Obama will have trouble getting beyond Rev. Wright

First I want to state that I believe Barak Obama has a good heart and I take him at his word that he wants to get beyond racial identities. He has condemned the words of his pastor without condemning the man. I expected that and see no hypocrisy in this. That in itself is going to make it tough to get beyond it. Here are the reasons.

1. He is unknown. By me saying I believe his words I am relying on my judgement to be able to judge people. That is really all we have. Senator Obama has a very short track record. He is a third year Senator. Very little public service before that. For right or wrong we know Hillary Clinton and John McCain. For good or bad their lives are an open book. When they say something controversial we can look at a lifetime in public life and make an educated guess as to whether that is consistent or inconsistent with their values. Senator Obama has a harder time simply because we don't know him.

2. He is a progressive through and through. Whether you call him liberal, progressive or even socialist he is that in every fiber of his being. What we know is that progressives believe that they have the answers and should be put in charge of setting the course for the rest of us. Note he is capable of seeing beyond the words of his pastor who has made villains of whites and the nation as a whole. He sees the good in him. People who disagree with him politically don't get that benefit of the doubt. People who would turn more to the private sector are seen as paying off special interests. Those of us who believe in free trade are seen as exporting jobs. Those of us who believe that the private sector is to be relied on for improving health care are accused of being in the pocket of the health care lobby. Howard Dean has said that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals care that children go to bed hungry at night. While Obama has not gone to the extent his implications are the same.

3. He sees groups and not people. Whites have had to decide for a very long time whether or not to accept evil action from their 'own kind'. Far too many whites for far too long did not speak out against evil. Slavery, Jim Crow, Bull Connor. These are all the shame of whites looking the other way. In recent decades more and more whites pronounce evil when they see it. Prominent blacks must do the same. They must teach that calling the United States the UN-KKK-A is not something to disagree with it is an evil sentiment. Where is the difference between this and the whites who proclaimed blacks less than a whole person? Increasingly whites set themselves apart from the neanderthals that still harbor racist views. While I understand I cannot identify with the feelings of black America, the people who consider themselves leaders must encourage excellence and not victim hood. They must do this for the preservation of the young black men that are tearing themselves apart. To group all whites into the KKK of the Jim Crow south is not only not fair, it is not productive.

Barak Obama must continue to run a non race based campaign. I believe this is his intention. he also must run a group free campaign. I do not believe that is his intention. The Democratic party is so immersed in group-ism they can't help themselves. He must fulfill what we expect of a president, he or she should inspire us to be better than we were yesterday, not put your hand out for what the country can give them. He won't be able to that and it may cost him. The polish is off from his exterior. Now his substance must come through. I don't think he has enough to shine through. He has no new ideas, no new inspiration. You may as well substitute his speeches with George McGovern. There are no discernible differences.

There is a little Eliot Spitzer in all of us

If you are looking for a defense for the former Governor read somewhere else. Likewise his colorful partner in crime. No this column is a admission of humanities' dark side.

Whatever we like to think we have a dark side. Every one of us. Most of keep it under control. Either through faith in God or some other force within us. It could be the opposite sex as in Spitzers case. It could be gambling, it could be booze, it could be any substance or activity. That thing we love to do and turn to when we are a little down. Maybe once in a while we like it a little too much. The difference between a junkie and functioning citizen is that the functioning citizen knows how to keep their dark side at bay.

Eliot Spitzer apparently had everything most people could want. Power, good family, more money than anyone could want, but it wasn't enough. I am strangely drawn to this story. While disgusted with the man and the girl, I am curious what makes someone risk everything and I mean everything for something a little dangerous. This can be nothing short of mental illness.

This subject has been the stuff of songs, tragic poems, Greek tragedies, yet we are no closer to understanding it. If we could than maybe we could find a way to avoid it. Maybe the reason is similar to what I write about frequently. As a society we want to find a macro solution. We think a pill or a government program or something can fix these problems. No the problems that people like Eliot Spitzer have are personal and I expect lonely. I expect he carries with him a lonely secret deep inside him. A void that has not be filled with traditional means. That void can only be filled with the dark side of his being. The problem is, as usual when you fill up on the dark side it is hollow. It is filled for the moment, but when it is over you are more empty than before. You need to fill up on goodness. This is not a piece about faith but for me, god and family are the only way to keep my own dark side at bay. For his own sake I pray that Mr. Spitzer can find a way to keep his dark side at bay. I hope for the same thing for his prostitute as well. Only the dark side of human beings could send someone into the field she has chosen. Mostly I pray that we all find a way to control our own dark side.

Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer

Your assignment: Compare and contrast Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer and their sex scandals. On the surface not much is the same other than the fact that they are horn dogs who got caught.

Both committed crimes but only one was expected to resign. This one is for New York Democrats. Since many Democrats felt that former Gov. Spitzer should resign, tell me why Bill Clinton should not have. As you remember Clinton was having an affair with an of age intern. No crime there. He lied under oath in a civil suit. Perjury is a felony. Spitzer committed a multitude of crimes. Asking him to step down is a no-brainer. That is a given, but the argument as to why he should resign and the Bill should not have I believe breaks down.

In the case of Clinton the act was not illegal but in the case of Spitzer the act was illegal. This of course is the biggest difference. Anyone making the case I mentioned above will of course point this out. I think it has to do with more. At first the Clinton story was icky. Many people can relate to a man cheating on the job (I didn't say condone I said identify). Very few people man or women can identify with a man contracting a hooker high price or not. I think very few people can identify with dropping $5,000 for sex. The lack of personal identification I believe has a lot to do with the different treatment. Most people at least know of someone who has cheated on their spouse. I can't think of anyone in my life that has been with a hooker. Again knowing of someone is not the same as condoning.

Another big difference I see is one of person and political capitol. Bill Clinton was loved by people in his party. They were willing to look the other way at his sleaze. Eliot Spitzer by all indications didn't have a lot of people watching his back. Politically he seems to have been a brass knuckle politician who seemed to enjoy destroying people. When that type of person goes wrong, not a lot of people are willing to go to bat for you.

The moral of the story? Lots of them. Sleaze is not limited to one party. If you are going to be slimy, make some friends on the way up. If you are going to be the moral avenger maybe it would be a good idea to know what morals are.

The real moral? We are the voters and the employers of these people. If you are voting for someone because they have the best chance of winning, you may end up with slime ball.

Scratch Beginnings

I was struck by the story of a young man I heard on a talk show. His name is Adam Shepard. He wrote a book called Scratch Beginnings Me, $25 and the search for the American Dream. I have ordered the book that he wrote from his experience. I have not read it yet so I can't comment on the content as of yet.


As his intro tells he was growing frustrated over whining and materialism. These are issues I get frustrated about a lot. The difference is he did something about it. He went out on the road for one year with $25 and the clothes on his back. His challenge was to become a productive member of society with $2500, a place to live and an operable automobile.

He rightly points out that he did not have some of the challenges that others have such as a family to take care of, or lack of education etc. That to me underscores the importance of completing your education and that you can control that. Statistics show that people who achieve at least a high school diploma are much less likely to live in poverty.

This young man points out that he comes at this from no political point of view and has no political agenda. I respect that. I am amazed by his story and look forward to reading his book. A young man of action is someone to be modeled. This man seems to fit that criteria.

Boot straps for me but not for thee

Barak Obama is a great story. This man has accomplished so much. This is the story of a self made man. Why then does he sell victim hood?

He obviously believes the things he says. He tells people he is selling hope. He is selling change. He is telling people that they can't make it because the special interests have stacked the deck against them. Did the special interests stop him and his wife? I don't think so.

He did not turn to the government to accomplish what he has. Is he smarter than everyone else? He is very smart, but I don't think that is the answer. Is he more talented than us? Again he is talented but I don't know if that is the answer. We all have varied talents and use them in varying degrees.

From where I sit I think when someone made it on their own but tells me that we cannot, I don't see that as hope, I see it as hubris. I don't think he intends it that way, but that is how it sounds to me.

We can't afford Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton. Not just in money although certainly that is true. We can't afford the affects done to the people at the bottom of the ladder. We can't have four or eight years of our President telling us they did it themselves, but you can't do it without them.

They have promised to bring jobs back to Ohio. How exactly? by raising the taxes? They have promised to provide universal health care, how exactly? I have written time and time again that their plans will end up in rationing of care. They can lead by inspiring others, not by being our mommy and daddy. Shameful!! It isn't easy to pull yourself up, but his story and literally thousands of other stories show it can be done. Let's follow that story of Senator Obama, not the victimhood story he is portraying in his campaign.

