In response to a Joan Vennochi Boston Globe opinion article of December 4, 2008 entitled "A bitter brew for Kerry" I said:

I give you high points for your editorial assessments of President-Elect Obama's failure to choose Senator John Kerry for Secretary of State Yes, he was a supporter of Obama from the very beginning. It is a difficult yet enviable thing when the Democratic Party's problem is that it has too many candidates of excellence from which to choose for positions of the utmost strategic and national security importance. Truly, I have always loved both Hillary Clinton AND John Kerry. What DOES one do with so much talent?

I believe, so far, the President-Elect has chosen wisely. While it is true Senator Kerry supported President-Elect Obama from the very beginning it is also true that, at this time, I think, Hillary Clinton is the better choice for Secretary of State. She carries to the international scene a well-honed international recognition. Although Senator Kerry has served his country with great distinction in both war and peace and has foreign policy credentials to boot, Hillary Clinton presents a razor-like sharpness of intellect and piercing aura that, I believe, Senator Kerry does not have. I believe her image and intellect will serve our country well. It is clear, so far, to me that President-Elect Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. While some choices may appear political and perhaps they somewhat are, they are also very practical. I think Hillary Clinton reflects not only phenomenal sharpness and toughness but also has, even at the beginning, garnered the necessary international respect someone occupying that office so importantly needs. I believe Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State is exactly the right choice at exactly the right time.

The Face of Competence: What a joy it is to see the face of competence. The teams of advisers President-Elect Obama has formed have been, I think, extraordinary. Their composition proves this fact. Clearly he is changing the tone of the national music and so far I love the sounds.

The introduction of his National Security team is a line up of quality. His chosen advisers are pragmatic, thoughtful and inclusive. Some such as Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State were even his adversaries. This is both prudent and wise as the President-Elect seeks both affirmation of what he believes and challenges to those beliefs. He wants this time to get US policy right. Clearly though, it will be he who is doing the synthesizing of the sound.

In an always dangerous world the US needs a strong national defense. His team reflects that view. When that defense is used, though, to surreptitiously and aggressively change regimes in other countries, as US policy has done many times, problems arise. It gives our enemies the very excuse they need to vociferously and sometimes violently oppose us. Secretary of Defense Webb has talked about a strong diplomatic effort as a necessity for a strong defense so war does not become the first most expensive option. It becomes the last option. The so-called “Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes should be the rarity and not the rule. We cannot police or mold the world for our own aggrandizement any longer. The US does not have the manpower, the economic ability or the popular inclination to do that.

I think and hope President-Elect Obama will change the nature of US foreign policy. He knows our actions have consequences especially in this threatening era of nuclear capability. The risk is too great. He knows, too, we need security. There is so much to do and undo. So far, though, I am greatly impressed by the team he has selected to make the attempt!

This is a blog and exchange with another blogger I wrote in response to an editorial by Morton Kondracke, the conservative columnist who wrote a piece about discarding the likes of Rush Limbaugh and reforming the Republican party. I wrote:

Knowing Kondracke is a conservative, I was surprised by his editorial. I thought Limbaugh and those like he were the Holy Grail of conservative politics not to be touched. It shows there are SOME conservatives with a brain who truly want their party to return. I thought twice about writing this because far be it from me to give tips to conservatives. Knowing the extent of my influence and importance, however, which is nil, I think I can write a couple of thoughts about the conservative dilemma as IF I were one. Yes, I can put myself in the other guy's shoes. If I were conservative I would believe that the essence of true conservatism is limited government. I would be fiscally restrained, militarily very prudent and libertarian in my cultural opinions. What REALLY matters to the conservative agenda, in my opinion, should be what is important. Whether a man spends his life with another man in wedded bliss or a woman with a woman has absolutely NO, NONE, NIL relevance to anyone's life except the people involved in the relationship. Ditto for abortion. If you do not like any of the aforementioned cultural realities do NOT participate in them. The people who account for those phenomina are a minute percentage of the American populous. The so called base of the Republican party is infinitely small. It, as Kondracke suggests, represents mostly the solid religious south and perhaps a few other states. Elections will not be won with just that. What IS important is whether we have a fiscally healthy, educationally advanced and militarily safe country. If I were conservative I would run on those issues and nothing else. The party's tent needs to be broadened and one does not do that by voting people out but by bringing people in. I hope I did not give away the keys to the 2012 electoral kingdom!

