The Internet generation and the Election of 2008

I've been thinking about this for a couple of weeks now. There is something fundamentally different between the election in 2004 and the one now. It is the broad integrated use of the internet to disseminate any and all information whether factual or not about every candidate. This phenomenon was not as prevalent just 4 years ago.

Now, almost every single day, there are Youtube snippets, blog postings, news blog postings, internet polling, political forums, facebook, craigslist, and upteen thousand "political" web sites with various political agendas and leanings.

McCain, Clinton, and Obama have been dissected, probed, prodded, examined, and xrayed by every single media type and political angle that this growing internet minded election can think of. If it wasn't for the internet explosion of information, would we even care about the documents appearing out of thin air that Clinton couldn't find? Would we even care or even remotely believe that McCain could possibly be a Manchurian Candidate possibility? Would we ever have heard or seen any candidates pastor's sermons?

Would FDR have been elected if the national press had presented his affliction with polio in the same manner as they do every blemish of candidates today? Would JFK have been elected if his indiscretions and “lack of experience” been chronicled on every blog, political forum, and media outlet in the country?

Can any candidate actually survive this kind of magnified scrutiny that can in a second disseminate every possible aspect of a candidates life to millions of people who then put their own perspective and pass it on to millions more?

Regardless of which candidate you may be supporting in this election, imagine what the next election may be like when even new and improved vetting (and I use that word loosely) avenues are around, and every piece of news, whether accurate or not is instantly downloaded to those cool video glasses with the little monitor that everyone will be wearing in 2012.

Can any candidate actually survive this kind of election? Could any of us survive that kind of scrutiny?

Earmarks need to be ended permanently

Earmarks are generally regarded as specific funding requests by a member of congress to be directed to a home state or district project or organization. These requests are generally outside of specific government agency funding requests and the federal government agency whose appropriation bill the earmark is included in has no authorization or control over the expenditure. According to Taxpayers for Common Sense (www.taxpayer.net) the current FY08 appropriations contain just a hair over $18 billion dollars in totaling $14.8 billion in sponsored congressional requests, and another $3.5 billion dollars in earmarks that had no congressional sponsor identified.

Earmarks are seldom added to an appropriations bill while it is being constructed, but rather during the conference phase where the two houses of the congress get together to work out differences between the two house’s respective legislation. And in this conference phase is where the real “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” of our current political environment comes into play. This is where the seniority of a congress member comes into play, since the more senior a member of congress is, the more likely he or she is going to get their little pet project funding into a piece of legislation, because their support is needed either to support another piece of legislation, or their weight and support for an earmark for a lesser senior member of congress is desired to ensure that earmark gets included.

Much has been made this election year on earmarking by congress, particularly by Senator McCain, who had zero earmarks associated with the FY 08 appropriations, according to TCS, while Senator Clinton had $342.4 million, and Senator Obama had $98.6. Many projects or organizations funded through earmarks are truly worthwhile causes and do bring jobs, funding, and needed projects to the individual state or precinct. The problem with earmarks is that Citizens against Government Waste estimates that 98 percent of earmarks are added during the conference phase, and are not voted on by the full membership of either house as a stand alone appropriation. This behind the scenes back scratching between members of congress puts the rest of the members of congress in the situation of having to vote for critical federal funding legislation as a whole containing the earmarks. If a member decides to vote against a funding bill due to particular earmarks, they risk suffering the backlash from fellow house members, senators, and constituents for holding up needed government appropriations.

Each of the individual earmarks in and of themselves may not seem like a lot of money, but a couple million here and a couple hundred thousand there, multiplied by a little over eleven thousand individual items, and you start talking about real money. The need to remove the ability to insert earmarks into needed pieces of legislation is becoming more and more imperative, at a time when we are running such large deficits, and funding two external wars. If a particular project or organization’s funding is important enough to take a portion of everyone’s tax dollars, then it is important enough to stand alone as an appropriation line item and be subjected to full congress scrutiny as the spending bills are constructed. The time to eliminate earmarks from the federal budget process has come.

