Damn! Ya gotta love them Libs. Know what I mean?

By Joseph Walther

Getting into matters economic for this week’s topic was not even a blip on my radar. Then something happened and that all changed. Let me explain.

Each Sunday morning at 11 AM I sit in front of my computer, bring up MSWord, and begin to write the week’s article. Most of the time, I will have settled on a topic by the previous Wednesday. Sometimes, though, things happen between Thursday and Saturday that will cause me to change my mind.

In fact, on more than a mere few Sundays, I had NOT settled on a topic until roughly 20-minutes prior to sitting down to write about it. This drives my editors batty—though I’ve never missed a deadline.

However, it does not bother me. While I’ve been accused of many things in my life, being short on words has never been one of them.

Unless you’ve been in a recent DEEP coma or have devoted your entire attention span to watching the Entertainment Channel, two things have become apparent.

First, our economy is in deep trouble and second, there must be an election looming on the national horizon because you can’t change the TV channel without seeing a “debate” being moderated by self-aggrandizing, talking-head twits.

Between this past Tuesday and just about 3-hours ago, I had received 1,300 emails about an “impending” economic collapse. Nine-hundred of those emails came from staunch Conservatives soundly blaming the “damn” Liberals; implying that we should deport ALL Liberals immediately.

Two-hundred and seven of the emails came from Liberals blaming everything on George Bush; implying that we should castrate him… without anesthesia… using a dull-bladed, rusty serrated knife.

The remaining ninety-three emails were from people that seemed quite confused about things. In fact, I’m not sure that most of them have any awareness of what’s going on around them at all.

I’m a Conservative, a registered Republican since the day I became eligible to vote, about 45-years ago. For the record, though, there is nothing “Neo” about my conservative slant.

In fact, on social issues I tend to fall slightly left of center. On fiscal issues, I fall a bit more to the right of center. On balance, though, I wobble about the middle of the political spectrum the same as the majority of American voters.

In this article, I’m going to address the Conservatives’ attack on the Liberals and challenge their absolute praise for such political luminaries as Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. Oh, ye clueless ones, prepare to be shocked.

Since our country’s beginning in 1776, we have amassed a national debt of about $9.2 TRILLION! If you click here, you can see a perpetually running tally. All you have to do is click the reload button on your browser to see a current total.

The point is that over half of the total came about during a Bush’s term in the Oval Office. Add in Ronald Reagan, and you’ll come to the realization that over 70% of our national debt was created by just three Republican Presidents: George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

To add insult to injury, the Republicans in the United States Congress under all three of these men—but particularly under George W. Bush, did NOTHING to stem excessive spending.

In fact, they have not even tried doing anything during George W. Bush’s terms, in spite of the fact that they’ve held veto-proof control about 75% of the time. These three Presidents submitted a total of 19 budgets of which only two were balanced.

Extremists on both sides of the political isle are dangerous. Whenever either of these is in the national preponderance, we’re in for some dangerous periods of collective fiscal and social hell.

This country needs a healthy balance of liberal and conservative voices to remain in a state of relative productive balance. Otherwise, we could either lose most of our personal freedoms to the whims of the fanatical lefties or end up in a state of brutal indifference, an unavoidable by-product of laissez-faire economics.

I don’t think that any of the three men I’ve spoken of here are indecent, uncaring, or intentionally detrimental to the best interests of America. I knew Ronald Reagan on a personal level and I met George W. Bush in 1975, long before he became a viable political force.

I lived in California for a number of years. I met Ronald Reagan through his daughter, Maureen, with whom I was friends. When Mr. Reagan announced his candidacy for Governor of California, I was there. He made the announcement in 1966 from the second floor balcony of the U. S. Grant Hotel in downtown San Diego.

Maureen had invited me to attend. Standing with him was Nancy, his wife, 25-year-old Maureen, 21-year-old Michael (the adopted one), 14-year-old Patti, and 8-year-old Ron. I stood deep in the background as we all listened to his speech.

I respected him both personally and politically, although I did not totally agree with some of his political stances. He was a decent, principled, and honorable man who held the best interests of this country above everything else in his life.