Your brain on universal health care

The state of Oregon tried a bold experiment. They were going to provide universal health care. More precisely it was intended to provide health insurance to those not covered between existing government plans and private sector plans. I nice idea, and idea full of good feelings.

I have written this before. As the price of a good goes down the demand goes up. As the economy moves toward a downside in the business cycle the money the government takes in goes down as taxes collected goes down. That does not change the fact that they made commitments. What happens next? Budget cuts and service cuts. This will happen if the federal government wades into health care as well. The federal government can just print money by borrowing. States generally cannot, most states have a requirement to balance their budget.

What are the answers then? There of course are problems in the way we deliver health care insurance. The answers are not to be found in government. The are to be found in the private sector. They answers have to be in reducing costs. Subsidized care from the government only reduces prices. Costs and prices are not the same.

Medical Savings accounts. Let people control more of their medical spending. They will decide if the test being ordered by the doctor is necessary. Instead of the traditional setup where the company tells you what is covered and what is not. Deposit an amount into a Medical Savings account and let them control it. For catastrophic events carry a supplemental insurance plan at a much lower price. When people control their health care they will use it more wisely. Too many people see it as 'free' It is far from free.

Open up health insurance beyond state boundaries. Let insurance companies compete outside of their own state. As the commercial says when lenders compete you win. When insurers compete you also win.

Take steps to unlink health care from our jobs. President Bush had some interesting ideas on this earlier in this term. All were dead on arrival.

Further reform tort reform. The more doctors of all specialties get sued the more tests they will order. They have to do this as documentation when they get sued. Take away the medical lottery when things go bad and you will have doctors ordering the tests that are really needed and not practicing defensive medicine.

These are only the tip of the iceberg. The Heritage Foundation has done great work on this. I truly recommend them as a resource. They have much better info than I do.

All over the country we see state health care plans failing to live up to promises. Do we really want this to happen nationally?

Am I my brothers keeper

This week is the Ohio primary. Of course the Republican nomination is not really in doubt. That makes the Democratic primary much more interesting even though I am not voting in it. Both Senators have spent a great deal of money on advertising (much to my chagrin while I watch M*A*S*H* reruns). One of the ads that Barak Obama is playing a lot is that his quest is because he believes we are our brothers' keeper. I actually agree with him. Now comes the $64,000 question: How best do we accomplish this?

This question has been answered since people started studying economics. Is the private sector or the private sector better equipped to help. Of course markets do not attempt to perform justice. The market only sets a price. Men and women provide the good or bad. Handing over control to the government for any one action does not eliminate the market for a good or service, it only becomes a player (unless it is nationalized of course).

My question is this: are people better helped by a growing economy, or a government handout? I believe a growing economy. Are people better able to increase their standard of living using government assistance or getting an education and working through the private sector? I believe the private sector. Are people better served by a government health care system or by working to get insurance in the private sector? This one is the gray area to some. Every time we see a government health care plan, services are rationed in time. This has never not happened.

What Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are promising in essence is security. You can depend on a subsistence living if something bad happens. Freedom must be taken away to make that happen. You must take the money to pay for that security. The individuals and corporations that pay the most cannot use that money to start businesses, to expand businesses, to invest in start ups, to purchase big ticket items that put workers to work. It of course doesn't stop with the rich. Middle class and poor are also affected. The more money that is taken away is the less money that can be saved for their kids college, for a newer more dependable car which would help the auto industry, to get their kids better clothes. Someones freedom has to be interrupted to deliver that security.

If while taking freedom away it could be measured that the programs work, you could still make an argument for these programs, but since the track record of government interventions is abysmal how can we continue to make this argument? I just can't fathom. All that considered, what is the best way to help my brother in need? I say get the government out of security. I can make a case for helping people who truly can't help themselves, the disabled, the mentally ill, the terminally ill. I cannot imagine a good case for security for people down on their luck. The safety net has become a straight jacket. It just isn't compassionate. How to help those people? Charity organizations and human compassion. If we could magically take the money spent on welfare and give it to inner city charities, which would do the most good? I think the answer is obvious.