yet, she has discovered one may not preclude the other.  She wonders how many will realize as she has before it is too late.  How many might die at the hands of professionals who think themselves principled.

References for Rights and Conscience . . .

Watch CBS Videos Online

Obama’s Victory Speech

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

It was the Friday before Election Day 2008.  The sun was low in the sky.  My spirits were also near to the ground.  As the days focused on “change,” turned to months, and near two years, I had begun to lose hope.  Too much time had passed.  The Bush Administration overturned too many laws.  In the recent past, the country had transgressed back into the future.  Others were blissful, certain a better world would come.  I was not confident.  Near an hour before, Eddie, a young man who has lived on Earth for less than a quarter of a century, said he may not vote.  He did not have faith that we, or he, were the change a country could believe in.  for Eddie, “Yes we can” equated to “No he would not.”

Eddie had lost the ability to dream.  As was true for too many Americans, the vision of what could be seemed but an illusion.  For some citizens who, decades earlier, had hoped the country could change, life had become a nightmare.  While this fine fellow may not have experienced a similar sense of dire desperation he did not aspire to do more than he had done.

Twenty-six months earlier, I accidentally discovered Eddie had never participated in an election.  On another occasion, moments after I cast a ballot during a primary campaign, I encountered the knowledgeable fellow. Then, oh so long ago, I learned Eddie had not registered to vote, ever.  When I asked him of his vote in 2006, he admitted, he did not even know an election was held.

I was fascinated, or was I frustrated.  I know not.  I am only certain that more than a year later, when I realized Eddie had submitted his application and received his voter registration card, I was overjoyed.

At that time, Eddie said he only chose to commit to possibly participate in the election process when his college Professor promised he would receive class credit if he registered.  The scholar truly did not expect to feel a deep desire to cast a ballot anytime soon.  Eddie barely paid attention to what went on beyond his personal play.  Parties filled his frame.  Politics, not so much.

Granted, Eddie, an extremely curious soul could carry on a conversation when the discussion turned to government or the economy.  However, way back then, he mostly asked questions and listened.  Eddie was polite when I shared story after story about this political event or that.  He could and did converse on the issues.  Mostly, when we talked, life was the topic of import.

Relationships, realities, reflections, and realizations filled our tête-à-têtes.  In time, we grew closer.  I first met Eddie at the recreation center.  I swim daily and he works as a lifeguard.  Hence, we speak with each other often.

I have witnessed, first-hand, growth I could have never imagined in such a short span.  I always accepted Eddie is very smart.  His curiosity is endless.  Eddie is an eager, enthusiastic student of the world.  He absorbs information like few I have ever known.  It is not what I shared that accelerated his evolution.  Eddie avidly exchanges with everyone.

Perchance, that is why, as the Presidential election became more important to his friends and family.  Eddie began become interested himself.  This fine fellow became the person with whom I could speak when I went to the pool.  He knew what I did.  He read.  He watched.  He tuned into television reports and connected on the Internet.  Eddie was engaged in the election.

Then it happened.  On All Hallows Eve, just before I placed my body into the pool, when I asked if Eddie had voted early, Eddie said, I see no reason to take part.  Barack Obama will win or he will not.  It is destiny.  Our fates are predetermined.  “Whatever occurs,” Eddie explained, “is out of our control.”  He shared his religious philosophies and stories from the Bible to further illustrate this thought.

I tried to reason with him.  I expressed my empathy.  I told tales of when or why I too wondered what was providence and what was within our power.  It was obvious to me, my words were of no avail.  Forlorn, I swam.  What else could I do.  No one can convince another to do what he or she does not wish to do.  I resigned myself to what I could not change, the mind of another human being.  I have long known, people choose for themselves.  Each of us has an effect on another.  Still, true transformations come from within.

As I was awash in water, my mind moved.  I did not think I could offer more to Eddie.  I believed there were no words that might be perceived as wisdom.  Indeed, I am no wiser than he.  I was left to be one with my thoughts.  When I emerged from the concrete pond, I approached Eddie again.

I shared my own story, my personal experience, and why this election, every election means so much to me.  I told Eddie a tale I had offered before.  I first became active in politics as a child.  At age eleven or twelve, I marched with my family in what would be my first Civil Rights demonstration.  

Just before my birth, by law, people of color could not attend school with white folks.  Even after African-American children were finally allowed to attend school with Anglos, there were still numerous other restrictions on persons who were charcoal in color.  Some boundaries were visible, many were not.

“In my lifetime,” I affirmed, “Those whose complexion is dark could not enter a restaurant reserved for people pale of face.”  In the few years that I have been on this planet, segregation was allowed to return to America.  The “privilege” to share a classroom was afforded in the 1954 Supreme Court decision, Brown versus Board of Education, and was virtually rescinded.  I asked Eddie to consider the future of the daughter he and his bride had recently conceived.

Yes, in two short years Eddie had experienced much change, within himself.  He was no longer the party person he had been.  His interest in his own education had grown.  The thoughtful chap now embraced knowledge more than he had before, and Eddie always was quite brilliant.  A booklover, likely from birth, intellectually Eddie grasped the veracity of government.  “Eddie,” I quietly exclaimed, “the President picks Supreme Court Justices.  The appointments last a lifetime.”  The Roberts Court has imposed edicts that will not be easily erased, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 Et. Al  

“Oh Eddie,” my voice barely audible at this point, the Supreme Court, under George W. Bush has moved the country to the “Right.”  Some, such as I fear, we have journeyed back more than a century.  Some of the current jurors are elderly.  There is reason to believe a few will choose to step down from the bench.  If we, the people, do not cast a ballot for Barack Obama, I fear the Court, will move farther into the private lives of citizens.

I chattered on.  My characteristic calm demeanor a bit less controlled as saltwater streamed from my eyes. “Eddie, for me, race and discrimination acted out against those of color is not the only issue that must call us to the ballot box.”  There is so much more to consider.  Economic, environmental, and education policies.  “Eddie, think of your college loans, those you may have now and the prospects to pay for your later study.”

“Oh my gosh Eddie,, President Bush may not have been the change I or we would believe in, but he trusted he could do as he wanted.”  I reasoned or attempted to articulate every thought I had, to share my personal history, and relate it to Eddie’s own truth.  Change, I mused, will come.  As individuals or as a country, we may not have control of all occurrences.  Nonetheless, as I learned in Elementary School, “Not to make a decision is to decide.”

In my own life I realized, one by one Americans cast a vote. Collectively, we, the people, choose a President.  The nation’s Chief Executive then selects who will rule the Courts, what regulations he will impose, and which laws he will sign.  “Eddie, in my own life, in yours, we have seen how the President can be the change, or the constituency can be what we believe in.”

Throughout my tearful plea, Eddie was pensive.  He gazed into my eyes.  His stare never left my face.  Then, he asked, was I crying.  Initially, I made an excuse.  “It is the chlorine,” I remarked. Then, more honestly, I said “Yes.”  I tried to tell Eddie how much the election means to me.  I shared my sincerest belief.  The power that each of us has as citizens, if only we realize what we can do when we come together as one . . . My words could not express what I yearned to communicate.  Nevertheless, Eddie thanked me.  He said he would sincerely make an effort to get to the polls, to be part of the solution.

I was at a loss.  I feared I had not said what I might have.  Nor were my words as powerful as they could have been.  In truth, tonight when President Elect Barack Obama stated my sentiments, better than I might ever have done, he said to Eddie what I could not though my tears.  I invite reflection.  Please peruse the words of a man who speaks for all Americans.  Ponder the profundity of “Yes we can!”  

In America, government is as this Presidential campaign has been, of, by, and for the people.  Congratulations and thank you Barack Obama, Joe Biden, you, me, America.  Eddie, I am grateful for your empathy and decision to cast a ballot.  I have faith again; hope is alive. We, Eddie, and all Americans are indeed, the change we can believe in.

Transcript
Obama’s Victory Speech
The New York Times
November 4, 2008

The following is a transcript of Senator Barack Obama’s victory speech in Chicago, as provided by Federal News Service.

Senator Barack Obama: (Cheers, applause.) Hello, Chicago. (Cheers, applause.)

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our Founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer. (Cheers, applause.)

It’s the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen, by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different, that their voices could be that difference.

It’s the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled — (cheers) — Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states; we are and always will be the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)

It’s the answer that — that led those who’ve been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America. (Cheers, applause.)

A little bit earlier this evening, I received an extraordinarily gracious call from Senator McCain. (Cheers, applause.) Senator McCain fought long and hard in this campaign, and he’s fought even longer and harder for the country that he loves. He has endured sacrifices for America that most of us cannot begin to imagine. We are better off for the service rendered by this brave and selfless leader. (Applause.) I congratulate him, I congratulate Governor Palin for all they’ve achieved, and I look forward to working with them to renew this nation’s promise in the months ahead. (Cheers, applause.)
I want to thank my partner in this journey, a man who campaigned from his heart and spoke for the men and women he grew up with on the streets of Scranton, and rode with on the train home to Delaware, the vice president-elect of the United States, Joe Biden. (Cheers, applause.)

And I would not be standing here tonight without the unyielding support of my best friend for the last 16 years, the rock of our family, the love of my life, the nation’s next first lady, Michelle Obama. (Cheers, applause.)

Sasha and Malia, I love you both more than you can imagine, and you have earned the new puppy that’s coming with us to the White House. (Cheers, applause.)

And while she’s no longer with us, I know my grandmother is watching, along with the family that made me who I am. I miss them tonight, and know that my debt to them is beyond measure.

To my sister Maya, my sister Auma, all my other brothers and sisters, thank you so much for all the support that you’ve given to me. I am grateful to them. (Cheers, applause.)

And to my campaign manager, David Plouffe — (cheers, applause) — the unsung hero of this campaign who built the best — (cheers) — the best political campaign I think in the history of the United States of America — (cheers, applause) — to my chief strategist, David Axelrod — (cheers, applause) — who has been a partner with me every step of the way, to the best campaign team ever assembled in the history of politics — (cheers) — you made this happen, and I am forever grateful for what you’ve sacrificed to get it done. (Cheers, applause.)

But above all, I will never forget who this victory truly belongs to. It belongs to you. (Cheers, applause.) It belongs to you. (Cheers.)

I was never the likeliest candidate for this office. We didn’t start with much money or many endorsements. Our campaign was not hatched in the halls of Washington; it began in the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston. It was built by working men and women who dug into what little savings they had to give $5 and $10 and $20 to the cause. (Cheers, applause.) It grew strength from the young people who rejected the myth of their generation’s apathy — (cheers) — who left their homes and their families for jobs that offered little pay and less sleep. It drew strength from the not-so-young people who braved the bitter cold and scorching heat to knock on the doors of perfect strangers, and from the millions of Americans who volunteered and organized, and proved that more than two centuries later a government of the people, by the people and for the people has not perished from the Earth. This is your victory. (Cheers, applause.)

Now, I know you didn’t do this just to win an election, and I know you didn’t do it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task that lies ahead. For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century. Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. There are mothers and fathers who will lie awake after their children fall asleep and wonder how they’ll make the mortgage or pay their doctors’ bills or save enough for their child’s college education.