I voted for him in his bid for California’s Governor and later for his initial run for the presidency and his reelection. I’d do so again if he were alive and viable.

I met George W. Bush during a seminar in 1975. I spent close to three hours in a group conversation with him covering a multitude of business and scientific topics.

He struck me as affable, topically literate on a conversational level, witty, and quite likeable. However, his holding capacity for voluminous amounts of Kickapoo Joy Juice was legendary.

But he held it well and most folks considered him a typical, happy-go-lucky imbiber. Not many people considered him anywhere near a potential candidate for ANY national office, let alone the United States Presidency.

As the President of the United States, though, he’s been an unabashed personification of the Peter Principle. In my opinion, he’s been a monumental embarrassment for the United States and a devastatingly lethal destructive force relative to the near-future viability of the Republican Party.

The sooner he’s out of office, the better off this nation will be. He’s proven—at least to me—that just because a person’s voice can be heard throughout the world instead of just to end of the bar, does not mean its owner is any wiser.

I have no idea who I will vote for in November. I mean this in the party sense. At this point I could go either way: Republican or Democrat.

For the sake of the Democrats, I sincerely hope that Hillary Clinton does not represent that party’s best. If she’s the nominee, I will NOT vote for her. John Edwards just cannot seem to get away from first base.

I’m not sure about Barack Obama; he’s an atypical candidate… bright, energetic, and a rousingly impactful and articulate motivator. He’s also relatively inexperienced.

On the other hand, if he surrounds himself with capable, advisers—NOT of the “yes-men” caliber—I think he could take us in a positive and productive new direction by stimulating a well-balanced Liberal/Conservative agenda. I’ve not ruled him out.

On the Republican side, it’s even worse. John McCain is a temper time-bomb looking for a place to go off. As for his current run for President, I’ll defer to a quote from the late Illinois Republican Senator, Everett Dirksen.

Many years ago, Johnny Carson asked him about the possibility of his running for President. He was 70-years old and not well. He replied in part, “…In my case, I think the vessel has already gone away from the pier.”

Mike Huckabee is painfully honest with voters. He’s quite likeable, politically moderate, and capable. He scares the daylights out of me, though.

He strikes me as being just a tad too chummy with Jesus; a bit prone to permitting the Bible and Ten Commandments to trump the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

The rest of them are not worth talking about—again, in my opinion. Although, I have direct experience with Giuliani and I don’t trust him as far as I can throw him.

So, with the possible exception of Barack Obama, I fear the upcoming election may well boil down to a section process aimed at choosing the lesser of several bad choices. But who knows… geez, where the hell is Pat Paulsen when we need him?

Oh, wait… people are talking into my earpiece. They’re telling me he’s dead! So, what does this have to do with running for President? Given our national propensity for not voting, who would know?

I mean, even dead, Pat Paulsen can’t be any more of threat to this country as has been the 30-year-old myth that the GOP is absolutely fiscally responsible. Think about it. I’ll see you next week.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Whoa! You've grossly misunderstood us, Mr. and Mrs. America

By Joseph Walther

In the true spirit of an election year, I thought I’d try to clear up some of the terms that politicians like to throw around. Keep in mind, though, that it isn’t just the politicians who do this. The media, depending on its particular stance on a given issue, will either downplay these things or give them a life all their own.

But, always remember that without a gullible public, none of this nonsense would be possible. People hear what they want to hear no matter how much—or little—surface sense it makes. The key term here is “surface sense.” Here’s what I mean.

Way back in the dark ages of the ’80s—1980 to be precise—Ronald Reagan was in the midst of his campaign that led to his first term as President of the United States.

Whether you voted for the man or not is irrelevant now. Some of his campaign promises are relevant, though.

Virtually everywhere he went on the campaign stump, he said that he was going to do three things: reduce taxes, increase defense spending, and balance the federal budget. Millions of people heard these promises and took them literally.

Think about these things for a second. On the surface, he said that he was going to take in less money, spend more of it, and STILL balance the budget! People with 3-digit IQs knew that this was impossible.

