These are some quotations I put in my journal in 1987

I am not a consistent journal writer, and truthfully I go back an destroy most of my journals, lest my family 'lock me up' for reading my thoughts out of context! But I have kept one journal more or less for the irony of it..

These entries were all made in a short period of time in 1987, some entries are disturbing, some are ironic, some are just too predictable!

"When you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship" Harry Truman

"Any education worthy of the name is bound to be dangerous" L. Neil, Australian Professor

"If
you're going to play the game properly, you'd better know every rule." Barbara Jordan

"My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference. " Harry Truman

Mark Twain spoke of the young missionary who went among the
cannibals and Twain said " They listened with the greatest of interest to
everything he had to say...and then they ate him".

"I would be wise to remember that , considering bad news, it is never out of style to at least THINK about burning the messenger." Linda Ellerbee

"El Salvador is Spanish for Vietnam" unknown

"The obscure we see eventually, the completely apparent takes a little longer" Edward R. Murrow.

"First one, then two of us-- pretty soon they'll think it's a movement" --"if three of us do it they'll think its a conspiracy" Arlo Guthry

"You can't get a baby in one month by getting nine women pregnant" Bell Labs Engineer

"China is having a new war, and we are having trouble getting into it. We always have gunboats there, so if there is any shooting, why, one of our boats will get shot at, and that gives us the usual alibi. But this time is seems we only had one gunboat, and it had to maneuver around for days before it could get in the line of fire...." Mark Twain

In these difficult times.... as we sit helplessly by and watch the world.....

Still seems very appropriate...


Remember Johnson left office in 1969.... amazing how everything old is new again.

LDS and Proposition 8 in California

I don’t get it – Mormons have a history that was largely built on persecution for the way they wanted to marry. My family was part of that history – and although I am what is now called a Jack Mormon (for me a cultural or historical Mormon) – my families’ pride has been strongly tied to the essential Mormon struggle.

People should live their lives in the light of day – and families should be able to form and protect the family unit no matter what that family looks like. So long as people are not exploited and others are not damaged, then how can another’s choices hurt me?

The troubles affecting the early Mormon Church drove them from New York, to Illinois to Utah Territories – and drove them from practicing one of their basic tenets. Now another disaffected group is being discriminated because of beliefs that are personal, and don’t affect anyone not directly practicing this lifestyle and one of the loudest protests is coming from the LDS.

A good friend wrote to me and one thing she said was “I like the idea of boycotting Utah ...it really pisses me off that a church would spend millions of dollars on banning marriage when there's children starving in this country. Their list of priorities is f*'d.
I hope it gets overturned....”

Each of my parents had ancestors that went back to the first families (yes, the pilgrims) that settled the country that later became the United States of America. Some of those pilgrims went back to Huguenots that fled France for religious freedom in England, LatEr fled England to the Netherlands and then back to England and onto the Colonies for religious freedom in the New World. Some went on to follow some of the 19th Century religious experiments like the Oneida Colony and the fledgling LDS under the leadership of Jos. Smith in New York.

The LDS had unconventional beliefs that upset the neighbors and were driven out of New York, and every community they settled in. I grew up hearing about the atrocities done to my ancestors – in the 1970s my father and I took my children on a sort of pilgrimage to our cultural ‘holy sites’ at the early settlements; we followed the Mormon Trail from Nauvoo west and visited sites in Utah, Idaho, Nevada and California.

All my life I had such pride that my ancestors were “willing” to die for the things that they believed in.

There are people, like the ancestor pictured here, Sarah, who fled the aggression against Mormons. She was the mother of nine, (the last born and died on the trail), her husband died of cholera and was buried in the Mormon Trail (actually in the trail – so that the wagons would run over the grave and wild animals would not dig up the remains) – this woman carried on. She later entered into a plural marriage as the second wife to a bishop who was, I think, heroic. He and his first wife opened their little sod home to a woman with seven living children at home.

These Mormon ancestors were willing to flee, fight and many times die for their beliefs – they truly suffered physically, emotionally and financially for nearly a century; these people walked across continents for their unorthodox beliefs. They just wanted to live in a place where they could hold their heads high and live in peace with their families – they did not ask others to live the way they lived.

Maybe it all changed in the 1890’s when the church abandoned the practice of plural marriage to stop the US Army from militarily enforcing the territory’s residents with prosecution under the new laws against polygamy. Utah was then an island of Mormons with unusual beliefs – and it was inevitable that it had to end to get statehood. So, just as a revelation had started plural marriage – a revelation ended it.

They did not force abandonment of already established families – but at least one family in the highest level of the LDS Church did forsake all its ‘sister wives’ except for the first wife.

My great grandmother, the fifth wife in a plural marriage, was abandoned and instantly was an unwed mother of two, now, bastard children – during a time that this was truly a disgrace. This young woman, in her twenties fled her home town, in shame, in the middle of the night. She invented a new history for herself by going to a mining town in an adjoining state and gaining employment as a laundry woman to support her two children – and telling people that she was a widow. She later met and married my great grandfather – they fled this community also, to set up a new lives even farther from the territory. All her life she was terrified that her history would be discovered and she would bring further shame to her husband and family.

Living their beliefs in the light of day had ended their problems, for a while, and when the law no longer protected their lives then dishonor, fear and shame returned and families were irreparably damaged.

We are going through a period in our cultural history when many are choosing to have children and not marry, a time when many parents have chosen to have very limited relationships with their children. Millions of children are neglected; tens of thousands are in foster care. And in my lifetime I have seen divorce, with children, go from disgrace to acceptance to such an extent that people think it is remarkable for my husband and I to be together for almost four decades. Yet there is a segment of our society that is still optimistic enough to want to marry and have families.

Why would any of us fight this concept? And why would any group that was so persecuted for the composition of their families inflict this upon another group that really only wants that same peace and protection of law that so long eluded the early Mormons? I just don’t get it.

Veteran's Day 2009 - remember the sacrifices

Decision '08

Bacon beats Fries in the Colorado District 14 Senate Race... he won with a claim that he was the best to knockout port barrel spending...