Clinton wins PA, Democrats sink more into quicksand

If the trend to this point continues, Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania by an 8 to 10 percent margin over Barack Obama. By winning the state, she does get to chalk up another “big” state win, but will probably fail to put any significant dent into Obama’s pledged delegate lead, and will probably only cut 200,000 out of his 700,000 or so popular vote lead.

While keeping her nomination race alive, it continues to complicate the problems with the Democrat party going into the general election in November whether she or Obama wins the nomination. The super delegates have not completely jumped into the fray and are likely to still end up holding the final trump cards on who gets the nomination in the end.

But the continued split personality of the Democratic party, should be causing some concern for the DNC as it starts thinking of some of the bigger issues that are going to be critical for it in the general election. Many people tend to focus only on the issues of the presidential election, but it is really only a single spoke in what the DNC has to focus on if it wants to break the traditional log jam in congress going forward and get the “super majority” that Pelosi and Reid want to take into the next congress.

If Obama wins, will the stalwart blue collar workers, and over age 65 Democrats of Clinton’s coalition close ranks and support an Obama run. If Clinton wins, will the large African-American, more educated, and youth coalition that he has forged close ranks and support a Clinton run. Neither of these questions can objectively be answered while the nomination race is still continuing.

Outside of the presidential race, the DNC wants to focus on a number of even more important strategies, and a cohesive Democratic party will be absolutely critical to achieve their goals.

If the DNC wants to get a “super majority” in congress they need a presidential candidate that can keep both of these very diverse coalitions together and pull in congressional races on the coat tail, and use the significant increase of registered Democrats to win state victories for the next level down Senate and House races.

In 2010 there will be a national round of reapportioned. To attempt to re-establish a solid Democrat party base across the US instead of the famous Red and Blue state division, they will need both coalitions to help take control of a majority of the State houses and Senates, which will be making the decisions on how districts are reapportioned.

In the next 8 years there is a possibility of 2 Supreme court justices needing to be appointed by the next president. If the DNC hopes to have a Democrat in the White House they will need the entire Democratic party working and driving together to ensure a victory over John McCain in November.

There is a more imperative need for the Democrats than the Republicans to vastly change the political landscape from the state houses, to the congress, and the white house if they are going to be able to overturn what has been a fairly consistent Republican control of congress and the state houses.

The longer this nomination race continues, and particularly if both candidates continue the last two weeks slide into the negative personalized attacks against each other to the point that party can not heal itself without losing half of the total coalition, the Republicans will take not only the White House, but the congress, and the state houses.

This is in my opinion a “do or die” election for the Democrats, and from my view from outside, they are playing with their own future under the sword of Damocles. It is a fine line they are now walking, and given the penchant for political parties to fail to see reality, they are more likely to blow the perfect opportunity than they are to seize it.

How ever it turns out… I’ll still be on the couch with the popcorn and beer, watching it all unfold in November.

Clinton voted to allow gun confiscation during disasters?

With all the hoopla about Obama’s “bitter” remarks and the discussion around gun-control, an interesting sidelight that hasn’t been touched on is a little known amendment voted on in July 2006. The amendment S.Amdt.4615 to H.R.5441 was “To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law”. The vote count was 84 YEAs and only 16 NAYs.

What surprised me was you would think that based on the perception of Obama being a “radical” gun control freak after the uproar following those PA statements, that he should have been one of the NAYs, while Annie Oakley Clinton being taught by her Grandfather to shoot out behind the barn would have been one of the YEAs.

But oh contraire.

Clinton actually voted against prohibiting the confiscation, while Obama voted for the prohibition. Now this might seem like an issue of little importance… but try and tell that to the good folks of New Orleans who by decree of the Mayor had all those “legal” firearms in N.O. confiscated after the disaster of Katrina, and have yet to be completely returned to their rightful owners.

