Home

The Petition

The Route

Journal

Support
& Contact

Gallery

Bill's View

Music

Links

Wednesday, June 25:
Proverbs 29:18 - Where there is no vision, the people perish.

We are, by nature, a people of vision. It is in our genes. In the seventeenth century people arrived on the Atlantic shores from ancient and established civilizations. We can imagine the riches of a new land that greeted them, but we tend to forget the actuality of being plunged into a totally primitive existence in an unfamiliar place where the elements were unforgiving and often deadly. Entire colonies disappeared, ravaged by disease, the elements or starvation. But people continued to come, propelled by a vision.

In the eighteenth century the framers of our republic crafted the documents that would provide the foundation of our society. They expressed noble truths that they knew for certain would not bear fruit in their own lifetimes, but this did not deter them from their vision - and we became a nation.

Throughout the nineteenth century people of vision pushed westward through nearly unimagineable trial and hardship, propelled by a vision that once again was not necessarily for themselves, but rather a hope of what the future might hold for their children's childen.

During the twentieth century we fought wars that threatened the very fabric of civilization. We struggled to achieve equality for genders and races. And even as some of those struggles continue today we can understand that many gave their entire lives for the vision that those who followed them would be able to enjoy the freedoms and the peace that they themselves would never know.

Vision has been bred into us for four hundred years. We are a people of vision.

Yet even with this heritage, during the first decade of the twenty-first century we seem to have lost our prophets, our visionaries and our dreamers. They have been supplanted by the shill, the con artist and the grifter. We have, in a very short period of time, given up completely on the vision of what we might be able to craft for our progeny, trading it for immediate self-gratification, acquisition of personal wealth - and entertainment.

Perhaps the first manifestation of this sea change was the dot com phenomenon. The internet was expanding exponentially and the lure of quick profit became a madness. It wasn't necessary for a budding internet operation to have a solid business plan - or even a rational idea of how it would make a profit. With the realization that money follows money, investors poured cash into anything related to the internet. Many of them did not understand what they were doing - but many did. The idea was to pump the phenomenon fast and hard...and get out before anyone started asking the hard questions. The term for the concept is gaming the system. And the dot com system was gamed until it inevitably tipped over; those who understood what was going on became rich, while those who did not lost everything.

In essence, we became a casino society. When the dot com casino was sucked dry, the real estate market became the casino. Housing prices soared well beyond the means of the average person, but mortgage brokers and financial institutions convinced the gullible and hopeful that they, too, could grab a piece of the pie. Families with mid five digit incomes bought mid six digit homes, convinced that they could get in, grab their piece of the action and get out before it all collapsed. Some did. Many did not.

Meanwhile, Enron gamed the electricity markets in much the same way. The few at the top walked away unharmed while many lost everything - and all of us paid the bill. And now that the housing casino is inexorably collapsing, the latest flim-flam has become the oil market, where your retirement fund administrators are pouring your future pension dollars into oil futures - money following money - hoping they'll be able to yank out a heavy profit before it, too, folds.

If individuals did these things they would be arrested for running a pyramid operation - a Ponzi scheme. But when corporations and organizations do it, it's called free market enterprize. Perhaps without even knowing it, we have become a nation of gamblers rather than a people of vision. And the hard and fast truth about gambling is that the house always wins. Yet we continue to gamble. We continue to be attracted by the shill, the con, the flim-flam.

Our politicians have followed the action. They have observed how effective the con can be and have adapted to it effortlessly. They are astute enough to know the difference between what we say we want and what we actually want, so they employ the appropriate words and phrases that assure us they're not running a con - and they run the con. But we cannot blame our politicians - the blame is ours. We demand that our politicians be honest; we badger them to tell us the truth. But if they actually have the temerity to tell us the truth we recoil in shock and horror as the truth forces us to confront our prejudices and frailties. We recognize that the process of maturing and acquiring wisdom is evidenced when we realize that what we once believed to be wise and proper has, through our accumulation of additional information, proven to be faulty or incomplete...and we adjust our views based on our newly acquired knowledge. But we have adopted the stance that this very process of growth, progress and wisdom, if evidenced by our politicians, must be called flip-flopping or waffling - and we punish them severely whenever we catch them at it.

Rather than offer us vision, they offer us a gas tax holiday. They know it's a con; most of us know it's a con. But cons are attractive. We want to believe we can knock all the milk bottles over. We want to believe the wheel isn't weighted, the cards aren't marked. So we buy the con. And the con can be elaborate. We can have an entire war with (almost) nobody even noticing it. So a few thousand young men and women are slaughtered. Pay no attention ladies and gentlemen - we're Winning! We can run an entire government and continue to spend what is now trillions of dollars without even asking you to pay for it - as a matter of fact, we'll even give you some money back. Never mind that the bill will come due to your great-great grandchildren - you're having a good time, aren't you? And that's what it's all about, isn't it?

And so the casino model rolls on, relentlessly becoming the persona of the early part of the twenty-first century. The wealthy become wealthier, the powerful become more powerful, and the ordinary citizen, blinded by the allure of the con, never quite comes to grips with the fact that the house always wins. The con is built again and again, always collapsing as it must, leaving untold devastation in its wake, but unfailingly enriching those who run the con.

The only threat to the casino nation is in our genes. It is vision. The only thing that can stop the relentless slash-and-burn of the con is the memory of the value of vision - and a conscious decision to place our vision once more above all else. Offshore drilling, tax stimulus checks and unregulated markets are the small payouts that keep us pumping coins into the slot - and prevent us from reclaiming our vision. If we do not soon return to an allegiance to a vision of what the future will hold for our children's children we are about to discover that they will have no future.

We must seek out leaders with vision - not vision for tomorrow of for the next quarter or the next decade; but a vision for our nation one hundred years from now - a hundred and fifty years and two hundred years from now. We must grasp that working toward the realization of that vision is more important than our immediate comfort, our personal pleasure - even our own lives. And we must realize that a vision such as commiting our children to a hundred years of military presence in the Middle East as we try to salvage the greatest blunder in the history of our republic is not a vision at all - it is a nightmare.

We have abandoned our vision for the lure of the con. A decade of this abandonment should be enough to demonstrate to us that we have quite literally sold our birthright and must now begin to undo what - in our madness - we have done. We must return to being guided by our vision.

Because where there is no vision, the people perish.

Wednesday, June 18:I happened upon a neat little article on Slate.com last night by Christopher Beam. Mr. Beam had a wonderful idea I wish I would have thought of myself. But since I didn't, I wanted to include it here. Rather than tossing you through a link (and hoping that Mr. Beam and Slate don't mind), here's the article:
"The Barack Obama presidential campaign introduced a new site last week, FightTheSmears.com, that it hopes will debunk persistent myths about the senator: that he's a Muslim, that he won't say the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. As we have argued before, restating the myths often reinforces them, no matter how persuasively they've been refuted.
Rather than restate untruths about Obama, the campaign would do better to start some rumors of its own. Here's a template e-mail the Obama campaign might consider disseminating.
From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?
There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American's duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.
Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.
Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, "WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL." Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.
A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.
Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.
Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.
Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It's upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.
There's only one artist on Barack Obama's iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.
Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.
Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.
Barack Obama's new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.
Barack Obama's skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.
Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.
Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME."
While I didn't come up with the idea, I thought of several rumors that could be added to such an email campaign. After all, if they believe what's out there already the sky's the limit, wouldn't you agree? Here's a few of my own contributions:
Michelle Obama has sung the NATIONAL ANTHEM at the opening of fifty-seven CHICAGO CUBS games over the past eight years. Many of these can be viewed on YouTube.
Barack Obama's most cherished POSSESSION (not counting the BIBLE given to him by BILLY GRAHAM and his SMITH & WESSON 9mm nickel plated Custom Engraved Model 559) is his collection of DALE EARNHARDT memorabilia.
Barack Obama does not have a favorite SPORTS TEAM but instead always roots for whichever team has the largest AMERICAN FLAG flying over its stadium.
Michelle Obama's role model is VANNA WHITE. Her lifelong ambition has been to appear as BETTY WHITE'S partner on the game show PASSWORD.
Barack Obama's first JOB as a young man was as a member of the CHICAGO touring company of UP WITH PEOPLE.
Barack Obama's DIET consists chiefly of BEER (Bud, Hamms or PBR) and FRIED PORK RINDS.
Barack Obama is mentioned - by name - seventeen times in the BIBLE. Among the PROPHECIES about him is this one in ISAIAH 32:21-27: "And it shall come to pass that a man shall appear, dark of countenance and tall of stature, from the great city on the shores of the Sea of Michigan, and his name shall be called Obama. Under his reign peace shall come to the nations, the Western kingdom shall prosper, and gasoline will sell for $1.29 per cubic cubit. And when all this has come to pass the Cubs shall win the World Series. Selah."
The WORLD must know the TRUTH about BARACK OBAMA. Forward this email immediately to twenty of your closest friends. DO NOT BREAK THE CHAIN! A woman in PARMA forwarded this email to fifty of her friends and the following day won the INDIANAPOLIS 500. A man in TULSA deleted the email and BROKE THE CHAIN. Two days later his pet FERRET spontaneously combusted, tried to escape from its FLAMING FUR under his bed, and his ENTIRE HOME was lost in the ensuing blaze.
I could add more, but I'll let you come up with your own. Feel free to toss this out there. Ah, the power of the internet - isn't it a magnificent thing?