California says "No You Can't"

Sorry --

The World Watches Election Results

"America is electing a new president, but for the Germans, for Europeans, it is electing the next world leader," said Alexander Rahr, director of the German Council on Foreign Relations. (Associated Press, November 4, 2008)

Do you ever wonder what the world is thinking about this election?

Here is a quote from The Times online(UK):

...........................Barack Obama goes into today’s vote with the overwhelming backing of the world beyond America’s borders in a presidential race that has gripped audiences like no election before.

The rest of this article is called:

US elections: the world has no vote but it knows who it wants

Kenya -- Obama's Kenyan home ready to party

United Kingdom -- Barack Obama's grandmother cast ballot in one of her final acts


UK Reporting on Kenya:


An everyday quotation from Kenyan writer, Sebastien Berger in Kisumu, for the Telegraph.uk in Britain highlights, I think, the hope that Obama brings to people all over the world:
"

In a printing shop in Kisumu, the capital of Senator Obama's ancestral home province in Kenya, Jumah George had no doubts about the election result even before the polls opened. He had brought in a rugby shirt to have Mr Obama's image imposed on it. "I don't want it to say 'for president', I want it to be 'president'," he said.

China -by Zhao Yi, Ge Xiangwen, Hu Fang Americans turn out in droves to cast ballot

Austrailia - Sydney Daily News - A world of policy differences -- this is a different to read, more objective approach to evaluating differences between the candidates. I like this quotation:

Obama is disciplined, deliberate and cerebral. His
intellectual curiosity would be welcome after eight years of a president with
little patience for meetings, who interrupts those who brief him with lines such
as "speed it up - this isn't my first rodeo".

Asia One News: 8 reasons why Obama will win

India: The Times Of India America's finest hour: Regime change...in time, by vote this one has some interesting "information" that I have seen no where before -- but ends with this:

It still boggles the imagination -- that could soon be reality -- that the 44th US president may be an African-American son of a Kenyan exchange student.

Nigeria - by Bolaji Akinyemi - The Obama in us and the us in Obama

Ireland - Irish Bookmaker Pays Early on Obama Election Win - October 17th, it was so sure, they already paid the people who placed their bests on Obana! (One person placed a best more than $130,000!).

Netherlands - Dutch in Netherlands root for Obama

Facinating site: The Irish Betting site has dedicated a site to our American Elections -- I can't figure out how odds work. Right now the Presidential election (betting) is closed (looks like the odds were 1/20 when they closed and paid off in October). But you can still bet on Ohio, Missouri, Indiana -- and 13 others. You can bet on what time Mr. McCain will make his consession speech.

Just a joke.....

A friend sent this to me -- I don't know who authored it, but I thought I would share.

Sarah Palin was seated next to a little girl on an airplane trip back to Washington.

She turned to the little girl and said "Let's talk. I've heard that the flights go quicker
if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just opened her book, closed it slowly and said to Palin, "What would you like to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said The Palin. "How About ‘What changes should I make to help America"? And she smiled.

"OK," the little girl says. "That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first¦

A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass.

Yet a deer excretes little round pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?"

Palin, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it for a second and finally says, "Hmmm, I really have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to do anything for America when you really don't know SHIT?"

Maybe I was just not paying enough attention...

What did Bush know and when did he know it?

Oh, not about weapons of mass destruction….. No this is about the mortgage / banking / insurance fiasco. We are all guilty – people were trying to tell us, and until it hit in our own neighborhood most of us did not pay any attention.

I have found information that New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was trying to get people to listen about the mishandling of funds when Spitzer was brought down – this article was from February 14, 2008.

As a reminder of history – Elliot Spitzer was disgraced by being discovered in a hotel room with a very expensive call girl. He left office and the people did not have the benefit of what he was trying to say.

Elliot Spitzer, a Democrat, was previously in the DA’s office of NYC, moving up to District Attorney. In that capacity he took on the .coms, the stock market, financial organizations – and did it like prior organizations took on organized crime.

Here’s a Wikipedia link to some basic information about Elliot Spitzer.

But I am starting to think that the “people who watch people” were keeping a close watch on Mr. Spitzer in order to discredit him and shut him up. He wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post, February 14th, 2008, in which he said:

“Several years ago, state attorneys general and others involved in consumer protection began to notice a marked increase in a range of predatory lending practices by mortgage lenders. Some were misrepresenting the terms of loans, making loans without regard to consumers' ability to repay, making loans with deceptive "teaser" rates that later ballooned astronomically, packing loans with undisclosed charges and fees, or even paying illegal kickbacks.”

He goes on to point out that state attorneys generals in 49 states tried separately and together to prosecute issues relating to sub-prime loans. He says not only did Bush and his cronies do nothing – they worked together to try to protect the deceptive practices and keep restrictive laws from being placed on the books.

The administrations handcuffed the local prosecutors using a federal agency called the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Here is how they did it, says Spitzer:

“In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative. The OCC also promulgated new rules that prevented states from enforcing any of their own consumer protection laws against national banks. The federal government's actions were so egregious and so unprecedented that all 50 state attorneys general, and all 50 state banking superintendents, actively fought the new rules.”

Read the whole article by Spitzer ends with this prophetic sentence:

When history tells the story of the lending crisis and tells of the effects on the lives of so many innocent homeowners, the Bush folks will not be judged well.

Another writer did an article for the Baltimore Chronicle, Greg Palast, on March 14, 2008. The author is firmly slanted away from the Bush administration, but his facts do check out. His article was about Ben Bernake, Federal Reserve Board Chairman, secretly handing over $200 billion to mortgage bank industry speculators during the first week in March, 2008.

The point of this article is that up until about the 5th of March, there was one person making trouble for them with these risky loans – that person was Elliot Spitzer. Mr. Spitzer was making too much noise by ‘following the money’.

Here is his short form description of what happened:

“Since the Bush regime came to power, a new species of loan became the norm, the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage and it’s variants including loans with teeny “introductory” interest rates. From out of nowhere, a company called ‘Countrywide’ became America’s top mortgage lender, accounting for one in five home loans, a large chunk of these ‘sub-prime.’”