Not surprisingly John McCain was also one of the 84 YEAs that put a halt to a really ridiculous idea.

Now if I was an anti gun control Democrat, I might be thinking “Who’s really on my side if during a major disaster I most likely might actually need this here shot gun?"

Still no knockout by Clinton in the latest debate

On Wednesday night we had the latest in what seems the continuing plethora of Democratic Nominee debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in Pennsylvania.

While nothing new or ground breaking was discussed, other than spending the first half of the debate having Obama asked to respond to every innocuous innuendo, rumor, past association, and phrasing of words. The first half of the debate had to seem to Senator Obama as a planned and executed ambush, with set up questions allowing Senator Clinton ample time to dig into each one with what seemed like a Rovian relish. What was an interesting development was the question to Clinton regarding the “Bosnian Sniper Fire” mis-speak, and Obama’s high road take of not shooting back at Clinton over it, as she had been more than willing to do to the same type of questions to Obama.

Both candidates promised to not raise taxes on the middle class (what ever income that level means anymore). And both gave assurances that they would quickly move to remove combat troops from Iraq.

Both candidates responded to the questioning with articulate and measured tones, and both took their opportunities to take pot shots at the GOP presumptive nominee Senator John McCain.

With this being the 21st debate in this continuing, and seemingly never ending series of debates, there was little new substance, and little more separation between the two on core issues. Whether this has an impact on the upcoming Pennsylvania primary next Tuesday, we’ll have to wait and see. But if Senator Clinton was hoping to use the forum to reverse the rapidly closing Obama in Pennsylvania polls and his increasing lead in national polls, a knockout was required, and it failed to materialize.

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

Time and again, our elected officials are proving that they have no concept of what “providing for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” means anymore.

We have a government establishment hell bent on doing everything to weaken our ability to defend ourselves with totally irrational concepts of preemptive military action. I have yet to talk to anyone who feels or disagrees with our decision to invade Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda and remove the government responsible for supporting the group which was responsible for the largest loss of American lives on US soil by an enemy since Pearl Harbor. But our leaders could not stop there. Instead of completing our task and bringing the culprits to justice, our elected officials either deliberately mislead us, or fabricated the need to invade Iraq to preempt their development of WMDs. Now we have our military in both Afghanistan and Iraq with ever changing objectives and a military that is stretched beyond a sustainable level. At the same time the current administration intensifies the saber rattling at the prospect of a nuclear Iran with growing influence in the region due to our destabilizing actions in Iraq. If some rogue faction was to now actually attack us, we would be without any viable military resources to confront the threat.

We have a government establishment more concerned about propping up support for greed induced meltdowns of companies that propagated close to pyramid schemes of fabricated assets built on sub-prime mortgage paper that was built on predatory lending practices. To further show their support of the financially stressed home owners facing foreclosure, the senate has proposed a bill that would give a $7,000 tax credit to people who buy a home that have been foreclosed, or have had foreclosure filings, which does absolutely nothing for the people actually being foreclosed on, except make it more likely they will lose their home more quickly. The senate bill also gives $25 billion in tax breaks for homebuilders who so over built homes that there was almost no way they could ever possibly sell them. Again our government proposes saving the businesses that primarily drove the crisis while leaving the actual distressed homeowners out in the cold. The only general welfare they seem concerned about is the corporations that have done more to create our current recession than the constituency of American tax payers and homeowners that are left to fend for ourselves.