Wednesday, June 4: On Racism, Sexism and the Democratic Primary: The Democratic Party primaries and caucuses are finally and thankfully over. We now have - I sincerely hope - a definitive nominee - Senator Barack Obama. But the rancor and ill-will that has marked (marred) this process continues, and I fear it will continue for some time to come. Unless and until we are able to come to grips with our true selves and our true motivations I fear that there remains a strong possibility that our individual and collective weaknesses have the potential to completely destroy the promise the upcoming election holds for our nation.

The trouble is that we rarely, if ever, are comfortable conducting an open and honest evaluation of ourselves and our motivations. But unless we do, we will continue to be driven by baser motives that will ultimately serve only to tear us apart. Maybe my words and observations will be helpful - maybe they won't. But if there is even the smallest hope that I might be able to contribute to an honest evaluation or a deeper insight, then I at least have to try - so here goes.

There are two related questions I want to address: (1) Did sexism (overt or covert) destroy Senator Clinton's campaign? (2) Did racism impact Senator Obama's campaign - and will it have an impact on his candidacy?

Did Sexism Destroy Senator Clinton's Campaign? The short answer - No. Now for the reasoning behind the short answer.

First, there is the personal experience element. I work with a rather eclectic group of people from all sorts of backgrounds, but if you wanted to pigeonhole the lot, you would have to say that it is a predominantly male, predominantly working-class group. We talk about many things and I hear many opinions - ranging from the insightful, reality based to the off-the-wall, mindless. I will tell you that throughout this long process of primaries, while I have heard any number of strange assertions about all the candidates, I have never once heard anyone object to Clinton's candidacy based on her gender. Not once. I have to admit that this is quite a surprise. I fully expected that I'd encounter some of that - but I've witnessed none.

True, there are many who have expressed an intense dislike for Clinton, but it has been consistently based on the fact that she is a Clinton rather than the fact that she is a female. I predicted as much very early in my journaling when I first began to talk about the various candidates seeking the Democratic Party nomination. Way back then I wrote that I didn't feel Clinton would be a wise choice for the nominee because there exists such a large contingent of people out there possessed of an intense, irrational hatred for the Clintons that by the time the election rolled around they would have a significant portion of the voting public convinced that while her husband was in office she was spending her time sacrificing babies during midnight ceremonies on the White House lawn. It was this hatred - which has nothing whatsoever to do with her gender - that I believed would make her unelectable.

Second, there is the evidence of the internet. The internet has become an invaluable source of information. It has also, through the phenomena of blogs and reader feedback, served to expose the absolute worst of who we are. If you want to despair about the potential of our society as a whole, just spend some time reading through the responses people contribute(?) to articles posted on various news websites. Many of them are totally incoherent - and most of them are essentially vile expressions of hatred, intolerance, prejudice and ignorance.

Yet here, in what has come - at least in my mind - to represent a cross section of humanity at its very worst, I have found little if any evidence of sexism - even sexism couched in some other rationale - directed at Clinton. An excellent example of the point can be found on Snopes.com, a website devoted to addressing a continually growing body of urban legend, myth and rumor. Snopes has a section dealing with politics, and within that section it has separate subsections dealing with rumors about major political figures. If you examine the entries concerning the Clintons, you will find that of the many scurrilous attacks that have circulated over the past decade or so, there is only one that could be construed as sexist - and that was a silly bit that long predated the primaries.

The fact is that, contrary to what one might expect, the ugly face of sexism directed at Clinton hasn't shown itself - even on the internet - during this campaign. Notice how I phrased that, because sexism has indeed appeared, but not as I would have expected. It may be difficult to believe, but the vast majority of the sexist remarks and attitudes I've encountered have not been aimed at Clinton, but rather directed at others in her defense...by her own supporters!

A representative sample of this bizzarre phenomenon can be witnessed in an article posted at the New York Observer not long ago. The article, by a Steve Kornacki, was about Nancy Pelosi. Mr. Kornacki came to the not-unsupportable conclusion that Pelosi's insistence that the party needed to come together quickly behind a candidate constituted an implied endorsement of Senator Obama. The sexism I mentioned was not in the article, but rather in the responses of readers to that article. Here's a sampling of those responses (I hope you're ready for this):

"Nancy Pelosi should get new dentures and ease up on the plastic surgery."
"She is for Obama because the idea of a smarter woman above her freaks the bitch out."
"[Pelosi] is a San Francisco liberal putz. She has zero leadership skills. She couldn't lead a whore to bed."
"Nancy needs to quit dying her hair. It's obvious that she's older than dirt."
"Nancy is jealous of Hillary. I cannot believe she's still supporting Obama after all has come to light. He hates America and he hates whites. Period...Hillary Clinton is the one to lead this country right now."
"Nancy is a dog. You people supporting Obama/Wright are disgusting."
"Nancy holds the most powerful position that any woman has ever had in our government and she doesn't want to lose that distinction to Hillary. It's a 'woman thing'. Of course she wants the man to win. It wouldn't matter what man as long as she keeps her position as 'top woman'."

I could offer many more (and even worse), but that's enough to clearly illustrate the basis for my observation.

Additionally, this is but one example of the sexism I have witnessed from Clinton's own supporters. A notable instance occured during the North Carolina primaries. The governor of that state, while announcing his support of Clinton, attested with admiration to her terrific set of cojones. Just to be sure I took this as I should, I consulted my wife - who is about as solidly and rationally feminist as anyone I have ever met. She confirmed my assumption that yes, this was a terribly sexist remark and should have been taken by the candidate as an insult. If, in one's praise for a female candidate, one lauds that candidate by asserting she has testicles, one is demeaning both the candidate and women in general - clearly implying that in order to be a strong, competent female candidate she must possess male characteristics.The governor could have said she had guts or, more delicately, intestinal fortitude. He could have said she had an indomitable spirit. But he said, in effect, she had balls. That should rightly be seen by any female to be a sexist, demeaning insult.

Finally, there is an acknowledged and large body of women who have been stridently pro Clinton for the clearly stated reason that she is female. Were a large group of men to support a candidate specifically because the candidate was male, this would clearly be understood as sexist. Yet as Clinton was the beneficiary of this sort of gender loyalty it seemed nobody was willing to name it as sexist. I am willing - that sort of support of any candidate is pure, certifiable sexism.

On to the next question: Has there been racism evident regarding Senator Obama? Again, the short answer first: Yes.

Not only evident, but nearly rampant. Again, I'll turn to the internet resource of Snopes.com. As with Clinton, you will find a section devoted to rumors about Obama. While there were no campaign related sexist issues evident in regard to Clinton, there are a multitude of both covertly and overtly racist entries regarding Obama. Take a look for yourself - it's really quite disgusting. I've mentioned a few of them before here, but there is a large and continuously growing list.