“Here’s how it worked: The Grinning Family, with US average household income, gets a $200,000 mortgage at 4% for two years. Their $955 a month payment is 25% of their income. No problem. Their banker promises them a new mortgage, again at the cheap rate, in two years. But in two years, the promise ain’t worth a can of spam and the Grinnings are told to scram - because their house is now worth less than the mortgage. Now, the mortgage hits 9% or $1,609 plus fees to recover the “discount” they had for two years. Suddenly, payments equal 42% to 50% of pre-tax income. Grinnings move into their Toyota.”

He discusses that instead of policing the banks, Bush’s OCC people went after Spitzer and anyone else that tried to get in the way of these predatory loans. The government made use of something called “federal pre-emption” (which will have to be studied on its own) – Bush’s government ordered the states to not enforce their consumer protection laws! They actually filed a lawsuit to stop Spitzer from investigating mortgage practices.

Then the poop started hitting the fan – Countrywide’s stock fell 50%, Citygroup was down 38% -- neither of which pleased the ‘sheiks of Arabe” who controlled the biggest portion of the stocks in these two businesses.

The second week in March 2008, the Carlyle Capital Group, went bankrupt! I didn’t know who the Carlyle Group were but it is apparently headed by former Bush(1)’s Senior Counsel James Baker – with partners like George Bush, the Bin Laden family and lots of other greedy disreputable people.

Michael Moore, (I know not always a reliable reference), alleges that Bin Laden family actually were forced to liquidate their interests in the Carlyle because they were causing embarrassment to the group. Moore states that the Carlyle is the 11th largest defense contractor in the USA and has line by line evidence of his information website. – I did look at the site; I did not do any fact checking. This information looked pretty interesting though.

As a result of the Feds $200 billion bailout in March, the mortgage companies’ stocks went up in price ---- Countrywide’s stock went up 17% in one day. Citygroup’s stock went up $10 billion in one afternoon!

Spitzer was arrested on the same day that the bailout occurred. Wow – what a coincident! Amazing.

On February 13th Spitzer signed papers that said in part:

“Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye.”

Then he went to a hotel and apparently ordered take out food and a call girl. He was arrested. Well that did shut him up, and apparently scared off everyone else who was looking into this…..and it took about a half year to get in so deep that they had to give even more money…..

Now I have to figure out why they had to do this in the light of day this time. Was it the amount of money – was it because every place a good accountant could ‘hide’ $700 ‘KaTrillion’ dollars was used up already? Was it because an election was going to put its spin on this – and they had to do it first? Let’s find out. Please give me your input on this information.

Related Subjects:
Short Sales
My take on short sales (selling a house for less than its mortgage) – and why banks will drag there feet on many of the homes that are at risk with the subprime debacle.

Big one and one I have not heard anyone talk about is MORTGAGE INSURANCE. Many lenders have required this insurance for new buyers, people with less than 20% down payment – FHA loans – people with bad credit scores ----- unsophisticated borrowers…. You know, exactly the same borrowers who are at risk now for losing their homes with the housing market crash and burn.

Why on earth would a mortgage holder ever negotiate with a borrower to take less than then mortgage face (even if the market has reduced the price to half its price)? The home is insured for full price. The borrower was forced to purchase mortgage insurance (about $200 per month on a $200K home) as a condition of purchase; this insured the mortgage holder’s interest in the property.

So, John Schmuck, the marginal, first time, home owner pays a much higher monthly payment than his neighbor because he does not have the resources to pay more, (does that make sense?); Then when situations change - ARM adjusts up, property taxes increase, HO insurance increases – anything that makes it impossible to meet the increased payments. The bank “bye bye” we can get our whole mortgage repaid by the insurance the home owner had to buy!

So, don’t expect to find them renegotiating any loan that has mortgage insurance on it.

Secondly, if the buyer is still making full payments on the house while they are talking to them about renegotiating the mortgage – why would they do anything? The homeowner will have to be in severe default in order to get the banks to even sharpen their pencils or ask their supervisor about this.

Another thing to consider is that banks leverage themselves and sell stock. In order to borrow money at good rates they have to have strong balance sheets. The value of stock is determined by investor confidence and that is strongly determined by the value of their assets. As long as the house (asset) is on the books at mortgage value it has a value on the books that that is fixed. Whether the house is worth less does not matter – what matters is the value of the paper (mortgage). When the banks reduce the value of an asset for the borrower, they change their assets --- if they do that for a lot of borrowers, it really screws up the bottom line.

Of course, if borrowers just throw in the keys, don’t have mortgage insurance, and walk away -- Then they have a multifaceted problem. Now they own a home that is what ever value the market will pay, and they have to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance – At that point they are probably in a position to make a deal. A little too late for the displaced homeowner.

Get rid of this woman --

This crazy woman has a seat in our Senate ... She is Republican Michelle Bachmann -- she has been on everything saying just horrible things about Democrats of all kinds. Her seat is up for grabs -- please contribute to her competitor by clicking on the box below -- or visit Mr. Tinkleberg's site by clicking on it.

I can't afford much but donated $2.00! Every little bit helps!

Here is a good article from the Star Tribune about this woman -- "Bachmann, Tinklenberg in virtual tie in KSTP poll" this is a pretty unbiased article -- although it is hard for a writer to talk about her without her sounding like she is a nut.... she does that to herself though.

Animated McCain series......

Who do we blame....

Okay –so, I guess an article is circulating around the internet blaming Clinton and minority poor people for the debacle in finance that precipitated the crap going on in the financial world right now.
The whack-job, fear mongering, parrots of no-change are viral emailing this information around … and most of the senders never seem to do any of their own research.

The story appears to have been agitated by a FAR right wing, Republican, Evangelical Christian, radio talk show host and writer named Joseph Farah.

( BTW Farah is so right wing, he does not approve of McCain because he remembers that McCain is not too picky about his beliefs [as long as they get him elected to something]. Farah has spent a good part of his life involved in bringing down Bill Clinton and has been involved in forming something called the Arkansas Project.”)