Response from blogger

Limbaugh is one of the biggest phonies in the US. A faux-hawk. Student deferments in the 60's during Vietnam. Anti drug in the 80's, busted for drugs and addicted to opiates in the 90's. Compassionate conservative who makes fun of Michael J Fox and those with Parkinson's.

Any party that bys his neocon hypocracy deserves what they get. Do the research into his personal life. How could you take him seriously?

Hannaty? another faux hawk. A phony, macho, Beaver Cleaver. At least with left wing loons like Al Franken what you see is what you get.

My response to him

js,323, points extremely well taken. You are absolutely correct. They are hypocrites of the worst order and we do know how much combat our inebriated drug addled spoiled brat presidential 'Decider' really saw. Without daddy that man would probably have ended up in a drunk tank instead of the White House enacting his murderous destructive politics.

I think, though, one cannot deny the realities of what 'conservative' politics became nor can one deny who the effective mouthpieces were and still are no matter who they truly are in practice. From the Republican takeover of the Congress in 1996 through the Bush onslaught and debacle their Rovian/Limbaugh/Hannity brand attained power and lots of it. It took decades and many presidencies to do this beginning with the so called 'moral majority' of Nixon, through government-is-not-the-solution-it-is-the-problem Reagan, to the insipid Bush II to work their hypocritical magic walking away, while they did this, with billions. They did it by co-opting the extremely religious mainly in the south and the mid-west into thinking Republican politics was about them. It wasn't. The poor of the south, Appalachia and some mid-western states voted AGAINST their own interests just so their perceived Christian social agenda and dogma had a voice even if they had to starve in the process. The southern strategy of 51% worked even though it divided the country right down the middle. Bush II would not have been elected without all of it. It took years to finally show their underbelly, hypocrisy and how that party is NOT about Joe Six Pack. It is, as we know, about huge corporate white collar power and tremendous Wall Street wealth which cares nothing about anyone but hoarding the wealth for themselves no matter who or what they have to hurt in the process.

Finally, the Democratic party learned how to organize, hit the airways and play their own game too and play it better. We now have legions of journalists, writers, IMPORTANT online liberal bloggers, radio talk show hosts and television programming such as Keith Olbermann's Countdown, the Rachel Maddow Show and Chris Matthews's Hardball to give voice to progressives and to those who would question power. All of these things hold the opposition's feet to the fire. Let's hope that defeated so called 'conservative' snake does not recoil to strike again with their hypocritical mouthpieces of lies, fear and hate. The miraculous election of Barack Obama is not the end. It is the beginning. We must always be vigilant, always be organized and never let up while showing the American public what truth REALLY is.

In his November 23, 2008 editorial "A Question of Faith" Jeff Jacoby sees the word love at the end of religious faith and death symbolically at the end of Bill Maher's film Religulous? I see the word reality and truth as the substance of the agnostic's view and I see religion, throughout the ages, responsible for much division, hate, war, and death. Yes, sure, religion has created some humanitarian thought and action. It has given the world some ethical systems too. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations, gave the world all those things as well. One does not need the monotheistic faiths or any faith for that matter to do good in the world. Man, indeed, survives better when he cooperates with his adversary no matter what his belief systems are.

Since when, historically, has religion been a force for such extreme good? In my world view religion has been has been awash in a sea of blood and implicated in an orgy of war as religious texts give a permission slip for one man to kill the other over five thousand year old text repleat with scientific impossibilities which subvert natural law. Religion, further, espouses different things to different people. If six billion people adhere to a religious text then there will be six billion different interpretations of what that text is. Organized religion is responsible, I submit, for more discord than harmony, more division than unity and more hate than love. Moreover, might I add, having seen Bill Maher's film Religulous, seen its truth, and listened to Maher for years, I never have heard him say even once that the polio vaccine was unnecessary. Having suffered from polio myself before the vaccine was available I would have paid particular attention to anyone who said that.