But perhaps the classic is an editorial piece written by Geraldine Ferraro and published in the May 30th edition of the Boston Globe. In her fever to substantiate the sexism she believes has been directed toward Clinton, Ferraro comes up with some of the most amazing justifications of racism I've ever seen. To illustrate, let me offer just one paragraph of what she wrote:

"As for Reagan Democrats, how Clinton was treated is not their issue. They are more concerned with how they have been treated. Since March, when I was accused of being racist for a statement I made about the influence of blacks on Obama's historic campaign, people have been stopping me to express a common sentiment: If you're white you can't open your mouth without being accused of being racist. They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed."

Give that a minute to sink in. I'll highlight just a couple of her demented points. First, the sentiment "If you're white you can't open your mouth without being acused of being racist." I've heard that same sentiment in the past. It invariably comes from someone distraught at the fact that it is no longer acceptable in most social settings in our nation for them to tell a racist joke. It is, in other words, the chronic complaint of a racist.

Second: "It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment." I'd like to ask her what she perceives as the difference between racism and racial resentment, but I'm sure she would spout something in the way of rationale that would be as mind-numbingly perverse as the statement itself. I'd detail her intentional misquoting of Obama at the end of the paragraph in order to prop up yet another straw man, but at this point I've given Ms. Ferraro far more space than she deserves.

The central evidence of racism in this campaign is the one that absolutely no one has had the courage to address. The media talking heads have run circles around it, but none of them have dared to identify it for what it is. I'm talking about the primary results themselves - particularly the midwestern results. I'm talking about those voters who, with Clinton's volunteering of a convenient platitudinous label, have been identified as "working class white people" that for some strange reason Obama could not seem to win.

I can talk about this with a bit of authority, because I lived most of my life in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois - and Jonna lived much of hers in Indiana and Missouri. We know the midwest very, very well. Some of you believe that the long struggle for racial equality in this country has come to an end - that we no longer suffer under the racial stereotypes and prejudices of the past. Would that it were so. You may be quite shocked to know that - in 2008 - there still exist many small towns scattered generously throughout this part of the country (and others as well) where, if you are driving through - especially at night - and you are black, you dare not stop if you value your safety. When we left that part of the country in 2000, it was still not uncommon at estate sales to see Klan paraphernalia and memorabilia offered up for auction. While few churches are overt in their prejudice, it is more than common that black visitors to white churches will be left with no doubts about how stridently unwelcome they are. In other words, there remain large sections of this country where whatever racial civility may exist is only a very thin veneer - and some places where even the veneer is absent. And to state it clearly, the "working class white people" designation is a genteel way to avoid calling this demographic what it actually is - racist.

Few will have the courage to admit what they are - although I have in fact heard a few during exit polls over the past many months who at least had the honesty to openly state that they would not vote for a black person. It is this racist element that has accounted for much of Clinton's support in the primaries. It became almost amusing watching the pundits pretend to be stunned by Clinton's strong showing in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, etc. when we all knew the root of that strong showing - and knew that no broadcaster would dare name it.

And whether individuals are able to admit it - to themselves or others - racism will be the only true impetus for those who will cross over in the general election and vote for McCain. Cut all the crap and get right down to it: the positions Clinton and Obama espoused as the primaries unfolded were extremely similar, from the war to the economy to health care to international relations. For someone to have supported Clinton and subsequently vote for McCain in the general elections can only have a very limited number of justifications:

1. All the policies with which they claimed to have identified over the past year really aren't important to them at all - they've had a sudden revelation and now consider the Republican platform to be far superior.

2. They have somehow managed to convince themselves that Obama is in fact a radical Muslim Manchurian Candidate who is bent on destroying the United States (although this is almost certainly a smokescreen for their racism).

3. In the Democratic primary, their sexism was easier to overcome than their racism - they'd vote for a woman before they'd vote for a black. No longer having that option, they will sooner vote for a white person who represents essentially everything they believe is presently wrong with this country rather than vote for a black person who shares their views, their hopes and their aspirations.

I'm sorry if you find this harsh, but I sincerely believe that someone has to start saying it. If we continue to pretend that racism is not still a major problem in our nation we will never be able to resolve the problem. And if we don't start calling it when we see it in the political process we stand to lose yet another election and yet another opportunity to turn things around in Washington.

So, with the strong undercurrent of racism still roiling through our country, how could Clinton possibly have lost the nomnation to Obama? I think I can offer several reasons, having the advantage of living with someone who first of all fits the demographic of the classic Clinton supporter - an over 60 female - and second of all observing the devolution of her support over the past year. At the beginning of the primaries Jonna was totally supportive of Clinton, but her support continually eroded through the campaign until, by spring, she became one of those who declared that if Clinton managed to claim the nomination she would refrain from voting in the general election. There are many reasons for this unrelenting slide - but Clinton has no one to blame but herself. Some of the principal reasons:

1. She began her campaign highlighting above all else her prodigious experience in government. It is a wonder that nobody within her campaign understood that at this particular time, running on experience was a terrible idea. It was clear from the 2006 mid term elections that people were fed up to their ears with their government and were demanding more and more stridently that our legislators turn the page. Running on your years of experience tells voters that you have been part of the problems in which we find ourselves mired all along. If you have been part of the problem, why should we believe that you can become part of the solution?

2. She campaigned in the style of an old-fashioned, glad-handing politician - the very thing people are sick to death of. She constructed a primarily negative campaign, relying heavily on attack ads. Such campaigning may still be able to sway some people, but once again people were looking for change - and I think we have finally reached the point (thank heavens!) where such tactics repulse more voters than they attract. To sum up this point, despite her gender, Clinton became possibly the last representative of the Old Boy Network, employing the style, the tactics, even the mannerisms of old guard politicians.

3. She became a chameleon, openly and unabashedly modifying her very persona to suit the audience she was targeting at any given moment. Watch some of the footage - she spoke completely differently before a large audience than she did to a small group. Which was the authentic Clinton? Was there an authentic Clinton? By the time she hit Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia and began droppin' her Gs and swillin' shots and beers with the boys it would have become comical if it wasn't so pathetic and transparent.

4. She pandered. I think this is the one that pushed Jonna over the edge to declare that she wouldn't vote if Clinton was the nominee. When she joined McCain in proposing a gas tax holiday it was the most blatant pandering imagineable...and she never had the sense to back off the idea even when confronted on every side with how bad an idea it was.

5. As her blundering campaign spiraled downward and Obama's spiraled upward and the numbers became insurmountable she came up with a seemingly endless series of irrationalities to justify her continuation in the race, many of them completely contradicting positions she had taken a few months or even a few weeks earlier. Somewhere in this process she crossed the line between determination and mania and began reminding us of the baseless certitude that has marked the term of the person presently occupying the White House. And even at the end, as those who have supported her continue to talk about her courage and her determination and her fighting spirit, they have apparently failed to notice her total lack of grace. She often justified her tenacity by saying that her mother taught her that she should never be a quitter. It appears, however, that her mother never taught her the distinction between quitting and losing.

Monday, May 26: I have serious doubts that anyone is reading this anymore - especially since my posts have become so terribly infrequent - but tonight I'm posting because a thought occured to me that I haven't yet seen anywhere else, so I figured I'd go ahead and toss it out into the ether.

It dawned on me that it should be pretty obvious now that the Democratic party candidate for the presidency will be one of two people: either Barack Obama or...Al Gore. Let me explain.

If things go the way they ought to go and the Democratic nomination process (which we all must agree is going to be in serious need of fine tuning) works the way it was intended to work, Senator Obama will have the nomination wrapped up - finally - some time within the next couple of weeks. This is the appropriate outcome, the normal outcome, the reasonable outcome.

However, there is another possible scenario. It is a nightmare scenario to be sure, but it is a tragic possibility that history illustrates cannot be dismissed. I'm talking of course about the possibility that something violent might happen to Senator Obama that would end his candidacy. I'm talking about the very dark, very evil, but very real possibility of something such as an assassination.

