Are Romney and Obama the same man? Not hardly.

For some people,  making a political decision isn’t easy, and distorting the facts about the candidates to  try and make political points doesn’t do anyone any kind of service at all. For example, Libertarians who are fond of posting on Facebook and other social media sites, what amounts to a visual “sound bite” that attempts to distort records and facts in order to show how Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are one in the same in ideas. While they do have some similarities on some policies, in most ways they are vastly different.  Libertarians will say that it doesn’t matter, that the basic premise that a statist is a statist is what they’re really getting at, and that since both Romney and Obama believe in big government solutions to problems, this makes them equivalent. I’m here today to prove otherwise.

One way of making comparisons is between theories and policies on specific issues. That is what I intend to do here—to compare what the two  candidates have said in regards to specific issues. The first item on the list is abortion. While Romney was governor of Massachusetts he apparently came out in favor of a woman’s right to choose. That was true then. In 2002, Romney said "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws." Later on, he changed his position. On August 27, 2012, Romney told a CBS Evening News interviewer, Scott Pelley: "My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother." Clearly, he now has a much more limited view on when abortion should be legal. He has made similar changes (or what anti-Romney folk like to call ‘flip-flops’) on several other issues, including gay rights issues and gun control. However, the flip-flop issue is really a red herring.

A person can have things happen throughout his life that will influence how he feels  about certain things—maybe even change his perspective. For example, someone could be a big partier, drinking, then driving home and feel they are perfectly fine doing so, but when they lose a loved one to a drunk driver they suddenly decide that’s not such a good idea after all. For Obama and abortion, this hasn’t happened. He’s fully in favor of a woman’s absolute right to do anything she wants with her body—even to the point of being in support of partial birth abortion. Notably, he doesn’t support the rights of the females still in the womb to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, only those who have already been born.

Another big item on the list of Romney/Obama sameness is stated on the visual bites that are making the rounds. That is that they are both in favor of the bailouts. That is misleading. It’s true that both were in favor of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), also known as the “bank bailout” which was initiated by President George Bush in 2008. While this writer was against it, it appears to have largely worked and the loans to the banks have been paid back. Subsequent bailouts, such as the auto industry bailout, have been vastly different. Obama led the charge on the auto bailout, while Romney thought that the auto companies should be allowed to go into bankruptcy. In fact, he wrote a rather famous op-ed piece in ’08 called, Let Detroit go Bankrupt. On the other hand, Obama has bragged about the auto industry bailouts he proposed and that were passed by Congress. To this date, GM still owes theAmerican taxpayers a minimum of $25 billion.

There are big differences between the two on other budget items as well. Obama continually presents stimulus plans. He follows the Keynesian philosophy of spending your way out of debt. He has ignored impending signs of doom in the economy. Romney has proposed cut backs and limiting the federal government spending. He has vowed to balance the budget. In his own words from the Tea Party debate held on September 12, 2011, he said: “The key to balancing the budget--having spent 25 years in business, I know something about taking waste out of enterprises--I'd love to do that to the federal government. And there is massive waste. But we're not going to balance the budget just by pretending that all we have to do is take out the [waste]. We're going to have to cut spending. And I'm in favor of cutting spending, capping federal spending as a percentage of GDP, at 20 percent or less, and having a balanced budget amendment. That's essential to rein in the scale of the federal government. And there's a second part to balancing the budget, and that's growing the economy again. The right answer for America is to stop the growth of the federal government and to start the growth of the private sector.”  The bottom line is, that Romney actually has a plan to do something other than to throw money at it, as the President’s plan promotes. Here is what Romney himself says on it: Clickety-click 

As for big government solutions, there has been a comparison made between Obamacare and Romney care. Romney is correct when he says that one is a state plan and one is a federal plan. He opposes the federal plan, though it is worrisome that he continues to use the terminology “repeal and replace”. One wonders what the word replace actually entails. His point though that states have a right to do what they think is best is quite accurate, according to the Constitution. He has publicly stated that he opposes Obamacare and will taking steps to get rid of it his first day in office.

Another claim is that both Romney and Obama are the same on foreign policy. First, I ask you in reference to the Obama administration, what foreign policy? Obama’s foreign policy has included running around from country to country apologizing for American arrogance and promising the moon. Well known is his aside to Medvedev when the President thought he was off mike. This is how the conversation went:

In the comments caught by the mic, Obama urged Medvedev to tell incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin to give him time: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved – but it's important for him to give me space."
Medvedev replied: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you."
Obama then elaborated: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
Medvedev responded: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

Romney has plans to keep the military strong. Obama would like to weaken it. Romney would like to keep the U.S. presence strong in the world. Obama would like to let other nations catch up. Obama has an “it’s not fair” attitude about American strength in the world. Romney believes that American ideals are the best. Obama believes that it’s fine for dictators and rogue nations to possess nuclear weapons. Romney believes that rogue nations (such as Iran under its current regime) should not be allowed to have such weapons. Obama has had a helter-skelter approach to foreign diplomacy—send in the troops to Libya, apologize in Saudi Arabia. Obama has appeared weak in the eyes of our enemies, thus the continued attacks against our embassies. Romney has said he will take a harder stance against China’s unfair trade practices.

What about the premise that both Romney and Obama are beholden to such corporate contributors as Goldman Sachs etc.? According to this article:

 “Wall Street has favored Obama and the Democrats by a margin of 2 to 1 during the 2008 elections. Goldman Sachs has been giving four times more to democrats than republicans since 2006.” The implication is that because a corporation or individual makes a donation that the candidate owes that corporation something in return. Seems logical, but nevertheless doesn’t mean it’s true. For example, you or I might contribute to a candidate, not to buy his or her favor, but because we believe they will do the best job. Since Goldman Sachs and other entities contribute to both campaigns, it is likely that they are trying to buy favor. However, that doesn’t mean they will get it. Obama seems to be very willing to give taxpayer money away to his favorite companies, like Solyndra and Fisker Automotive, among others. I have been unable to find any evidence that Mitt Romney while in public office, has done likewise. Claims that because he has high profile donors, he will give them favors are pure speculation at this point.
The Obama administration is infested with people from Goldman Sachs. Goldman was Obama’s biggest campaign contributor ($994,795) in 2008.
In fact, Mr. Obama, the class warrior, received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate in history. It was his largest source of campaign funds."

Other issues in which Obama and Romney are fundamentally different are gun control, government freebies, and gay marriage. Once upon a  time, Romney favored a ban on assault weapons, however, in an interview with Piers Morgan this past July, Romney stated: “I don’t support new gun laws in our country.”
Frankly, there are very few issues upon which Romney and Obama agree. I believe that the thing libertarians dislike about both is the perceived tendency to big government solutions. While Romney certainly did do some of those kinds of things as governor, and some of his proposals for what he will do as president display a tendency toward those things, his apparent dedication to reducing federal government waste and spending will hopefully preclude any attempts to do such. The original intent of the Founders wasn’t to have a weak government—that’s why the Articles of Confederation failed—but to have a strong government. The key is that it needed to be responsive to the will of the people, and to not usurp powers for which it was never given responsibility.

The bottom line is that attempts to paint Romney and Obama with the same brush are ludicrous. While this writer doesn't necessarily agree 100 percent with the Romney approach, he is a vastly superior alternative to the current president, and the only alternative who has a chance of defeating the current president.  