Another letter to the Boston Globe's conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby:

Jeff, referencing your November 16, 2008 editorial "Palin's Political Potential," unlike many on the right I have no problem admitting fear. Do I fear Sarah Palin? The answer to that is a resounding yes! Why shouldn't I? I have just waded through the eight-year quicksand of a George W. Bush. All one has to do in Republican Party land is play dumb, waive a flag, hate a gay and say Jesus told you to do it all. Clark Clifford was right about the lack of scholastic aptitude of Ronald Reagan and Andrew Sullivan is right about less-than-high-school-intellect of Sarah Palin. Let's hope the American public is smarter than to get stuck again in all-image-and-no-substance candidates. Watching American politics for forty years, however, I know anything is possible.

A Universal Right: It is my opinion that the gay rights movement for years has thought it sometimes unnecessary to project homosexuality as an ascribed status. Some in the movement thought it not advantageous to talk about being homosexual as something innate. A few said if it were a choice people should have that right to choose too. Sure, that is true. They should. The opposition, however, will say if it is a choice, then, why not choose the opposite? I think, it is NOT a choice and I believe the gay community would be more successful if it argues that point. I believe most gay people are born gay. No amount of therapy, prayer or just plain force-of-will can alter that fact. Would one withdraw marital rights from Indians, Asians, Africans or even two disabled people?

Black rights were won on the fundamental truth that one is born black. Therefore, discriminating in any way is simply unfair because the only rationale for one's ethnicity is through birth. It is unchangeable assuming anyone would want to change it in the first place. Furthermore, the Biblical mandate, as many other Biblical mandates, does not withstand the test of time. Things proscribed in Biblical infancy are eschewed in modernity. Proscriptions for animal sacrifice, stoning of prostitutes, killing of blasphemers, can be found in Biblical text. None of those prohibitions is, in this country, practiced today. Divorce in Medieval Europe was forbidden. Divorce is obviously a common occurrence today. The anti-bellum south used many Biblical passages to reinforce slavery itself. As justifications for white supremacy blacks were called the children of Ham, inherently evil, infused with the devil, fallen angels and other such nonsensical appellations. We know ALL of these views are considered obscurantist now but even after the institution of slavery, its servant cruelty took thousands of years to erase. Indeed, we are still trying.

So, it is the same, I believe, of homosexuality. There are numerous scientific studies which seem to support the nature of homosexuality as inherent and unchanging within the species probably occurring in utero before the fetus even emerges from the mother's womb. Perhaps, further, most homosexuals would support that view since many say they are able to remember at the earliest age being attracted to members of their own sex. Given that and assuming the sex is between, of course, consenting adults, who would find it difficult to understand why homosexuals want their rights? It is not contagious as it is endemic to the species and, I submit, part of human sexual variation. I believe if homosexuals argue from that venue more success would be gained with respect to the gay marriage issue. Homosexuals want rights because they are owed rights like everyone else. Homosexuality is not good and is not bad. It simply is. In 1983 I once saw a movie entitled "Parting Glances" which was about the revelation of a gay young man's sexuality. The protagonist in the story responded to his parents' question as to how could he could choose this lifestyle. He answered "Hey, guys, I didn't choose it. It chose me! " I think that says it all.