There’s new energy to harness, new jobs to be created, new schools to build, and threats to meet, alliances to repair.

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America, I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you: We as a people will get there. (Cheers, applause.)

Audience: Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

Mr. Obama:: There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as president, and we know the government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for 221 years — block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began 21 months ago in the depths of winter cannot end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change.

And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It can’t happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.

Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let’s remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House — a party founded on the values of self-reliance and individual liberty and national unity. Those are values we all share. And while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. (Cheers, applause.)

As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends — though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too. (Cheers, applause.)

And to all those watching tonight from beyond our shores, from parliaments and palaces to those who are huddled around radios in the forgotten corners of the world, our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared, and a new dawn of American leadership is at hand. (Cheers, applause.) To those — to those who would tear the world down: we will defeat you. (Cheers, applause.) To those who seek peace and security: we support you. (Cheers, applause.) And to all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns as bright: tonight we proved once more that the true strength of our nation comes not from the might of our arms or the scale of our wealth, but from the enduring power of our ideals — democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope. (Cheers, applause.)

That’s the true genius of America, that America can change. Our union can be perfected. And what we have already achieved gives us hope for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

This election had many firsts and many stories that will be told for generations. But one that’s on my mind tonight’s about a woman who cast her ballot in Atlanta. She is a lot like the millions of others who stood in line to make their voice heard in this election, except for one thing: Ann Nixon Cooper is 106 years old. (Cheers, applause.)

She was born just a generation past slavery; a time when there were no cars on the road or planes in the sky; when someone like her couldn’t vote for two reasons, because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin. And tonight, I think about all that she’s seen throughout her century in America: the heartache and the hope, the struggle and the progress, the times we were told that we can’t, and the people who pressed on with that American creed, yes we can.

At a time when women’s voices were silenced and their hopes dismissed, she lived to see them stand up and speak out and reach for the ballot. Yes we can.

When there was despair in the Dust Bowl and depression across the land, she saw a nation conquer fear itself with a New Deal, new jobs, a new sense of common purpose. Yes we can.

Audience: Yes we can!

Mr. Obama:: When the bombs fell on our harbor and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved. Yes we can.

Audience: Yes we can!

Mr. Obama:: She was there for the buses in Montgomery, the hoses in Birmingham, a bridge in Selma, and a preacher from Atlanta who told a people that “We shall overcome.” Yes we can.

Audience: Yes we can!

Mr. Obama:: A man touched down on the Moon, a wall came down in Berlin, a world was connected by our own science and imagination. And this year, in this election, she touched her finger to a screen and cast her vote, because after 106 years in America, through the best of times and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change.

Yes we can.

Audience: Yes we can.

Mr. Obama:: America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there’s so much more to do. So tonight let us ask ourselves, if our children should live to see the next century, if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment. This is our time — to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth that out of many, we are one; that while we breathe, we hope; and where we are met with cynicism and doubt and those who tell us that we can’t, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can.

Audience: Yes we can.

Mr. Obama:: Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. (Cheers, applause.)

I thank Eddie, Barack, and the American people.  The dream is reborn, and we, as a country, can believe again.  Yes we can!

History Referenced and Realized . . .

Bush Oil Dancing!

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

“Drill baby, drill,” is the now ever-present and popular battle-cry for many Americans.  From Presidential candidates to everyday people, those who wish to consume sweet light crude as they have for a more than a century remind me of my hair, and the current President’s energy policy.  I ponder the parallels and invite you to consider . . .

During a recent press conference, as I gazed upon the President of the United States, noticeably aged after years in the Oval Office, I thought of my hair and my history.  His wavy gray locks are not as the strands that fall from my head.  Nor did the diminutive curl that danced on his brow remind me of my own tresses.  The style the Chief Executive donned did not resemble the permanent waves, pompadours, or ponytails I once wore.  As George W. Bush spoke of his energy policy, I pondered.  His approach to petroleum and power were as the methodology I embraced when I colored my hair.  
For years, I addressed the truth of my tresses just as the President assesses the paradox of propulsion.  In speech after speech, George W. Bush proposes, as he did on this occasion; America needs to end its addiction to oil.  In the past, I proclaimed, I need to bring to a halt the habit of dying my hair.  I, as President Bush, postured and yet, I did next to nothing to truly take me closer to my stated objective.

My progression towards a chemical free treatment of my hair was, as it seems Mister Bush’s advancement is.  I avoided more authentic change than I approached.  My evolution was perhaps slowed by love.  The tale of transformation began oh, so long ago.

Decades ago, I met a man who felt like family.  Indeed, emotionally Eugene was part of my intimate circle.  Gene did much with my Mom, Dad, brother, and I.  As a pair, Eugene and I often ventured off together.  We chatted on the telephone, spent time in each other’s home.  We were close.  This fine fellow was influential in many aspects of my life.  I respected his opinion.  I valued his friendship.  His wisdom often wowed me.  

Thus, when my good friend Gene, who was also my hairdresser, told me the tint would brighten my face, I thought he must have reason to think this sage advice.  At first, I protested.  As insecure as I was about my appearance, I was confident that my natural hair color was perfect.  Still, I considered the source.  Therefore, I trusted the recommendation.

Possibly, George W. Bush could share a similar story.  A loved one might have said, “Your future will be bright if you dabble in petroleum.  extraction”  “Build an oil well, my boy, and become a billionaire, or at least a multi-millionaire with substantial influence.”  “Taste the Texas Tea, and your life will be wondrous,” could have been the claim Papa George Herbert or Momma Barbara uttered.

“Oil,” family or friends may have opined, will improve the quality of the your existence.  Perchance George felt as I did.  He had no cause to distrust those he was close to.  Indeed, relatives of the heir apparent could avow, with knowledge, to refine sweet crude would put money in a person’s pocket.  Black gold had helped to grow profits for the Bush brood for generations.  As evidence, any of those related to George W. might have offered the family history.

Oil:. The Bushes’ ties to John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil go back 100 years, when Rockefeller made Buckeye Steel Castings wildly successful by convincing railroads that carried their oil to buy heavy equipment from Buckeye.  George H. Walker helped refurbish the Soviet oil industry in the 1920s, and Prescott Bush acquired experience in the international oil business as a 22-year director of Dresser Industries.  George H.W. Bush, in turn, worked for Dresser and ran his own offshore oil-drilling business, Zapata Offshore.

Frequently a boy child will follow a father’s path.  Fondness can fashion a future.  On land and in the seas sweet light crude secured the Bush family’s future.  Young George W. Bush looked at evidence.  His ancestral past, and his present circumstances even at an early age, helped establish a proven record.  Investments in petroleum equate to prosperity.  After a scant assessment, the youthful Bush likely decided, drill, drill, drill.  That would be the life for him.  Silver platters can be persuasive.  The opinions of friends and family can also be extremely influential.

Through our personal acquaintance, Gene taught me to trust him and to have faith in his beliefs.  Eugene had experience with hair dye.  He felt the practice was safe, sane, and offered a sensational opportunity to liven up a face and an existence.  Although initially hesitant, I concluded I would at least “try” what quickly became my habit.  However, what I did not realize was once you begin on a path, it is a challenge to change course.  Dark roots appeared in no time, as did my demand for more hair-dye.  

George too may have approached his novel exploration cautiously.  Many offspring resolve, they do not wish to be in the family business.  The son of the senior Bush might have thought to play at this prospect until he found something better.  However, George W. may have quickly discovered just as I did; it is easy to become hooked on a habit, newly acquired or tried and true.  

When a career choice yields great wealth and greater opportunity, it is difficult to resist the temptation to continue on a prosperous path.  Once the journey begins, an oilman such as George W. Bush realized, empty gas tanks require more fuel.  Electrical equipment must be charged.  The demand is endless.  The people, such as the Bush band, who earn income from the supply, are happy to serve.  Thus, the dissonance thrives.  

The provider of power or the person caught in a mad pursuit for peroxide journeys deeper into an endless downward spiral.  However, neither is aware of the consequences.  Gene might not have considered that his chosen career shaded his truth.  Nor did I ponder that a professional hair-styler has a singular perspective.

When first introduced to the idea of hair-dye,  I pondered; who was the person who presented the proposition.  However, I did not think of the veracity, or what later was so clear.  Eugene was trained to trust in toxic dyes.  When a person sees tinted hair all day, and into the evening, shades of stain on strands of hair seem sensible.  The individual that takes the time to apply the colors, surely must think the work wise.  

Perhaps, a young George W. Bush also concerned himself with the credibility of those who counseled him.  He too found reason to have faith.  The future President of the United States might not have pondered further.  He may not have investigated the possible hazards associated with oil production or petroleum use.  Often, when presented with a choice, we cannot imagine the infinite unknown possibilities, probabilities, or the perils.  

My friend not only shaded my hair; his beliefs tainted my own.  The hair on my head, and the thoughts in my gray matter were tinted.  The Bush family may have colored the consciousness of the youthful George and persuaded a future President to forget what he could have known.  Petroleum pollutes.  Refined crude contaminates the air and seas.  The fumes from Texas Tea in an engine cause temperatures on the terrain and in the troposphere to rise.

Granted, I understood how chemical treatments harmed my tresses and dulled the tint.  Aware of the damage done beneath the surface of a follicle, I persuaded myself it was slight and worth the sacrifice.  Possibly, the Bush family thought the same of their endeavors.  Certainly, George W. Bush still does.  He offers plans for renewable energy as he continues to pursue petroleum.  Ah, the dynamics of a decision are vast and deep.

Only now, as the globe warms, the climate changes, and the weather whips people and their property into oblivion, does Mister Bush face the true cost of his earlier decision.  Only recently did the  President recognize the harmful influence of fossil fuels on the environment.  Today, he finally acknowledges the immediate need for a commitment to cleaner energy.  Just as I slowly understood, the damage chemicals did to my hair, George W.  now touts his mindfulness.  There is a problem.  The planet is in peril.

As death and destruction beckon for attention, George sees as I did when I looked into the mirror.  Life, or the look, was out of balance.  The natural beauty was gone.  The breaks were bad.  Chemicals had stripped the surface . . . of the land or my locks.

However, while Mister Bush sees a need for transformation, it seems he is, as I was, reluctant to recognize the seriousness of the situation.  His does not act decisively to change what has become his [and our nations’] practice.  

President Bush advised Americans to ponder alterative renewable sources for power.  This country’s Commander touted; viable resolutions for our energy crisis are easily accessible.  “Biodiesel refineries can produce fuel from soybeans, and vegetable oils, and recycled cooking grease, from waste materials.”  The President proposed Americans could invest in clean energy.  Indeed, he exclaimed; we must go green.  However, for Mister Bush an emerald endeavor is black as oil or golden as bullion.  This oilman has reaped many a reward from America’s addiction, as have we all.  Convenience is but one benefit cheap energy bestows upon the United States public.  Profits have been more profound, more colorful for Chief Executive Bush.