Under normal circumstances such a tragedy would naturally throw the nomination to Senator Clinton. But I will suggest that Senator Clinton's statement late last week has permanently altered circumstances. From this point forward, a violent loss of Senator Obama would also bring the certain end of Senator Clinton's viability as a candidate. Deserved or not, rational or not, Senator Clinton has, with her own words, linked herself to any disaster that might befall Senator Obama. Democratic party leaders would - rightly and immediately - realize that a significant portion of the public would associate the event with the words she spoke and regardless of circumstances a huge percentage of the voting public would wonder if (and a certain percentage would be convinced that) there was a connection between her statement and his demise. She would, in other words, be absolutely unelectable under such circumstances. Delegates would take the nomination to the convention floor and Al Gore would be drafted as the person with the greatest potential to be elected.

So there you have it. Absent chaos, Senator Obama is the nominee. Throw in chaos, and we wind up with Al Gore.

I've done much reading over the past few days - and even more thinking - about Senator Clinton's use of Bobby Kennedy's assassination in her defense of her continuing candidacy. I want to try to be as fair as I can and be sure my conclusions are not swayed by my personal preferences. As a result, I think I've tried to give Senator Clinton considerably more benefit of doubt than I normally would. However...

One of the things Jonna and I tried very hard to do while we were in the ministry was to help people understand that we cannot divorce words from their context. And when I say context, I mean the context of the greater dialogue of which they are a part as well as the context of place in time, place in culture and place in circumstance. This is extremely critical in trying to grasp the meaning of scripture - and something that a vast majority of adherants to most faiths fail to either understand or appreciate. But it is also true of any communication: the words cannot be separated from their overall context and be accurately understood.

Were we able to divorce Senator Clinton's words from their context it would be fairly easy to see this as a non-issue - a slip of the tongue, a brain fart, label it what you will but conclude that it was inadvertant, meaningless and harmless.

But we cannot conscientiously make that separation because to do so, while it may serve to deflect criticism, will not serve to achieve understanding.

Her words, of course, come in the context of the struggle for the office of President of these United States. And while we like to imagine ourselves as a civilized, moral, ethical people, the history of that office not only suggests but clearly illustrates that we often are not what we imagine ourselves to be: four of our Presidents assassinated, attempts made to assassinate at least seven others, and uncounted - and quite possibly uncountable - murders and attempted murders of those seeking high office or working for political or social change within our nation. This is the larger context within which her words were spoken - and from which they canot be separated.

Moreover, the more immediate context is that in which we see the first truly viable female candidate for the presidency, the first truly viable black candidate for the presidency, and the oldest candidate ever to seek the presidency...all at a time when the country is deeply divided and the populace is extremely dissatisfied with its leadership. Given that context and the present volatile atmosphere any of these three candidates with so much as a single ounce of sense cannot help but know that the subject of the potential demise of any of their opponents is a place they dare not go. Yet she dared.

And in so doing, I believe she has brought a slightly premature end to her candidacy - and possibly an end to any potential of a future viable or meaningful political career.

The question that remains for me is why she said what she said. If her point was in fact to illustrate why she should remain in the race at this point she has a wealth of history to support her contention - any number of contests that have made it all the way to the floor of the convention. In fact, if her intent was to justify her perseverance the example of Bobby Kennedy - or the more general issue of assassination - was not even relevant to her argument; her continuation in the race would have no bearing whatsoever on the decisions that would be made in the wake of such a tragedy.

I have, until a few months ago, believed that Senator Clinton would make a fine president. I have, until now, believed her to be an extremely intelligent person. Any number of instances over the past few months have changed my mind about her presidential qualities, and now, if she is the intelligent person I believed her to be, I am afraid that her intense ambition has completely overcome both her sense and her sensibilities. It is very, very sad.

*****

On the personal side, Jonna and I are continuing to work at reassembling our life. I've been very, very busy at work, which s one of several reasons I haven't been posting here. t some point we're going to have to stop and take a breath and determine where we want to go next. To be honest, if Ihad any money - and a heavy streak of masochism - I'd be tempted to challenge Duncan Hunter Junior for the Congressional seat here. But I have neither.

Over the course of my walk I developed a large pad of callus on the soles of my feet directly behind my toes. During the past few weeks this layer of callus has finally been peeling off. It doesn't hurt at all - but it itches like crazy! - especially on my left foot. I've also been putting on some of the weight I lost and am going to have to do something about that very soon, as I have no desire to return to my pre-walk weight. Meanwhile, the guys are getting pretty ripe because they haven't had a bath in lord knows how long. We talk about it almost daily, bt every time I manage to get a day off we wind up with a number of other things to do and don't get them bathed. Either we'll be forced to do it soon or some of us will be sleeping outside.

Our oldest son, Marty, will be dropping in for a short visit tomorrow. It will be the first time we've seen him since well before I started my walk. We think of all the friends we made on our cross-country trek often - and hope you still think of us once in a while. I'm hoping that I might be able to get back here and post more often soon - but no promises. Keep in touch - and

Peace.

Saturday, May 3: To begin, I'd like to explain my absence from the journal for the past month. For one thing, we are now in the busy season for my line of work and I've been working like a borrowed mule - it's been pretty much nothing but work, eat and sleep...and sometimes too little of the latter. I can't complain too much because it simply comes with the territory that there are seasons like this - and it's probably going to be pretty much the same for at least the next couple of months.

But more significantly, the past month has been a time of extreme tension for Jonna and myself. I didn't want to post anything about it until we had some sort of resolution, and that resolution came last night so I can go ahead and 'splain it all.

In March I had happened upon two job opportunities that were extremely promising; one as a full-time chauffeur for a couple in San Diego and the other as chauffeur/butler/estate manager for an estate in Beverly Hills. The San Diego possibility evaporated almost immediately - the couple's kids had been trying to get it set up for their parents (in their late eighties) but at the last minute it seems that their parents had said something to the effect of "We don't need no stinkin' chauffeur" and that was that.

The Beverly Hills one was another matter. It was a very, very (very!) lucrative position that would employ both myself as mentioned, and Jonna as well - as housekeeper. We went up to Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago to interview with the business manager of the owner. The interview went extremely well and we were asked to come back up last week to look over the estate. I don't think i would be appropriate for me to go into too much detail, but the estate was originally built by Keyshawn Johnson - the football player. The current owner bought t for 13.8 million. It's across the street from the home of Johnny Carson's widow. There's a half million dollar Rolls in the garage. You get the picture.

We met the rest of the staff and again, the interview went extremely well. The business manager said she would let us know by this Wednesday or Thursday at the latest - and we were pretty sure we would be offered the position. I got a call Thursday afternoon. She said that while both she and the staff really, really wanted us for the position, the owner wanted someone who had more direct experience managing an estate such as his. She still felt certain that we would be the best people for the job and told us she was going to try once more to talk him into it. Late last night we got an email from her. She was not able to convince him, so that's the end of it.

Need I say that it was a crushing disappointment? Not only had all signs pointed to this actually happening, but it would instantly have moved us from a place in our lives where we're scratching to get ourselves re-established to a six figure income in a job we are both extremely well qualified to handle. At least the extreme tension of the past month is finally over and we can get back to thinking about other things once again.

Not that we have ever stopped thinking about the current political situation. I want to touch on a few things tonight if I don't collapse before I finish:

I'm not going to take back anything I said about Rev. Wright.

However...

I am more than saddened to conclude that once the spotlight fell on him he became caught up in his own celebrity and lost all common sense. As a result, much damage was done.

Rev. Wright should have been a golden opportunity for many, many desperately needed dialogues. There could have been tons of good achieved with serious, thoughtful inspection of the meaning and purpose of prophecy, the unique perspective on American society the black Christian experience has to offer, our own culpability in the state of international relations and on, and on, and on. That's what could have happened. That's what should have happened. But having achieved the spotlight, it seems that Rev. Wright chose instead to immediately become a cartoon of himself and in so doing completely destroyed the potential he presented. In addition, he elected to do this at a time and in a fashion that could only serve to do maximum damage to Senator Obama. I do not pretend to know what motives propelled these events, I only know that it was a terrible loss - and Obama did the only thing he could be expected to do faced with these circumstances.