Take a Breath: Here is an excellent article by Andrew Sullivan. He is a CALM voice on gay marriage. We need it. He is a true conservative AND MOST IMPORTANTLY he is a gay conservative. He is brilliant, a great writer for the Atlantic and has been supportive vociferously of gay rights for twenty years. His article, I think, is worth reading if nothing else then to douse the fires of our anger. It is a clam, reasoned, cool and collected article as to why this is NO time for despair. He looks at the glass half full instead of empty. We truly have come a long way and CA does still have domestic partnerships as do other states. I even read where Utah is considering certain rights without marriage...okay it's Utah..that's huge if it's true. It's the word "marriage" that gets the wing nuts. Personally, I can live without it happily. Rights can be ensured in other ways but others want it and they should obviously have it. This article though, helps us to take a breath, relax, go on and not give up. It can only be a good thing to read it. Click or cut and paste into your browser OR Google Andrew Sullivan.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/prop-8-chill.html

It Ain't Over Yet: The passage of Prop 8 in CA was a disappointment to an otherwise, in my opinion, flawless November 4. From anti-abortion questions which were struck down, to animal rights, to the right to die -- most progressive measures were, thankfully, given the nod.

The civil rights struggle of homosexuals goes on. Before you conservatives out there in joyless land throw a party, the measure, until the very end when the Mormon Church infused a gazillion bucks to hit the airwaves, Prop 8 was headed for defeat. Gays may not have won this time but the percentage of the vote was MUCH improved from the time before. They nearly won despite the oodles of cash the religious zealots poured into the vote. The fault lies with the seriousness -- or lack of it of -- with which the gay community and its allies brought to the cause. They underestimated the determined well-financed hateful efforts of the Mormon Church with its fundamentalist co-conspirators and the lengths to which they would go to perpetrate their lies to deny to others that which THEY themselves take for granted.

Tomorrow is another day. Herculean efforts will be employed to overrule this patently unfair and obviously unconstitutional vote. Civil rights should NOT up for a vote and, hopefully, a modern, aware, and humane judiciary which has some understanding of biological realities and human genetic sexual variation will FINALLY put the matter to rest as it did for other civil rights struggles. It takes time and it takes money. Stay tuned. It ain't over til its over and it aint over yet!

Wrote this on the Metro west blog in response to those who think I am not thinking clearly about religion:

Yes, I see all your points that evil knows no boundary. It's been committed by believers and non believers alike. I agree with that. What I was addressing was contemporary events. I know weaponry has been designed and used by non believers too. I was speaking about the political events of this era and most particularly about the religious right's and the Fundamentalists assumption of huge amounts of power in this country and what effect that has had.

In THIS country at THIS time and moment in history it is the believers and non who are juxtaposed one against the another as they vie for supremacy, power and wealth. It is they who in the name of religion may in fact annihilate the human race and enact inhumane and destructive policies. I cannot argue though violence and catastrophic invention surely have been designed and committed by all. It is religious belief NOW, though, which has been responsible for so much discord, destruction and mayhem. I might further add a note of understanding. I do not have a closed mind and debate different angles of different issues always or at least I try.

I truly envy those who believe. You may think I do not but I do. It is a MUCH easier life and a MUCH easier world to endure if one accepts a higher power. I have had wars with belief systems all of my life. Life for me has been difficult at best. So naturally I wondered why and looked for answers. They never came for me no matter how fervent the asking over decades. Things simply stayed the same in fact they really got worse. So if people pray and they get solace or their life changes for the better I envy that. I wish mine had. It didn't no matter how hard I prayed or how much I asked. You may say it's the religion but I have had flirtations with several religions. None helped. I think one does not need religion to be moral. I think one does not need to believe in something else to know, for example, killing or stealing is wrong. A society functions best, I believe, when it works cooperatively.

I wrote to Richard Dawkins the physicist, confirmed atheist and author of 'The God Delusion.' I said to him even though I subscribe to most of what he says I wrote to him about how difficult it is if one does not believe in god. He said to me that he thought it odd that I could not get joy in the wonder of the universe, in the construct and evolutionary progression over trillions of years. He said that and that alone should inspire awe. Well, it does. It just doesn't help if one gets ill, or if one looses loved ones OR, most importantly, when one contemplates one's OWN death. That's the problem as I see it which he really could not address. Science cannot address that. Religion can address that BUT is it TRUTH? That is the real question as I see it and one which each individual must make a determination for him or herself but the truth of it cannot and probably will never be proven. As I said before just because you want it to be so does not make it so. That hurdle I could never surmount.