Of course, there were many sub-surface conditions that had to occur first. Mr. Reagan knew this. However, as in the case of most elections, getting elected was—and still is—THE operational imperative; complete truth was—and still is—an option.

And, since gullibility was—and still is—such a strong force among the electorate, he chose the former, the same as any other politician. Ronald Reagan was not a liar; but he was both a great story-teller and THE consummate communicator.

We elected Mr. Reagan as our 40^th President. The rest is history. Love him or hate him as you see fit. The fact remains, however; in memoriam, he’s an icon to his supporters and a symbol of the devil incarnate to his enemies.

All politicians love buzzwords and power terms. One of the most popular, especially over the past fifteen- to twenty-years, has been “accountability.” They all promise this, as though they invented it.

It’s a vague term that’s implicative of the speaker’s higher virtues of honesty, as opposed to the status-quo of an opponent’s implied lack of virtues through some sort of terminal non-accountability.

The fact is, however, politicians—on average—do exceedingly well at “talking the talk,” but fail miserably at “walking the walk.” But, the successful ones are even better at something else: hiring spin masters.

Since they don’t seem to show a propensity for “accountability,” even when there are legitimate reasons to demonstrate it, they opt to pay good spin masters to “explain” things to the voters in ways that normal people never could, at least not with a straight face.

If you listen, even casually, to the political rhetoric that’s been going on for the past year or so, you will hear the incessant use of the term, “change.” Don’t take this stuff too seriously.

There is a big difference between what WE, the “people,” mean by change and what THEY, the “candidates,” mean by change. They’re as confident as ever that we, the “people,” can’t tell the difference.

We, the “people,” mean that we want a change in the beltway culture that has this country circling the drain of oblivion. We, the “people,” want “our” United States Congress to change, also, and begin to represent our, the “people’s” best interests, instead of those of the lobbyists on K-Street.

By “change,” they, the “candidates,” mean simple personnel changes. It will be business as usual but conducted by a different crowd of politicians, all of which have dubbed themselves, as being absolutely accountable to us, the “people.”

Here’s another thing. Lies have always existed in politics. The difference now is that there are more of them simply because we’ve permitted the definition of “is” to become relative.

Plus, today’s politicians are more adept at disguising lies as mere episodes of causal, but innocent, “misunderstandings” or at worst, “misstatements.”

Just in case we, the “people,” happen to understand what was said perfectly well, plan-B kicks in, changing “misunderstandings” to “misstatements.” Yes, both are powerful terms and all astute politicians must understand the difference between them.

The former are always the fault of us stupid-assed, misunderstanding voters. The latter are vague attempts at quasi-apologies from politicians. Under NO circumstances, though, should we ever interpret them as admissions of guilt.

As powerful as these terms are at covering a political liar’s butt, especially in the hands of competent spin masters, they pale in the mysterious glow of this one: “out of context.” This one is a truly versatile phrase that covers multiple, simultaneous sins.

For example, in addition to flat out lies, politicians say stupid, offensive things that not only defy constituent positions, but also violate every known tenet of human compassion, empathy, and common sense.

Here’s a gem from George H. W. Bush: “I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is a nation under God.”

His press secretary didn’t claim a “misstatement,” but rather that Mr. Bush had been, “quoted out of context.” He knew that the general electorate wouldn’t bother to check it.

The opposition media checked the context, though. Unfortunately, it didn’t matter because we don’t trust the media, especially those outlets that “pick” on OUR favorite politicians!

Honesty, charity, and empathy have never been contingent upon a belief in God. Even so, today’s political office seekers have elevated the term, “religious faith,” to the status of Divine Commandments.

Politicians who want to be elected, must find a way to include these buzz words as inherent in their political footprints.

And, it can’t be just any old faith, either. It has to be the “right” faith. It’s tolerable—at least here in America—for people to believe in those “other” gods, but OUR God, the Christian one, is the only one that counts.

At the national level, it used to be that Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Zoroastrians, and, MOST CERTAINLY, Atheists need not apply. But, since Kennedy’s election, Catholics seem to have been removed from the “dangerous” list.