Arthritis: The distinction between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis

It happens frequently. My wife will wince or say "ouch" and someone will say..."what's wrong?"
"I have RA," she responds.
"RA? What's that?"
"Rheumatoid Arthritis."
"Oh," comes the response, "I have arthritis." This is typical, yet expresses the ignorance of people in regards to one of the most insidious and debilitating diseases. Though I'm no physician,  I will try and explain why except in extreme cases of osteoarthritis, its effects pale in comparison with RA.
Rheumatoid arthritis is an auto-immune disease, that is, it's an overly-energetic immune response of the body, which actually begins attacking itself. It's about one tenth as common as osteoarthritis and can affect young people as well as older people. Every single joint in the body can and usually is affected at one time or another. Some days it might be the knees are worst, some days the elbows. Sometimes the small joints in the jaw or where the ribs connect to the spine or sternum are inflamed. It is a progressive disease which can affect not only the body's joints, but other organs of the body, including the lungs.
Osteoarthritis is the "wear and tear" type of arthritis and generally occurs in those over 60. This type of arthritis has nothing to do with the immune system, it is caused by overuse of a joint, and usually begins in one joint. For example, when I had my knee surgery back in the 1980s, the doc told me I had the arthritis of a 70 year old man in that knee. I was in my twenties at the time. Thankfully, that arthritis hasn't really been much of a problem since the surgery. To be fair, this type of arthritis can end up being severely debilitating in some people. From the website Rheumatoid Arthritis Diagnosis: "Rheumatoid arthritis is a more severe disorder due to systemic involvement, which may produce complications such as, pericarditis… pleuritis… vasculitis, etc., causing a shorter life expectancy if not diagnosed and treated properly."
About 1 in 10 have osteoarthritis, while RA affects 1 in 100.

Here is a video that explains some of the differences between the two types of arthritis: The difference between osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

John Stockton: Should he have been on the Dream Team?

When Jason Whitlock wrote that the only reason Chris Mullen, John Stockton, and Christian Laettner were added to the Dream Team in 1992 was because they were white, he opened up a can of racial worms. He’s wrong of course. I’ll just give you reasons why Stockton should’ve been on the team, and ignore the others for now.

Stockton is the all-time assists leader. His passes helped Karl Malone become the second all-time scorer in the NBA. He was tough, savvy, and a great team leader. He is the all-time steals leader as well. He wasn’t a great one on one defender, that’s true, but not many in the league are.

So he was definitely a great player, and one that has been named to the top 50 all-time. Not that Isaiah Thomas wasn’t a great player. He was. But Whitlock makes the claim that it wasn’t Jordan’s negative response to Thomas being on the team that kept him off, but Stockton’s whiteness. That’s a racist comment. Jordan has recently come out and said that he did not want Thomas on the team. That’s plain and simple. They wanted the best player in the world on the team, and that was Jordan, so in order to get him, they left Thomas off. But that doesn’t mean Stockton was undeserving.

As for the current debate in question of whether the 2012 team could have beaten the ‘92 team, a lot of that has been centered around the point guards as well. Many think that the trio of Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams, and Chris Paul could’ve eaten Stockton’s and Magic’s lunch.

While there’s no way that Stockton could’ve stayed with Westbrook and the others through an entire game, that was never his strong point. He played the passing lanes. I’m sure he’d have picked their pockets a number of times, leading to fast breaks going back the other way. And was Isaiah Thomas ever known as a great defender?

The author of DREAM TEAM: How Michael, Magic, Larry, Charles and the Greatest Team of All Time Conquered the World and Changed the Game of Basketball Forever, Jack McCallum said in an interview recently that the only players on the 2012 team that would’ve even made the ‘92 team are LeBron, Kobe, and Durrant. Think about that. He didn’t mention any of the point guards.

Why I was against Obama from Day One

I've been accused recently of not being willing to give President Obama a chance. And that accusation is basically true. However, I have good, sound reasons for doing so--reasons which I will try to explain in the next few paragraphs. Long before we had President Obama, we had candidate Obama. A bit of research at the time would've shown anyone that believes in liberty and free market values, that we did not want this man as president. I did the research. What I found told me all I needed to know to figure out that this guy would be bad for America. The number one thing was his leftist voting record in Congress. But I had more than that. I had a gut feel for what this man might do to America. And my hunches are nearly always right in these kinds of circumstances. Did I know he would mess up the country so bad? No I did not. I just always felt that it would be a major mistake to elect him. I said so on several forums. I argued with people who wouldn't vote for McCain because he was another big government politician. These folk would rather vote their conscience and vote for a third party candidate who had no chance of winning, than to vote for either of the two major party candidates. I could and do understand that logic.

But I argued vehemently against making that kind of mistake in '08, and yes, I still believe it to be a mistake. We can with our own eyes, and with our own pocketbooks see just exactly what kind of mistake it was to let Obama get elected by refusing to vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain.

Now, back to what Obama has done that has set me off from the very beginning. In his first 100 days, he initiated a vast, sweeping change of government involvement in healthcare. Never mind that the majority of the people of America were against it--he and the Democrats in Congress shoved the Affordable Health Care Act through. I'm not going to go into the intricacies of why this law is so insidious right now. That's for another time and place and if you are paying attention to your own bank accounts and the verified future tax increases that will be paying for it, you will know part of its problems. For now though, my biggest beef is that it was done against the will of the people. That is not what America is about.

Further changes initiated by the President included bail outs of car companies, dumping billions into favorite "green" companies that have filed for bankruptcy, and trillions of dollars in increase in the national debt--a debt that will eventually be paid, probably by our children and grandchildren. That is not what America is about.

He has failed to lead anyone, has failed in the midst of the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression to provide one ounce of leadership. Instead, he has campaigned, attended functions, and golfed more than any other president. He hasn't spent his time working with Congress to come to solutions, but instead has taken the attitude that if you don't go along with him 100%, you aren't willing to work with him. His idea of compromise is for Congress to blindly go along with everything he recommends. He has continually blamed others instead of manning up and realizing that the buck stops with him. He is supposed to be the leader. He is supposed to be able to convince others of what needs to be done, to forge alliances and make progress in keeping this country strong. Instead, he blames the prior administration for his own failure.

So, since he has offered no solutions, has shown no ability to work well with others, and has not tried to work with members of Congress to come to solutions, but has only denigrated them for not accepting his own plan lock, stock and barrel, I am accused of not giving him a chance. Since he has nearly bankrupted the country with failed policies and crony capitalism, I'm not giving him a chance. Since he has been dishonest about tax increases included in Obamacare, and kept jobs growth minimal because of his failed policies, I am guilty because I have not given him a chance.

I am too conservative, some people say, because I won't give him a chance. Others say I'm racist because I disagree with him. What a lot of hooey. The day he treats America as the great country it is and stops bowing to tyrants and stops giving away American treasure to the undeserving, the day he starts showing that liberty is more important than equality---that a person builds his own life through his own efforts and doesn't get to depend upon the government to give him handouts. The day he actually believes that a man should stand on his own two feet and take responsibility for his own actions, well, that's the day I may give the man a chance.

But alas, that chance is nearly over.

What is the problem with our elected officials?

Why do our elected officials continue to mess up? Here’s my analysis. For some reason the tendency seems to be that they want to get re-elected, rather than to do what’s right for the nation. Now, why is getting re-elected so important to them? Perhaps it’s because the majority of people who seek public office are buffoons who need attention and being in the limelight is the only way that they can feel important. If they fail in their re-election bid, then they once again become nobodies–at least, to their way of thinking.