To support his case he uses an article that was in the New York Times called Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending from 1999, written by Steven A. Holmes. Now, I am not sure if he (and the people who forward this information) are using this information to shift the blame from Republicans to Clinton or to poor minority borrowers. But it is an obvious move to shift the blame away from the GOP.


To shift the blame away from the GOP requires readers with complete ignorance about the 1990’s and too lazy to do their own research before sending on this babble to others as if it had some validity.

( Reminder – I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Republican who is an Economic Republican that has not been able to vote for a Republican since the Reagan era – when the party was hi-jacked by religious nutcases.

I am no champion of Bill Clinton because of his boorish behavior to his wife and family after infidelity ordeal; And the amount of embarrassment that they had to endure because he did not deal with that matter quickly, decisively and honestly.

I have always felt that he just should have said – “This is a private matter between my wife and I – I will not answer any questions about this matter”. Instead, the lie, though understandable, put the family in a very bad situation.

Now, since his wife and he have apparently dealt with it and comparing it to the president we have had since – I have dropped it from problems with Mr. Clinton.)

To review the salient history, Bill Clinton and the current financial situation.

When President Clinton was in office the Republicans controlled the legislative part of our government. The 104th US Congress, in 1995, controlled everything for the first time since the 1950’s. The Speaker of the House was Republican Newt Gingrich. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate was Strom Thurmond (who was a Democrat, then a Republican).


Even if “Fannie Mae has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans” as the article in the NY Times states – so, what? The Clinton Administration was not in a position to do one thing - the Congress had the power.

If not Clinton then, who was the power for financial change at that time? Number one on my list is, Republican Phil Gramm of Texas. Gramm was Texas Senator from 1985 until 2002 (also served as the Democratic Congressman from 1978 – 1983 and Republican Representative from 1983 until 1985). Senator Phil Gramm is also the holder of a doctorate in economics from the University of Georgia and taught Economics at Texas A & M.


The good Senator served on the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and Senate Budget Committee from 1989 until leaving office in 2002. Significant to this discussion is the fact that Gramm authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. This Act removed safeguards that were put in place in the 1930’s (Glass-Steagall Act) to separate banking, insurance and brokerage industries.

Glass – Steagall Act of 1933 – formed the FDIC, changed banking and tried to end speculation that had factored in the Wall Street Crash of 1929. This Act stopped banks from owning things like mortgage companies, insurance companies other financial businesses. The Gramm-Leech-Bliley Act reversed this law. Gramm was not alone in this debacle though – the vote was 362 to 57 in the (Republican controlled) House and 90 to 8 (Republican controlled) Senate .

– Clinton signed it into law.

Back to the viral information being passed on like gospal.

According to Farah “ Who pushed the button? Bill Clinton did. He has an uncanny knack of emerging unscathed from the scandals he creates. So far, this is another one.” He does go on to say there is “plenty of blame to go around.” But then says “It's clear who made that decision initially, who got the ball rolling down the cliff, who pressed the wrong financial button. It was Bill Clinton”.

Can anyone say “Vendetta” -- - I bet you can Ven-det- ta……

……….watch out folks. When you buy into other people’s crud - maybe even mine, folks, this is the internet - we can say anything we want … do your own research.

Nose picker - Bush

Georgie Porgie Pudd'n and Pie - Flips us off and makes us die........

He just makes you proud - doesn't he?

Interesting tidbit from the Portland Business Journal

George Halvorson, CEO of Oakland, Calif.-based Kaiser Permanente, the second largest insurance company on the West Coast, spoke with the Porland Business Journal --

If you want Universal Health Care sooner rather than later - this industry insider gives a good reason to vote for Barrack Obama for President.....

QUOTE:

PBJ: What are the prospects in the short term for health reform in the United States?

GH: There is a high likelihood that we will get some level of health reform out of Washington as early as next year. But that possibility depends on which presidential candidate gets elected. If Sen. John McCain is elected he won’t have his own party in charge of Congress, so reform will be a bit more difficult. It is a priority for the McCain campaign to get something passed, but it is a higher priority for Sen. Barack Obama. There’s a high likelihood he would get something done relatively early in his administration.

For the rest of the story please go to the Portland Business Journal site.

Our son sent me this one....

Back on September 26th, CNN's Jack Cafferty let us into his thoughts about Sarah Palin and her threat to our country...... "One 72 year old's heart beat away from the Presidency"





The go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile Scroll down to September 26th, and read the comments - if the world were not in so much peril from this woman's placement on the brink of 'leadership' I would be tickled by this quote "She’s no more qualified than Marge Simpson." said Jennifer in Winnipeg - then again Marge would present herself much better.

The man who forgot how to ride a bicycle....

DeWayne McKinney died last week ….. I remember this guy because he was on 20/20. I was so shocked and impressed by his ability to just move on. The tragedies in most of our lives are very slight compared to Mr. McKinney’s.

Here I will just give the essentials – please read this article for the ‘rest of the story’.

McKinney was being raised by his single mother. In Orange County. California; this was interrupted by her death when he was 12.

Young DeWayne started surviving, and getting into trouble - Mostly really small stuff. But when a hamburger stand was robbed, the manager was killed and in a “round up the usual suspects” photo line up set. His photo was included – and with his luck his picture picked out of the line up.

A young assistant district attorney let the case against him and he was convicted. He went to prison.

Twenty years later – he was exonerated! Two other men admitted their guilt and those that identified DeWayne took back their testimony. So, twenty years later he got out of prison. The State of California gave him a settlement and said “Bye Bye.”

Rather than being bitter, DeWayne – stood on the steps of the court house and said he didn’t hold anything against anyone. Later on 20/20 he said it again.

Then he put if “money where is mouth is” he invited the judge who convicted him to officiate at his wedding.

From a man who had not seen a cell phone, who had gone to jail before he even had a bank account – he moved on to success in business. I don’t remember why they said he was in Hawaii – but he was and he noticed there were not enough ATM’s for tourists. He formed a business to fix that and became one of the biggest (maybe the biggest) owner of ATM’s in Hawaii.

McKinney died last week in Hawaii in a car accident. I would like to say ‘Bravo!” for a life well lived.

