Note:  As a lifelong registered Democrat I've tried to 'be for' Obama.  I've listened to his message and .... I've come away 'scared to death' of this man.  He is a "danger" to the U.S.A. and must be stopped.  I know that my vote this year in the Presidential Election will be nothing other than a vote "against" someone - rather than for someone.  Nevertheless..... I'm voting for McCain.

 

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, May 23, 2008; Page A17

When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China. Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon; the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets .. . .

 

 

Obama’s Problem with White Voters

 

By James Edmund Pennington

 

The racial dimension of Barack Obama's electability problem is now apparent, but no prominent Democrat dares discuss it openly. Similarly expect no discussion of the subject in the major media.

The white working class vote 

I am not referring to the ongoing and intense discussion of The Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a separate problem for Obama. Whether Obama has been, or will be, permanently weakened by his long and close association with Wright, or has soared above it with his Philadelphia speech, is not the subject of these thoughts. Something much simpler than the answer to that question has been starkly apparent for some time, certainly since well before the Wright eruption: Consistently, and by large margins, Obama has lost the white working class vote to Clinton in all states critical to the Democratic ticket this November. The lurking suspicion -- impossible to verify or refute -- is that much of Clinton's handsome portion of this demographic will not go to Obama in the November election.

 

This has grave implications for a Obama, at least in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Working class whites have voted heavily for Clinton in these states (or, in the case of Pennsylvania, will soon do so). The return of the Reagan Democrats, not the odious fulminations of Reverend Wright and their consequences, is what is now driving Democratic Big Wigs to the bourbon cabinet. Predictably, the media either refuses to acknowledge this now established voting pattern or, in some cases, actually denies its existence.    

 

The latest example of denial is by Dan Balz, staff writer for the Washington Post, who remarked in his March 17, 2008 article purporting to analyze the white male vote, that Wisconsin (where Obama did relatively well among white males overall) and Ohio (where Clinton crushed him, 66-33%, among white working class males) are "states with striking similarities." It appears Mr. Balz has not looked at the two states closely and thoughtfully. In the crucial details of racial demographics, Ohio and Wisconsin are worlds apart; and it is through these details that Obama's white working class problem can be understood.

A tale of two states

Here are some pertinent facts about Wisconsin and Ohio: Wisconsin has about 5.5 million residents, Ohio about 11.3 million. Wisconsin is about 89% white and 5.7% black, while Ohio is 85% white and about 11.5% black. The small (but statistically significant) difference in percentage of blacks living in the two states was the least part of Obama's problem in Ohio. Obama's real difficulty in Ohio - and it has been a consistent one for him in similar states -- is the widely dispersed and interwoven location of the two racial groups in that state, versus their relative isolation from each other in Wisconsin. Here, I warn the reader, we are entering emotionally rough terrain for those schooled only in the mandatory American racial catechism of the last forty years.

 

For at least the last two generations America's racial policies have been predicated on a near religious belief that increased contact between the races will produce harmony, good feelings and positive relationships. Our experience during this period has been uniformly the opposite. Urban white liberals have fled the public schools by the hundreds of thousands, self-segregation by blacks on university campuses is widespread, resentment in the workplace (by both races) ubiquitous etc. In his Philadelphia speech Obama himself referred -- perhaps the first such reference by a black politician without open contempt -- to the concerns that many white Americans have about blacks.

 

The salient fact is this: in settings where the two races deal more directly with each other, and get to know each other better, through shared public schools, workplaces, public conveyances, universities, etc., they seem to like each other less, not more.

 

This fact is laid bare, at least for anyone willing to see it, by the Democratic primary results thus far.

 

Consider the following additional facts about Wisconsin and Ohio, those states with "striking similarities." 

 

In Wisconsin more than 75% of the black population resides in the Milwaukee area, a metropolitan area that accounts for only 32% of Wisconsin's total population. This means that in Wisconsin the white portion of 68% of the state's population (which is more heavily white than the state as a whole because of the concentration of blacks in Milwaukee) rarely if ever encounters blacks. Thus, for a high proportion of Wisconsin whites, blacks are abstractions, approached most closely by turning on Oprah.

 

Now consider Ohio: to begin with, the black population, in percentage terms, is nearly double that of Wisconsin (11.5% versus 5.7%). But its dispersion within and among the white population is the real difference between the two states' racial demographics. In Ohio 80% of the state's 11.3 million residents reside in the eight largest metropolitan areas (Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Youngstown and Canton). These cities contain, in the order listed, 24%, 51%, 43%, 24%, 28%, 43%, 44% and 21% black residents. Thus, in Ohio a very high percentage of the white population, particularly its working class component, has regular contact with blacks, or, if living in outer suburbs, has direct contact with other whites who do.