So, they do what they think they need to do to get re-elected instead of doing what needs to be done to make the country stronger and better. In their minds, the best way to get re-elected is to buy votes. They buy votes by giving stuff to people. Thus, President Obama’s administration brags about how many people they’ve gotten on food stamps. The President emphasizes that the goal of his “Affordable Health Care Act” is to get everyone cheaper medical coverage. Others vote on earmarks and pork that will benefit the people of their states, thus buying votes from them.

These kinds of political handouts and freebies are the basis for the financial disaster we’re in right now. Quickly we’re becoming like Greece and other countries in Europe. As we can see from what’s happening around the world, especially in Europe, if you give enough handouts and buy enough votes, within time production slows (because more people are taking advantage of the handouts rather than trying to work), revenues drop (because with fewer workers, there are fewer taxes collected, yet more resources needed), and the country soon finds itself on the brink of a fiscal cliff (like Greece).

What is the answer? It’s not to raise taxes on the rich or anyone else. Raising taxes has its limits. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” This becomes self-evident in the largest sample of socialized policies in the world–Europe. Greece passed laws to allow themselves to retire at age fifty, and now is getting loans from Germany whose citizens retire at 65. So the people of Greece as a whole are refusing to change their laws so that the retirement age raises, and expecting other countries of the world to work longer to bail them out. That’s their supposed solution.

But we can’t do that. We need to begin with our candidates for public office. We need to choose wise men and women who don’t put getting re-elected at the top of their agendas. Our goal should be to find candidates who are willing to do what needs to be done to get our country back on the track of fiscal sanity, and to stop trying to buy votes with public handouts and public projects.

Should there be a safety net for the truly needy? Sure. We need to do something to help those who through no fault of their own find themselves on hard times. But it shouldn’t be a permanent solution for those families, but  temporary assistance to them to give them time to improve their lots in life. And those whose sole goal is to try and live off of governmental handouts, bilking the system, should be removed from any kind of program that gives them such. As comedian Dennis Miller says, “I’m all for helping the helpless. I just don’t want to help the clueless.”

The bottom line is, that whether it’s programs that feed children at schools during the summer (most of these children are children of parents on food stamps who should be feeding them with the food stamp money they’re receiving , thus they’re getting a double benefit.), or projects that are putting in high speed trains in communities across the country, we cannot afford them. Electing leaders that understand this and more importantly, can explain with clarity what the real purpose of the government is supposed to be, will go a long way toward solving our financial woes. If the people fail to grasp this concept, or are too dependent upon their handouts to tolerate any reduction in them, then like Europe, we are heading for catastrophe.

The Heat burn the Thunder

I'm no big fan of the Miami Heat, but their utter destruction of the Oklahoma City Thunder in game five showed that they have finally learned how to play as a team. On the other hand, OKC forgot how to do so. Just watching Kevin Durant bring the ball down the floor and twice in just a couple of minutes attempt to dribble behind his back when surrounded by Heat players, only to have the ball stolen both times, tells you all you need to know about this game. All three of the triumverate of  Durant, Westbrook, and Hardin made critical rookie mistakes, just when it looked like they might get back in the game. The Thunder have a lot to learn before they can win a championship. I expect the Heat to dominate for the next two or three years because they have finally learned how to play together, and LeBron has finally learned how to lead a team. I wanted the Thunder to win, but after I saw how they responded to adversity, I think they are a mile and a half away from doing so.

This could be the end

I never want to say "never again". It's so final. But I've done a lot of thinking about my running lately, and I'm thinking it's time to hang up the spikes, so to speak. Here's why. For most of my life, my running has been because of my love of competition--it has been a means to an end. The end was always getting myself to the point where I could be competitive as a runner. I enjoyed the training because I enjoyed the thought of finally winning my age group.
I think I had an epiphany about this a few weeks ago while on a hike up Mount Raymond. On the way back, as I staggered down the trail, pretty tired, I saw this gazelle--a human gazelle--running up the trail. Of course the guy was maybe twenty years younger than me, but I really couldn't have done that twenty years ago either. I'm just not a distance runner.
I've always been more like a decathlete than a long distance runner, although in my late teens to early twenties, when I weighed in the mid-150s, I once did a 5k in under 20 minutes. Still, that was the pinnacle for me. At nearly 53 now, I could no more approach that than I could recite Shakespeare's Othello from cover to cover. Nor do I really think I'd like to do the training to get me there.
You see, now I just love working out to be fit. I can take a day off if I want to without feeling like it's hurting my race prospects. I can work out just for the joy of getting in shape. I can look more like a decathlete without worrying that I'm 193 pounds and there's no way I can beat the gazelles at the 5k--even in my age group--at that weight. In short, I can be me.
So, this year, I'll run my race on the 4th of July. But next year, maybe I'll do something different. It'll be a new feeling, but one I can definitely embrace. Then maybe, if I ever work out to the point where I get my body fat down below 10 percent, maybe then, I'll rethink things and wonder what I can do. Like I said, I never want to say "never". I hope this doesn't make anyone sad. I'm still the same me who wants to keep in shape to do the things I love in the outdoors. It's just that I no longer believe I can make the U.S. Olympic team. I guess my dreams have changed.

Romney is using the "rope-a-dope"

In 1974, boxing legend, Muhammed Ali defeated the then champion George Foreman using a technique that came to be known as the “rope-a-dope”. The basis of this strategy was for Ali to hang out along the ropes, covering up and letting Foreman wear himself out by raining blows against Ali’s arms which were shielding is vitals and head. Eventually because of this strategy, Foreman exhausted himself in his futile attempt to beat Ali into submission. It seems now that Mitt Romney might also be employing kind of a rope-a-dope technique. The reason I say that is that Romney seems to be laying low while the President is running all around the country doing fundraisers (at last count he’d already done 150 of them). As the President does this, it allows him to make many rhetorical mistakes along the way, highly visible to the public who will be making up their minds soon on whom to vote for in the November elections. Meanwhile, Romney is laying low, seemingly awaiting the right moment to spring forth with his own attack, giving life to the old adage “give someone enough rope and he’ll hang himself”. Obama seems to be doing a fine job of it.

What to do with my photos?

I had an epiphany a while back. In this age of digital photography, it has become so easy to get great photos that nearly everyone is doing it. Some are nicer than others, but really it's much easier for people to get great pics with the new technologies--much easier than the film cameras of years ago. I hated to see that time go, but now, I'm fully into the digital explosion. It costs so much less to be able to save many photos on a card instead of buying roll after roll of film. I guess that's what really has sold me. The question now becomes, what to do with my pictures. Not very many people are able to sell them, simply because there are just too many photographers out there. It's rare indeed to be able to make a sale, at least, to make any kind of living at it, when those needing photos can just go to wikicommons or some other site where people have put up their pics for free, and then download a photo to their liking. So, I'm thinking my photos are just being useless taking up space on my computer. I may as well put them out there for public use, as long as I retain the rights to reuse them at my pleasure.
After all, why worry about them being stolen? That just keeps me from posting many of them and sharing them with people who'd really like to see them. If I keep them to myself, only I get to see them, and that's a travesty for all involved. Not that my pics are that great. Occasionally I take a really nice shot, and I'm getting slowly better at it. One of these days I may be even somewhat adequate at picture taking, and when I do, I'll sell them to National Geographic or any number of magazines that needs great shots. Until that time though, I hope you like it when you see one of my pictures.