While I'm (loosely) on the subject of religion, I wanted to toss another little tidbit out there. I expect many of you have already seen some of the incredibly loathesome emails floating around out there regarding Obama. It continues to boggle my mind that anyone is so filled with hate and fear tat they would either generate or believe the sort of thing that this stuff represents, but I wanted to give you the latest one I came across as an example. Here it is:

"According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destory everything. Is it OBAMA??"

Verbatim - including the spelling errors. If anyone lays this one on you, you might offer them a bit of basic education:

1. The book is called Revelation (or more fully, the Revelation of St. John), not Revelations. If anyone calls it Revelations, you can immediately certain that he or she has absolutely no idea what he or she is talking about.

2. Revelation does not even use the term anti-christ. The term is only used by the author of the epistles (letters) attributed to John. The author of these letters is almost certainly not the same person as the author (or authors) of Revelation.

3. The entirety of the Bible - both Old and New Testaments - was written over a period of approximately 800 to 900 years, with the most recent parts of the New Testament having been written no later than some time in the second century AD. The Muslim faith was not established until the fifth century AD. It should be obvious, but I'll state it anyway - nowhere in scripture does it say anything about the lineage of an antchrist, let alone that he would be a descendant of those of a religious faith that didn't even exist when scripture was written.

4. Nowhere in scripture does it say anything about the age of an antichrist.

Once you've provided these bits of basic education, you might try to engage the person in a serious conversation around exactly what it is about this man that they fear/hate so intensely that would make them gullible enough to believe this sort of garbage or frightened enough to display their own ignorance by propagating it. But it probably won't work.

Our dear friend Theresa from Indiana sent along a letter she wrote to the Chicago Sun Times. They actually published it, though she says it was rather heavily edited. As I couldn't say it any better, I asked if I could reprint her original letter here. She sad yes, so here it is:

"I am tired of having government work for the richest sections of our society and ignoring the rest of us. As a teacher at an Indiana public high school, my husband pays a little over $6,000 per year on health insurance premiums to cover our family of three. This health insurance has yet to pay for one single doctor’s visit, as we never meet the $500 deductible per person. I’ve seen friends have to file bankruptcy because of medical debt. Last year, my husband’s best friend died needlessly, at age 43, because he delayed seeking medical care while waiting for his health insurance to kick in. We even spent one year without health insurance, because we simply could not afford the premiums on a teacher's salary. I know my story is not unique and perhaps that makes it even more painful.

Under Barack Obama’s plan, every citizen will have healthcare and we will pay less for it. This is something I believe in and something we NEED. The other candidates are professional politicians. McCain wants to continue the failed policies of George Bush and the Clinton administration already had 8 years to change the system and failed to do so. It is time for a change.

We can no longer allow the shrinking middle class to shoulder the biggest burden in our society. The system has to change. As citizens of the United States of America, we have the power to change things. We have a responsibility to make sure it is no longer “business as usual” among our elected officials.

Many people dismiss Obama's message of change and hope as either naive or foolish...or even a lie. Sure, I'll be disappointed if Obama does not live up to be everything I hope he is, but I will not regret believing in his message. I am voting for Obama because I still have hope and I still believe that we can create a better society. I can live in fear that my child will grow up in a world of war and poverty and hate or I can choose to bring my child up with the belief that he can do anything in this world he wants to do, as long as he believes in it and works hard to accomplish it....I choose hope over fear. And, beyond politics, that is why I choose Obama.

Be well!
~Theresa"

Theresa's last paragraph hits the bullseye - and I wish those who continue to support Senator Clinton could fully take this in. All my life I have been waiting for a truly serious discussion among presidential candidates of the problems our nation faces and the possible solutions they might offer to those problems. I have yet to see it. Senator Clinton continues - on a daily basis - to demonstrate clearly that, despite the seeming contradiction, she is what I hope will be the last of a dying breed of "good ol' boy" politicians whose candidacies are all and only about winning. Although his campaign has occasionally slipped, Obama himself has consistently and resolutely attempted to offer the sort of campaign I've wanted to see. I'll be doing everything I can to help him get that chance.

March Journal

Friday, March 28: Time for me to put my two cents in regarding Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Wright. I've been sitting back for a while now, listening to the relentless goofiness. I've also heard and read many of the Rev. Wright's sermon excerpts - and read them within the larger context of his sermons. And I have one word to describe the Rev. Wright who has been scourged in the press, tried and convicted in the public arena and reviled across the nation:

Prophet.

Where do I begin? I think I need to start with a little primer for those who have been misdirected by the fundamentalist/literalist, superstition-as-religion dumbing down and corrupting of the Christian faith. The title "prophet" has a specific meaning - and it has nothing whatsoever to do with fortune-telling, predicting the future, or in fact anything whatsoever mystical. So it has always been, and so we had better figure out it needs to remain. A prophet is one who speaks truth to power. A prophet is one who has the wisdom to understand what those in power are doing that is destructive and the courage to speak out against those practices. The first test of a true prophet - and actually the only test - is whether or not what the prophet has to say is applicable to the prophet's contemporary society. If the prophet's words do not address the situation in the prophet's own time and place they are not prophetic.

Prophetic words have a built-in multiple function. As human society seems hopelessly prone to forget the lessons it has learned and repeat its mistakes ad infinitum, the prophet's words may well find relevance far beyond the prophet's own time. This is where people tend to confuse the prophet with a fortune teller. The relevance of a prophet's words to generations beyond the original audience are not an indication of the prophet's supernatural capabilities - rather, they are an indication of society's incompetence. If we didn't find ourselves in the same stupid predicaments over and over again this mystical illusion of fortune telling wouldn't exist.

All of this is true of all prophets and all prophecy. So those of you who are convinced that the revelation of John is a prediction of some coming end-time apocalypse must remember that unless John was actually saying something relevant to the people in the place and at the time he set the words down, his work was less than useless. It's time to let the suprstitious element of faith behind and recognize that the authors of the "End Times" books, the evangelists such as Robertson and his cohorts are laughing all the way to the bank...and they're laughing at you.

The prophet speaks truth to power. Another thing that we tend to forget is that for the prophets of biblical times, religion and government were the same entity. If you spoke out against the practices of the religious leaders, you spoke out against the practices of the political leaders - they were one and the same.

Back to Rev. Wright. I'm not going to make it easy for you - I'm going to give you some homework. Go back and actually read or listen to what Rev. Wright has said. Not the shards and fragments of his sermons published all over the place, but read or listen to them within the fuller context of the sermon. It's easy enough to do - they're all over the internet.

Done? OK, now get out your Bible - you know, the big, dusty book on your coffee table with the picture of the blond haired, blue eyed Jesus on the front? Turn to the book of Hosea and read it. Read Micah. Read Jeremiah (hint: they're all in the Old Testament). Now, read the words of Jesus (New Testament). If you do this - and do it objectively - you will realize that if you condemn Rev. Wright for what he is saying, you will have no choice other than to condemn Hosea, Micah and Jeremiah as well. You will have no choice other than to condemn Jesus. And there is your bottom line.

Rev. Wright, I will maintain, is a prophet. Not only is he a prophet, but he is a patriot of the first order. Rev. Wright loves this nation deeply - so deeply that he cannot pretend he does not see the truths he sees. So deeply that he is compelled to speak the truth.

My greatest regret right now is that Senator Obama, fully aware how few Americans truly understand the nature of either patriotism or faith, feels compelled to distance himself from the Rev. Wright if he is to have any hope of attaining the presidency. It is a true shame. We are still resolutely and blindly mired in that place where we must pretend that our nation is without fault or flaw; that we bear not one iota of responsibility for the terrorism directed against us, that we have not committed a whole litany of outrageous transgressions against peoples, nations and cultures, that our leadership is always and only directed by the highest and most noble of motives. As long as we remain there, we will never be able to see ourselves in a mirror - even darkly. We will never be able to learn from our errors and transgressions. We will never be able to become the people we pretend to be.

We will never be able to hear the prophet.

Saturday, March 22: Meanwhile, back at the war...