President-Elect Obama -- Guardian of History: What can I say that has not been already said about the historic nature of this election? This was, as has been repeatedly uttered, an historic moment and I am forever grateful that I am witness to it. I feel like the burden of George Bush and divisive Republican politics has been lifted from my shoulders. I feel like the dawn of hope has emerged. I wake up every morning and my first thought is that Barack Obama is president and the chill of a new November day is warmed. I still have to pinch myself to make sure that this is not a dream and that those who poisoned the Washington well really have been driven from power. Kudos to the American people who chose to reverse the titanically disastrous course the iceberg of which our nation was poised to hit.

There have been other particularly notable moments in our nation's story. As stated by a news source "When President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office on the steps of the U.S. Capitol in January, he'll be standing on stone that was laid by more than 400 African slaves who helped build the structure from 1792 to 1800." That is history. When he takes his seat in the oval office, January 20, 2009 he will be the first African American to do so in our nation's history. That is monumental history. He stands, of course, on the shoulders of many other giants who risked their lives and often gave their lives to ensure this moment occurred. That is history.

From Frederick Douglas, from the abolitionists, from Harriet Tubman, from Abraham Lincoln, from Medgar Evers, from Rosa Parks, from James Meredith from Martin Luther King from the slane civil rights workers Schwerner, Goodman, Chaney and countless others black and white, men and women, rich and poor who resisted and illuminated the strange fruit hanging from so many southern poplar trees, we must understand our history. Barack Obama knows he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Now he is the giant and must be the guardian of that history so others may stand upon his.

A tinge of sadness: As the days go on I am even more thrilled, if that is possible, about Barack's Obama's victory. But, too, my glee is tinged with a bit of sadness about the California Proposition 8 vote to amend its state Constitution to bar gay marriage. It is clear that homosexual people are the last vestige to whom it is permissible to deny the civil rights everyone else takes for granted. I do not hear much outrage from the media about its passage. The passage of Proposition 8 and its attendant permission slip to amend the California Constitution will be yet another battle for homosexuals to secure their rights through the judicial branch if that is even possible. If it is not it will mean discrimination will be woven into yet another state Constitution and all those who married before the vote in California MAY have their marriages annulled depending upon the legal settlement of that issue. Imagine if the state came to everyone else and annulled their marriage. This behavior to me is predictable in Mississippi ... maybe .. but not predicable in California. I expected better.

What disheartens me most, however, is how the vote broke. Sure, religious Evangelicals everywhere were for the amendment that is to be expected. There were many against it such as the higher educated, half of Hispanics, Asians and most whites in general. So, who added to the religious Evangelicals obvious support of it? A majority of African Americans voted for the amendment. In the gay community I do not think I have EVER encountered anyone who was against African American civil rights. The gay community, quite naturally, has always marched along side black people trying to secure their rights. It is dismaying to me that gay people gave support but when push came to shove and when it was so important it was not given to them on the Prop 8 vote. That is infuriating to me.

Sure, I am happy Democrats secured huge wins in nearly every domain. In addition, all the questions around the country broke the liberal way on abortion, the right to die, medical marijuana, no criminal penalties for small amounts of marijuana, no elimination of Mass. state income tax, EVEN the greyhounds got their rights in Massachusetts. But when it comes to gay people who cares about them? I hear little indignation and not much outcry except within the gay community and some of its loyal friends. Well, I am crying out. Perhaps, the gay community would do well to take a page from a more militant black man at a different time in our nation's history by adopting a more Malcom X attitude -- Either you give us our rights or we will take them by any means necessary. Maybe next time we will.