Time management for the clueless (me)

I need to write something…work on something…and yet I find myself hopelessly trying to keep up with all the clever, wonderful, interesting, (insert your favorite descriptive word here­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­) things that are posted on Facebook. I keep trying to keep up with the news, and find interesting articles to post myself.  I haven’t even checked my email for a couple of days at least. Sometimes I wish the internet had never been invented. I find myself thinking that at times, and yet It has been a big help too. I guess the big question is, how to organize my limited time to accomplish what’s most important. I need to ask myself the question, is what I’m doing with my time as important as what I could be doing with my time.

Self analysis is the key here. I have an agenda, and that agenda is to try and influence people to at least consider the alternatives in society. Is that more important than my other driving force to accomplish the writing and publication of a work of fiction that will stand the test of time? I always feel so guilty when I don’t work on my novels in progress, or write another short story, but is that what I’m supposed to be doing in life? Or is it to do something even larger, to be an influence in protecting democracy and freedom? That’s the conundrum I find myself in all the time.

And then there are the other things that pull me away from the important, some of them really important too. I’m love the outdoors, I’m a camper, hiker, hunter and fisherman—but that’s only the tip of the iceberg with me. Too many interests, too little time.

So, I’m considering what to do with the 45 minutes or so I have in the morning before I head off to the gym. The gym is a must. It keeps me in shape to do the things I love doing—all of them, even writing. So stopping my exercise program is not an option. I have those 45 minutes and I must decide what is most important to do with that time. It’s not much, but for now, it’s all I have. Perhaps I need to drop reposting the clever signage that accumulates on my Facebook page. I will miss it, but maybe I need to only view that stuff on my lunch break at work and call it good. If I don’t, there’s one thing that’s for sure—I will never accomplish all that I was meant to accomplish.

Terminator Beans

I just wanted to share my award winning baked bean recipe with you. It's called "Terminator Beans" because after you eat some "you'll be back" for more! Here's the recipe:

 Terminator Beans

1/2 lb. ground sausage                    1 t. horseradish
10 slices of bacon/chopped            1/2 t. salt
1/2 lb. ground beef                         1/2 t. pepper
1/2 cup chopped onion                  1/2 t. garlic powder
1/3 cup sugar                                 1 C. crushed pineapple with juice
1/3 cup br. sugar                            1 can each of:
2 T. molasses                                 kidney beans (drained)
1/4 C. barbeque sauce                   Pork and beans
1/4 C. Ketchup                             black-eyed peas
6 drops of tobasco                        2 T. mustard

Brown sausage, ground beef, bacon and onions. Drain excess fat. Add rest of ingredients and mix well. Bake uncovered in Dutch oven at 350 for 1 hour. Makes 8-10 servings. If doubled use 2 cans of pork and beans, 1 can each of pinto, great northern, black-eyed peas, and kidney beans.

Here comes the lynch mob

While details continue to emerge in the killing of Trayvon Martin incident, one thing is clear: the fans of the lynch mob mentality are being fanned. Although the details are murky, there is at least one witness who in his original testimony suggested that there was a guy in red laying on his back on the grass with another person on top of him. Zimmerman was wearing red. Apparently, the police also discovered grass stains on the back of his shirt. Yet we are being led down a path that suggests Zimmerman stalked Martin and killed him in cold blood. The media seems to be jumping to conclusions and feeding the martyr mentality. The New Black Panthers and others have suggested violence to make sure "justice" is served. It reminds me, frankly, of the black man who was wrongly charged in the great film To Kill a Mockingbird. In this case, none of us really knows what happened. Yet a huge number of people have jumped to conclusions based upon sketchy evidence. If Zimmerman is guilty of murder, he should be charged, but he shouldn't be convicted in the court of public opinion--a court which is fed by sensationalist media who often get things wrong. Let's let the investigation continue, and not feed the monster of lynch mob mentality.

For another look at things, go here: clickety-click

Why conservatives should vote for whomever the Republican candidate is

Everyone has heard it--"I'm not voting for anyone except Ron Paul." "He's the only one who supports the Constitution". It might be helpful for some of you to take a look at this article: Ron Paul, Constitutional Scholar

Yeah, I've heard a lot of folks saying that. Another common comment is, "Romney is not any different than Obama." "I'm not voting for Romney if he's the candidate--no way."

Those are the two basic comments I hear or read all the time. Now, let me tell you just a couple of ways in which the latter (the part about Romney) is wrong.

If we are so unlucky, or so stupid, as to re-elect Obama, he will have the opportunity to replace perhaps two Supreme Court Justices, and will do so with people whose values do not reflect strict Constitutionality. These will be judges who believe in legislating from the bench.

Now, people should vote their conscience, and my conscience tells me that having two such members of the Supreme Court will swing the balance of power much more than electing someone like Mitt Romney. Remember, in this day and age, the Court has had much more influence than the President on the way things happen in America for generations. So, I don't see how anyone of conscience can do anything other than try to defeat Obama--no matter who the Republican candidate is.

Just as an additional response to the idea that Romney is a carbon copy of Obama. Romney has fixed companies, and was responsible for fixing the Olympics. Obama has nearly broken America in just three years. Romney knows economics far better than Obama. As for his Constitutional acumen, Mitt appears weak, but there are a lot of Tea Party congressmen and senators to help keep him on the right course when it comes to the Constitution.

As for Paul, and his Constitutional approach, I suggest you read the article linked above, and also take a look at this video: Ron Paul is a Hypocrite

Breitbart's take on Hollywood and John Wayne

I just watched a couple of youtube videos in which Andrew Breitbart was interviewed. The last one I watched was about Hollywood. Here's the link: Clickety-click

One thing that stuck out at me was when he mentioned that the flood of leftism came from Hollywood about the time of the end of John Wayne's career. That made me think about the influence of Duke Wayne on Hollywood, and on America for that matter. Flawed though he was, his gigantic charisma and huge fan following would not allow any kind of overriding of his influence, pretty much while he was still alive. Amazing the power of one man to influence a nation, and Wayne's undying belief in America swayed generations of Americans into believing that America was a source for good in the world. Today in Hollywood, those who dare to express their conservative beliefs are ostracized--many of them unable to work again in that business. Not so during Wayne's time. He was too powerful of an entity. Oh sure, there was a huge lefty movement in Hollywood, all during Wayne's career. But the man was just too much larger than life for them to bring down.

It's something to think about.

Andrew Breitbart

I admire the work that Andrew Breitbart did. He died all too young for sure. Here is a great interview with him that shows a great deal about the man: Andrew Breitbart - Media War

New e-book authors to try

I've gone into the business of giving free publicity to authors I know. Some of them will be associates and friends from Hatrack River Writers, and some are going to be people I know personally--like Robin Lythgoe who has been my neighbor for years. If you're going to be buying some e-books from someone you've never heard of, why not try these people? Anyway, here's the list. I'll be adding more as I get them.

Works of P.D. Blake

Works of Dustin Hurley

Works of Robin Lythgoe

Novel to be published soon

In the near future, my book, which has the working title of Gateway to Fear, will be out in e-book format. I'm starting the process, going through it for a final edit, formatting it, trying to come up with a title I like a bit better, getting some cover art lined up, etc. I think it's time. And as I've been reading through it, making some minor changes and fixing a few grammar mistakes, I don't think I've done a bad job at all with the book. I'll let you know when it's up and running.

What am I writing today?

What am I writing today? I should also ask, am I writing today?