Oh – and the bit of trivia from the 20/20 interview….. Mr. McKinney said he had to relearn everything – including how to ride a bike. So, if someone tells you that “it is just like riding a bike – you never forget……” think of DeWayne McKinney


Here is a link to a man who knew him personally and writes in detail about more of his Mr. McKinney’s life and where I heard about his dealth.

What to they want?

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Of course, They want a woman who is

"just like me!"

"Every morning I wake up and tease my hair 'till it's big enough to hide a rabbit in, tell my knocked-up teenage daughter that a marriage by shotgun is better than not getting married, have someone fired 'cause gosh darn it, I don't like them very much........ and then go shoot a moose for lunch."

"Then after I get Trig up from his nap and do his enrichment exercises - by screeching about 'terrorists' close to his ear; About 3:00pm I will meet with reporters, pose for some pictures - not answer any questions that I have not been fed the answers to -- and get home in time to remind my husband to 'smile - and not speak to anyone - ever. Double so about Troopergate.'"

McCain would call these "gotchas" we will just "Oh Sarah - say it isn't so..."

Cars - Planes - Houses, Condominiums......

Mainstreet USA - who can we relate to?

McCain cars = 13 -- 10 are American, 3 are Foreign. Some of which are: 2004 Cadillac; a 2008 Jeep Wrangler; a 2007 half-ton Ford pickup truck; a vintage 1960 Willys Jeep; 2007 Lexus; a 2000 Lincoln; and a 2001 GMC SUV; three electric called GEM's 2005; Volkswagen convertible and a 2001 Honda sedan. (Quote McCain to Detroit television station WXYZ-TV, "I've bought American literally all my life and I'm proud.").



McCain jets = 1 - Cessna Citation Excel, a midsize corporate jet that seats eight

McCain houses = 8 (4 are condos that may be rentals)



Obamas cars = 1 -- 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid.


Obama jets = 0


Obama houses = 1

McCain grew up the son of a successful military man (Admiral McCain) - went to West Point as a result - miltary pilot - worked for his wife Cindy's father for a little while -- then went to work for the Senete. Always had benefits (usually governmental), always had a preferential lifestyle. (Okay there was that 5 years in the POW camp -- )



Obama - absent father that provided no support, mother who put herself through college - grandparents who helped in his rearing. Scholarships and worked his way through college.

I think only Obama can relate to people I know.

Financial News This Week

Watching all this financial news makes something come to mind .....

If you jump out of the Empire State Building from the 101st floor, for 100 floors you can actially think you're flying for 1200 feet or so.....That sudden stop will not be too much fun though.

It was a nice flight wasn't it? I know I enjoyed it ----

"Passengers, Thank your for flying Baby Boom Airways..... Prepare for landing, strap on your seat belt - it may be a very rough landing. "

"Ma...... are we there yet?"

Tina Fey on Saturday night......

I looked forward to Tina Fey "doing" Ms.Palin because they have an uncanny resemblance -- and Tina is such a smart actress .... below are some quotes I really enjoyed from last night -- if you have the time, watch the whole video.

Actress Amy Poehler as Hillary look-a-like says; “I believe that diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy” to which Fey-as-Palin responded: “And I can see Russia from my house.”

------------

'Palin' said "Tonight we are crossing party lines to address the now very ugly role that sexism is playing in the campaign,” Fey-as-Palin said.
Poehler-as-Clinton chimed in: “An issue which I am frankly surprised to hear people suddenly care about.”

------------

And on global warming: “I believe global warming is caused by man,” Poehler-as-Clinton said. “And I believe it’s just God hugging us closer,” Fey-as-Palin said.

-----------

Also liked "Hillary" telling the media to 'grow' some and to ask her about dinosaurs... I hope Tina comes back again next week.

Lee Kuan Yew - Singapore -- Leadership

The Following is a transcript of an interview on CNN with former (first) Prime Minister of Singapore.

I really don't know a lot about Singapore, I remember reporters telling us that gum chewing is illegal in Singapore. (A point that is still true from this interview - with one exception). I, for one am going to look into Singapore a little closer because of this leader.

If you can, please try to watch this interesting video on CNN, Fareed Zakaria GPS.

(The interview)

ZAKARIA: When I first met Lee Kuan Yew in 1994, I was absolutely struck by him. Richard Nixon once compared him to legendary statesmen like Disraeli, Bismarck and Churchill. But, Nixon said, he occupies a small stage. That stage doesn't look so small anymore.

Lee Kuan Yew took a small spit of land in Southeast Asia, which became independent in 1965 after great struggle and anguish, with no resources and a polyglot population of Chinese, Malaysian and Indian workers, and turned it into one of the economic centers of the world.

To do this, Lee had to have smart economic policies, but also a shrewd foreign policy that, allied with America, kept China happy, kept Russia and Japan at bay.

This week I sat down with Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore. His son now serves as prime minister, but Lee Kuan Yew is called "minister mentor." And he is still indisputably the father of Singapore.

I was struck by the depth of his understanding of the world -- China, Russia and the United States -- all at age 85.

ZAKARIA: You have achieved remarkable success for Singapore in your lifetime. You've seen it go from a tiny, poor, backward, Third World country to one of the richest countries in the world.

But lots of people feel that you have been -- you have exercised too tight a control, that you should have opened things up more, that it has been too domineering and coercive a state.

What do you say to that?

LEE KUAN YEW, FORMER PRIME MINISTER OF SINGAPORE: I say, ask my people. They are given the vote. It's secret.

Nobody has ever alleged any chicanery -- no bribery, no coercion, no nothing. We have never won less than 60, two-thirds of the vote.

ZAKARIA: But it's difficult for opposition parties to form and...

LEE: It is not the business of the government to enable the opposition party to overturn us. Right?

Do you expect the Republicans to help the Democrats to overturn them?

ZAKARIA: No, but leave aside even just the issue of political competition. I just mean you have laws, for example, that allow random testing of people for drugs. You have, you know, the famous ban against chewing gum, which exercised people's imagination.

Do you feel that you should have let up a little bit?