A Witness to History: Our nation is on the brink of history. For so many years I yearned for a better nation. For years I wondered where the era from which I was politically born, had gone. I wondered what happened to those values which promised the eternal flame of justice, truth, humanitarian ideals and no more war. I worried and even cried that our nation could be so divided and thought it eternally doomed so that I would never see what my parents loved about the FDR of their time. I worried that I would never again be inspired with hope and never again see the inherent humanity of our nation which I knew I saw once in America. I began to think we were eternally relegated to never-ending fear, never ending anger, never ending division, and never ending conflict.

It has been a long hard road traveled and we are not quite there yet, but, finally, if my suspicion is correct, those of us who care about the welfare of the many, the humanitarian rights of the powerless and the inherent decency of this nation, will be on the precipice of greatness once again. We are at the doorstep of hope just when I thought all hope was lost. Over the past, seemingly eternal, eight years, our country fell precipitously from its heights. Its principles were shattered, its Constitutional genius wasted, and an isolated America dug itself deeper in the hole of injustice every minute it could not shake off this tyranny.

A possibility, though, of renewal and reverse-course is at hand. The genius of America still exists and this is the moment I have lived for all of my life. The book of centuries of the cruelest and saddest moments in American history is turning a page into a new era. It is a new New Deal, a new New Frontier and a new Great Society. We are, indeed, a new nation of Americans united and standing up for and in love with our great American experiment.

Our nation, plagued by a stubborn racism which digs its heels into our DNA and contaminates our body politic by forces which pander to hatred and by ideologues who take advantage of its festering sore for their own enrichment, is rising from its simmering embers once again.

I believe Barack Obama will be our nation’s first black president and the 44th president of these United States. It is about time. I hope he stays safe and I hope his policies are wise for, I believe, he is not the great BLACK hope, he is not the great WHITE hope but he is the hope of ALL of us. We are, I believe, on the brink of history, the world is watching and I am ever so thankful I am witness to it.

Questioning Power: I offer two criticisms of the Catholic Church. It is not Catholicism itself I criticize. I criticize always the policies and tyranny of the few who are given power over the lives of many. There are two church policy issues with which I take exception today:

First: Today Pope Benedict suggested that a "test" should be given to future prospects for the priesthood which would look for any psychopathology before priests are accepted for ordination. The worrisome psychopathology about which the church ruminates since the costly sex scandals has to do with, obviously, sex. The church wants to see how intrinsic is a prospective priest's sexuality and, of course, most importantly, it wants to know if he harbors any homosexual inclinations. It especially wants to know if he has exhibited homosexual behavior within the past three years. Three is the magic number. If one can hold off on one's homosexual appetites for three years from when an application for the priesthood is received then the all clear whistle apparently sounds.

The utter ridiculousness of this prospect staggers the imagination. One would think, obviously enough, the very nature of sexuality IS intrinsic i.e. once one has determined one is homosexual he will be homosexual all of his life. Conversely, when one determines one is heterosexual one is heterosexual all of his life as well. One cannot pray homosexuality away as study after study shows and after legions of testimony exist from homosexuals to that fact. One can cover it up and one can overrule it but one cannot never erase it. Many have tried to overrule their bodily inclinations and failed. What is sexuality if it is not intrinsic to the core one's being? It is by its very nature intrinsic. The church's thought processes are disturbing. Sexual proclivity is SO strong and so all encompassing that it is inconceivable to expect a human being would deny its overwhelming and undeniable call. To do so, I submit, is difficult and, indeed, rare. A unisex institution with no opportunity for the adult male to appropriately channel his desires with other adults I submit fosters aberrant behavior sometimes of the most heinous and illegal kind.

Second: The beatification of Pius the XII, the pope who during World War II failed to shout out vociferously his opposition to the Nazi perpetration of its genocidal policies which would implement murderous remedies for the so called "Jewish question," has now been suspended. The Vatican today said it is putting on hold attempts to make Pius the XII (Giovanni Pacelli) a saint until it has enough time to "study" the papers relating to his era as Pope during the Nazi period. It does, however, still refuse to open up for public scrutiny ALL documents of that era it holds in its archives.