I’ve always wondered if posting on blogs was considered writing. In some peoples’ worlds, it’s a definite “yes”, but in my world, I’m not sure. I’m the kind of guy who sometimes procrastinates the real stuff, with visits to websites etc.

So, is blogging writing? And if so, should I be doing it instead of other writing, like working on my novel?

I’m thinking about it. One thought that is  going through my head is that, yes, it’s writing. At least it’s keeping me writing something, instead of visiting Facebook, news sites, or other distractions from the task at hand. At least I’m learning how to put coherent sentences together.

And, if I’m going to delay going back to my novel while my sub-conscious stew simmers, and my storyline progresses in micro increments, well then, I’d just as well be writing a blog post.

So, in answer to my first questions, I’m writing about writing. And to my second question I respond, “a blog post that his helping me keep writing, even when I don’t know what to write.”

The bottom line is to keep moving, in all things. If I’m not working on my novel, at least I’m working on my grammar, and working to improve putting words together on a page. That’s worth something, isn’t it?

Why I support the Tea Party, and why you should too

I support the Tea Party movement. It was riding high for a while, but now, due to misinformation promulgated by the media, has become anathema to many people. Once supported by a majority of people, the movement is now looked at as negative by the majority. Why is that? My take is that the media has done a good job of blaming the Tea Party elected members of Congress for the stalemate that has stymied any laws from coming forth from Congress. True, there have been some stalwart Tea Party members of Congress who have resolutely stood by the decision to pass no laws that would raise taxes. So it boils down to this: they are being blamed for doing what is necessary to stop out of control spending and taxation, and to control the budget–to keep your children and grandchildren from having to pay tomorrow, the debts we are incurring today. I find that worthy of commendation, not worthy of condemnation.

This is what the Tea Party believes: they believe in the Constitution, limited government, and liberty. For a good description of what the Tea Party movement stands for, go here: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

The left-leaning  media has done a good job of making the Tea Party folks look like a bunch of racist throwbacks to the stone age. That couldn’t be further from the truth, but those who pay little attention to what goes on around them, other than sound bites, buy into the propaganda that the Tea Party is bad for America. I am a typical member of the Tea Party group. I support all of the tenets mentioned in the link I provided above. So I ask those of you who know me to think about it. Do you consider me to be racist? Do you consider me to be a neanderthal? If not, then why think of the other members of the Tea Party in this way? I urge all of you to do some investigation into what made this country great, and why now, we are on the road to ruin, such as Greece and other nations are traveling down. You will find that our ruin is because government has been drifting from the Constitution. Instead of guaranteeing rights that are specifically mentioned within that document, government is creating new rights that never existed, and that truly don’t exist.

Our government was never meant as a means to ensure that no one would ever go hungry, or go without a job. It was designed to protect the rights of the citizens, and to not interfere in their daily lives. Sadly, the role government plays in the lives of American citizens has increased tremendously. This is one reason Barack Obama must not be re-elected. His policies, including, but not limited to Obamacare, have intruded tremendously into the lives of Americans. His czars he's appointed are clearly unconstitutional, and he has issued decrees when he couldn't get his way with Congress. Clearly he is operating more as a dictator in certain aspects than he is acting as a president.

Why is it wrong for government to help out the citizens with handouts and freebies?

One reason is, because that is going against our great Constitution. Our Constitution which is the law of the land was designed for one purpose only: to make sure the rights of the citizens were protected. And there are only certain rights that are contained therein. There is a list here: http://constitution.org/powright.htm. Notably, there is no right in the Constitution for a person’s access to healthcare or housing. Also notably, there is no right to marry, neither straight nor same sex. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be able to acquire healthcare, housing, nor be married, but what it means is, those things are not guaranteed by the Constitution.

Another reason why it’s wrong for the government to handout freebies etc., is because they are doing it with our money. The Founders knew that there would need to be some taxes raised at times for such things as national defense. But what they didn’t want is a growing monstrosity of government which would raise taxes for anything that Congress deemed necessary. They knew that there would be people in Congress that would try to buy votes, that would feel the need to help anyone (as long as it was help for one of the Congressman’s pet causes) who needed it, all with money that wasn’t their own.

The Constitution was meant to be changed from time to time. This is why the amendment process was designed into it. It has been modified over the years through this process, in fact, since its inception, 27 amendments have been added. But the process is difficult. That’s why there has only been 27 added. The framers made it deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution because it only should be changed for important reasons, and not for “light or transient causes” as Thomas Jefferson put it. For a basic summation of the Constitution, read here: http://www.usconstitution.net/constkids.html

All that being said, there are ways and means to help people who need help. Private citizens can help out any time they’d like. And it doesn’t have to be people like Bill Gates, who have large sums of money at their disposal. Frankly, the government does a horrible job of managing money, and why should we be surprised? It’s very easy to take someone else's money and spend it, which the government does with abandon. But this is the same outfit that paid $400 for a hammer and $640 for a toilet seat. Are they really the group we want taxing and spending our money? Far better for us to do it ourselves, or to combine with others in charitable giving to help those in need.

At this point maybe it would help to define those in need. Those in need are those who can’t help themselves, not those who won’t help themselves. I believe there should be a basic safety net in place to help those who would help themselves if they could, but who through life's circumstances are unable to do so. This is the way Benjamin Franklin put it: “I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

The question could be asked, if we give handouts to the poor, are we really helping them? In order for mankind to grow, to become stronger, sometimes it is best for them to have to figure out how to help themselves, as Franklin suggests. For the most part, the safety net should come via family members, or members of societal groups, such as church’s or other charitable organizations. This isn’t the federal government’s job, but I can see where there might not be a family available that can help, or the person in need might not be a member of any charitable group.

The bottom line: The Tea Party movement has been trying to hold the line and get back to the original intent of the government–to preserve rights and liberty by not interfering in the lives of America’s citizens. Here’s that link again: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/ . I urge you all to study it and decide for yourselves what kind of a country you’d like to have.

Need any help in deciding whether or not to re-elect Obama?

In the remote case that some of you reading this have departed from reality, have spent too much time reading Twilight and not enough time looking at the world, have indulged in Dancing with the Stars and other programs, instead of reading news reports–here’s how I would analyze whether or not anyone in their right mind would vote to retain Barack Obama as president.

First I would analyze his foreign policy. In order to do so, I’d look at our relations with other countries and see how they’ve progressed, regressed, or remained unchanged during the President’s term of office. Here’s a partial list of what has happened:

Israel: Regressed. With our strongest ally in the Middle-east, Obama has been a scolding stepfather, and has not supported them with rhetoric in any way, shape or form.

Saudi Arabia: Regressed. Though Obama bowed to a Saudi King, they don’t like the fact that we are doing nothing to dissuade Iran in its nuclear acquisition. The bowing itself was a sign of weakness and not respected by Muslims.

Russia: Regressed. Though Bush had a meager relationship with the Russians, their relationship with us has slipped during the Obama administration, causing them to form an alliance with China in the U.N. against us.

China: Regressed. Our relationship with China continues to deteriorate, largely because there are no talks between us and them.

Egypt: Regressed. Though Mubarak was a dictator who the citizens opposed, he kept the zealots in check. Now, under the Arab Spring--which Obama originally said nothing about, but only later when the Muslim Brotherhood appeared to be gaining the upper hand did he say anything in support of the movement--we have American hostages.

Iran: Regressed. Though Bush called them part of the “Axis of Evil”, the relationship has continued to deteriorate under the Great Uniter.