LEE: No, not at all. Because of that, we are now a safe, secure, fun city. The night scene has been transformed in the last 10, 15 years -- any number of nightclubs, the night life, al fresco dining by the riverside.

ZAKARIA: And people can even chew gum now.

LEE: You need to have a medical certificate to buy gum for those who want to give up smoking and have got to chew some nicotine.

What is it I am trying to do? I am trying to create, in a Third World situation, a First World oasis.

I am not following any prescription given me by any theoretician on democracy, or whatever. I work from first principles, what will get me there -- social peace and stability within the country, no fight between the races, between religions, whatever, fair shares for all, everybody is a homeowner.

I want investments. I've got nothing expect skilled manpower, infrastructure. I build up the infrastructure. I educate the people.

We have the best educated work force anywhere in Asia, and I would say, within another 10 years, anywhere in the world. They're all educated in English, which is our working language, and they keep their mother tongue, whether it's Chinese, Malay or Tamil, Urdu, or whatever.

Must I follow your prescription to succeed? Do I want to be like America? Yes, in its inventiveness and its creativeness.

But do I want to be with America, like America, with its inability to control the drug problem? No. Or the gun problem? No.

These are my choices. I go by what is good governance. What are the things I aim to do? A healthy society that gives everybody a chance to achieve his maximum.

ZAKARIA: What do you think of the American campaign, watching it from Singapore?

LEE: What can I say? It's fascinating.

Suddenly, Senator McCain produces this governor from Alaska, Palin, and is leading in the polls, and she's a hit. The first flush, she was a disaster.

ZAKARIA: What do you want from the next president?

LEE: Engagement with the world. Keep trade going. Don't backtrack, or you'll put yourself at a disadvantage and put the world at a disadvantage, and you make conflicts more likely.

Try and maintain a balance, so that peace and stability is assured without more conflicts.

ZAKARIA: One thing you've been critical of the United States of in the past has been its efforts to spread democracy around the world. You were critical of it when it was Bill Clinton's America, leave alone the freedom agenda of George Bush.

What do you object to in that push?

LEE: No, I don't -- I don't think it's doable. I'm a social Darwinist.

ZAKARIA: Survival of the fittest.

LEE: No. The survival requires you to change. If you don't change, then you are marginalized and you will become extinct.

ZAKARIA: But do you look at the way in which the United States has been trying to push democracy around the world...

LEE: Yes.

ZAKARIA: ... and you say...

LEE: Where have you succeeded? You went to Haiti in nation- building. And I was just listening to a BBC on Haiti recently. I mean, it's just undoable.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back.

ZAKARIA: What about Iraq? What do you think?

LEE: I was in favor of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. I did not believe it was possible to reconstitute Iraq as a democracy. I still do not believe that is possible.

ZAKARIA: So, what do you think will happen?

LEE: I think some compromise must be reached between the Shias and Sunnis and the Kurds to share the oil wealth and to share the country. And that is possible.

But whether it is democracy, or whether it's a bargain between tribal chieftains, that's a different matter.

You're going to bring democracy to Afghanistan? They have been warring with each other for hundreds of years. They enjoy warring with each other. Thirty-plus years ago they killed a king who was nominally holding the country together, and it's been shattered ever since.

How do you restore the writ of Kabul? By some 30,000 NATO troops, ISAF, and a few more brigades of Marines or special forces?

The Russians had 140,000 boots on the ground with tanks, helicopters and the lot. And they left.

I think nation-building is not doable. I mean, are you going to do nation-building in Pakistan? If you can't get Pakistan right, you will never get Afghanistan right.

That Durand Line was arbitrarily drawn by the British between the Northwest Frontier Provinces and Afghanistan. They are the same tribes, brothers, cousins -- porous borders. They're in and out.

Now you've not only got Talibans, you've got Pakistanis joining the Talibans -- or that's the latest intelligence that I've been reading.

It can go on for decades. Do we want to be in Afghanistan for decades?

ZAKARIA: A lot of people look at the Russian attack on Georgia and say this is the return of a kind of dark era of geopolitics.

How do you view it?

LEE: The country is booming, has got enormous oil wealth. But the underlying problems are enormous. The system is no longer the Soviet system, where you press a button and things move across the country.

The corruption will take quite some time to put right -- maybe a very long time. I don't know.

The population is not on the increase, in spite of all kinds of incentives. And the incentives will only work in the cities.

So, if you look at the long-term trends, it's 140 million Russians, who will go down to 120, 110 in 2050. How do you become a threat with just nuclear weapons?

ZAKARIA: Has America handled this crisis well?

LEE: It shouldn't have led to this crisis.

You are dealing with a very adventurous leader in Georgia, and he acted in a very unwise fashion. It was just too silly for words.

What was the point? What was he trying to score?

And bad intelligence, because good intelligence -- what I read of the intelligence reports -- the Russian troops were there, ready. And if good intelligence, they would know what the reaction would be, and they would have blocked the tunnel, blown up the tunnel, and prevented the tanks from coming in.
This is just bungling. And...

ZAKARIA: By Washington also, because we should have managed this better?

LEE: I do not want to guess why the Americans were so keen to bring Georgia into NATO. But at Bucharest, when the NATO meeting was held, Americans should have known that it wasn't warmly received by the people who would be on the front line, if ever there's a conflict. And the Russians know that.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back.

ZAKARIA: When the world saw the Beijing Olympics, and they saw the opening ceremonies, they saw a kind of birth of a new great power. How should we think about it? Should we be apprehensive?

LEE: What we saw -- and I was there with a lot of other of the VIPs -- was a reflection of their capabilities, their potential. It's not what they have achieved industrially or technologically. This was a show that they had seven years to prepare for. And they were carefully thoughtful about what they wanted to present to the world. They wanted to remind the world that they are an old civilization, 5,000 years. They discovered gun powder, paper, movable type, printing. They built the Great Wall.

That's the kind of capabilities for disciplined effort that built the Great Wall, the Grand Canal, and eventually will build them a technological society.

ZAKARIA: So you don't worry about them.

LEE: What do they want? Every year they know they are closing the gap. That gap is a huge one.