We have a government that is unwilling to make any positive step to secure our borders and really manage the growing problem of illegal immigration. We have officials asking not to enforce our own laws on immigration because it is bad for business. There is an assault on our American IT workers to have their jobs either supplanted with cheap foreign workers, or having their jobs outright moved to offshore cheap labor markets. Two bills were introduced recently after Bill Gates visited Washington to bemoan the lack of world class employees in the US. The first bill introduced by Representative Lamar Smith would retroactively increase the 2008 H-1B visa cap to 195,000, as well as set that level for fiscal year 2009. The second bill authored by Gabrielle Giffords the same week would increase the cap to 130,000 a year from it’s current cap of 65,000. This blind obedience to Corporate pandering is increasing the pressure on the US middle class by moving the very jobs that we are supposed to be depending on to take us into the future to foreign employees. Even the IEEE-USA pointed out that the decrease in unemployed U.S. high-tech professionals dropped sharply after the reinstatement of the H-1B visa cap to 65,000 in 2004 from 195,000 in 2003. So exactly where is the concern for the welfare of the American people in all this?

Again, and again, our elected officials choose to pander to the corporate CEOs who’s primary objective is their own self interest and corporate greed, without any consideration to the impact to the American worker and tax payer. As Americans it is time for us to fire our dysfunctional and inept employees. We need to examine the records and stands of every political office seeker, and ensure that we vote for a change of our elected officials across the local, state, and federal level to elect people that have the best interests of the American people as their focus. We need to send a message that political business as usual is no longer acceptable. We need to elect officials that are truly concerned and understand the meaning of “providing for the common defense, and promote the general Welfare, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”

We need to use our votes to tell our government that “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”.

Another GAO report.. more of the same Government Waste

Another year, another GAO report ( AP ), more of the same government waste is found. It seems it never ends, or in any case, ever gets better. Every year there seems to be a GAO report or audit that finds that there is continually an issue with government employees wasting tax payer dollars. This time instead of $400 hammers, we are paying for online dating services, steaks and crab, tailor made suits, and my favorite, “women’s lingerie” for “use during jungle training by trainees of a drug enforcement program in Ecuador.” You just know those thongs were much more comfortable in that jungle heat.

To me it isn’t that the GAO found “questionable” expenses, or “some” lack of department controls of expenditures, it is the fact that year after year it continues to pop up as a problem.

Many Americans are struggling to hold on to their homes, afford gas to get to their jobs, and pay their taxes, only to find that time and time again government oversight of expenses are wasting vast amounts of those hard earned dollars. It speaks to the attitude of long standing practices as Senator Norm Coleman stated “Too many government employees have viewed purchase cards as their personal line of credit”. And I agree with his sentiment that “When money that is intended to pay for critical infrastructure, education, and homeland security is instead being spent on iPods, lingerie and socializing, we must immediately remedy the problem.”

But the bigger and more systemic problem is that it will simply die down, only to re-surface with the next GAO report. As is the trend in these situations Senator Carl Levin stated “Although internal controls over government credit cards have improved we still have a long way to go…”, and that seems to be the consistent response.

Our government leaders wonder why there is such cynicism in the American public toward government. All they have to do is look at how they have managed the hard earned money that is given them by that public to get a clue.

Full GAO report can be found here

Thank God Baseball season is 162 games long

Six games into the season, and I'm already hearing folks starting to talk like the Rockies (1-5) season is over, and looking for Broncos tickets :)

If your favorite football team started out 1-5 I could see the dispair.
If your favorite Basketball team started out 1-5 there would be reason for concern.
If your favorite Hockey team started out 1-5 (well I'm having a hard time with this one because all hockey is, is boxing on skates :) )

But let's get real. Baseball season is a 162 game grind. It is meant to average out the slumps, and the streaks so that "on average" the best teams get to the playoffs.

Maybe the problem is with our penchant for instant gratification, that we groan so much at each loss, and get so euphoric at each win.

Baseball season is a long and winding road. Six games means little, if anything in the longer scope of the season. Now if the Rockies are still sub .500 at the end of April... I "might" start worrying a little bit :)

Why I am supporting Obama

The following was distilled from my postings on a political forum where I went into depth on why I am supporting Obama.

Let me start off by saying, I'm not a Democrat, I am however a former Republican, so I have a bit of a luxury in looking at the Democratic presidential nomination race with a little bit of a different slant. And my view at this point and my gut tells me that Obama is likely to end up the Democratic presidential nominee, and eventual general election winner. And I'll even tell you why I think that.