Pakistan: Regressed. Once tepid allies, Obama’s lack of skill in dealing with other nations has made a simmering cauldron heat up to the boiling point.

Afghanistan: Regressed. Obama’s policies have made the situation worse in that country, not better.

Venezuela: Progressed: Obama has said nice things about Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.

Cuba: Progressed: Obama has indicated a willingness to remove travel restrictions on many people who wish to travel to Cuba. His willingness to work with nightmarish regimes should be looked upon with a great degree of suspicion.

That’s just a small sampling of the many countries around the world. If I were to grade the man on his foreign policy decisions, he’d be pretty close to an F.
Now, let’s take a look at domestic issues.  The question one must always ask at election time, is the traditional “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” I think that most of us can breathe out a collective “No!” in response to that query.

Economics: Regressed. Though Obama inherited a recession, we are stuck in a quagmire, largely fueled by the Federal government’s overreach in regulations. Our economy is tanking, largely on the national debt which reached $15 trillion in November. The president has failed to provide leadership to get the government spending in check and to balance the budget and reduce the deficit. He has wasted billions in supporting green energy companies, singling them out for government aid, only to see them go bankrupt. He has failed to act positively in promoting energy in America, keeping the Keystone Pipeline from being built to please his left-wing base, thus keeping an estimated 20,000 new jobs from happening.

He's dedicated though.He has spent countless hours working on his golf game, or world traveling while millions of Americans are out of work and while Congress has failed to come to agreement on policies that would help. He has been out of the loop, decreeing this or that, issuing edicts because his power of working together to come to common agreement is nil. His way of reaching across the aisle, is to expect everyone to agree with him. He has been an ineffectual failure that has done more harm than perhaps any other president in U.S. history. He has alienated our allies, while strengthening our enemies. He has pushed through Obamacare when the majority of Americans were against it. He is an agenda driven idealogue who cares little for the desires of Americans, only enough that he’ll say what he needs to say to get elected. And then there's the little problem with following the Constitution. He hasn't seemed all that favorable towards doing so, and he will have the opportunity in his second term, should we be so stupid, to nominate as many as three Supreme Court Justices. Don't think he won't nominate more people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has no respect for the Constitution--at least the U.S. Constitution. Two peas in a pod--like Ginsburg, Obama doesn't have much respect for it either. (Note: I inadvertently on Facebook said that Ginsburg had be nominated by the second worst president ever, thinking that Jimmy Carter had been the one. I was in error--it was actually Clinton). Anyway, that’s my analysis. You can agree or not, it is after all, one man's opinion.

Your excuse is invalid

Someone posted this on Facebook the other day. I reposted it, of course. We all come up with reasons for why we can't do something. Let's come up with reasons why we will.

Writing, goals, and how life turns out

When I was much younger, my expectations of my future life were high. I thought that one day, I'd be a writer, at least be able to make a living as a novelist. I thought that I'd quit my job working for the U.S. Postal Service, and be able to have a lucrative and fulfilling career as a novelist. Now at 52, I look back and am dismayed and depressed that the dream has gone unfulfilled. Of course, one has to realize that other more important things may have kept me from accomplishing that dream. Raising a family and making sure that they were taken care of (which I wouldn't trade for all the writing in the world), doing my duty to God and other responsibilities, exercising for good health, and of course, my full-time job. All those took me away from writing for long stretches of time.
I'm not the kind of writer who can easily sit down for five minutes and have something good written. I need at least an hour or two of free time, which throughout my adult life, has been difficult and sometimes impossible to find. And I get down on myself to easily, whether or not it's the writing aspect or the exercising aspect. Somehow, through all that though, I've been able to write one novel (still unpublished), and complete large chunks of two others (still in the process of completing them), a bunch of short stories, and numerous articles on my real passion in life--outdoors activities. So, I've written. I've even published one of my short stories for money.
But that isn't what my goal originally was. My goal was to be making a living writing. My goal was to be out of the postal service at a young age, living my dreams. So what am I trying to say? That sometimes dreams don't come true. That sometimes a modification is in order, and in order to be happy with those modifications, we need to decide to. We need to try and be happy in other ways. I think I can do that. I just need to figure some things out and decide where I'm going with my writing. Should I continue floundering in the world of fiction, or should I go where I've been more successful in my writing career, writing the outdoors articles? I'm leaning toward the outdoors articles, but then a part of me will always be wondering, could I have been good enough to be a novelist had I only persevered?

Contradictions in liberal thinking

Just contemplating today that liberals rarely make sense. One liberal point of view is that there should be light-rail trains and high speed trains everywhere in America, replacing cars, trucks, motorcycles and the like. But this idea would never work. The reason why? Other liberals would stop it. Yes, liberal environmentalists would find a gopher burrow, or a rare aphid colony--years of study would need to be done to figure out the environmental impact, new routes would need to be changed, involving more studies of the impact on the newly proposed routes, on and on and on. But wait a minute...it just might work. I nearly forgot that the environment can be overlooked as long as the liberal agenda is pushed forward. Just look at how many windmills around the country went up without a thought in the world about the displacement of kangaroo rats, jackrabbits, or horned toads.

Kind of like...

Liberals are in favor of equality. Take from the rich, redistribute to the poor. In favor of equalizing the money supply. In favor of taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots. Yep, in favor of equality. So in order to get it, they'd like the rich to pay 30 percent or more of their income in taxes, and the less fortunate to pay next to nothing. How is that equal treatment under the law? So, as long as equality means what they define it to mean, then they believe in it.

Another thing is...

Work. Many liberals believe that traditionally low-income jobs, such as dishwashers, or parking lot attendants, should be getting paid a lot more, like twenty dollars an hour. I heard that from one of the Occupy Wall Streeters. And NBA players should be getting a lot less. The liberals want to take from the NBA players, and Oprah (wait a minute, Oprah is one of the rich that they don't want to take anything from because she agrees with them), and give that money to those on the low end of the financial scale. Sound like a nice concept, only can't we ask the wealthy to help the poor voluntarily? But it's not only that. Liberals would like those who refuse to work to be subsidized  in their efforts by those who do the work. That's you and me. As Dennis Miller says, "I'm fine with helping the helpless. I just don't want to help the clueless." Equal work for equal pay, how about that? If you can play a sport well enough to draw thousands to watch you, employing hundreds if not thousands of other employees to sell snacks and beverages, show you to your seats, provide security--well if the job you are doing provides so many jobs for so many other people, maybe you might be worth a little more on the job market than the guy who stocks shelves at Wal-mart for a living.

Here I am writing blog posts again instead of working on my novel

There are just too many important things to comment on and not enough hours in a day to do it. So my novel sacrifices, and thus my chance of making a living writing, goes out the window with it. Too bad, I guess. I've just got to get certain things out there that are bothering me. I hope you have a great day.

We live in a world of two-year-olds

"That's mine!"
"No. It's mine!"
The cries are heard everywhere now. Whether or not it's the new Michael Jordan shoes people are fighting about, or violence breaking out over the iPad 2. Here's a clip of another incident in China: Hysteria as Beijing iPhone Release Canceled. Each year we hear of more people being involved in tussling over the good deals on Black Friday. The world has become more narcissistic and it's not pleasant to look at.
Our own Congress has shown plenty of signs of this trend, with Harry Reid of the Senate blocking every spending bill the House sends him. Under Reid's "leadership" the Senate has failed to pass a budget for nearly 1000 days. That's approaching three years. By law, they are required to pass a budget every year.