Possibly, for the President charcoal is a fine hue.  “George,” if I might speak in the familiar, seems to think as I once did.  One shade can be substituted for another.  Only the more transparent tones cause George W. Bush much angst.  Who will or how might moguls who have invested lifetimes of worth, as this oil magnate has, harness, the sun, the wind, and water.  Mister Bush is unable to imagine a future so different from the life he and his family have long known.  Thus, he avoids the option he says he appreciates, just as I eschewed the thought of using no tint at all on my mane.  The untried did not ring true.

Attempts to transform what has been an American tradition are preferred by this President (and perhaps, the public.)  George W. Bush speaks of clean coal, as though there is such a substance.  Coal is a recognizable source of energy; yet, not a renewable or alternative choice.  Coal generates 54% of the electricity used in the United States. Whilst he ran for President, candidate Bush pledged that he would commit $2 billion over 10 years to advance clean coal technology.  Indeed, as promised, the National Energy Policy and budget requests to Congress demonstrated the President’s dedication to this cause.

Few fear what they do not wish to accept.  The Chief Executive favors an element that is essentially filthy.  The President might muse clean coal is the change.  Yet, he ignores that the hard black sedimentary rock is a health hazard to all it serves.  This “plentiful” element pollutes when it is mined, transported to the power plant, stored, and burned.  This combustible material destroys life throughout the global community.  Many species cannot survive as well as man believes he might when nature is out of balance.

Equilibrium is the gracious essence that helps us to thrive.  I too sought to sustain symmetry.  I pondered the many ways in which my mane might maintain its sheen and still be enhanced.  I hoped to find energy in color.  When confronted with the notion that a tint could damage my tresses, I also contemplated other options.  Clean dye; that was my criteria.

I assessed what I thought would be safe.  With a similar pious conviction, I concluded henna could perhaps be a practical possibility . . . that is if I wanted to enhance the natural hue of my hair.  At the time, this substitute seemed sensible to me.  I thought only of what I believed true, just as George W. Bush does today.  Plants are pure, plentiful, and will provide what I need . . . or want, perchance.

I had not authentically considered the possible predicament a product could cause.  At first blush, I was content with what seemed an ideal and equal opportunity.  Then, later, after I acknowledged my error, I was easily satisfied with what I trusted to be an indigenous replacement.

Now, cognizant of the connection between my hair and his history, I wonder; what concerns did George W. Bush weigh.  Did he study the consequences of his choices?  Did he hear or think to heed any of the cautions?  Might President Bush have ruminated on the probable ruin of the land and lives?  Could he have predicted what might happen if we raped the land to gratify our need for energy?  

One never knows what is in the heart or mind of another.  Nonetheless, as I reflect upon times gone by in my own life, I trust the President did not imagine, and perchance, still, he has no idea of what he reaped and sowed.  I surely did not.

For me, awareness arrived slowly.  As I processed my hair, I did not have the opportunity to notice the subtle changes.  I was too close to the situation.  I could not see what I did not wish to acknowledge.  I suspect George W. Bush [and Americans absorbed in what feels, oh, so fine] do not realize what harm unhealthy dependence causes.  

To dye or to die.  To drive vehicles powered with fossil fuels or to authentically preserve the planet, which is now in peril.  These might be the questions George and I avoided, or only addressed half-heartedly.

When I thought tinted hair was desirable, each alternative possibility required me to treat my hair with color.  Upon reflection, I realize I had not known to think of how the texture or tone of my mane might change if I ingested a more nutritious diet.  That is another story for another time.  Today, I wonder.  Was George open enough to evaluate horizons he had yet to explore?

As I gazed upon the President speaking of energy, I could not help but think of how Mister Bush said we must work to improve technology.  He confidently confirmed, we can wean ourselves away from fossil fuels.  In his own words the President espoused , “(A)t the same time” we must find “oil and gas here at home.”  The mantra is very familiar.  It was mine.  I believe this rationalization is reflected in the adage ‘You can have your cake and eat it too.’

Indeed, for a very long time, I indulged in similar silly logic.  As the blonde stain grew out, I said, I could refresh the look and limit my use of artificial satin all at the same time.  Oh, if only that was possible.  As long as dye is applied, the harmful effects of the treatment will not fade away.  The problem was, and is, whether we speak of fossil fuels or human hair, the more you invest in the unhealthy habits you claim to condemn the less likely it is that change will come.

Much to our detriment, individuals such as George and I are, and mankind is, comfortable with the familiar.  Humans are content to engage as they have for so long, regardless of whether a practice nourishes the body, soul, or the planet.

People may plan for or posit a change.  George W. Bush emphatically pronounced, “(N)ow is the time to get it done.”  He or I might suggest a slow move towards purity.  However, as my hair taught me, as long as I [or we] do as we have done, nothing will be different.  

As long as I stained my mane, there was more reason to stain my mane.  As long as America satisfies its addiction to oil, there is more reason to continue to gratify the love of gasoline.  When manufacturers build more machines reliant on petroleum, they encourage a greater dependence on fossil fuels.  An obsession for oil is as a mania for a colored mane.  Each, initially, captivates an individual and then controls the person.

Most of us learn to love what we later determine may be detrimental.  

George W. Bush, just as many Americans seem to be, is as I was.  The President is caught in a horrific, harmful, spiral, and yet comfortable with what he knows and does.  While the cost, to the environment, and to personal pocketbooks, may encourage a desire for change, convenience and expediency are enormously more persuasive.  Oh, how well, I know this to be true.  

I was once victim to a viability that made sense.  The President and the American people are caught up in the same conundrum.  If he, or we, fails to eliminate our physical and psychological, dependence on oil now there may not be a later.

To transform our reality we need to recognize the delicate dance for what it is.  Just as less dye was an unwise compromise for me, limited selective, additional drilling is a concession with consequences.  Partial progression will not alter our habituation.  It is time to stop!  To rethink, reinvent, to re-power our plants and public opinion is to truly care for our selves and for generations to come.

Resources or Reflections on Refinery . . .

Obama takes on McCain’s jabs about Ayers

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The tale is true.  Names were changed to protect the innocent.

Last evening Mister Gregory had a chance to speak to Mister Fairbanks of the issue.  “Who is Barack Obama?”  Barry thought he might introduce the topic delicately.  The two men were in a car together.  They had traveled across the country to meet with school Principals, Superintendents, and other professional educators.  The hour was late, and dinner was on the agenda.

As the gents drove to the restaurant, Barry began the conversation; “Just as Barack Obama might not have known Bill Ayers background, who would think someone in this car was a member of SDS, Students for a Democratic Society?”  Sean smiled and quickly replied, “I would.”  He then revealed that he was in fact a member of the largest and most influential radical student organization of the 1960s.  The devout Republican, a man who might represent the Corporate Class belonged to an organization, which was “initially concerned with equality, economic justice, peace, and participatory democracy.”  Sean recounted stories.  He told tales of his participation in anti-war protests.  Mister Fairbanks helped to close his college.  Sean showed “determined resistance,” he was a radical, a rebel.  He could be considered a less visible, and less violent, Bill Ayers.

Barry was aghast.  When he posed the question, he never imagined such a response from Sean.  Barry Gregory, an extremely reserved, shy, and quiet man meant to reveal his own history.  When he was in his twenties, two score ago, the now Vice President of a prestigious company, was active in the same Student organization.  More than a thousand miles away from where Sean incited revolution, Mister Gregory did his rebellious “thing.”

Senator John McCain asks Americans to ponder; “Who is Barack Obama?”  Sean wonders, as he has for quite some time.  The President of a large multi-million dollar-company does not think he can trust this man of color.  Nor, does Mister Fairbanks favor a Democratic President.  Sean Michael Fairbanks is among the more than seventy (70) percent of Chief Executive Officers who fear an Obama presidency will be a disaster.  This tycoon intends to vote as he long has, just as all Americans have and do.  Sean will cast a ballot in his own perceived interest.  As a businessman, Sean believes he will benefit more if he commits to the Grand Old Party.  Mister Fairbanks will vote Republican.  Senator McCain and Governor Palin are his candidates of choice.  Sean knows who John Sidney McCain and Sarah Louise Heath Palin are.  He does however wonder of Barack Obama.

Sean Michael Fairbanks frequently expressed his preference to his protégé, and Vice President of the corporation, Barry Gregory.  Barry and Sean are about the same age.  Each experienced rites of passage in the 1960s.  While the men work very well together and have for near a decade and one half, the fine fellows differ politically.  Mister Gregory considers himself a peacenik.  Each week, he stands in vigil on a street corner.  He protests for peace.  As naive as some may think him to be, Barry Gregory humbly holds up a banner, which invites passer-bys to ponder impeachment.  Dennis Kucinich was his original choice for President of the United States.  Now, this Vice President of a major firm, endorses Barack Obama.

Sean and Barry do not argue the divergent dynamics.  Political debates are not prominent discussions when they are together.  However, these are not avoided.  The two share a mission, a vision, as it relates to the business at hand.  Granted, personal revelations are realized.  The chaps are more closely connected because they speak of their individual interests and issues.  Each is empathetic.  They understand the other believes as he does.  

For Misters Fairbanks and Gregory distinctions are fine.  Few friends and fewer acquaintances agree no matter the issue.  Sean and Barry accept the differences and enjoy the relationship that has evolved between them.  The well-established professionals on occasion, delve more deeply as they did after the most recent Presidential debate.  

Sean Fairbanks, the more senior in the company, says of the McCain/Palin ticket, “The two mavericks are known entities.  He says, “Barack Obama is an unfamiliar to the people.  The Illinois Senator is untested, inexperienced, and perchance, he is not as innocent as he appears to be.”  Barry Gregory muses of the Democratic candidates record.  He reasons as he shares his own sensibility.  Barry says to Sean, “Barack Obama has a record.”  Mister Gregory refers to past performance that is respectable, not criminal in nature as Sarah Palin and John McCain would want Americans to believe.  

Statistics: Barack Obama has sponsored 121 bills since Jan 24, 2005, of which 115 haven’t made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 504 bills during the same time period. (Starting Sept 17, 2008, these numbers do not include resolutions.)
Some of Obama’s most recently sponsored bills include . . .

Passed Senate
Sep 22, 2008    S.Con.Res. 96: A concurrent resolution commemorating Irena Sendler, a woman whose bravery saved the lives of thousands during the Holocaust and remembering her legacy of courage, selflessness, and hope.
Passed Senate
Jun 26, 2007    S.Con.Res. 25: A concurrent resolution condemning the recent violent actions of the Government of Zimbabwe against peaceful opposition party activists and members of civil society.
Passed Senate
Jun 24, 2008    S.Res. 600: A resolution commemorating the 44th anniversary of the deaths of civil rights workers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney, and Michael Schwerner in Philadelphia, Mississippi, while working in the name of American democracy to register voters and secure civil rights during the summer of 1964, which has become known as “Freedom Summer”. . .
Introduced
Sep 17, 2008
S. 3506: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the credit for purchase of vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas and to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to reauthorize the Clean School Bus Program of the Environmental Protection Agency. . .
Introduced
Jun 3, 2008
S. 3077: Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in Federal Spending Act of 2008
Introduced
May 21, 2008
S. 3047: Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education Act of 2008 . . .
Introduced
Oct 18, 2007
S. 2202:  Renewable Fuel Standard Extension Act of 2007 . . .
Introduced
Sep 18, 2007
S. 2066: Back to School: Improving Standards for Nutrition and Physical Education in Schools Act of 2007 . . .
Introduced
Jul 26, 2007
S. 1885: Military Family Job Protection Act

In a discussion with Sean, Barry offers, it seems Barack Obama, holds dear American values.  He wishes to pay homage to those who saved lives during the Holocaust.  Senator Obama rejects violence against a citizenry here and abroad.  The Illinois Legislator understands the importance of Civil Rights and democracy in action.  He also reveres the role of church and clergy in American lives.  Mostly, as evident through his proposed policies, Barack Obama cares about the quality of life for average Americans.  