In the debates on January 5th in Manchester, Hillary Clinton while on the attack against Obama made the following statement attacking his ability to actually make change happen, "As beautifully presented, as passionately presented as they are, words are not action," Clinton said. This one small view into the differences between the two main Democratic candidates is what my gut tells me will make Obama the winner.

There is something, and you can't put your finger on it, that comes across and grabs you when Barack Obama speaks. And the major problem for Hillary Clinton is that she doesn't recognize that words, presented with passion, and commitment can indeed lead to action. Now I'm not going to sit here and say that I believe every thing that Barack Obama is promising in his speeches, but I can't deny that I "hope" that he means what he says.

Over the last forty some odd years there have not been any Democratic candidates that could remind me of the connections that JFK, and RFK had with the youth of America. What I sense, and feel is starting to happen, is that a growing number of young people disenchanted with the status quo of the nearly last half century of politics, feel that in Obama is a real chance to try a different path.For us baby boomers, who can remember back to the JFK and RFK era, at least to me, there is the same ability to appeal to the "better nature" of Americans, and move that to the front of the platform.

When Obama refuses to make folks pay a penalty for not buying health care when they can't afford it, and Clinton bangs him for it, the attack only strengthens his position. What Hillary has forgotten is, people don't buy health insurance now because they can't afford it. To argue that you have to penalize people already in financial straights with a monetary penalty for not buying something you are dictating they have to buy, when they couldn't afford it in the first place, shows a serious disconnect with common people.

And in the end the reason will be because despite what Hillary Clinton believes, beautifully presented and passionately delivered words CAN move people to incredible actions and change. Just ask the millions of 1960s youth who were moved to action by the beautifully presented and passionately delivered words of a couple of earlier Democrats.

To a degree for me, this isn’t an election between Democrats and Republicans as much as it is a repudiation of “traditional” politics. Both Clinton and McCain are products of the same extreme political machinations that have seen our national and state governments locked up into statues of partisan bickering inaction. And whether or not Obama can fulfill my hopes of moving past this morass, I don’t know, but I do know that not voting for him almost certainly ensures the current “traditional” political environment remains intact. And to me that is no longer an acceptable outcome.

Do I agree with Obama on all the issues? Not at all. In fact I disagree with him on gun control, funding of the UN poverty initiatives with US taxes, and I disagree with his priorities on immigration.

Where I do heavily agree with Obama on the issues is on Health care, Foreign policy, the Economy, and on Education.

In the final analysis, for me at this point, it is a choice between continuing the status quo process of political bickering dead lock, or move to a state where bridges are built across our political divides to ensure a working government that is responding to it’s constituents. One thing in addition, that Obama has driven me to do is to take “serious” looks at the State and Local political candidates, and look for the same qualities of bipartisan gridlock and look to remove those obstacles in the coming election as well. But I am only one voter. My only “hope” is that more people are interested in moving past the same hurdles that I see, and are willing to take a serious chance for changing the landscape.

As I said there are specific areas that I disagree with Obama on some of his stands.

First: Gun Control
I firmly do not believe in legislative gun control. There is more than enough statistical evidence both here in the US and particularly in the UK that proves that gun control does NOT reduce gun related crimes. And in fact the data from the UK strongly indicates that it has exactly the opposite effect.

Second: US tax to support UN poverty initiatives
Until we have our own house in order, and have effectively delt with the growing disparity between income classes here in the US, and specifically done something to reduce the poverty level here at home, I don't think we should be going anywhere with US tax dollars to deal with other country's poverty problems.

Third: Priorities on immigration
I do not agree with the priorities Obama has on dealing with the massive illegal immigration problem. I am steadfastly in favor of securing our border and ports as the most important factor in dealing with illegal immigration. Once that is completed, and we can actually control our flow of incoming immigrants, then I am willing to discuss the issues of what to do with those already here.