People everywhere are slowly, inexorably, reverting to the toddler stage. They either want government to take care of them (feed me, clothe me, wipe my rear end), or they expect something for nothing from the world. With an ever increasing pace, more and more people are deciding that they shouldn't have to work for what they get. "Mommy," they seem to say, "Pick me up. Take care of me. I can't do it by myself."

Remember when it was shameful to have someone else do something for you that you could and should be responsible for doing yourself? Remember when your mom made you clean your room? If she did it for you, she's part of the problem we have today.

Whatever happened to self-respect? Whatever happened to character? Somehow, it has been replaced by greed, avarice, and a self-centered "me first" attitude that's destroying the world, slowly, like an advancing cancer. How can anyone have any self-respect when they react in such a manner? They can and do certainly have self love. Sadly, most lacking is the love for their fellow travelers here on the earth. Things have become more precious to them than others. Having "mine" is all that is important.

 What to do about it? Well, we could start a war that would send us all back into the stone age. Then people would either have to learn to work again and cooperate again or they would perish. But that's a drastic measure that no one wants. So the only solution is to have a truly vibrant leader, leading from the top, showing the way. That and a return to being a religious and principled people. Not that you can't be principled and void of religion, however, evidence has shown that for the most part, those who follow a code of ethics inspired by godly principles have been more responsible and self-reliant. With them, giving is for the truly needy, not the indolent.

Gorilla glue, plantar fasciitis, and the depths of despair

Yup. I'm feelin' sorry for myself this morning. I'm tired. Last night I came home from work at about 6:00 and did nothing for myself except take a bath. The rest of the time I worked--dinner, dishes, bills. I finally said, "I'm going downstairs to play my guitar," and then couldn't really play it, because I have a dry-skin crack right under the thumbnail of my picking hand. Frustrating.

So, I woke up this morning tired from yesterday, not really wanting to go to the gym. Well, really, tiredness isn't all of it. I've also developed a nasty case of plantar fasciitis over the past week, and I don't like doing things other than running for my aerobic exercise--things that would cause less stress on my plantar. So I wussed out. Honestly, I'd like to call in sick today, but I won't do that. I'd like to go back to bed, but no. I've accomplished something though--I got my writing done for the day. Worked on my novel a bit. Not much though. Not enough. My depression has deepened and is causing me to lose my drive. I think I'm going to put some Gorilla glue on my crack, so that I can at least be pain free (ha!) for a day. What a whiner I am. I really need a vacation.

Mitt Romney, can you lead us out of this morass?

I sent this message to the Mitt Romney Facebook page this morning:

We definitely do need to ask these questions. Are we going to continue to be the free-loading loafers who despise the wealthy job creators because they are wealthy, or are we going to kick government out of our lives and stand on our own two feet like the rugged individualists of yesteryear? I propose that those of us who are wimps quit crying, and get to work supporting ourselves, and that we throw those people out of government who want to handcuff future generations with the lead weight of a massive national debt spawned by entitlements. Rise up and be men, you men, and rise up and be women, you women. This is not the day to forget our roots and depend upon a despotic government for our every day care. It's not the time to turn away from our God-given rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It's the time to stop the taking away of a man or woman the right to live and breathe free. It's the time to remove the shackles from the feet of the American businessmen and the citizens. It's the time to return to the Constitutional free market system that made us great. Mitt, I hope you will spend more time talking about returning to a time when our Constitution wasn't battered about like a flag in a hurricane. Many of us would love to vote for you if you would emphasize your desire to return to the laws and rights that were created at the founding of this great country. I pray for such a man to lead us in this great nation of ours.

Time, resolutions, and goals

As I reflect on the things that I've done this past year, and contemplate what I'd like to do the coming year, I feel that many of them are the same things. I've been thinking about the words Jesus Christ spoke, when he said, "for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." In many ways, my treasure hasn't been where I'd like it to be. I've focused too much on the trivial, and not given enough time to the truly significant. In some ways, this is because my time is so limited that I think I can't do something because I would just get started and have to quit to go and do some mundane task, that however ordinary it is, still needs doing. Many of us have the same challenges, and yet, with a little effort, with a little whittling of the stuff that's of no worth or of small value, we can find more time in our days in which to work on things that are more important. I suggest in my life that the things that are most important are 1) God, and 2) Other people. My focus needs to be strengthened in those two areas.

With that in mind, I go forward, attempting to be a better follower of Christ, and in so doing, I will quite naturally become better at serving others. Sure, I have other goals. I will spend some time on them. But they are far less important than the God I love, and the people I love, who after all, are His children too.

I have always been a reactionary, instead of a good planner. Which lends itself well to rescuing people who are in danger, but does not always bode well in encounters with irate people. Responding to anger with anger isn't a Christlike attribute, and when I do such things, I don't have much self-admiration. So, I guess I need to try and keep the good qualities of being reactionary--such as being able to jump into a burning building should the need arise--but jettison the bad qualities of reactionism--the swift anger response in particular. That's what I will work on this year.

I have other goals, but  I will need to think more about them before I can put them down in written form. No one says that you can only start goals at the beginning of the year, after all.

By the content of their character

When Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character," it was a pivotal moment in history--or should've been. The greatness of that one line transcends time, and yet millions of Americans cannot discard the racial divide that has plagued us for so long.


There are groups such as the Black Caucus, and other groups associated with Black Americans. There are Latino groups, such as La Raza. There are many, many different groups all aligned with one race or another. Why? Why do we have to keep dividing each other by the color of our skin instead of only judging each other by the way we act and the things we say?

This isn't a game. This isn't like elementary school when the teacher asked the girls to line up along one wall, and the boys to line up against the other, opposite wall. Why do we have to keep acting the child, instead of the grownup? 

Those searching for would-be terrorists are asked not to profile, because profiling sometimes puts more emphasis on one set of physical characteristics (skin color) than another.  Yet many of those same people who ask for profiling to be abandoned as a tactic for discovering terrorists, huddle in groups of their own racial type, and fail to meld into society, not as a latino, arab, asian, or black, but as an American. E pluribus unum--from one many. Skin color should only be used as a description of what a person looks like for either solving crimes, or helping to find someone who is lost.


The fact is, King's dream may be fading as those who most prospered by it are forgetting its importance. If racial divisiveness continues, we can never be a united nation. Can we just forget about the color of our skin and think of each other as the human race instead?

Taking a break from the novel

I don’t feel like working on my novel today. I think it’s because I feel rushed. I have to get ready in about 20-25 minutes, in order to hit the gym before work. For this reason, I’m writing a blog entry instead of working on my novel. I’m looking forward to the day when I can have more time to just relax and write. That should happen in about three months from now when I no longer have to be on the overtime list–at least for a few months. I may have to be on the list for the last three months of the year, but that should put an end to it for good, as we’re only a year and a half away from having our house paid off.

That will be so great to have the house paid off. I’ve been looking forward to that for a long, long time. We have sacrificed in many ways doing upkeep and buying things many of the Joneses have bought. We have tried to stay out of debt, only getting in debt for much needed cars, at least for the last ten years or so. Soon, if all goes well, we won’t even need to get into debt for cars when we need them.

I’m not sure though that we did everything right. I know we tried to be frugal for the most part, but there were splurges. Actually, I think there have to be some splurges–some surprises and rewards for all the hard work from time to time. Otherwise, depression and drudgery can set in.