Likewise, Jews, thanks to Joe Lieberman, also seem well on their way to a national upgrade from absolutely NEVER to “OK” under some circumstances. Mormons, via Mitt Romney, may also become eligible for a future upgrade. We’ll see.

As for members of those other faiths, they have two chances of being elected to a national office over the next couple of decades: slim and none.

Many politicians are lawyers. Please note, here. I used “lawyers,” not “attorneys at law.” Graduation from a legitimate law school earns the title: Lawyer. An attorney at law is a lawyer who has passed one or more state bar exams and is licensed to practice law.

So, why do I bring up the difference? It’s simple. Both are master obfuscators. And, for politicians, obfuscation is as vital to a success as oxygen is to the life-sustenance of every living being.

Even the most skilled obfuscators, screw up on occasion, though. This can be a death knoll for a politician. Substandard obfuscation could actually permit voters to understand just enough of what’s been said to know that it’s pure crap. Such screw-ups are tantamount to political felonies.

If this happens, the affected politicians have to make themselves “perfectly clear,” relative to their positions, at which point they raise the bar to formerly unheard of levels of obfuscation, or, if you prefer the more common term, bullshit.

Let me close this by stating MY firm stances on other well established positions and a realistic potential of ME changing my mind. Never let it be said that I am NOT perfectly clear on these matter.

When it comes to positions, missionary, in my estimation, is still the best. Also, I am a man of faith in that I firmly believe in prayerful thanksgiving. To me, this is what the doggy-style position is all about. And, screw any changes, too! My back just won’t permit them anymore.

But, as for the politicians in the upcoming general election, nothing will get our real desire for change across to them like unprecedented voter turn-out; throwing long-standing incumbents out of office; and electing who WE want to elect instead of who the media tells us that we want to elect. Let’s DO it.

See you all next week unless my back goes out.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Yo, God! Gotta minute?

By Joseph Walther

Let me cut right to the chase here, God. Running THE universe—and for all we know, any number of parallel universes—has to be a tiring job of monumental proportions. Although… I have to say that the folks who claim to know you personally (about 75% worldwide, about 83% in the United States) swear that you’re up to the task.

Yes, I’ve heard that you’re omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. Still, with all the crap that’s going on in this world, I have to wonder about your qualifications, and ever more often, whether you exist at all.

I know! You’re going to tell me that there is far more good in the world than bad. I concede this, but certainly you have to admit that the range between these two forces is closing, and pretty fast, too. I tell you; it’s downright scary.

Let me pick just one teensy theory that has become a perpetual pissing contest between regressive religion and reductionist science.

Oh stop rolling your eyes like that. You’re the one who allegedly gave me a brain with its reasoning capabilities. So, don’t go getting all pissy because I’ve opted to use it.

Evolution! Nothing raises the neck hackles between the “we came from monkeys” and the “no we didn’t” gangs. When you stand back and listen to these two extreme factions rag on each other, it’s reminiscent of a not too intelligent debate between the naively trustful and the pathologically paranoid.

What blows ME away about all of this bickering is the fact that only a virtual handful of people doubt the scientific evidence of planet Earth’s evolutionary history or our place in an unimaginably vast universe over an incomprehensibly immense timeframe.

No! Surprisingly, the real fight doesn’t begin until we get to the HUMAN part of the theory, especially the part about the monkeys. It seems that we just can’t have this.

“We came from MONKEYS!? Eweeeeeeeee!” Multitudes—measured in billions, worldwide—don’t believe their distant ancestors were monkeys. And, you know what, God? I don’t care one way or the other. If my distant ancestors were monkeys, I can’t do a thing about it at this point.

All I know is that I’m not a monkey NOW. None of us are; nor have we been for a very long time. Yes, some of us have monkey-like intellects—politicians, for example. But this is irrelevant to the issue.

About a hundred and fifty-years ago, Charles Darwin published his evolution theory in a book called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. It was 1859 to be exact.

Since then, even though the general public is unaware of them, countless refinements and qualifications have redefined the theory, making it one of the most robust theories ever published, albeit a most controversial one.

Regardless, whether we like it or not, by now it ranks right up there with Einstein’s theories of Relativity, both General and Special.