 

The widely disparate residential patterns of the races is obvious: in Wisconsin, the vast majority of whites live, work, shop, and send their children to school in a world that includes few if any blacks; in Ohio the reverse is true, and the races regularly brush up against each other in all these categories of daily life. Judging from how well Obama did among white voters in these states (satisfactorily in Wisconsin, abysmally in Ohio) increased racial familiarity is not a boon to the Illinois Senator.

 

The sad truth about racial interaction

Good debaters (and those on the ideological Left) will point out that I have linked two phenomena causally (racial interaction, on the one hand, and disinclination by working class whites to vote for a black candidate, on the other) without actually demonstrating cause and effect. But fortunately it does not take a Ford Foundation grant and a two-year study to see what is happening. In this year's Democratic primary results the two phenomena -- extensive racial interaction and poor outcomes for Obama among working class white voters -- have been so universally conjoined that cause and effect can be reasonably presumed.

 

Without exception, the Wisconsin pattern (little interracial contact) and the Ohio pattern (much more such contact) have correlated with identically opposite results throughout the Clinton/Obama battles: every state outside the South where Obama carried the white vote and won the primary or caucus was one with a small to negligible black population (Wyoming, Vermont, Wisconsin, Maine, Washington, Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, North Dakota, Idaho, Alaska and Iowa); in every state where a substantial and widely dispersed black population regularly interacts with whites, Obama lost the white vote and lost the primary: Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. I have omitted the candidates' home states (New York for Clinton, Illinois and Hawaii for Obama). Pennsylvania, where Clinton has a commanding lead, will follow the Ohio pattern, as will Florida and Michigan in the increasingly unlikely event of do overs.

 

Simply put, blacks and whites are not doing well together in America, circa 2008. Obama's battle with Clinton, all the pretty rhetoric notwithstanding, is remorselessly exposing that undiscussed fact. Obama is hurt by this -- severely it would appear -- in states where the races interact extensively, particularly at the working class level; while, in states with few blacks, the lamentable state of America's race relations is masked and Obama does reasonably well among white Democrats.  

 

But the states with extensive racial interaction are precisely those that Democrats regularly carry, or need to carry, to win. Of course in several such states whites in general vote sufficiently Democratic to overcome the now obvious disinclination of working class whites to vote for Obama (e.g., Massachusetts, New York, California). But that is not true of the critical states mentioned above and, possibly, several others.

 

Candor

Michelle Obama attended Princeton and the Harvard Law School. Taking her at her word, interacting with whites in these rarified settings did little to improve her feelings about her country, including, presumably, the whites who made up the majority of her classmates. Given America's current rules of racial engagement -- which allow negative views of whites by blacks to be expressed but forbid the reverse - Mrs. Obama felt free to express herself publicly (though now, no doubt, wishes she had been less candid).  

 

On the other side of the divide, the only remaining permissible venue for white expression of racial grievance is the voting booth. Where social policy, proximity, and numbers create mandatory interaction by whites and blacks in settings less elegant than Princeton and Harvard, white disenchantment engendered by that interaction finds its outlet in elections.

 

The theory that greater familiarity is an antidote to mutual antagonism holds only if each party likes what it sees in the other as the familiarity develops. This does not appear to be the case with either principal race in America. The consequences are playing out at the ballot box.

 

Doubters of this reality should not only consider Mrs. Obama's words, but take a look at the racial demographics of states outside the South where her husband won the white vote (and the state), and compare them with the racial demographics of the states where he lost the white vote (and the state).

 

Whether this voting pattern will persist is a matter on which no guess is ventured. Whether the Wright fiasco will worsen it for Obama is unknowable. That the pattern does exist is an indisputable fact.   

 

No New Year Resolutions

 

Yes – tis true – no New Year Resolutions for me this year.  Seems I used more than my quota last year – so I will sail through this year without the usual promises to oneself.

 

It was almost exactly one year ago today that I instigated the first of my ‘ought seven’ resolutions, which was “Thou Shall Lose Weight.”  And, lose weight I did – going from 260 (on a 5’10” frame) to 215 over a 3-month period, which wasn’t hard to understand, when you consider that I went from around 5000 calories (mostly - soda pop, candy, and various other junk food) down to 1500 a day.  After the initial loss I was able to substantially increase my calories (to 3000 calories) and once again enjoy eating, (nutritious food) although I had to also add exercise to the mix; I have maintained the 215 ever since, and am now in the process of purposely reducing my calorie intake (temporarily) in order to lose an additional 10 pounds to arrive at 205.  All the ‘so-called’ health experts/charts tell me I should weigh 185, but I will be content to hold 205.