Presidential hopeful Obama wishes to amend Internal Revenue policies that punish the poor and Middle Class.  The lawmaker from Illinois hopes to strengthen laws that mandate transparency in government spending.  Senator Obama supports alternative, renewable sources of energy.  Surely, proposals that reduce a reliance on petroleum will end our dependency on oil.  Military families will be better provided for if Barack Obama’s Bill passes.  Perhaps, most prominent among the laws Barack Obama introduced are those that relate to children.  Barack Obama believes in education.  

Fascinatingly, so too does Sean Michael Fairbanks.  Indeed, the business Sean founded facilitates the acquisition of knowledge for students of all ages.  Mister Fairbanks profits from policies that address improving learning, especially for the little ones.  Still, Sean is not convinced that Barack Obama is any less scary than Sarah Palin says he is.

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin speaks to a truth that those such as Sean embrace.  She does not inquire as to who Senator Obama might be.  She is sure she knows.  Recently, at a well-attended rally, the former small-town Mayor of Wasilla, Palin answered the question that haunts people such as Mister Fairbanks, “Who is Barack Obama?”  

The “sensational Sarah,” as Sean calls her, says, according to The New York Times, Presidential hopeful Obama is “our opponent, (he) is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who target their own country.”  Sean Michael Fairbanks agrees.  As a registered Republican who admires the Alaskan Governor Palin, Mister Fairbanks does not inquire further.  He does not read the actual article, Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths.  Had he, perchance, he would not have been swayed.  For Mister Fairbanks, the query is unnecessary.  Sean trusts that a man with a name such as Barack Obama cannot be “one of us.”

However, while the wise and wondrous Sarah Palin and Sean Fairbanks may believe as they do, another reader of the article might see the statement, “Since 2002, there is little public evidence of their relationship,” and conclude that the two are not chums.  Nor do the infamous Bill Ayers, founder of the radical Weathermen, and the much younger Barack Obama have a close relationship.  Indeed, once Barack Obama learned of the historical link to illegal and destructive activities by a man who twenty-six years later is an Education Professor, he expressed antipathy for the radical views and actions of Mister Ayers.

Presidential hopeful Obama proclaimed, Bill Ayers is “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.”  The Senator had not known that the person who served with him on a board that oversaw the distribution of education grants in Chicago was part of a group that, had he been old enough or prominent to voice a public opinion, Barack Obama would have condemned.

Senator Obama, at the time, was only certain that the Chicago Annenberg Project, which bestowed money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000,  was a worthy cause.  As Chairman, it made sense to Barack Obama that an Education Professor, Bill Ayers, a man active in the community would care about the quality of instruction in his home city.  Barack Obama was concerned about children and their education, then and now.  Mister Fairbanks is as well.  Barry wondered; is that not why Sean began his business.  

Sean Michael Fairbanks built his life and career on instruction.  He hoped and helped to ensure the younger generation would have quality schools in their neighborhoods. Edification is his priority, just as, in recent decades it has become Bill Ayers main concern.  Yet, there he is; Sean the critic of a person who could have been considered his cohort.  

Each had a history of radical activism.  Sean could be considered as Bill Ayers is.  A Republican, an entrepreneur, and a John McCain/Sarah Palin supporter who is a detractor of an esteemed educator who has a background similar to his own.  Barry was stunned.  He pondered; who might the President of his company, Sean Fairbanks be?  For so long Mister Gregory had an impression of the man who sat in corporate office.  Sean was a mogul, his mentor, and the man who taught him of the business world.  He never imagined that Sean was once liberal or liable to be among a radical group of antiwar protestors.  An association with the Weather Underground?  Sean’s may be stronger than Barack Obama’s ever was.

As the two corporate cronies talked, they realized the question might not be “Who is Barack Obama?”  Possibly, each might inquire, “Who is this man I thought I knew?”  Who is Sean Michael Fairbanks and who might Barry Gregory be?  Americans may wish to ask themselves, not the query Sarah Palin and John McCain scream at every opportunity.  Citizens of this country might wonder who are we all, and what might any of us have done in our past.

Perhaps we might ponder; long before Barack Obama ever thought he might actually pursue the presidency, he wrote an autobiography.  His openness was stark.  The publication was praised for its transparency.  What a wondrous world it might be if lucidity was the law.  Might the electorate recall among the Bills Barack Obama introduced was an initiative that would Strengthen Transparency and Accountability.  Might the people wonder who will vote for such a measure.  Will John McCain?  Does the American public authentically know who John Sidney McCain is?

Sources that reveal what was never a secret . . .

Palin, Biden on Roe versus Wade

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Some have become decidedly lax as they reflect on the Presidential election.  A few presumed to be excited by the polls.  Barack Obama has pulled ahead, ever so slightly.  Progressives play with the numbers and feel a sense of exuberance.  Frequently, Democrats and Independents who lean “Left” fail to recall; complacency will not increase the vote count.  Sarah Palin has come far in her career.  Often, in the past, she has shown herself to be a competent challenger.  Sarah Palin is a formidable force.
Yet, as the nation awaits the next debate, a battle of wits and wisdom with Vice Presidential candidates, Joseph Biden and Sara Palin on the stage, Democrats say there is nothing to fear, but fear itself.  Some discount the dynamic demeanor of the Alaskan Governor.  Progressives ponder, there is no need to worry.  Governor Palin has lost much of her momentum.  Yet, it might be wise to consider those who would vote for the wondrous woman are not as vociferous in the public forum.  Nor are these persons as evident in election polls.  Palin, and McCain devotees have the dominion of a cast ballot.

These voters are not as some presume them to be.  Advocates of the Alaskan Governor are not necessarily women.  Yet, supporters of Barack Obama feared they would be.  Some Democrats believed with a woman on the ticket, John McCain would surely soar ahead in the polls.  Hence, a mass mail was sent out.  Liberal persons thought the message would move women.  The thought was perchance, these facts might influence female voters.

1.)    John McCain opposes equal pay legislation saying it wouldn’t do “anything to help the rights of women.”

2.)    John McCain opposes requiring health care plans to cover prescription birth control

3.)    John McCain opposes comprehensive, medically accurate sex education.

4.)    John McCain opposes common sense funding to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.

5.)    John McCain opposes funding for public education about emergency contraception.

6.)    John McCain opposes restoring family planning services for low-income women.

7.)    John McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and says it should be overturned.  His running mate Sarah Palin opposes abortion in nearly all cases, even in the case of rape or incest.

8.)    John McCain wants to nominate Supreme Court justices who are “clones” of conservative Justices Alito and Roberts.

9.)    When asked if contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, John McCain said he was stumped.

10.)    In his 25 years in Washington, DC, John McCain has voted against women’s reproductive rights and privacy 125 times.

However, in truth for many of the fairer sex this list proved to be meaningless.  Sarah Palin, the person, definitely had more power to persuade.  The statistics and specifics did not dissuade the daughters of Eve.  Countless were certain that the Democrats would say anything to deceive the electorate.  After all, fact checks continually demonstrate that what a one candidate says in reference to a rival cannot be trusted.  Truth is tentative, tweaked, and twisted.  Veracity can be tailor-made and frequently is.  Each Party engages in self-serving misrepresentations.  

More importantly, numerous women inclusive of Sarah Palin are opposed to abortion.  Some Conservative lasses who consider themselves pro-choice love the lady Palin.

Perhaps equal pay for equal work is less of a concern for Moms and misses who labor at home, or for those who think the structure as is, is fine.  Individuals who have faith in G-d and abstinence do not wish for the distribution of contraception.  These same persons would argue, sex should be taught at home, not in public schools.  Countless, among those with ovaries,  think women must plan for a family.  It is a potential mother’s place to create a brood or protect herself from the possibility.  Whether low-income earners are provided with instruction, as it relates to reproduction, or not, is of little interest to the supposed softer-sex.  Several thousand, millions who think themselves the better half are strong and strident in their support of life.  These woman also endorse Sarah Palin.

Why do they like her so much?

The answers vary.  Her conservative bona fides are important to Charity Chase, a young libertarian: “What she stands for and her record,” Chase said at Republican headquarters.  McCain has long had problems with conservatives, who see one of their own in Palin.

Other interviews reveal an admiration of Palin’s remarkable unpretentiousness — working mother with a pregnant teenage daughter, high-end blue-collar hobbies such as moose hunting and snowmobiling. They can relate to her life easily.

“When you’re a mother, you have better instincts and can solve problems,” said Kayla Carter, who at 16 is working on her first campaign. She was calling voters from a Henderson office.

But Republicans also love that Palin’s no average working mom — she’s like an average working mom with extra-special life force that has fueled a rocket rise, taking on the allegedly corrupt Alaska Republican establishment and beating it in 2006.

“She’s like the average person who does everything,” said Ana Wood, a volunteer at the Henderson office.
The Palin fever is reminiscent of the aura of excitement that’s surrounded Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama since his famous keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

National Review, the venerable conservative magazine, has Palin on its cover this week, with a slightly tongue-in-cheek headline: “The One!”

Might the Obama supporters study further than the polls that affirm what they wish to believe.  Granted, those who have a telephone and are asked of the Palin effect might express disdain.  However, the question is do those polled truly represent all of America.  On October 1, 2008, a proud Ohio voter said no.  The fifty-one percent who resent Sarah Palin do not speak for him.

On this initial day of the Presidential election in Ohio, where the law permits same-Day registration and voting, constituents were able to cast a Presidential ballot on the first Wednesday in October.  Today, Freddie DeLaMonte voted for John McCain.  In an interview with a National Public Radio reporter, the man happily voiced his reason.  “To be truthful is, I like his running mate.  Seems to me, she understands it better than these guys who have been around for a long time and they’re big shots you know.”

No, Freddie is not among the upper crust.  He is not the typical refined Republican.  His history might not lead researchers to believe that he would embrace the grand Old Party.  Mister DeLaMonte is a homeless man, perhaps a transient.  As he says, some without a permanent shelter are.

The jubilant may wish to recall that in late September and early October 2004, the election looked to be as this current challenge appears.  Persons on the Left were increasingly confident.  They had chosen a good candidate.  He was intelligent, informed, and inspired the youth vote.  John Kerry was a war hero.  George W. Bush less likely to win.  