So really, I kind of needed to take a break from trying to squeeze in a half hour of working on the novel. Actually, it’s going pretty well. It’s my second book and I’ve basically rewritten it through about 38,000 words. I’ll need to at least double that in order for it to have a chance of selling. That’s okay though–the story is far from over. I have many more scenes to add, and an exciting conclusion. I hope when it’s finished, and if I sell it, that you’ll take the time to read Last Stand at Cibola. It is a work of my heart. It’s a fantasy set in the Old West, full of Hopi mysticism and magic. I’ll let you know when it’s available.

As for my already completed novel, I think I’m going to go through it once more and think of a new title for it, as the title I have for it now I’m not satisfied with. I’m looking to publish that too, but maybe as an e-book. I really just need to get some cover art for it.

America and the Reconquista

I think most of the people coming here illegally from Mexico are trying to escape a bad government, and horrible living conditions. There are some evil people coming as well, that is true. I believe though, that most are fleeing evil.

So, I wonder, if they are fleeing evil, do they want it to follow them? In Pat Buchanan’s book, Suicide of a Superpower, he cites stats that show a majority of Mexicans, even to the second generation, would like to Mexicanize America. I can’t help but wonder, if they’ve really thought it through. Here they are, fleeing corruption, discouraged by the lack of opportunity, only to show up and want to change the United States to be like that?

Not that America isn’t becoming more like that anyway. The corruption in politics has come more and more into the light, and Americans feel powerless in many ways to do anything to change the status quo. Frankly, we don’t need people here who only want to take advantage of the system, live off of welfare, and try to destroy the last vestiges of the idea of America.

I like people who aren’t like that. I like people who want to come here because they love liberty, and because they know that working hard and giving your best yields the best results. So, for those who come here and want those kinds of things, I could be persuaded that they should stay, at least, that they should be given the opportunity to apply for citizenship. For those who want to live off the public dole, who want to commit crimes, who think it’s okay to drive drunk and kill people, who want to trash America and Americans, and who want to reconquista their former lands–well, I have no good words to say for you. Go away. There is no place for you here. Take the drug cartel people and throw them out of the country, forcibly if necessary, maybe even have them break rocks for a few years first.

But let’s preserve the idea of America first. Without the idea, the last remains will escape us, like sand in a whirlwind.

A friend of mine died yesterday

A friend of mine died yesterday. Charlie Workman, who would’ve been 91 next month passed after many years of health trouble. I’ve known him for probably more than twenty years, and I’ve been his home teacher for maybe fifteen of those years. I really got to know him and love him. Charlie used to tell us about his life as a young boy. Born in Manila, Utah, he lost his mother at the age of five, and was shuffled around from family to family who raised him. He lived through the heart of the Great Depression, served in the Merchant Marines in World War 2, and worked a variety of manual labor jobs throughout his life. He was fond of recalling his experiences about working for the railroad, and in fact had a model train set attached to a board in his garage that he could lower with a crank. He got rid of that several years ago. He told us of one time when he was working for a refinery and the part of it that he was working on exploded and he was miraculously preserved from death.
He spent time in his later life working for the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s department. He loved his motorcycle and could be seen riding around the streets of our neighborhood until old age and health kept him from doing that anymore. Those who saw him thought it was Santa Claus riding a motorcycle.
I remember the times when he would drive up in front of my house in his truck, when I was working outside and would stop and chat for several minutes. As his age and time caught up with him, he needed to get something to help him get around when he went to stores, and he was excited to tell me about his scooter and the lift for it that he had added to the bed of his truck. Eventually, he had stop driving that as well.
As he got older, I began trying to help out more with his yard, especially snow shoveling in the winter time. At first, I tried to be sneaky, doing it in the wee hours when they were asleep, so as not to get caught. Eventually, he caught me at it and chided me for doing it. He was a man of pride and didn’t like to think he needed help. I kept it up though and eventually, he came to appreciate it openly.
He loved his family and took great pride in many of his kids and grandkids. He missed those who had died before him. He had a great heart, and though opinionated, and though he could be prejudiced and cantankerous, he was a good man and will be missed. I have lost a great friend this year, but on the other side, his loved ones are waiting. It will be a great reunion.

A guy tried to get me to fight him today

So I began my first mail delivery of the day stopping as I usually do at 7-11, which is the first stop on my route. Trying to be courteous to those whose cars were parked in front of the store, I parked in front of two empty stalls. No sooner had I turned off the engine, than I heard a honk. I looked to my left and a guy was trying to get me to move so he could pull into one of the empty stalls that I had parked in front of. I gestured to another empty stall down the way and went in and made my delivery. When I came out he was swearing at me: "You blankety-blank think you can take up the entire blankety-blank parking lot."

I should've just let it drop and ignored him, but I couldn't. I didn't like his attitude, and I didn't like his assumption. I had intentionally avoided causing inconvenience to the people already parked there. As I passed him, I spoke up: "Up yours," I said. And continued to my truck.

That was when he turned around and challenged me to a fight. Okay, I kind of wanted to kick his butt, but I didn't think it was worth losing my job over, which would've happened had I engaged in a fight with him. So I just told him to get lost and drove away.

I'm feeling kind of bad about it though. The guy was a jerk and all, but I shouldn't have escallated the situation. I'm sorry that happened.

The Penn State death threats

As more and more details of the Grand Jury Testimony in the Penn State child abuse case come out, those of us with any sense of decency are rightly appalled and angered at what took place. Allegedly, Mike McQuery, who has been identified as the graduate student who first caught former defensive coach, Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a 10 year old boy in the showers, has received multiple death threats in regards to his failure to do something more, like attack Sandusky, or immediately call the police. Sadly, it appears that there have been other death threats made to McQuery, from angered fans who are furious that he did anything at all that led to the firing of Head Coach Joe Paterno. That, my friends, is appalling. That there are actually people out there walking around that put the career of Paterno above the safety of children is simply too terrible to contemplate.
Frankly, McQuery was negligent in not directly attacking and trying to stop the incident when it first occurred. Anyone with children can understand the fury a parent would have at his lack of appropriate action. As Jim Rome put it (and I'm paraphrasing here), "McQueary was 28 years old and 6'5" and Sandusky was 58". He could have and should have done something. It doesn't warrant death threats though. If anything, the death threats should be against Sandusky. As a parent (now grandparent) myself, nothing infuriates me more than someone wanting to hurt my children and grandchildren--or anybody else's for that matter.
Of course, the threats against McQueary for getting Joe Paterno fired are from morons and cretins of the lowest order. These are the kind of people who put sports and winning above all else and make head coaches their personal gods.

Editing Cibola

I'm back at it again with a fury. Rather, a sputtering fury, but a fury none the less. I've been going through my old novel Showdown at Cibola and trying to get back into the flow through editing what I had already written extensively. It seems to be working. Already it's at nearly 27,000 words, which is about one third of the total length it will end up needing to be in order to get published.

On a related note, I'm thinking of publishing my novel, Dome World (I'm also trying to think of a better title) on Smash Words. I've never published anything in e-book form, so it's finding the time to learn the ropes that's the difficult part for me. I guess the main thing is getting someone to do cover art.

I'm finding some time to do this--maybe 30 to 40 minutes, in the mornings before heading off to the gym and from there to work. At 30-40 minutes it's going slower than I would like, but I think it's good to just plug away with whatever time one has. Hopefully, I can soon dedicate some time in the evenings as well to work on this stuff.