I become suspicious when a government, a church or any other institution of great power fails in transparency. I believe there is a right of its populous or -- in the case of a religious institution -- its parishioners to view its machinations as its adherents give it strong belief and mountains of money in support. When an institution hides documents, I believe, the institution has something to hide. If there is nothing to hide then why would the Vatican not want to show the papers for all to see reinforcing the Vatican's desire to make Pius XII a saint? I also wonder IF that institution would plod through those very documents with its own biased staff in order to dispose, shred or burn evidence which could be harmful to it. The many should harbor much suspicion of power as those in power have much control over the many.

The science of safe: It has been, throughout the centuries, a long hard slog to eschew the dark forces of superstition, untrue assumptions and reactionary often religious thought which kept man down. I have always thought this journey was a progressive one and that he would not regress. This administration and the development of its arm of religious fundamentalist extremists have proven my assumption false. In an instant, centuries of human progress can vanish as if it never existed at all. Mystical, mythological, superstitious and unproven reasons passed off as truth can kill.

The Bush administration has not only been guilty of denying science but of falsifying it. Whether it is through blocked out passages of scientific memos clearly identifying the relationship between green house gases and global warming or the treatment of the belief of creationism the same as evolutionary fact, the Bush administration has tried to deceive the masses. This should be an abomination to all when science can actually SEE and prove evolution at work. It can see DNA and it can see how DNA morphs over time. It can see the DNA of the AIDS virus as it changes no matter what chemicals are thrown against it. Science can see and actually calculate the age of the earth. It can prove the billions of years of the earth’s evolution.

Scientific truth is in front of our eyes but some would rather believe myths and superstition over truth simply because it makes them feel good. Religion is religion and science is science. The two are not the same and can never meet. Religion should be separate from the state for all time as, I believe, most of our Founders would have desired. Science will free us, cure us from disease, and make our lives easier. Religion will make us FEEL we are safe when in fact if we deny science “safe” could not be further from the truth.

PERFECTION: The link below by Jane Smaley in Huffington Post is possibly one of the best, most cogent, correct and spot on articles I have EVER read. It says it all. I agree with every single paragraph 100% and then some. Smaley is a wonderful popular writer as well as a terrific analyzer of contemporary events. I urge you to read it and savor EVERY paragraph. She is EXACTLY correct in everything she says. I could have written (perhaps not as wonderfully as she) the same thing and wish I had!


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/goodbye-cruel-world_b_138755.html

OOPS: I must have missed the very end of H.D.S. Greenway's editorial when he stated that perhaps Barack Obama is more like Mr. Smith. Now that's more like it. I concur!

Emperor's No Clothes: H.D.S. Greenway's October 28th article Character Trumping Experience comparing Sarah Palin to James Stewart's clean Gene character in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is ridiculous. While Mr. Smith and Ms. Palin's words may find a home on the populist ear, Mr. Smith really WAS clean. Sarah Palin is a sham. She lies, divides, eschews pork and then takes a big barrel full. She accepts a bridge to nowhere but when it becomes unpopular returns it but keeps the money. Sarah Palin is about glitz with no substance. Mr. Smith was about substance minus the glitz. He stood for something. Sarah Palin's words mean nothing and, therefore, she doesn't really stand for anything. Sarah Palin is much like the rest of her party. She is the, in this case, woman behind the curtain along side the emperor wearing no clothes.

The Tide Is Turning: Today, I stood in rather chilly weather aside a busy highway in my town with others carrying signs supporting Barack Obama. By my estimate, I believe, we heard fifty car honks and thumbs up approvals for Obama to one thumbs down against him. It was, to say the least, for me, gratifying. I, however, do not want to be overconfident, know about October surprises, national nightmares and even the press miscall of the 1948 Dewey/Truman contest. I cannot help now thinking, though, my long dark national nightmare of Republican rule may finally be coming to an end.

If Barack wins it will be for a multitude of reasons. At the top of rationale list is, of course, the nosedive of an unregulated economy gone haywire, government bailouts of huge corporate entitles and an administration which says one thing about the little guy but offers that little guy no relief from foreclosed homes, tanking 401Ks and healthcare burdens while the corporate giants fly away with humongous golden parachutes in hand to California resorts.