Democrats thought, they need only look at the lack of support for the Iraq war.  Whilst there was not a woman on either ticket, Moms, did not wish to lose a son in battle.  Wives longed for husbands to be safe and secure at home.  Daughters surely would not vote for a more battles.  Many were convinced President Bush could not possibly survive another election.  After the first debate, Progressives felt more positive.

On the issue of the economy, the poll showed all voters favoring Kerry 51 percent to Bush’s 44 percent, almost exactly the opposite of what the September 24-26 poll indicated — Bush with 51 percent and Kerry with 45 percent.

Holland said that was good news for Kerry going into the second and third debates, in which domestic issues will be highlighted.

It seemed the war and the economy ensured a guaranteed win. Yet, the extremely unpopular President was elected and inaugurated again.  On January 20, 2005, George w. Bush crossed the threshold of the White House one more time.  Indeed, women voters may have helped place President Bush back into the Oval Office.

Traditionally, conventional wisdom has led many to believe women are concerned with issues that favor Democrats.  Healthcare, education, and Social Security are surely concerns for the gentler sex . However, no matter the gender, the war on terror, and the fear factor can shift what appears to be a solid calculation.  Many women (and men) want McCain and Sarah Palin simply because they feel these two will keep the country safe.  The McCain/Palin ticket also appeals to men.  Charles W. Fairbanks speaks for many.  Mister Fairbanks, who anxiously awaits the first and only Vice Presidential debate writes of his admiration for a robust women such as Sarah Palin.

It never fails.  The more the driveby media struggles against Sarah Palin, the tighter her hold on the American imagination becomes.  Palin Derangement Syndrome has reached a fever pitch, and it doesn’t seem to phase the governor.

While it is true, the Palin effect may have diminished amongst those who are more visible and vocal, Americans cannot ignore the fact that not all of the electorate is dissuaded.  Not all have heard the Alaskan Governor’s supposed gaffes.  Those who have may believe as Sarah Palin so aptly stated in her latest radio interview.

In a series of recent interviews, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has expressed her disdain for the way she has been treated by the press, stoking resentment toward the media among conservatives but also raising questions about how this strategy will help reach independent voters who remain decidedly non committal about Palin.

Her latest jab at the press came last evening in an interview with conservative talk radio show host Hugh Hewitt.  . . .

“I have a degree in journalism also, so it surprises me that so much has changed since I received my education in journalistic ethics all those years ago,” Palin said in response to a question from Hewitt about alleged gotcha questions being asked of her by ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric.

She added:
“I’m going to take those shots and those pop quizzes and just say that’s okay, those are good testing grounds. And they can continue on in that mode. That’s good. That makes somebody work even harder. It makes somebody be even clearer and more articulate in their positions. So really, I don’t fight it. I invite it.”

Indeed, she does.  Governor Palin is a practiced politician.  She is cheerful, personable, and a powerfully convincing person.  She has captivated America ever since she came onto the Vice Presidential scene.  No one will easily forget or dismiss the demure Sarah Palin.  The debates may remind Progressives of this.

On the eve of the televised Palin performance, many Democrats would wish to believe Governor Palin or those who admire her are “dumb.”  (Please excuse the use of a word I find extremely offensive!) What may be “dumber” is the thought that those who see “the facts” as they pertain to McCain’s record on women’s issues will feel a need to vote for Barack Obama.

Peruse if you choose.  However, please trust the specifics may or may not change a Conservative mind.  “Facts” are fluid.  Sarah Palin’s stance is as persuasive as are these particulars.  Points of view are as Alaskan Governor, formidable.

The Worst of John McCain

McCain has voted consistently against women’s health, and he supports overturning the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade.  These positions will make it difficult for him to win over moderate pro-choice voters in the general election.  The Arizona State Senator said, “As someone who has consistently and strongly been pro-life, I fully believe that Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that should be overturned.  Roe v. Wade is the most egregious example of judges who impose their own views by legislating from the bench rather than strictly rule what the Constitution says.”

The Trail Blog. Washington Post. May 7, 2008

McCain opposed spending $100 million to prevent unintended and teen pregnancies.  
In 2005, McCain voted NO to allocate $100 million to expand access to preventive health care services that reduce the numbers of unintended and teen pregnancies and reduce the number of abortions.
Roll Call Vote.  March 17, 2005

Statement of Purpose:
To expand access to preventive health care services that reduce unintended pregnancy (including teen pregnancy), reduce the number of abortions, and improve access to women’s health care.

McCain opposed legislation requiring that abstinence-only programs be medically accurate and scientifically based.
  McCain voted NO on legislation that would help reduce the number of teen pregnancies by providing funding for programs to teach comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education and other programs to prevent unintended teen pregnancies.

Lautenberg, Menendez Offer Comprehensive Approach To Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Abortions
Contact: Alex Formuzis (202) 224-7340

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Washington, D.C. – Acting to reduce the number of teenage pregnancies and abortions in the United States, Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) today offered an amendment on the Senate floor to fund programs to encourage abstinence as well as sex education. Currently the federal government doesn’t support any sex education programs that include information about contraception or other forms of birth control.

The legislation was offered as an amendment during consideration of the Child Custody Protection Act (S.403).

McCain opposed Title X, the nation’s family planning program.
  In 1990, McCain voted NO on legislation to extend the Title X federal family planning program, which provides low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.

McCain opposed requiring insurance coverage of prescription birth control.
   In 2003, McCain voted NO on legislation to improve the availability of contraceptives for women and to require insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

Amendment Number:
S. Amdt. 258 to S. 3
Statement of Purpose:
To improve the availability of contraceptives for women.

McCain opposes comprehensive sex education.
  In an interview aboard the “Straight Talk Express,” McCain struggled to answer questions about comprehensive sex education and HIV prevention.  He also stated that he supported “the president’s policy” on sex education.

McCain unsure where he stands on government funding for contraception.  
”Whether I support government funding for them or not, I don’t know,” McCain said about contraceptives.

Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the expenditure of certain appropriated funds for the distribution or provision of, or the provision of a prescription for, postcoital emergency contraception.

McCain opposed repealing the “global gag rule.  “
In 2005, McCain voted NO on legislation to overturn the “global gag rule,” which bars foreign nongovernmental organizations from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if the organization (using its own, non-U.S. funds) provides abortion services or information or advocates for pro-choice laws and policies in its own country.

Amendment Number:
S. Amdt. 278 to S. 600
Statement of Purpose:
To prohibit the application of certain restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.

McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade. 
In February 2007, the AP quoted McCain stating, ‘I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”

McCain says Roe v. Wade was a “bad decision.”  
In May 2007, during an appearance on Meet the Press, Sen. McCain reiterated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade, saying, “I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the, the rights of the unborn.” He went on to say, “My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record.”

McCain would have signed 2006 South Dakota abortion ban 
In February 2006, the Hotline reported, “According to a spokesperson, McCain ‘would have signed the legislation, but would also take the appropriate steps under state law — in whatever state — to ensure that the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother were included.'” As the New York Times’ Paul Krugman points out, “That attempt at qualification makes no sense: the South Dakota law has produced national shockwaves precisely because it prohibits abortions even for victims of rape or incest.”

McCain touts “pro-life” credentials at conference of FRC Action, the political arm of the Family Research Council. 
At a speech at the FRC Action Voter Values Summit in October 2007, Sen. McCain said, “I have been pro-life my entire public career.  I believe I am the only major candidate in either party who can make that claim.”

Sources for Sarah Palin Effect . . .

Sarah Palin Interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric- Day 1

Sarah Palin Interview with CBS News’ Katie Couric- Day 2

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Americans each have an opinion on Sarah Palin.  The Alaskan Governor has been the topic of conversation for weeks.  The Press pours over her record.  Average Americans read.  Some say she is sensational.  Sarah Palin has sizzle.  Many hockey Moms relate to the woman who worked her way up.  Governor Palin has cracked the glass ceiling.  She has become a celebrity of sorts.  

Several scorn the lovely lady.  Others imitate the daughter of Eve.  No one disputes, Sarah Palin has style.  Yet, few have the opportunity to make an informed judgment.  Less are able chat one-on-one with the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.  Fortunately, two did.  First Lady Laura Bush shares her thoughts after a conversation with Palin.  ABC News Anchor, Katie Couric offers an objective view.  Only a read from interviews with Ms Bush or Ms Couric reveals what each might think.  Please peruse the reflections and dear reader, decide for yourself.  Who might Sarah Palin be to you.
The First Lady, Laura Bush mused after her meet and greet with the magnificent Sarah Palin.  The two talked when each attended the Republican Convention held in Minneapolis-Saint Paul.

The First Lady walked away with an impression of Sarah Palin.  Laura Bush observed the Republican Vice Presidential nominee lacks foreign policy experience.  The President’s partner assured Americans, Sarah Palin is a very quick study.  Then, without hesitation Laura Bush reminded the many, fortunately, the maverick, John McCain “does have that sort of experience.”

Ms Bush also expressed her extreme admiration for the qualities Sarah Palin possesses.  “She’s got a lot of really good common sense, and I think that’s very important,” Laura Bush mused.  The woman who has resided in the White House for near a decade avowed, I have “a lot of confidence” in Sarah Palin.

“She also has executive experience from being a governor and a mayor, and I’m thrilled to have the chance to vote for Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket,” said the equally lovely Laura Bush.

When reporters inquired, did the first Lady think Palin was being treated unfairly, might her gender play a role in the way people approached the Vice Presidential nominee, the Laura Bush said, “I do think there’s a little bit of that going on, and I think it’s to be expected.”

CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric understands this.  She too has been victim to questionable comments.  The fact that she is female has left her more vulnerable to scrutiny.  Hence, Ms Couric might empathize. She may have another sense of Sarah Palin.  However, her assessment is difficult to ascertain with certainty.  We can only watch as a tête-à-tête unfolds.  Then, we might attempt to determine the actual dynamic.  

What any of us can know for sure is the Journalist was among the scant select individuals who had the chance to interview Alaska’s Governor.  

The two spoke of the Economic crisis.  Afghanistan was also a theme for discussion.  The Alaskan Chief Executive also spoke of the need to “keep an eye on Russia.”  Many recall, as mentioned in her earlier conversation with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, the Governor does watch, the Asian continent from her home shores.

Sarah Palin also observes how the foreclosures in her neighborhood and perchance communities throughout the country have altered what was an American reality.

Couric: Would you support a moratorium on foreclosures to help average Americans keep their homes?

Palin: That’s something that John McCain and I have both been discussing – whether that … is part of the solution or not. You know, it’s going to be a multi-faceted solution that has to be found here.

Couric: So you haven’t decided whether you’ll support it or not?

Palin: I have not.

Couric: What are the pros and cons of it do you think?

Palin: Oh, well, some decisions that have been made poorly should not be rewarded, of course.

Couric: By consumers, you’re saying?

Palin: Consumers – and those who were predator lenders also. That’s, you know, that has to be considered also. But again, it’s got to be a comprehensive, long-term solution found … for this problem that America is facing today. As I say, we are getting into crisis mode here.