Then, in 1871, he published another book titled, The Descent of Man. You can check it out here. While his original theory consisted of pure biology and paleontology, the nuts and bolts of where we came from and how and why, so to speak, this one was different.

His second book addressed the purely human level of evolution. While it did not deny the tenets he established in his initial theory, it did reveal another side of Darwin’s theory: the human side. It also revealed a very human side of Darwin, himself.

However, thanks to the age-old, black and white competition between regressive religion and reductionist science, Darwin’s true feelings relative to the human aspect of evolution have been distorted beyond recognition.

For close to 150-years we’ve used the biology and paleontology of our origins as excuses for being complete assholes. Scientific reductionists have a huge infatuation with snotty-sounding, sophisticated terms.

“Evolutionary imperative” is one of their favorites. You’re probably more familiar with the term, “genetic hardwiring.” Don’t worry about it, though; they’re just different words that express the same idea.

They both imply that we humans are powerless to control our impulses. They’ve been the fuel that has powered the drive behind rationalizing our lack of shame in publically fondling ourselves while flinging our feces all over the planet. After all, monkeys will be monkeys.

I am a man. My background is science. As such, I understand the worlds of atoms, quarks, strong and weak forces, and dark matter.

As a man of science, I also understand how imbibing in too much Kickapoo Joy Juice can, sometimes, cause female monkeys to look pretty good. So, it’s conceivable, at least to me, that we may have come from monkeys. But, this is immaterial to my point.

That point being, we have to get past this monkey business and the associated pissing contest between the regressive religious fanatics who deny ALL scientific tenets and their reductionist science counterparts who have persistently wallowed in a ritual of mental masturbatory conduct over evolution’s biology component.

Accept or reject that we came from monkeys, whatever floats your boat. But, accept the reality that we are NOT monkeys NOW. We are humans, capable of self-awareness. We can reason. We can DECIDE what’s trivial and what’s important. We can love and display empathy for other humans and, for that matter, every species on this planet.

This is what makes humans special, whether there is a God or not. Natural, catastrophic events notwithstanding, this is also what will determine how long we survive as a species. It’s not just about biology and paleontology. It really isn’t! It never has been.

Darwin’s OTHER book, The Descent of Man, explains this idea. It defines the human side of evolution. It shows us that we can choose one of two courses for our species.

We can continue permitting regressive religion and reductionist science, as we have for the past 150-years, to set our agenda, one based on a media driven orgy of fear. We can continue believing that we are victims of our own selfish, killer-genes, all of which are beyond our control, thanks to “evolutionary imperatives.”

Or, we can choose to supplement the biology part of evolution with a human element that permits love and kindness to balance the violence of “genetic hardwiring” and instills genuine hope to balance the despair born out of illogical fear.

We can do this, but we have to get past the monkey stuff first. In the end it does not matter whether there is a God or not, whether we came from monkeys or not. There either is a God or there isn’t. We either came from monkeys or we didn’t. In the absence of verifiable proof either way, we can’t do anything about it.

Finally, here is some advice for you men. Whenever you are horny, stay off the Kickapoo Joy Juice. If it is impossible for you to do this, for God’s sake stay the hell out of the monkey house! And, on that note, assuming that we don’t extinct ourselves beforehand, I’ll be back next week.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.

Praise the Lord and vote for ME!

By Joseph Walther

God-believing candidates are seemingly multiplying like rabbits, nowadays. Most of them have been locked in a virtual over-drive to let us know that they are believers. We voters demand it is what the media reporters and pundits tell us. Personally, I think it’s a lot of baloney. Here’s why.

First, the folks I’ve spoken to and heard from tell me that they don’t care about a candidate’s religious beliefs unless the CANDIDATE makes them a major hallmark of the campaign. It seems that religion is fine unless… there is too much it.

Second, mixing religion and politics can’t succeed in any positive way. This has always been the case because the two are utterly opposed in every respect.

By its definition, fundamentalist religion is a belief in the infallibility, and literal interpretation, of a particular religion’s doctrine or holy books. It has NEVER been about finding any acceptable middle ground. Nor, will it ever be.