Mr. Shapiro's report highlighted three different veterans. One was Sgt. Grayson Galadis, who was injured by an IED in Iraq when the Humvee he was driving ran over it. Shrapnel broke his tailbone, nicked his spine, and made a general mess of his abdomen, including injuries to his intestines, liver, kidneys and spleen. Surgeons kept his abdomen open for three months, washing his intestines and internal organs daily. They removed one third of his colon. After over a year he had recovered sufficiently enough to be discharged. The doctor overseeing his case classified his abdominal injuries as a "hernia"(!) which did not qualify him for any disability. However, Sgt. Galadis also suffered from sleep apnea and a drop foot, so he was classified by the Army as 30% disabled.

Sgt. Galadis acquired the volunteer services of a civilian attorney, who persuaded the Arny that the "hernia" alone constituted a 50% disability and, with his other medical problems, Sgt. Galadis is now deemed to be 80% disabled and eligible for full benefits.

There's more. The GAO reports that in 2001 - a year before the Iraq war began - more than 600 soldiers retired with permanent disability benefits. In 2005, three years into the war, 200 qualified. The Army contends that statistics do not reflect the reality, as the year a soldier qualifies for benefits does not indicate the year the soldier actually applied for them. I don't know how they figure this justifies the dramatc drop from pre-war to war time, but that's their argument. They also claim that the actual number of permanent disabilities granted is rising - to about 300 in 2006...still only half of those granted the year before the war began.

Disabled American Veterans has been active in securing private attorneys for injured soldiers (who are normally represented by military attorneys, of course) and George Washington Law School in D.C. has even begun a clinic to train students in this particular area of advocacy.

But wait - there's even more. Bush administration officials are less than enthused by the private help vets are receiving. They acknowledge that the system is a mess, but contend that veterans obtaining civilian attorneys only serve to shore up a system in need of fundamental and systemic change. These, of course, are the very people (and the only people) with the power - and funds - to make those changes happen.

Before I shuffle off into my next rumination ladies and gentlemen, I want to reiterate a few points that should be more than obvious to everyone by now. Perhaps more than any other administration in history, this particular administration has wrapped itself in the self-righteous banner of Friend of the Military and Supporter of our Troops. Look at the statistics above. The 600 vets approved for disability in 2001 would have received their benefits under the policies of the previous administration - the Clinton admnistration. Think about it, please. Back to this in a minute.

My other thought for tonight was spurred by watching a documentary last night about Pete Seeger. I expect you're all familiar with Mr. Seeger. During the McCarthy era Pete Seeger and his group, the Weavers, were blacklisted. Mr. Seeger himself was indicted in 1956 for contempt of Congress, found guilty and sentenced to ten years in prison. His case was later appealed and dismissed on a technicality. This is the man, of course, who wrote such songs as "Where Have All the Flowers Gone". "Turn, Turn, Turn" and "We Shall Overcome". The program I was watching observed that now, fifty years later, Mr. Seeger has received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award, a National Medal of the Arts, and the Kennedy Center's Lifetime Achievement Award. Though not stated directly, the program seemed to heavily imply that we have come a long way from the days of the Red Scare and the atrocities we committed against many truly patriotic citizens in our fear-driven xenophobia.

But my immediate response to this program was to realize that not only have we not changed at all since those times, but we seem to have become nothing less than bipolar. We recognize the injustices to a man like Pete Seeger and offer the olive branch of various (completely justified) awards and national respect at least partly as a means of apologizing. Yet at the same time we find ouselves right back in a national mindset (vigorously encouraged by this administration and its supporters) that declares any form of protest to be anti-American, any disagreement with those in charge to be supportive of the enemy, and any attempt to end wars, outlaw torture and turn away from aggression to be nothing short of treasonous.

And my reaction, as it has been for the past several years, is - where is the outrage? Why are the citizens of this nation not out in the streets demanding an immediate end to the depravity under which we are presently being governed? Why do we continue to sit back and permit things to continue along this demented course when we know - both off the top of our heads and deep within our souls - that the very soul of America is withering and dying moment by moment?

When I began writing this piece I figured I was going to end it with a despairing confession that I don't know the answer to that question. But part way through setting these thoughts down I realized that I think I do know why this hasn't happened. I think I know why we are continuing to permit our republic to disappear down the drain - and I'm going to make the accusation.

I can't accuse the people - individually or collectively. During my walk across the country we discovered that individuals everywhere, regardless of their political persuasions, almost universally are disgusted. People are despairing about where we are headed and feel powerless to do anything to change it. They feel like they cannot make any difference - that it is all far beyond their control.

While I can't fault the people individually, I can neither fault them collectively - because collectively I understand that people need a banner under which they can march; they need something or someone to provide them with a sense of the legitimacy of their concern and a concrete rallying point that can spur them to action.

And it is here where the fault lies - where the banner should be provided and the rallying point should be established. This is the domain of the fourth estate - the press. In our free society it is not just a good idea that the press should serve as a check on the actions of our leadership - it is its ultimate mandate to do precisely that. This is what is presently lacking. This is the portion of our society that has most completely abandoned its responsibilities. And I can even tell you why it has happened.

While nearly every right and freedom provided us by the Constitution has been under zealous attack by this administration, one particular freedom has remained unscathed - and that is the freedom of the press. It has been a brilliant maneuver, because it recognizes that unless we feel our own station is threatened the threat is not all that terrible. So this administration has carefully kept its hands off the press - and the press in turn has kept its hands off the administration.

When we have situations like what is happening to our disabled vets as mentioned above, every time a representative of this administration begins to wave the flag and tout their loyalty to the military, the press (joined by the military itself) should rightfully be slapping it down with the facts they already know to be true. Every time our leaders drag out the fear mongering in order to control the attitude of the citizenry and actions of Congress (by the way, remember that the textbook defiition of terrorism is the use of fear tactics to conrol the attitudes and actions of others), the press should be all over them like white on rice. When we are tempted to pat ourselves on the back for honoring citizens such as Pete Seeger, the press should be reminding us forcefully that a nation that launches pre-emptive wars, refuses to disavow torture, tosses its vets into the streets and rapes its own social programs in order to fund a mindless and counter-productive war cannot pretend to be any more evolved than its mcCarthyite neanderthal predecessors. These are the fundamental responsibilities of the press - and the press has consistently failed to do its job.

Last week Mr. Bush vetoed a bill that would have limited interrogation techniques to those specifically contained in the Army Field Manual. First, let us review some long established facts:

Fact #1: Torture does not work. It does not provide useful information. History proves this. Experts on the subject adamantly agree. It does not work.

Fact #2: The use of torture is the mark of an inhuman, inhumane, morally bankrupt society.

Fact #3: Torture Does Not Work.

Fact #4: The implementation of torture by a society subjects the citizenry - particularly the members of that society's military - to the extreme risk of the reciprocal and escalating use of torture.

Fact #5: TORTURE DOES NOT WORK!

Given the facts, there is only one justification for Mr. Bush's veto action. He refuses to outlaw torture for no other reason than that he wants to be able to torture people. Period. End of discussion. We have a president with the mindset of a schoolyard bully, plain and simple. I have no way to process such a mindset - I have never been able to wrap my head around the sort of personality that exults in causing harm to living things. But that particular mindset can be the only thing at the heart of this determined resistance. Are there really that many people out there who would continue to stand in the same corner with such a person? I am truly sickened at the thought. And I realize that in the world of schoolyard bullies, the only thing that seems to deter them is a champion - someone who will stand up to the bully on behalf of those being terrorized. While we're talking about a bully here who also happens to be the president, there are still those with the ability to stand up to him. One would be the Congress, which seems to have been hiding under its desk for the past seven years. But the other - the one that is by the structure of our nation charged with the task - is the press. Why is this war not over? Why is our Constitution in tatters? Why has our military been depleted, abused and abandoned? Because the press has not done its job. And until it does - or until we can locate another institution with the influence and courage to tackle the job the press should have been doing for these past many years - the bullying will continue unchecked.

Wednesday, March 12: I had a dream last night. I dreamed I was sitting in front of the television set at the top of the hour when suddenly the screen went black. An announcer's voice came on:

"The following two hour special is sponsored by the Democratic National Committee - and the campaign committees of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama."