Couric: You’ve said, quote, “John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business.” Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?

Palin: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie – that, that’s paramount. That’s more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.

Couric: But he’s been in Congress for 26 years. He’s been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He’s also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he’s been talking about – the need to reform government.

Couric: But can you give me any other concrete examples? Because I know you’ve said, Barack Obama is a lot of talk and no action. Can you give me any other examples in his 26 years of John McCain truly taking a stand on this?

Palin: I can give you examples of things that John McCain has done, that has shown his foresight, his pragmatism, and his leadership abilities. And that is what America needs today.

Couric: I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation.

Palin: I’ll try to find you some and I’ll bring them to you.

If we are to trust Laura Bush’s evaluation, Sarah Palin will offer the information very soon.  Whence we meet again the Governor will provide answers to questions she had not yet studied  Please, stay tuned.  On-the-job training may be a program worth the watch.  Until then, please enjoy your own research.  Review, reflect, formulate your own opinion and attempt to be open.  Americans can trust, there is more to come.  Let us not study too quickly.

Sources for Sarah Palin . . .

Brutal

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund asks each of us to consider our values and the ethics of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin.  Environmental experts also join these protectors of the natural world when they inquire, would we rather have science survive or the ideology of a singular prominent person, Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin.  A woman who could potentially be a heartbeat away from the presidency holds dear a practice that might cause some to cry or cry out.  Governor Palin, as an elected official, a churchgoer, and as a citizen promotes her personal fondness for aerial wolf and bear hunts.  
Sweet Sarah Palin savors such savagery.  For this public leader, it matters not that conservationists, scientists, and many hunters condemned the “custom.”  She is sure that this “tradition” is best.

Governor Palin encourages hunters to shoot wolves and bears from the air.  Humans, in automated flying machines, which can run for hundreds of miles, hover over the heads of helpless furry creatures.  Man chases the beautiful “beasts” to exhaustion.  Once collapsed, or trapped, unable to hide in the stark terrain, the “sportsman” lands the aircraft.  Then, the huntsman shoots his or her fellow (four-legged) mammal point blank.  

The animals, blasted with a short-range smoothbore gun, usually die a painful death.  The hunters involved in the program keep and sell the animals’ pelts.  The killers do this with Governor Sarah Palin’s blessings.  The pleasant Palin, a hunter herself, has ensured brutal practices such as these are sustained.  Sarah Palin is a friend to sportsman and those who profit from the execution of animals.

“Sarah Palin’s anti-conservation position is so extreme that she condones shooting wolves and bears from airplanes or using airplanes to chase them to exhaustion and then shoot them point blank.  Most Americans find this practice barbaric, but it’s routine in Alaska under Palin’s leadership,” said Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund president Rodger Schlickeisen.

Sarah Palin has supported aerial hunting since taking office despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council, the American Society of Mammalogists, and more than 120 other scientists have called for a halt to the program, citing its lack of scientific justification and despite opposition from many hunters who see it as violating the sportsmen’s ethic of fair chase.  

Palin in 2007 even proposed offering a bounty of $150 per wolf, as long as the hunter provided the wolf’s foreleg as proof of the kill.  And just earlier this year, she introduced legislation to expand the program and derail a scheduled August 2008 citizens’ vote on the issue.  The bounty was determined to violate the state’s constitution and her legislation failed.

Constitutional considerations have no affect on the woman who wants to believe in the adage survival of the fittest.  For Sarah Palin, a person with a gun and aircraft is certainly the more fit than a mere mammal in the wild.  However, she is sensitive to the needs of some who are weak, at least Palin pretends to be.  A perusal of the record gives reason for doubt.

Sarah Palin hopes to provide for people who are less able.  Governor Palin proclaims the wolves and bears impinge on the needs of the poor.  She claims to work as an advocate for subsistence hunters.  The compassionate Chief Executive publicly states her concern for Alaska’s hunters.  She fears that those who feed off the land will be “locked in perennial competition with the canine carnivores for the state’s prodigious ungulate population.”

Hunter Palin vehemently argued with opponents of aerial wolf hunting.  The sportswoman has the support of the Alaska Outdoor Council. The association is looked upon as an influential advocacy and lobbying organization for hunting, fishing and recreation groups.  Urban hunters, who shoot moose mostly for fun, are members of this powerful guild.  The Governor and the Council do not share an inconvenient truth.  “Subsistence hunters rely on an occasional moose to make ends meet.”  Contrary to the claim of Sarah Palin, the wolves and bears do not steal food from the tables of the impoverished.

“Palin acts like she has never met an animal she didn’t want shot,” says Priscilla Feral, president of Friends of Animals, based in Connecticut.

The controversy over Palin’s promotion of predator control goes beyond animal rights activists recoiling at the thought of picking off wolves from airplanes.  A raft of scientists has argued that Palin has provided little evidence that the current program of systematically killing wolves, estimated at a population of 7,000 to 11,000, will result in more moose for hunters.  State estimates of moose populations have come under scrutiny.  Some wildlife biologists say predator control advocates don’t even understand what wolves eat.

Empathy for the environment or for those creatures who share the planet with Sarah Palin and her friends the “sportsmen” is not evident in the Governor’s positions.  Wolves may bay.  Bears might growl.  Sarah Palin does not grovel.  She stands her ground.  Preservationist, Ecologists, Conservationists who may question the strident Sarah Palin may weep.  Nonetheless, the Alaskan Governor remains adamant.

In an attempt to lessen the pain that a Palin Vice Presidency and possible rise to Commander-In-Chief status, many Americans choose to laugh.  Persons who know not what else they might do post spoofs throughout the Internet.  Sarah Palin and her love of the kill is the source of many a parody.  “Bullwinkle the moose is assassinated.  Alaskan vacation turns deadly.  Shot by Alaskan Governor.”  

Some may smile.  Others relent.  No one can deny Sarah Palin is fit.  She survives.  Actually, this woman thrives.  Possibly, she loves the chase or believes wolves and bears do.

Reuters news service states, the prominent moose hunter Palin is being hunted by those that wish to bring her and her brutal practices down, not only for the approval of this barbaric behavior, but also for her position on other issues.

(I)t is not hard to find Alaskans who say Palin’s enthusiasm for predator control fits a broader narrative of how she edits science to suit her personal views.  She endorses the teaching of creationism in public schools and has questioned whether humans are responsible for global warming.

Many Alaskan residents observe that the new Governor is as cold as the territory in which she lives.  The hunt and ultimate kill, for Palin, is the priority.  Sarah Palin knows how to get what she wants.  The former broadcaster can preach and she knows how to teach.

In 2007, she (Sarah Palin) approved $400,000 to educate the public about the ecological success of shooting wolves and bears from the air.  Some of the money went to create a pamphlet distributed in local newspapers, three weeks before the public was to vote on an initiative that would have curtailed aerial killing of wolves by private citizens.  “The timing of the state’s propaganda on wolf control was terrible,” wrote the Anchorage Daily News on its editorial page.

Perchance, the literature was not presented in time to turn minds of many against mammals.  Surely, the scientists were not impressed by the Governors gross declarations.  Indeed, many experts and environmental enthusiasts defended the wildlife.

“Across the board, Sarah Palin puts on a masquerade, claiming she is using sound management and science,” says Nick Jans, an Alaskan writer who co-sponsored the initiative.  “In reality she uses ideology and ignores science when it is in her way.”  The initiative was defeated last month.

Gordon Haber is a wildlife scientist who has studied wolves in Alaska for 43 years.  “On wildlife-related issues, whether it is polar bears or predator controls, she has shown no inclination to be objective,” he says of Palin.  “I cannot find credible scientific data to support their arguments,” he adds about the state’s rationale for gunning down wolves.  “In most cases, there is evidence to the contrary.”

Last year, 172 scientists signed a letter to Palin, expressing concern about the lack of science behind the state’s wolf-killing operation.  According to the scientists, state officials set population objectives for moose and caribou based on “unattainable, unsustainable historically high populations.”  As a result, the “inadequately designed predator control programs” threatened the long-term health of both the ungulate and wolf populations.  The scientists concluded with a plea to Palin to consider the conservation of wolves and bears “on an equal basis with the goal of producing more ungulates for hunters.”

However, Sarah Plain is not deterred.  Indeed, she is perhaps more determined.  Earlier this year the Alaskan Governor introduced State legislation that would place the predator-control program under the authority of Alaska’s Board of Game.  An Alaskan hunter, Sarah Palin, appointed each of the members in this department.

Again, in a Palin Administration personal philosophy takes precedence and determines policy.  Science is set aside.  Previously, the state’s Department of Fish and Game enforced guidelines.  For those in this branch of the government, the study of the physical world was of greater concern.  Recreation was a secondary consideration.  With the Palin Administration in charge, what was once truth may be no more.  People are left to ponder who is the fittest, and what might survive.

The legislation would give Palin’s board “more leeway without any scientific input to do whatever the hell they basically wanted,” Mark Richards, co-chair of Alaska Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, wrote in an e-mail.  The legislation is currently stalled in the Alaska state Senate.

Predator control in Alaska dates back to the 1920s and 1930s. Even then, wildlife biologists insisted that wolves were important to the area’s natural ecology and not responsible for inordinate deaths of sheep, caribou, or moose. Yet, the scientists fought a losing battle against ranchers, hunters and government officials, who backed the extermination of tens of thousands of wolves. Aerial hunting began in earnest in the 1940s and continued through the 1960s after Alaska had earned statehood.

Scientists insist that the Palin administration is systematically killing wolves with an inadequate understanding of the relationship between the carnivore and hoofed animals.

Yet, once more Sarah Palin and her personal appointees disagree.  Sadly, those in the wild, the wolves, bears, and moose have no vote in Governor Palin’s adopted homeland.  Perhaps, all that might save our fellow furry mammals is a cast ballot from millions throughout this country.  Possibly, all the attention given to an American presidency or vice presidency will put values in the forefront.  

United States citizens may help save the Alaskan animals who cannot save themselves.  The constituency may even be able to salvage a sense of humanity for more than a northern region.  If we, the people of this country vote our conscious and cast a ballot in favor of ethics, it may be possible to preserve the Alaskan habitat and that in the mainland.  Might it not be wondrous if those who judge at the barrel of a gun did not determine fitness and the will to survive, in the wild, or in the White House.

Sources of Sorrow and Sarah Palin . . .

Temple

copyright © 2008 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat the cry is the same, “We want change!”  For well over a year Americans have heard the words.  Barack Obama is “The change we can believe in.”  Currently, the cry is McCain is the change candidate, and certainly, he is.  This Presidential aspirant, a celebrated “maverick,” has altered the conversation and transformed his candidacy.  More than once, the media counted the former prisoner of war, John McCain, down and out; yet, the Arizona Senator rose as a Phoenix from the flames.  Many Americans trust that the formidable fellow who fought for his country with blood, sweat, and tears is the best person to serve as President of the United States.
Rock star that the media says he may be, Senator Obama does not excite the masses, at least not here in America.  Oh, he has his loyal followers.  Delusional is how opponents define them.  However, ask some of the electorate: committed Hillary Clinton supporters, Independents, and those within the Grand Old Party whether they trust that Barack Obama can or will transform the country, and in a manner that is consistent with these voters, the answer will be a unqualified “No!”  