Another area where I am not in lock step with Obama on is his energy program. While I agree with his proposals for moving quicker on renewable energy sources, and higher CAFE standards, I also think these things will take time, and in the meantime, we need to be more proactive in opening more components of our own oil/nat gas reserves to drilling in order to bridge the gap until more renewable energy resources come on line.

I've covered some of the issues that I disagree with Obama on, and on the flip side there are issues that I STRONGLY agree with Obama on.

First: Economy
His stands on the negotiation, implementation, and ENFORCEMENT of Fair trade agreements, is in these times of "outsourcing" is critical in my view of ensuring that American workers are not put in a disadvantage while operating in a global economy. I believe in Fair Trade, not Free Trade. To date our practice of negotiating open trade agreements have only benefited the countries we have signed them with while not enforcing the fair trade aspects. I also agree with his stands on Labor Unions, and supporting both their right to unionize, battleing against the efforts such as the NLRB's rulings that professional workers such as nurses are not protected by federal labor laws. I also agree with the raising of the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation. I also support his stands on addressing predatory Credit Card practices.

Second: Foreign Policy
He is the only one of the remaining three candidates that stood firmly against our invasion of Iraq. Many have said he was lucky, but it is something that the "proof" provided by the administration provided that I myself did not find significant enough to go to war over, and take our priorities from the Afghanistan theater, and the pursuit of the Al Qaeda leaders who directly assaulted us. I also believe that our current foreign policy stand of not talking with countries we have differences continues to put us in a unmanageable position of either not partaking in ANY diplomacy, or using military force to enforce our will. I also agree with his stand that we need to strengthen and expand the military so that it remains the most effective military force. Many people argue that because he is a Democrat that he will gut the military, but there has never been a statement or implied indication that he would do anything other work to improve and strengthen the military.

Third: Health Care
I firmly believe that affordable and effective Health Care is a "right" that every American deserves. The current market driven method of dispensing health care to Americans has done little to ensure affordable health care, but has instead put the profits of the corporations ahead of human care needs. Health care providers continue to increase costs, more and more limits on health care coverage, while focusing on profits. The reason I side with Obama instead of Clinton on this issue is because Obama's focus is on reducing costs and making health insurance affordable, where Clinton continues to focus on the "mandatory" implementation of health insurance. As I said in the original post the idea of penalizing families for not buying health insurance when they simply can't afford it in the first place, with financial penalties is showing a disconnection from the underlying problem.

Fourth: Education
Our education system is the foundation that the rest of our country is built on. His plans to reform NCLB by actually making the money that was promised available, rather than just making a law and leaving it unfunded. But primarily I support his initiatives to support and reward the ones who make the decision to Teach our youth. For too long the focus has been on institutions, programs, buildings, while the plight of our Teachers has been ignored. If we are going to effectively educate our next generations, we need to put the resources, funding, and rewards in place to bring more, and qualified teachers into the system, and then make sure they are rewarded for doing what is a critical job.

Freedom of the Press under attack?

“Attorney General Michael Mukasey and three other top Bush administration officials are weighing in against legislation that would allow reporters to protect the identities of confidential sources who provide sensitive, sometimes embarrassing information about the government.” (CNN article)

One of the foundations of journalism is the confidentiality of sources. And with the administration weighing in on a bill that would specifically safe guard that foundation, we move one step closer to another loss of Constitutional freedoms for the sake of perceived national security needs.

If we allow the growing trend of “contempt of court” punishments for journalists who refuse to divulge confidential sources, we put at stake the very foundation of a free and unfettered press intended to investigate, and inform the public.

To note just of a few of the most dramatic modern examples of reporters breaking stories with confidential sources that may not have been broken otherwise: David Halberstam's critical reporting from Vietnam; publication of The Pentagon Papers; Woodward and Bernstein's revelations about the Watergate break-in; details of the Iran-Contra scandal; the existence of secret CIA interrogation centers; and the recent revelations of extralegal spying by the National Security Agency.