 

It made me laugh (all year) when people would ask, how’d you do it (lose weight)? Gee, I’d answer, it weren’t hard I just quit eating. Of course I didn’t quit eating, it only seemed that way.  To try and answer the question though, I guess I would have to say I was highly motivated.  How’s that you say?  Well, lucky for me I had an incompetent Doctor, and a totally screwball lab (at my little small town hospital) on my side.  Thanks to the good Doctor and his ‘laboratory assistants,’ I was convinced that I was a ‘raging diabetic’ with blood sugar numbers skyrocketing through the roof.  Indeed, indeed, I was very lucky to have them both, for without them, I’d still be sailing along at about the same weight I was then, smoking, drinking, and generally going about the business of killing myself. 

 

In short, I really do think I was lucky to have that Doc, although there have been times (since) when thinking about him (which is rare), I’d like to shoot him.  In any event I finally got myself in front of a good Doctor (in a nearby large city) and over time, with his help and that of some expert Diabetic Specialists, I learned that I’d had a reaction from a Gall Bladder that might some day need to be removed, but, thankfully, not any time soon, if at all.

 

Well, so much for the ‘motivation’ to lose my weight, but what about the ‘method’ I employed to do so? The first step was to eliminate the soda pop, candy and junk food, which in retrospect actually made it easier for me, since I eliminated 2-3 thousand calories alone by doing away with the pop and junk food (Btw, I miss ‘none’ of it).  Secondly, I instituted portion control – which I still use today; I rarely have ‘seconds’ of anything, and the days of grabbing a bag of chips, and sitting in front of the boob tube munching till the bag is empty are long gone. Thirdly, I eat three meals a day and have 2-3 snacks (raw fruit) each day – and those are the only times I eat. Repeat - "those are the only times I eat."

 

….. More about - eating to lose weight - at a later date.

 

Which brings me to Resolution #2 – which was to quit smoking, which really makes my weight loss look good, since most people ‘gain’ weight when they quit.  In fact, always before, one of my reasons to ‘not’ quit the cigarettes, had been Nah, I’ll just gain weight.

 

So, how’d I quit the nasty cigarettes?  What we (Pup quit with me) used was ‘Chantix,’ a prescription chemical concoction that her Doc recommended.  It worked really well; we took the meds for a week while we continued to smoke, and then on our “Quit Day” we did, quit.  It was amazing to both of us how easy it was – which is not to say it was - ‘that easy.’ But, the cravings were mild and we had our meds, and for the next two weeks we surprised each other and ourselves, by not smoking.  At the end of those 2 weeks we even decided we could get along without the meds and we quit them too.  That was March 13, 2007, and we’ve not smoked since, and as each day passes we become more an more aware of two things; 1) we’ll never smoke again and 2) how could we of been so stupid to smoke all those years?

 

…More about – the discipline to stop smoking - at a later date.

 

 

Resolution #3 came next, which was to start exercising.  Oh, I’d exercised in the past, but it was sporadic at best, and could hardly be called a regime.  Initially I started walking for 20 minutes – 3 times a day, which has slowly evolved to where I am today - 1 hour – 3 times a day – religiously.  That last word is highlighted because it is so important when initiating an exercise program that you do it “religiously.”  Since February 6^th, when I started it, I’ve missed ‘two’ sessions, both because we were at the lake.  I’ve since located places I can anchor the boat and walk on shore.

 

…More about – the discipline to exercise - at a later date.

 

Over the years I’ve read many stories about how to ‘lose weight, quit smoking or start exercising,’ with most of them written by some ‘smug’ person really high on him/herself for doing so.  That is not the case here; although I am proud of myself for accomplishing these three things, I am very aware of all the years I didn’t.

 

One can only suppose that given my previous lifestyle I am just lucky to be here, and, there is always the chance that it (previous lifestyle) will one-day bite me in the proverbial ass.  The dual point here is that 1) even if it does, nothing can diminish these accomplishments; secondly and perhaps more importantly, they can be duplicated.  The key is duplicating them without the ‘massive motivation’ that I was fortunate to have at my disposal.  Believe me, I do not wish that kind of motivation on anyone, although I do hope that something I might do or say, might enable others to enjoy similar results as mine.

 

ice

 

 

 

 

 

I’d wandered the beach for quite some time after my dream, enjoying the sunset, and it was a good one, a large, dark orange oval that when it started to merge with the horizon, it spread all the way across it. Wow!

 

The smoke had mellowed me out by that time and the Crown just added to the after-burn.  No, I don’t indulge like I used to, back - as they say ‘in the day,’ for if I did… hmm…. Yeah, I used to be pretty much an ‘every’ – day/night – guy, but, hell, it was fuel for my lifestyle or vice versa… and yes I ran on all cylinders most every day – and ‘loved’ it. Wouldn’t of had it any other way and my friends would of thought me ‘ill’ if I wasn’t on the move, checking out things you know … like women and women.  Geez…. Without women in this world I would have become a hermit on a mountain top before turning 21…. And No! I wouldn’t have been better off, and any man, or perhaps woman now-days, yes, who would laugh and tell you that they would have been better off without women…. Would just be ‘stone-blooded’ lying to you.