ZAKARIA: Technologically between them and the West.

LEE: Technologically and industrially.

I mean, what you see along the coastal provinces is just about 20, 30 percent of the population, the advantaged part of China. If you go to the inland parts, you will see a very different China.

So they know that to catch up is 30, 40, 50 years. So, let's not quarrel with anybody. That would abort the whole process.

Every year they grow stronger economically, industrially, catching up technologically. Any external problems will diminish their growth.

What do they have to worry about? Internal problems, social unrest, disparity in development, wages, farmers against the city dwellers, and so on.

The danger comes when you have, say, in 20 years a new generation that didn't go through the Cultural Revolution, never went to the Long March, and who believe that China has arrived. So, this is a new phase they are moving into.

And worldwide problems -- the biggest problem of all is climate change, energy.

ZAKARIA: Do you think the Chinese will be willing to reduce their own CO2 emissions, which would involve in some way placing limits on their growth? It doesn't seem that they are willing to do it.

LEE: For the time being, I think they are hoping it's not so bad. Per capita, their consumption is so low compared to the Americans.

But when the glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau, in the Himalayas melt away, and they are doing it at about four meters per year, and the big rivers that feed off these glaciers become seasonal only with rain, and that affects their crops and their farmers along the river basin, I think they'll have to sit back and ask themselves, do you want this huge upset in your demography? Do you want Shanghai and their coastal cities to be inundated? So, I hope the message -- the penny will drop within five to 10 years.

You look at the way the Chinese are spread across the world -- not just in Asia, you know, all over, Arabia -- all Chinese workers construct. What is it you want? New palace? New conference hall? New airport?

They've got 1,300 million people. You've only got 300 million. So, they've got four times your number. So, and they are using those numbers.

Every mission they have in Southeast Asia, their diplomats speak the language of the country. And in the Gulf, when I went there, I found that every mission, the Chinese mission speaks perfect Arabic. And I'm sure they do the same in Latin America and in Africa.

ZAKARIA: This is sounding like a power to be feared.

LEE: No, no. This is an ancient power that kept its language skills. This is not a new power. This is an old power revived. That was the lesson I took from the opening of the Olympics.

ZAKARIA: You turn 85 tomorrow. Is there a lesson? What are the secrets to longevity and success?

LEE: Your life span depends on what you've inherited from the two helixes you got from your mother and father. My father lived to 94. My mother died at 74 with some heart problems. I had my first heart problem when I was 74 in 1996.

Fortunately, unlike her time, they could do an angioplasty and a stent. So that solved it.

The day before yesterday I had atrial flutter, so I don't think I'll reach my father's 94.

ZAKARIA: But you're going strong. I mean, you could...

LEE: But day after tomorrow, something could go wrong with the ticker, and then, that's that.

ZAKARIA: Do you have any regrets?

LEE: No. I've discharged what I had to do. As long as -- every day is a bonus.

I take every day as it comes. I see the sun rise, I see the sun set. I eat less than I want to. I swim and I cycle. I sleep well of nights, and I enjoy my work.

But 70 to 80 percent is what I inherited from my parents.

ZAKARIA: Lee Kuan Yew, a great pleasure to see you.

LEE: Thank you.

Populist?

Lots of people on television seem to be calling McCain-Palin "populists" all of a sudden. Wow, this is not a term that I have seen used much in my lifetime. (60 years) This is something I studied in history regarding the beginning on the last century - "the elites" vs. "the people" - trade unions - railroad barons..... Big business, little people... , Hooverism vs. New Deal....

Now it is field dressing a moose? Now it is spouse that is a fisherman? Now it is a car pool, hockey mom ---- vs. the ____________________(fill in the blank).

The devil's own spawn, said - "She's a populist," Karl Rove on Fox TV.

Some talking head on CBS said she was a "populist" --

I might like someone -- my neighbor might like someone -- we might decide we both like someone for the same reason, we talk around and everyone seems facinated by the same person........ That does not mean that that person is a populist, it might mean that she is popular or even a curiosity.... but it does not mean she is a populist.

Just Rambling - 'how you gunna keep 'er, down on the farm - after she sees Pair-ee"!

Of course, I have to remember, we are voting for President in November, not Potential President, and there’s no reason to believe that a Potential President Palin would have significant influence over policy in a McCain Administration.

(Even if Chaney did have a lot of influence on the current President Bush -- but she could.)

And maybe, if the Moose Hunter gets the Potential President job, and moves to the big city, she will experience the big world and find out she is not so sure about things. People do that, you know. From my life experience it was easier for me to be cock sure about the world before I had seen it, and when I felt I had control over all of what mattered to my family and I.

But, don't you think that, just being in Washington D.C. could expose her to things her family has never had to deal with. She will see poverty on a grand style -( much bigger than the local church can deal with by throwing a food drive); Violence, drug use, illiteracy, multi-generational dependence on social resources -- remember, this is a city that re-elected a mayor who was affected by drugs. 55% of the population in Washington DC is African American; Whites are a very small minority; One third of the population of Washington DC is functionally illiterate; according to Wikipedia the murder rate has declined to 169 for 2006. (The Alaska Law Enforcement Agency reported that the whole state of Alaska reported 36 murders in 2006 --- 36 for the whole state!).

What I am saying is that the good part of getting a Potential Presidential Candidate that has not been out of her own small town much is that there is a potential for learning. Maybe she will really be a 'loose cannon' and when she sees that she can't just send her kids off to school, or let them go out and do things -- (I know, I know -- the Secret Service are pretty good baby sitters) -- okay, so maybe if she lives in a town where the local news on the TV is about more than Salmon - she will start thinking about a world bigger than her self.

Maybe with the travel of campaigning she will see that people who will lose their houses this year, or have to stay in houses that are in lousy neighborhoods - or see people who are functionally illiterate but having children because they don't know about choice, or maybe do and don't have the money for "the pill"; maybe she will meet people who are less afraid of Al Qaeda than where food will come from next month; Working people, of every economic and educational group, who are making choices between filling prescriptions and making house payments.