Republican candidates never have been about Joe the Plumber. They have always been about AIG and Lehman big wigs and their Senate mouthpieces like John McCain, his good pal Phil Grahm deregulator supreme and Bush & Co. jogging right along side. The genius of the Republican strategy since Nixon has been the brilliant scheme of getting the American public to believe the Republican Party is about the majority of them. The Party convinced them by wrapping itself in the American flag, telling the public that no one is as patriotic as Republicans and that Joe Six Pack and patriotic hockey moms everywhere should come along with them for the morality ride. Many marched to the tune of that cacophonous beat for over thirty years.

Sarah Palin is a metaphor for that party. Her beauty pageant adorable image and her so seemingly patriotic aura is a sham. In reality the woman behind the curtain and her party are incompetent unreflective unqualified hypocrites as they march off, seemingly under the public purview, to Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales and other high-end stores to dutifully spend $150,000 bucks on clothing for her and her family about which the average American can only dream.

Add to the Republican malfeasance a war on terror gone sour, wasted lives in Iraq and the scandal plagued presidency of George W. Bush the brew has been a toxic Republican stew. For all those reasons and so many more, barring any unforeseen circumstances, I believe the tide is finally turning. I can only fervently hope Barack Obama will be the 44th president of the United States.

This is a response I gave to a friend who had written on her blog which talked about the 'material girl' who is none other than Sarah Poor Palin and her $150,000 wardrobe. She says in her blog 'I do not yet have clarity as to why this woman grates on me so.' I understood her feeling.

http://yomamaforobama.wordpress.com

My response: I share with you an unmitigated disdain for that woman. Its NOT her beauty as I have met plenty of beautiful women and not disdained them. I suppose, if I had to search my soul for the rationale behind my fever it is that the one thing above anything else I value is intellect. I would, if given a choice, pick intellectual ability and a Faustian knowledge of everything over gobs of cash any day. Sarah Palin has less intellectual ability than the third grader whose question of just what a VP does she could not answer. It is shameful. I would be ashamed NOT to have a McCain sign on my lawn with HIS name on it but to have a sign with the name of know nothing Palin right underneath.

McCain's Choice of Palin as VP, as conservative intellectual Peggy Noonan so presciently alluded, has sealed his fate. He will never be President of the United States and I predict Palin's return to ignominious hockey mom governor of a distant state and to the primordial ooze from whence she came.

The Exceptionally Unacceptable: Wonderful article by H.D.S. Greenway in the October 21, 2008 edition of The Globe entitled "The Grand Illusion of American Power." He refers to BU educator, historian, military man and conservative, Andrew Bacevich, who now takes exception to the prevailing myth in American culture of American exceptionalism. Even Sarah Palin, perhaps albeit coached, still talks about American exceptionalism. She, of course, unequivocally believes in it and so do her followers.

I have long had a tug of war with my own conscience as to whether I do. Howard Zinn, historian and eminent professor at Boston University, in the late 60's, first introduced me to the concept of American exceptionalism and its folly when I listened to lectures by him in the late 1960's critical of US policy in Vietnam and elsewhere. His influence never left me. I was shocked at that time that American government policy could even be questioned. I assumed the US was always right in everything it did domestically and, most especially, internationally. I believed it was, indeed, exceptional. Professor Zinn , however, encouraged me, to possess an omnipresent doubt NOT of our country's values but of government policy which carries out its own interpretation of those values.

Vietnam, in that era, was the first time I conscientiously asked if our government was doing the right and moral thing. Since then other policies in many other areas of the world including the present day bombing of Iraq I deem not only questionable but immoral. My stint at Boston University at that time began my sojourn which prompted me to question government and speak my truth to power. The United States of America has done much good in the world that, I believe, cannot be denied but its government policy has often fallen short. When the heretofore exceptional becomes unacceptable it is time to reevaluate it and change course.