 

Sitting here at my desk playing this keyboard like a musical instrument listening to “Shotgun,” by Junior Walker and the All Stars,” has me cranked up –like my stereo - or maybe I’ve got myself cranked up and the music is just, yeah, ‘adding to the after-burn… you call it – in the air though.

 

Yeah, right.  Like - I don’t have a shot-glass of Crown on this desk with smoke sneaking ‘all around,’ trying to curl its way into the alcohol.  Like I said, ‘wouldn’t have it any other way.’

 

“Shake you Down, by Gregory Abbot,” has just started playing….Wow! …below are some of its lyrics, although they do not do the song justice.

 

Girl, I’ve been watching you

From so far across the floor’ now baby

That’s nothing new

I’ve watched you so many times before now baby

I see that look in your eyes

And what it’s telling me

 

And you know girl that I’m not shy

I’m glad you picked up on my telepathy now baby

 

Yeah, I feel good… it’s a good day, cepting Pup is not feeling real good, but I’m hoping she kicks out of it when her daughter and grand-daughter gets here, which means I’ve only about another hour on this ‘glow-stuff’ before I have to ‘hide it,’ shit, I hid it from parents, children, and grand-parents back in the day, but now I’m having to hide it from ‘parents, children, and now grand-kids, geez…. Replaced one generation with another didn't I?

 

I love drifting in and out of here, to the land of ‘nowhere man,’ what a gas, wish it was real.  Several of you commented about the lack of clothing in that faraway place, hmm…. I’ve never been shy, and social structures have always seemed to get in my way, but for the most part I’ve kept it in line, for the most part.  …

 

anywho ---- as “Lookingforlucy” says, “you don’t need clothes in heaven.”  Tell me that’s wrong?  Hey! Grab a hold, let’s go to the land of the ‘nowhere man,’ yes?

 

It’s night; right after that beautiful sunset I was talking about at the beginning of this article, remember?  The street we are on is wide, no cars, no trucks, just people….  People walking, and yes, most of them are without clothes, and so what?  What’s wrong with not hiding behind ‘puffed out clothes,’ not a thing Clyde, but then again when it’s cold – give me clothes man, heavy coats and all that stuff, but heck, it ain’t cold on this street-is it?  Heavily lit bars and clubs line both sides of the street, and music blares from within all of them, and for a moment I think I’m in New Orleans, but, no, this isn’t N.O., this is more like heaven, than anything.  Or, at least what one like me might envision heaven to be like.  I soak the music up, and a ‘skip’ develops in my already lively step; the night is young as they say, and ‘hot damn,’ you don’t say?

 

Suddenly I get an opposite remembrance, of another city, this one in Europe, yeah, it’s Nuremberg, Germany, and the street is narrow, the buildings on both sides, dark and reclusive, and I’m driving my VW like it’s a race car, while the music in the car is blaring, and she’s looking at me, and me her.

 

We’re headed for a party in Furth, and naturally I’ve caused us to be somewhat late, though it’d been worth it.  The dinner at the little Italian Restaurant had been fantastic and with the weather ‘mild’ this time of the year, we’d sat outside at a little table, and watched people walk by on the lightly traveled sidewalk in front of us.  “Glorious.”

 

“You ever wondered,” she said, in her slightly tinted German accent, “what’s on the other side?”  I’ve known Vera for 8 months, and we’ve had many the philosophical conversations, but it had always amazed me how she could start one in almost any situation.  “Are you thinking my driving might get us to the other side quicker than you want?”  She laughs, and lights the joint I’d given her a few minutes ago, and through the smoke, I see the ‘grimace’ just before the smile as she exhales.

 

“D, you know I don’t worry about what I can’t control,” which was correct, for she had the uncanny ability to shrug off worries that would give ulcers to some.  “Well, you know I do, (think about what's on the other side) so I only wonder why you’d ask a question you knew the answer to?”  “Because I was just thinking as I was watching you drive, that if you’re lucky and live to be 90 you probably won’t change much.”

 

This provokes a gentle laugh from me, and with a shrug I move the thought out of my mind.    Who in hell wants to think about being 90 years old anyway?  “So, I say with a smile, what’s that got to do with the other side?”  “Nothing, she says, absent mindfully, as she looks out her window, “it’s just that I saw a falling star the other night, and I want to think that whenever you see one – you’ll always think of me.”

 

And, you know what? 

 

I always think of Vera when I see a falling star.