By not protecting the right of a journalist to protect their sources, the likelihood of anyone in government to provide information, knowing that they can easily be exposed with simple “contempt of court” decisions, seems to me, extremely reduced.

One of the arguments used in opposition to the proposed bill, “In a separate letter, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the nation would be more vulnerable to "adversaries' counterintelligence efforts to recruit" those shielded by the bill.” Is Mr Gates implying that if the shield law is passed, that it then becomes “open season” to the recruitment of journalists by foreign intelligence agencies? I think we are placing a very low perception of the patriotism of our journalists if we agree with that view.

“Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the bill would erect roadblocks to gathering information "from anyone who can claim to be a journalist, including bloggers" and Internet service providers.” This was particularly disturbing, since DHS with the enactment of the Patriot Act has been given almost carte blanc to investigate anyone deemed a possible “domestic terrorist”, which in recent disclosures have indicated that the FBI even broke those rules when performing investigations.

The more disturbing trend of the arguments by the administration against the shield law, is once again the mantra of “national security” which has been used as a bludgeon against American rights and civil liberties to facilitate broad, intrusive, and secret government actions aimed at our own nation’s citizens.

If we allow the defeat of this shield law by the administration, could we be allowing ourselves to gag the one institution that is primarily our only means of being informed of government misbehavior, and improper conduct? If journalists can not uncover corruption in government because sources won’t come forward, without the guarantee of confidentiality, how will we the people be able to watch and be informed of the actions of our government?

Bernanke finally admits that there is a recession risk?

Bernanke speaking before a congressional committee ( CNN article ) said he wasn't yet prepared to declare that the economy has fallen into a recession. But later stated "It now appears likely that real gross domestic product will not grow much, if at all, over the first half of 2008 and could even contract slightly," Now if that, coupled with a total melt down in the mortgage/housing market, sky rocketing fuel prices, and his acknowledgement that he expects further rises in unemployment, I have no better definition of what a recession is.

We have the president continuing with his head in the sand mantra that the economy is strong, and the Fed bailing out or capitulating to Wall Street in providing cheap loans, while the US dollar continues to plummet, homeowners bear the brunt of the mortgage crisis, middle class Americans are pummeled with increasing unemployment, and higher and higher fuel costs.

If there was ever a point in time where Americans can look at the statements of our elected and appointed officials, and wonder what planet they live on, now is that time.

Finally, something other than Politics

Yesterday, one of my favorite passions got underway again, and it is not the political bickering between Obama, Clinton, and McCain. Even though I had to wait an extra day due to heavy rain in St Louis, the Rockies 2008 opening season game is now official.

Baseball, despite all the steroids scandals of last year, continues to take one back to their youth, and times when the world wasn't such a scary place to live in. There is something about watching your favorite team pitching, hitting, and catching, that if you squint just right, you can see yourself back when you were in your teens, doing the same thing in the vacant lot down the street.

You may not make as much money as those professional players you are watching on the big screen, but you can close your eyes, listen to the commentary, and almost see yourself standing at the plate in the top of the 9th with the bases loaded, 2 out, and the game tied 1-1. Watching baseball, for all it's player's faults, the mega money, the occasional scandals, still takes one back to their youth, where the world was safer, the air was a bit cleaner, the sun shone just a bit brighter, and your very first girl friend cheered you on from the stands.

There isn't anything complex about baseball. You pitch the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. All the complexities of modern life fades away into the simplicity of the game, and you can forget the report due to the boss next week on the 3rd variable derivatives of the sub-prime mortgage lending practices.

Baseball is a game, a simple game, a game of our youth. A game that can keep us young in spirit, and heart, if we just close our eyes, and imagine.

Oh by the way... The Rockies beat the Cardinals 2-1. One game down 161 games to go. :)