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman may have said it best for the persons who think Barack Obama is but an empty suit, “Sen. Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead.  But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.”

The American people, anxious for a new American Revolution, do not want Barack Obama to lead them.  Near fifty percent of the population does not trust the junior Senator from Illinois.  Nor do they have faith in what they tout is a Washington insider, the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, Joseph Biden.

Some say Obama is inexperienced, elite, out of touch, or they resent that he is too even tempered.  John McCain seizes on the theme of `change.’  These individuals trust, the independent-thinker, the Senator from Arizona was and will be the candidate who can transform America.  After all, those who are Right recall that Senator McCain decried partisan rancor in Washington. He reached over the aisle in the past.  People who call themselves Conservatives trust that McCain will be a consensus builder when he needs to be.  Yet, he will remain as philosophically independent as is his nature.  John McCain stood up to his Party, and President in the past.  He will do so again, The soon-to-be Commander-In-Chief vows change is coming.  The Wall Street Journal avows John McCain is “The Change.”


John McCain reminds citizens of this country, Democrats “tax and spend.”  He, a Republican is different.  Senator McCain says, “If you believe you should pay more taxes, then I am the wrong candidate for you.”  The man of the people, who made a good life for himself understands the  outrage.  John McCain states, the electorate only need look at the tax plans each of the candidates propose.
More than half the population has no faith in the “elitist” candidate, Barack Obama. They trust as the McCain commercials avow.  Barack Obama will raise taxes.  The evidence, as calculated by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, affirms he will.  Presidential hopeful will increase the levies charged to citizens whose income ranks among the rafters.  Persons who earn $227,000 [two-hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars] upwards to $603,000 [six hundred and three thousand dollars] will realize a $12.00 average duty swell.  

Source: The Tax Policy Center

The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually.  Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase–a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.

McCain would lift after-tax incomes an average of about 3 percent, or $1,400 annually, for middle-income taxpayers by 2012. But, in sharp contrast to Obama, he would cut taxes for those in the top 1% by more than $125,000, raising their after-tax income an average 9.5 percent.

~ An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans
Executive Summary of the August 15, 2008 analysis
By Roberton Williams and Howard Gleckman
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

Potential President John McCain concurs; his opponents tax plan is disgraceful and despicable.  Barack Obama has the audacity to raise taxes an additional twelve dollars a year to those who already pay too much.  That is not hope.  A person who earns two hundred and twenty seven thousand up to six hundred and three thousand dollars works very hard for the income they take home.  Certainly, these individuals cannot afford to bestow twelve dollars more to a do-nothing government. Those who toil for the wages they merit need relief.  The government takes too much, far more than is reasonable.  These persons have every right to retain the income they earned.   The seven thousand eight hundred and seventy-one dollars John McCain’s plan would provide are but a mere pittance in comparison to what these individuals deserve.

The people who pound the pavement for a meager million dollars salary cannot contribute one dime more to the community budget that pays for police and fire services.  The additional dollars needed to maintain the roads that rot beneath our feet must not come from small business owners.  Bridges built or repaired must be funded by bonds, foreign investors, or on credit as they are now.  Surely, with all the duties the government already collects, there are adequate resources.  “I will not donate one more dollar to the Feds,” say the rich, or Republicans who feel overly burdened.

Potential President John McCain and his running mate, Sarah Palin do not worry of the debt the Bush Administration brought upon itself.  The nonconformist from America’s western State, Arizona, mused aloud as he stood in a sea of Republican Convention goers, “I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party.  We (the Republican Party) were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.”  The reluctant rebel expressed his regret for what but a few from the Grand Old Party did.  “We lost — we lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption.”  The senior Senator assured the throng of supporters that would not happen again, at least John McCain would not succumb to special interests, that is, except for the few Very Important Persons.  John McCain is the change and he cannot be influenced by dollars.

The power brokers from the McCain campaign lavished attention on Mr. Johnson (Robert Wood Johnson IV, the billionaire heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and owner of the New York Jets) and others like him — his itinerary was a parade of exclusive receptions for V.I.P. donors. Before the convention ramped up Tuesday evening, Mr. Johnson, 61, was among a cluster of McCain campaign officials and supporters hovering outside a suite guarded by an aide. As Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and senior McCain adviser, chatted in one small circle, Mr. Johnson, 61, was at the center of another next to her, before he disappeared inside the suite with Mr. Davis.

Mr. Johnson has long been a player in Republican politics — he was a Bush Ranger in 2000 and 2004, raising more than $200,000 in each election. He has personally given more than $1 million to Republican candidates and committees over the years.

But this year, he emerged as perhaps the party’s most coveted donor. In May, after turning his office into a war room for more than a month and making sometimes 50 calls a day, he orchestrated a fund-raiser in New York City that brought in $7 million in a single evening for Mr. McCain, by far the largest amount collected up to that point by a campaign that had been struggling to raise money.

More recently, Mr. Johnson rode to the rescue of the Minneapolis-St. Paul convention host committee, helping it close a more than $10 million budget shortfall in a matter of weeks by writing a sizable check himself, getting his mother, who hails from Minneapolis, to do so as well, but also soliciting numerous large contributions from his circle of wealthy friends. . . .

“I’m not a real believer in limits,” Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson rarely speaks at length with reporters. But in a series of conversations, he said he was motivated by a belief in Mr. McCain . . .

Millions of Americans believe in John McCain.  He is the candidate of change!  They trust, as President, John McCain will face the national debt with his signature relentless dynamism.  Republican Party loyalists do not fear the possibility; John McCain will become another George W. Bush.  This soldier is above reproach.  He has a proven record.  The concerns of lobbyist would not influence John McCain.  He learned his lesson after the Keating debacle.  John McCain was devastated when a “favor for a friend with regulatory problems had nearly ended his political career.”  Times have changed for John McCain and now he is ready to change times for the nation.

John McCain will not do as his predecessor has done.  An endless conflict will not drain the budget of trillions of dollars as it did during the Bush Administration.  John McCain, a prisoner of war knew how to win this one, the battle in Iraq, or that one, the fight in Afghanistan.  John McCain is not a hothead.  He will be more cautious before he places troops into battle.

Surely, one needs only consider the surge strategy.  It is obvious; John McCain has demonstrated Democrats are definitely not the cure for what ails this country.  If the policies proposed by the “inexperienced” Barack Obama are to stand, to be sure, internationally, internally, and especially economically, the nation will fall.  More would be placed on the proverbial credit card.

Governor Sarah Palin has the experience needed to create smaller government.  She will help ensure that the McCain Administration reduces the financial burden on the average American. Sarah Palin is an asset to the McCain campaign’s efforts to diminish waste and eliminate levies.  The public trough is too large; it must be obliterated. People can pull themselves up, by the bootstraps.  That, after all is the American Dream so many have achieved.  

As many resources reference, The Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, within the body of Table 1, reveals total government expenditures increased 63 percent when Mayor Palin was in charge.  In fiscal 2003, the last year in which this superior executive approved the budget, the sum costs the City of Wasilla incurred, with the exclusion of capital outlays, were $7,046,325.  In fiscal 1996, the year prior to a Palin Administration, budget expenditures were $4,317,947.  The municipality doled out a mere sixty-three (63) percent more than they had before this fiscally responsible financier entered into office.

Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years, according to a newly updated analysis by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion over the 2009-2018 period. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion (see Summary Revenue Table and Tables R1 and R2). These projections assume the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire in 2010 and that the Alternative Minimum Tax is fully effective with 2008 exemptions.

Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin would be better than Barack Obama at the helm.  Her “Barracuda” ways would lead American out of a fiscal slump.  The former Mayor of Wasilla has shown us all, she knows how to organize a community and balance the books.  One only needs to look at her record, or the ledger submitted to the State of Alaska, to know that even as a young city executive, this woman could create a budget.  She could change the dynamics.  Indeed, Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Sarah Palin, showed herself to be the candidate of change.  Sarah Palin proposed and built a Multiple-use Sports complex for but $14.7 million dollars.  A bond paid for the construction of the facility.

Sarah Palin transformed a balanced budget into a serious debt or so it would seem, near nineteen million dollars.  However, she had reasons.  The Hockey Mom thought it essential to provide ice time for the hundreds of youngsters who needed a place to practice. Mayor Palin invested in the local infrastructure. The stories of sons and daughters desperate for a rink were many.

Rebecca Dargis, who lives near Wasilla, says her two home-school sons struggle to find ice time for their competitive hockey team. They often have to play games without practicing, or if they do find ice time, it’s at odd hours like during church on Sundays or late on weeknights, she said. . . .

Even the Valley’s four high school hockey teams, which get priority at the rink, have to trade off practicing at 5:30 in the morning because it’s one of the few times available, Colony High School hockey coach Eric Troisi said . . .

A sports complex has been talked about for some time. Several years ago, Valley voters turned down a state grant to build a sports center, said Curt Menard Sr., who served on a nine-member steering committee Palin created to look at options for building a sports center.

The state grant required the borough pick up the tab for operating the center, Menard said.

Wasilla city residents would also have to pick up the tab for operating this center, but Blair said it eventually will pay for itself.

His company estimated the facility will cost about $600,000 a year to operate and will generate about $550,000 in user fees in its first year. After that, it should break even, he said. . . .

Borough land manager Ron Swanson said officials were concerned the center would not pay for itself.

Swanson said the borough-operated Brett arena, opened in 1983, has yet to break even. But it came close last year, generating about $350,000 of the $380,000 it cost to operate.

Nonetheless, as an agent of change, and a maverick much like John McCain, Sarah Palin helped to persuade her constituents the could have their Multi-use Sports Complex, pay an additional tax, and play on the ice too.  Mayor Palin had the power to plead her case as few did.  This sensational political aspirant can and did sway many to do as she thought fit.  Hence, money was spent, but only to serve the community.  Service to the community is change we can believe in.

As many resources reference, The Wasilla Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2003, within the body of Table 1, reveals total government expenditures increased 63 percent when Mayor Palin was in charge.  In fiscal 2003, the last year in which this superior executive approved the budget, the sum costs the City of Wasilla incurred, with the exclusion of capital outlays, were $7,046,325.  In fiscal 1996, the year prior to a Palin Administration, budget expenditures were $4,317,947.  The municipality doled out a mere sixty-three (63) percent more than they had before this fiscally responsible financier entered into office.

While Sarah Palin can spend, it matters not for she knows how to garner funds.  As Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin embraced earmarks.  As a small-town Chief Executive and later as a Governor Palin did not hesitate to seek spectacular sources for greater income.  According to a Washington Post article by Paul Kane, Mayor Palin secured almost $27 million in projects for her tiny hometown of Wasilla, Alaska.  

Had he known, and the assumption is he did not, the honorable John McCain would have been chagrined by the prospect that, the Alaskan politician employed a lobbying firm to help provide the six thousand seven hundred (6,700) residents of Wasilla with multiple millions in attractive Federal allocations.