The black screen slowly faded in to a shot of Senators Clinton and Obama, sitting beside each other at a table. There was no one else present. Senator Clinton spoke.

CLINTON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of America. Shortly after the Texas and Ohio primaries I received a call from Senator Obama. In response to his call, he and I both managed to slip free of our handlers and advisors for a private meeting the next evening.

OBAMA: Tonight's program is a result of that meeting. We expect you will find it unusual. We hope you will also find it interesting and informative.

CLINTON: We have both found it extremely difficult, given the atmosphere and expectations of a national campaign, to adequately express our mutual and deeply felt concern for the future of our nation.

OBAMA: Over the past eight years we have managed to alienate most of the rest of the world through arrogance, short-sightedness and incredibly poor decision making.

CLINTON: Where once we were viewed by most other countries as a skillful mediator - a reasonably even-handed diplomat on the world stage able to bring opponents to consensus and foster peaceful solutions to global problems, we have come to a place where we are - perhaps justifiably - viewed with suspicion and fear. Even the staunchest of our historical allies have perhaps begun to wonder what in the world has come over us.

OBAMA: We have consistently abandoned our ethical and moral foundations - and even our very own Constitution - in a vain and ultimately futile quest for the illusion of safety. Fueled by an administration whose greatest talent is the ability to exploit fear in order to accomplish its objectives - and abetted by a legislature...which we confess included both of us...that found itself incapable of mustering the courage to confront the erosion of our national soul, we are convinced that there have been few times in the history of our nation when the very substance of our republic has been in the jeopardy it is in today.

CLINTON: While driven by our mutual passion to heal the wounds inflicted on our nation and reverse the course that drives us daily farther away from the people we believe ourselves to be - the America we hope to become - we have recognized, as we expect you have, that the campaign for the presidential nomination has spiralled crazily downward into a seemingly endless personality clash, consisting of little more than cheap shots, one-liners and flimsy personal attacks that has not served us, has not served the ideals we pursue, and - most importantly - has not served you.

OBAMA: Tonight, we have created this opportunity that we sincerely hope will begin to reverse that trend. This is not going to be a debate, As you notice, there are no moderators to ask us inane or leading questions or to try to goad us with our own words or those of our opponent. We are here tonight to engage in a discussion, and to provide you with an opportunity to hear us, word for word.

CLINTON: We have established a few ground rules for our discussion. We have both promsed that there will be no personal attacks. In fact, there will be no attempts by either of us to prove that one of us is right and the other wrong, or that one of us has a better plan, greater qualifications or a clearer vision for our nation's future than the other. In other words, there will be absolutely no campaigning tonight.

OBAMA: We hope that you will choose one of us to be the next president of the United States, and we believe that whatever your choice, you deserve to know more about what we are thinking and what we believe and how we expect to accomplish the changes we believe must be made than you do right now. Both Senator Clinton and I truly feel that we have the capability to bring much that is positive and constructive to our country, but neither of us claim to be all knowing or all wise. While we are hoping that you will learn much about us tonight, we quite frankly are both also hoping that we might learn from each other as well.

CLINTON: We have not established a specific agenda for our discussion. It will lead wherever it will. But it is our intention to try to cover some specific points through the evening that we think are crucial. We plan to spend some time discussing the growing disparity between the very rich and the very poor in our country - and what we might be able to do about it.

OBAMA: We want to discuss the standing of our nation in the global community; how our foreign policies have fostered much of the hostility that confronts us and how we might modify our dealings in the world in ways that will foster peace and international cooperation.

CLINTON: We want to talk about how we might begin to erase the many conflicts that divide us internally and set us one against the other, how we might rise above the labels of race, gender, class, region, politics and religion and come together first as citizens of a common country with a common vision and a common interest.

OBAMA: These are merely examples; we have many topics in mind. We don't expect that we'll come to any earth shaking conclusions this evening, but we do hope that it will be an experience of growth in understanding and insight for both of us - and perhaps you, as well.

CLINTON: We also hope that we just possibly may have hit upon a new way of doing the business of politics tonight - a way that will finally put the issues - and the nation we love - at the forefront, and perhaps even put to rest the old habit that has been practiced for too long now - the campaign circus that does little more than demean the candidates, ignore the crucial issues we face, and insult the voters...the people who really do run this country.

OBAMA: So this is where we begin. We only hope it isn't too late. What issue would you like to work on first, Hillary?

At this point I woke up. The TV was on, but Senators Clinton and Obama were not on the screen. Instead there was something about Geraldine Ferraro and another piece about an Obama supporter calling Clinton a monster...and a whole bunch about the governor of New York and a prostitute.

Oh well, I can still dream.

February Journal:

Wednesday, February 20: Following the advice of a dear friend, I intentionally have taken a lengthy break from the journal. I simply had to get out of the intensity for a while as Jonna and I have been working on settling in here. I have to confess that it wasn't particularly difficult to stay away from posting - because I've been working like crazy during this time. My job is a real feast-or-famine phenomenon. It was nearly famine through the holidays (as it usually is during holidays), but beginning the second week in January it's been feast time. Until this week, I had exactly one day off work since the middle of January, so there's been precious little time for me to do any writing anyway. At any rate, thanks to those of you who have been concerned about us - we really appreciate your concern and want you all to know that we're just fine.

A highlight of the past month was Superbowl weekend. I spent Thursday through Monday of that week in Phoenix along with three other chauffeurs from our company, schlepping partygoers up and down the side of Camelback mountain for Superbowl parties there. It was an extremely lucrative few days - but also quite a challenge. We were driving 28 passenger mini-coaches up and down steep, twisting roads with very little clearance. One gate we sometimes had to pass through was so narrow that I cleared the rear view mirrors by about an inch on either side...and had to come back down through them backwards! One of the nights the word got out that the particular party we were servicing was an open party (it was not) and the police wound up closing down the entire neighborhood for about a mile radius because hopeful partygoers had turned it into complete gridlock. The only vehicles they would let into the area were our mini-coaches as we made the trek to remove people from the mess. We definitely earned our money. I thought we had all made it through without inflicting so much as a scratch on any of the vehicles. Our boss later told me that one of the vehicles had acquired a small crease. I didn't ask which one - I just knew it wasn't mine.

While I've been absent from the journal that doesn't mean we've not been following current events. It should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed my journal that I'm very pleased with the growing momentum behind Mr. Obama's campaign. As you will recall, the primary impetus for my walk was the restoration of the Constitutionally mandated balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of our government - and the return to Constitutional faithfulness on the part of our leadership. Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar and, I think, the most likely candidate to actually do something concrete about restoring the foundatons of our republic. In light of what is going on, I would like to offer a few observations that I've been holding back for the past month:

I have found it interesting - and a bit paradoxical - that the people who have been backing those who tout their years of experience (both parties) as a way to dismiss Mr. Obama are the same people who undoubtedly would be in favor of strict term limits. Seems a bit odd, does it not?

As I read the coverage of the campaigns I also sometimes read some of the reader feedback on some of the columns. Recently I have seen Clinton supporters who proclaim that if Obama becomes the candidate they will vote for McCain rather than support him. I've also seen Obama supporters saying the same thing about Clinton. Since their policy positions are so similar I would like to ask you, if you fall into one of the aformentioned groups, to sit down and seriously consider your personal racist or sexist bias. Regardless of which of the two candidates emerge as the nominee, I would suggest that we make a concerted effort to rise above whatever prejudice we may hold and strongly support the nominee.

While I've made clear in the past my reservations about various candidates, I have until now refrained from actually speaking out directly for any of them. Tonight I will break that silence. Tonight I'm going to ask you to throw your support behind Mr. Obama and do all you can to work for his nomination and his election. There are a number of reasons why I've come to this decision and I'd like to outline a few:

If we have any hope of honestly addressing the incredible array of abuses inflicted on our nation by the current administration - and ending this insane war - I believe our first imperative is to give the entire Republican party a time out from the presidency. We must elect a Democrat. Given this realization - and through no fault of her own - I contend that Clinton is the most vulnerable candidate we could put forward. There is a solid element out there that is possessed of a virulent hatred of the Clintons, and I am certain that if she becomes the Democratic candidate the Republican slime machine would have a significant portion of the populace convinced that she tithes to the church of Satan and routinely sacrifices babies in midnight rituals before the campaign is over. Should she become the nominee and should she manage to get elected, the animosity would not cease, and I predict that she would be completely incapacitated by continuing blind resistance and opposition to any change she may try to make.