It’s dogmatic. Absolute! No compromises. No wiggle room for discussion. You’ve either accepted Jesus as your personal Savior or you haven’t. If not, you’re NOT saved. You are not suitable to hold a public office, PERIOD! End of conversation.

For true religious fundamentalists, the Constitution is subservient to the Bible. The Ten Commandments supersede the Bill of Rights as a matter of dogmatic imperative.

Issues such as gay marriage and abortion are not debatable. They are not open to ideological compromise because they are forbidden by God. And those who deny it are sinners to be shunned, pure and simple.

On the other hand, the field of secular politics, by its nature, is one of consensus through compromise. It depends on non-boundary coalition building in order to forge solutions that the majority of citizens can live with.

Conservative politicians, particularly over the past fifteen or so years, have tried to forge this ideological abyss by promising things they can’t deliver. It will ultimately destroy them. Religious fundamentalists are neither ideologically flexible nor open to consensus building.

To such voting blocs, if “their” politicians can’t deliver the goods they promised, they will move on to others who will. Given no alternative, they’ll vote the “perceived” phonies out of office just to prove a point!

Liberal politicians—for well over multiple decades—have come off as distaining most religious ideology, particularly that of the fundamentalist movement. It is immaterial whether this is reality or perception.

It’s a matter of fundamental human nature to believe our preconceived notions. “When the myth becomes fact; print the myth.” So, too, when a perception becomes widespread enough, it BECOMES reality.

Governor Huckabee is an unapologetic religious fundamentalist and Barack Obama, while a Christian, does not share the moral absolutes of his fundamentalist opponent. Just the same, their respective wins in Iowa got my attention, albeit it for different reasons.

Their religious contrasts had nothing to do with it, either. It was their striking similarities as political candidates.

Neither comes off like a stereotypical candidate. Both unapologetically state their beliefs in straightforward terms, projecting a refreshing degree of sincerity and willingness to say what they believe, come what may. I haven’t seen this in decades.

And, even though I count myself among the multitudes of people who can be fooled some to the time, I believe the sincerity of both candidates is both real and refreshing. However, time will tell.

Both candidates have hit the big radar scope. Unlike campaigns of years ago, the press nowadays has anointed itself as the purveyors of “gotchas.” Reporters and political pundits alike, revel in catching politicians in a faux pas, regardless of how minor it may have been.

In turn, every news media outlet, every cable-channel talking head, every radio talk-show host, and every political analyst will regurgitate it for weeks, maybe even months, thus obliterating many substantive issues.

Additionally, every enemy either of these men has ever made, even remotely, will begin to come forward, placing themselves at the disposal of political opponents.

And, the blogosphere—right and left—will spring vigorously alive, solidly intent on either candidate’s total annihilation or ultimate victory.

The essence of politics has not changed for centuries. They still kiss babies when it’s feasible. And, they are still not opposed to stealing their lollipops if they have to. I suspect that this will never change as long as there is an American form of politics.

What has changed, though, is the depths to which many politicians will stoop to get themselves elected. It’s a no holds barred situation where negative—often absolute defamation and/or slander—has become the rule.

While we voters vehemently deny a preference for negative campaigning, it works. It if didn’t the politicians would abandon it.

So, either we’re lying about our distain for it or we simply can’t tell the difference between outright character assassination and honest, sincere issue disputes.

Either way, it behooves both of these men to remember that, even if familiarity does not breed absolute contempt, it most certainly will take much of the edge off of admiration.

What happened in Iowa has raised my interest level substantially. It’s far too early to draw any meaningful conclusions at this point, though.

But, it looks as though people in this country—at least those in Iowa—are beginning to see what we need in terms of political leadership.

We don’t need the same old political rhetoric promising change and unworkable solutions to age-old problems. This has grown as stale three-day-old bread.

We NEED a President who is capable of challenging and inspiring Americans of all persuasions to abandon their petty differences and concentrate on the finding solutions to those critical problems that divide us.

At least for now, Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama are refreshing in this respect. Maybe one of them can pull it off. Dear Lord, if you’re out there, please deliver us from evil… We can only hope. Time will tell.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.