John McCain was familiar with the fact. Perhaps his refrain would be. Of course, some are concerned with her past practices.  Americans must remember, while Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin was young.  She was new to her position. Perchance political realities had overwhelmed her.  Granted, more recently, as Governor of the State, Sarah Palin again sought and found abundant funds.  She needed to.  While it is true, under her leadership, the state of Alaska requested 31 earmarks, more per person than any other State had.  The total worth of this requested treasure chest is $197.8 million.  The money will be made available in next year’s federal budget, according to the website of Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  That does not mean that she is a spendthrift.  Sarah Palin simply knows how to work within the system.

Earmarks are close to sacrosanct in Alaska, which routinely reaps more money per resident for such projects than any other state because of the seniority and aggressiveness of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Young (both now mired in unrelated corruption inquiries.)

Perchance, the possibility of a Vice Presidential nomination gave Sarah Palin reason for change, or the conceivable indictment of Senator Stevens caused the Governor concern.  Sarah Palin has changed.  The Vice Presidential nominee has been publicly critical of requests she, Senator Stevens, and others made for $223 million in federal funds.  

The dollars meant to build a bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Gravina Island, became a source of contention once detractors labeled the project, “the Bridge to Nowhere.”  Governor Palin understood her earlier error.  

As a candidate for Governor in 2006, Sarah Palin supported the bridge and the use of Federal funds to construct it.  After she became the Chief Executive in Alaska, Governor Palin was happy to take the dollars initially intended for the structure.  Sarah Palin stopped the bridge to nowhere!  This Governor knows what it means to build a bridge without the help of big government dollars.  

She said she would use federal funds for other purposes.  Tis true, she changed; and yet, perhaps not as much or as quickly as the soon-to-be President John McCain would have preferred.  Still, Republicans take heart.  Sarah Palin is not at the top of the ticket.  That honor is reserved for Senator McCain.

Still, she is a superior choice for Vice President.  The earmark story shows she can be transformed in a moment.  More importantly, she can transform an assembly of Convention goers and a television audience of millions.  Sarah Palin is the change Republicans can believe in!  She spoke of how Barack Obama had written two memoirs and had not yet authored a governmental Bill.  That statement was powerful.  

The people in the audience at the Republican Convention, as well as television viewers throughout the nation, responded very well to the words of Governor Palin.  Her delivery is what America needs in a President.  This bit bull who wears lipstick can and does perform.  Thankfully, she is no Barack Obama.  Sarah Palin has executive experience.  Barack Obama has only a speech or two to tout, and zero legislation.  That is, unless you consider the reforms that directly address the dreaded earmarks Sarah Palin is so famous for, or the love for lobbyists Sarah Palin and John McCain have each grappled with.  Senator Obama is personally responsible for a litany of laws that might threaten the mavericks who are certainly the candidates of change.

Ethics and Lobbying Reform legislation.
Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has fought for open and honest government.  As an Illinois State Senator, he helped pass the state’s first major ethics reform bill in 25 years.  And as a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of numerous scandals.

In the first two weeks of the 110th Congress, Senator Obama helped lead the Senate to pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act, a comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform bill, by a 96-2 vote. This landmark bill was signed into law by the President in September 2007 . . .

Most importantly, the final reform bill contained a provision pushed by Senator Obama to require the disclosure of contributions that registered lobbyists “bundle” – that is, collect or arrange – for candidates, leadership PACs, and party committees.  The New York Times called this provision “the most sweeping” in the bill, and the Washington Post said: “No single change would add more to public understanding of how money really operates in Washington.”

In January 2006, Senator Obama laid the groundwork for the reform package that the Senate eventually adopted a year later.  He started building a coalition for reform by helping to author the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act introduced with 41 Democratic sponsors. The bill proposed lengthening the cooling off period to two years for lawmakers who seek to become lobbyists and requiring immediate disclosure as soon as public servants initiate any job negotiations to become lobbyists . . . In addition, Senator Obama sponsored three other ethics-related bills in the 109th Congress that went even further on ethics, earmarks, and legislative transparency . . .

Then there was the The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act.  This bill was widely endorsed by reform groups.  Common Cause: stated, “[T]his legislation would do more to reform ethics and lobbying than any other piece of legislation introduced thus far because it goes to the heart of the problem: enforcement.” Public Citizen extolled Senator Obama “for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation.” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington offered commendation. “This is the first bill that deals seriously with the lack of oversight and enforcement in the existing congressional ethics process. . . . This bill will help restore Americans’ confidence in the integrity of Congress.

Senator Barack Obama originated The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act and The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act).

Perchance, there are Bills Barack Obama authored.  Apparently, the Illinois Senator wrote legislation that passed in his home State, and also in the United States Senate.  Nonetheless, Senator Obama lacks the qualifications John McCain and Sarah Palin have.  The change he claims is not as the nimble moves of two rebels might be.  Senator Obama does not know how to tell his tale in a manner that obfuscates truth.  He is not practiced in propaganda.  Nor does he pander as skillfully as the Grand Old Party dissenters do.  

Senator Obama has not divorced himself from his Party, as Sarah Palin and John McCain have.  Barack Obama is not talented in the art of treachery.  On the other hand, his Republican opponents have mastered the craft of change rhetoric.  The McCain Palin twosome can successfully run as Party loyalists, while they claim to be outsiders.  All are in awe, as Americans suspend belief.  Indeed, this pair has changed the election.  Ultimately, the partnership will fix Washington.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama does not compare.  He does not steal slogans or secure multi-million, billion dollar endorsements as well as John McCain and Sarah Palin do.  Barack Obama works to serve the poor, the underclass, and the community.  What can these little people do for him?  Nothing!

Senator Obama is not as slick in the art of deceit and deception.  It is dubious that he can change what he does not understand.  Politics is a game.  People are but pawns.  Perhaps, Joseph Lieberman was correct.  “Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead.  But eloquence is no substitute for a record — not in these tough times.”  

Republicans have faith, Barack Obama needs further training.  It will be a time before he knows how to present the status quo as though it is a true transformation.  The record speaks volumes.  American voters might wish to assess, what sort of change this country can believe in, the illusionary image created with smoke and mirrors or the authentic alteration that comes from within a community well-organized!

The Source of Change . . .

ALL of Dennis Kucinich’s replies @ 11-15-07 Dem. Debate

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

Once more Cable News Network hosted a Democratic Debate.  I cannot begin to express how I felt about the exchange or the analysis that ensued.  Anderson Cooper, who in an earlier Democratic Debate expressed his disdain for Dennis Kucinich, helped to assess the performances in a program that followed the main event.  Two pundits, James Carville a political consultant to Bill and now Hillary Clinton and David Gergen, counsel to President Clinton shared their “objective” views  on the candidates.  Interestingly, Journalist John Roberts divulged that in Nevada, and perhaps in the hall, fifty-one percent of the Democratic voters support Senator Clinton.  
Might we extrapolate, the reactions to the Presidential hopefuls were filtered through a screen other than the one attached to our televisions.  Yet, in cyberspace, we were able to read the views of common folks.  Interestingly enough, Cable News Network provides a rare opportunity for Internet Citizen Reporters to express themselves.  Through these more personal evaluations, we are able to experience a slightly more authentic glimpse into the electorate.  I offer a few assessments for your review.

Andrew Tossetti of Amherst, Massachusetts Kucinich is a consistent thinker. Specifically, he voted against the Patriot Act as well as the war, two things we as a nation are perhaps regretting and are at the forefront of modern political topics. This kind of foresight is essential in a leader. “What if we had a president who got it right from the beginning?” he asks. This was a powerful thing to say that needed to be said. He is indeed worthy to be our president, the son of a truck driver who worked his way up while not abandoning very important moral and humanistic considerations.

As a voter, I am encouraged by the overall field. Biden has a great sense of humor; Clinton is assertive, Obama commanding. My dream ticket is Kucinich for president and a toss up between Clinton, Obama and Edwards for vice.

Charles Bean of Eureka, California I would like to have heard more from Biden, Mitchell, Kucinich or Dodd. Most people know about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. The first four I named represent more of the public in my thinking. We just don’t hear much from them during the debates, as usual.

Paula Hyatt of Austin, Texas Finally a question is specifically addressed to Dennis Kucinich, 37 minutes into the debate. We have barely heard from Biden, Dodd, or Richards. I want to hear from more than Hillary, Edwards, and Obama. Give each candidate equal time, quit deciding for us who is going to be the candidate.

Again, we might realize the people applaud Dennis Kucinich.  They wish to hear more from the person they would choose to be President.  Yet, time after time, the only Presidential candidate that is card-carrying Union member, the one person that has consistently voted against the Iraq war, acts consistently to cut the funds, and bring the troops home is denied a forum.

Single Payer, Not for Profit Universal Health Care is what Americans crave.  Dennis Kucinich is the one aspirant with such a plan.  However, on occasions such as this he is not allowed to speak, at least not often.

I implore the media; let the one and only mainstream populace Presidential hopeful say his piece [peace], share his plans, and answer questions from those in the audience that yearn to his wisdom.  Might we truly invite the people to think, weigh the issues intelligently, separate ourselves from the hype, and then vote.  The Presidential election is not a sports event.  Nor is it a game.  Americans must have an opportunity to do more than presume to pick a winner.  Too often, this nation chose the pretty, the well position, or the prominent namesake.  Might we cast our ballot for the profound?  

I ask the press to give peace and profundity a chance.

Please reflect on the reality.  The American media refuses to bestow time for the brilliance of one that reads more than briefs before he votes on any Bill.  Sigh!

Dennis makes the most of his limited time in CNN debate

Although he received the least amount of time of any of the seven Democratic Presidential candidates during last night’s CNN debate — less than six minutes of the two hours — Dennis Kucinich made the most of it with crisp answers to questions about the war in Iraq, China Trade, the Patriot Act, the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear waste dump, and other issues.

Kucinich noted that most of the other candidates who previously voted in favor of those measures recently have changed their positions.  “You’ve seen here tonight people who voted for the war, voted to fund the war, now they have a different position.  People voted for the Patriot Act.  Now they have a different position.  People voted for China trade.  Now they have a different position.  People who voted for Yucca Mountain.  Now they had a different position.

“Just imagine what it will be like to have a president of the United States who’s right the first time.  Just imagine,” Kucinich said to thunderous applause.”

He also drew an equally enthusiastic response when he said that the President and Vice President are “out of control, and Congress isn’t doing anything.  It’s called impeachment and you don’t wait.  You do it now.  You don’t wait.”

The times for talk.
Biden: 9:15
Clinton: 15:55
Dodd: 7:10
Edwards: 10:43
Kucinich: 5:37
Obama: 18:09
Richardson: 14:06
Blitzer: 14:53

Imagine all the people living life in peace.  I do dream the impossible. I have faith with a President Kucinich this is achievable.
Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible.”
  ~ Miguel de Unamuno [Spanish Philosopher and Writer]

The Man, The Dream, The Possibilities . . .