I also believe that Clinton is the least likely Democratic candidate to actually make the changes we so desperately need - particularly in the areas of Constitutional faithfulness and the war. Some of you are not going to like to hear me saying this, but I don't think you could successfully argue otherwise - Mr. and Mrs. Clinton are not, and have never been, liberals. They are at best moderate politicians - and at this time we don't need the maintenance of the status quo that a moderate would bring to the office. For the sake of our nation, we need corrective action from people who are unafraid to confront the status quo.

Mr. Obama has now proven himself on many levels. The organization and effectiveness of his campaign is proving his ability not only as a leader, but also as a manager with the wisdom to surround himself with competent, effective people. Where Clinton's campaign team has unerringly shot itself in the foot at every turn over the past month and a half, Obama's has maintained both momentum and message. Who would you hire - the person at the top of Clinton's present campaign or the person at the top of Obama's? Think about it.

Obama is also proving to be a truly inspirational figure, able to motivate and mobilize people both across and outside of party lines. If you're buying the oft-leveled charges of empty rhetoric, take some time to visit his website. His positions on issues are clearly laid out for all to see. Do not allow the talking heads - who have proven themselves to be completely incompetent over the last couple of months - to shape your perception of reality for you - take the time to look for yourself.

Obama would also be the candidate most immune to the type of despicable campaigning that has marked the election process for the past forty years. We have already seen that attempts to "go negative" on Obama have invariably backfired. I firmly believe that this phenomenon would continue, and the result would be that we would either see a landslide victory in November - or a campaign in which candidates were forced to abandon the personal attacks and actually address the issues in clear, understandable terms...and what a change that would be!

As we talk about change, we are presently confronted by three likely contenders to be the next president of these United States, Two of them are long established Washington figures who would certainly surround themselves with familiar faces also with long resumes and established credentials. In other words, two candidates who would construct a team consisting of the very people who have presided over the madness of the past eight years. We have a third candidate who does not have that history of establishment and would be inarguably likely to surround himself with fresh faces, motivated advisors, people who have genuinely been inspired by the candidate. No matter what your take is on the required level of experience we should expect of a chief executive, it is hard to imagine any group doing worse for the American people that what has been done lately. Add to that the realization that no president runs the nation by him/herself, but rather our governance is mostly orchestrated by the unelected advisors the candidate brings to the office, and I think you can see that we really do have a choice between more of the same and at the very least a sincere effort to right the ship of state.

So there it is - at least some of it. While at the beginning of this campaign I must honestly say that Obama may not have been my first choice of candidate (then again, he may have been), he has risen dramatically in my estimation and I believe he possesses true potential to bring many positive qualities into the presidency and to become the effective, competent leader we so desperately need at this hour.

P.S. At Jonna's suggestion, I will confess that at the beginning of this contest Mr. Edwards was my first choice. Despite how he was often characterized by the media and opponents, I have felt that Edwards was completely sincere and a person whose heart and head were both in the right place. He had the courage to admit his mistakes, had the audacity to promise a swift end to the war without equivocation, and at a time when Obama had not yet found his voice and his stride, Edwards offered both clarity and conviction. Indeed, his positions have had significant influence on both Clinton and Obama and his efforts in this campaign have had significant positive impact. While I will be pleased with any number of alternative scenarios, I continue to hold out hope for a president/vice president ticket I mentioned very early on in my journal - an Obama/Edwards ticket.

January Journal:

Thursday, January 17: We're getting closer to initiating the American Dialogue facet of the website. When I get it up and running it won't be complete...or anywhere near. But we should have at least a couple of essays in place when we finally launch it, and will be continuing to look for more.

On the homefront, Jonna and I have been putting much of our effort into rebuilding a life for ourselves, though not to the exclusion of talking, thinking and writing about what's going on in our nation and the world. Tuesday night we attended a meeting of the Ramona Peace Forum - a diverse and passionate group from Ramona, California who remain active in their protests and continually seek new ways they might be able to make a difference. Dave Patterson from the San Diego Vets for Peace is nominal leader of the forum and bought supper for us, which we consumed bite at a time beween lively and animated discussion throughout the evening. As we have noted so many times over the past year and a half, few of the members of the Ramona forum were much young than us, and I don't believe that any in attendance last night were under thirty. Very sad and, the longer this goes on, more and more distressing.

We've also been invited to a reception next Wednesday for San Diego Magazine's "Fifty People to Watch in 2008". Jonna's getting pretty nervous about this. Depending on who shows up, we'll be rubbing elbows with a crowd that is considerably different from us - from movie and TV personalities to corporate CEOs to politicians (mostly Republican - it's San Diego, after all) to high mucky-mucks in the southern California philanthropic arena...not exactly the sort of folks who have us on their speed dial. It will be interesting. If you've checked out the magazine's website (sandiegomagazine.com) you'll see that, of the fifty people they selected this year, the only one that generated a negative comment online was - guess who? Yep. Nothing I'm unaccustomed to, but I do find it intriguing how some people who are offended by what they think I'm trying to do will try to dismiss it. This one was another from the camp that concludes that since I had Jonna and the guys with me and a motorhome to sleep in most nights along the way I didn't "really" walk across the country. I guess it's only supposed to "count" if you do it carrying a backpack and eating wild berries and roadkill along the way. I responded - politely - apologizing for violating the Rules for Cross-Continent Walking while also pointing out that nobody ever told me they existed.

A little commentary on the political events of the past week and a half or so: I'm wondering how many of you bought into the alternate version of reality the media served up during the New Hampshire primaries? Here's what was presented: In the many weeks prior to the New Hampshire primary, Clinton was leading Obama in the polls by something like ten points. But after Obama's win in Iowa, the talking heads convinced themselves that this win would inevitably translate into a groundswell of support that would see him winning New Hampshire by five points or more. On the evening of the primary Clinton wound up winning by about six points. The pundits went bananas - this was a stunning upset, a comeback of "historic proportions". Yes, I actually heard at least one of them use that phrase - historic proportions. All of this chatter, of course, assumed that you had bought the media version of reality. What actually happened was that the ten point lead Clinton had in the weeks prior to the primary had narrowed to six points by the time of the vote. In others words, she managed to hang on to some of her lead. Nothing more or less than that. Yet to hear the chattering wizards of the press waxing breathless you would have thought it was a Dewey Defeats Truman moment (boy, I'm betraying my age with that one!). Keep your wits about you, ladies and gentleman - I'm certain that this is but the first of many bizarre manufactured realities we'll be bombarded with in the next many months.

Sunday, January 6: At the beginning of every year in its January edition, San Diego Magazine publishes and article on Fifty People to Watch in San Diego. This year, quietly rubbing shoulders with southern California's film and TV personalities, sports figures, business magnates, political movers and shakers, musicians, restauranteurs and social elites is one solitary war protestor/peace activist...me. How 'bout that? The magazine had called me in early December but I didn't want to say anything about it until the issue was actually published because, quite frankly, I really didn't think they'd go through with lumping me in with the San Diego glitterati - but there I am. Of course, I told them back then that I didn't see much point in putting me in with a group of People to Watch in San Diego, because I'm pretty confident that I'm already being watched...by the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the Secret Service. etc. etc. Still it's a nice gesture. You can see the magazine online at sandiegomagazine.com.

I have to confess, though, that people aren't exactly beating down our door to talk to us. Once again, I'm sure that a big part of the reason for that is that we're just not weird enough to attract attention. I don't rant and rave, scream or shout. I don't look or act like a nut case. I just speak in calm, measured tones and offer reasoning that actually makes sense. I talk about the vision that most Americans share of what our country is about and how we see ourselves participating in the global comm