I know I am probably a twit that I have a fantasy that the possibility that becoming part of Washington’s power centers will change Palin enough that she will see that her record will be meaningless if she ever does become President - or even Vice President. I have a vision where one day she will see that she needs to grow and grow FAST!

I guess McCain but he could have done worse -- but not much. The one good thing I see is that it might be hard to keep her down on the farm - after she see Pair--ee!

Service and Parenting (II)

I just realized that I left off part of my "point" about answering questions about 'whose going to watch the kids, honey?" And that omission probably says something about me -- I will work on it.

When I first started that other blog I was going to also make the point that every candidate that is offering to give up 100% of their time to service, (Like President and potential Presidents)-- should actually be required to fill out Parenting Plans (like they fill out financial disclosures) -- but that because this never came up before (compare to Desert Storm) -- no one ever thought of it.

So, since Mr. Obama, Mr Biden, and Mr. McCain are also candidates - they should just fill out the papers too. As should all candidates from now forward...

Ballad of Sarah Palin

Sing along to the tune of Davy, Davy Crockett ...


You can see the actual music video here:

Born in a Hospital in Idaho
Didn't meet McCain until a week ago
Now she might be our next V.P.
She openly admits that she used to smoke weed
Now she lives in the coldest state
Her husband took her fishing on their very first date
They got married and had five kids
She was doing politics, while he was catching squids

Sarah, Sarah Palin...........
Queen of the Alaskan Frontier

A card carrying member of the N.R.A.
Disagree with her, and she'll blow your ass away
Sarah's very fond of shooting MooseBald Eagles, Puppies, and even a Goose
Sarah isn't known for trying to conserve
She wants to drill for oil in a protected reserve
Doesn't support abortion, or being gay
Its not her fault, just the Republican way

Sarah, Sarah Palin..........
Queen of the Alaskan Frontier

And now we've come to the end of the song
Alaska's Governor is a Hockey Mom
Sarah soon will make history
As the first gun totin', nut job, female V.P.

Sarah, Sarah Palin..........
Queen of the Alaskan Frontier
Sarah, Sarah Palin..................
Queen of the Alaskan Frontier


The Ballad of Sarah PalinSong
Written, Directed, and Performed by Mason Storm
Produced by Warpedcorp

CBS local affiliate report on Troopergate in Alaska

She may be an *"Evil Doer"...........













*Did you ever think about the term "Evil Doer"? Do you think Bush was just told not to use the words "Bad Guy" and he put the word "bad" into his computer's thesaurus and came up with "evil" -- then added doer on his own?

Gynecological Reasons to vote for Sarah Palin

NONE
what are they thinking?

Newspaper article

Just for fun, some teacher humor

I thought now is the time to put these together in one piece ....

To view details - click on image...

Make sure your friends and family are registered to vote

Okay Americans - we have something to overcome. We have a bad reputation for being uninvolved in politics compared to people in other democracies. Only about half of the people who are voting-age have cast ballots in recent presidential elections; that rate is dramatically lower than many other nations.

When I turned 21 my father took me out to lunch, then we went to the firehouse to register to vote. He told me he expected me to be a good citizen, and his last 'order' as my caretaker was to make sure I knew how important it was to vote. My first Presidential Election involved Bobby Kennedy (until his assassination), McCarthy, Hubert Humphrey --- Nixon.

It was a very strange time - the world, it seemed to me, was in upset. My own parents thought that VietNam was "just a UN Police Action", and we were not 'allowed' to call it a war ... yet my friends were being sent over there. In high school I had the second clarinet seat in orchestra - in the first seat, was a boy who got killed on his second day in VietNam - about 8 weeks after graduation.

Showing almost exactly my age, I am proud that I was one of the people who bugged my Representatives to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. With VietNam blazing in my mind, the logic of drafted men of 17 going off, potentially to die - was unacceptable. They needed representation.

While listening to some speakers at San Jose State College I experienced tear gas that was thrown into the crowd by police who were trying to break up the crowd. Politicians and reporters were saying that the crowds were 'outside' instigators and people trying to make trouble. But, I knew that I was just a student, newly married, and working full time at an insurance company and going to college --- the people around me seemed mostly the same --- even the 'hippies' were mostly full time students, they were not outside agitators.

As baby boomers --- raised by parents who had saved the world from fascists and now our country had gone to the moon -- wee knew we could end the war, end starvation, and give the world a Coke & "teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". (Okay - we were very naive).

I am rambling on and on again -- but we did put the pressure that did end the war, we did end the draft, we did get representation for many disenfranchised peoples throughout the country and the world. Then we got comfortable, probably lazy, and we raised kids who did not feel the same need to protest and act out for change.

I accompanied my older son to register to vote on his 18Th Birthday - but apparently I got lazy or forgetful with my youngest.

Make sure everyone you know is registered to vote. Americans are not a mean or small minded people -- we can get America back from the extremists by voting for good people who really represent us.

VOTE!

We are a Republic.....

People everywhere (including every candidate and the President) seem to be getting it wrong all the time WE DO NOT LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY -- As Franklin said when leaving the Constitutional Convention-- He replied, "......... we have given you a republic - if you can keep it."

Here are some definitions .. we are not a:

Democracy - that is a form of government in which the main power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed. (hint, you can't make democracy happen at the business end of a riffle).

We are a:

Republic - this is a government in which the people (me and you) elect agents (representatives) -- and those agents vote on our government - not "We the people" ourselves.

In Contrast ... let me present ... The Netherlands, you may refer to it as Holland if you must.

In contrast -- I am interested in the Netherlands, my husband's birth country (yes, he entered the US legally) - so I will use them as a sample of another form of government.

The Netherlands has a Constitutional Monarchy. They have a system that the queen and the people have a set of rules (their constitution) and the rules outline what are the queen's rights, duties, and responsibilities are.

The Dutch have a VERY representative government - they also have a very long history of this. They have only had a constitutional monarchy since the early 1800's, but long before that the people, and the kings, were tolerant separatists, and most importantly they were merchants and traders.

As merchant's formed cities and city states, and company's and corporations that did things - Big things, like founding the district we call New York (New Amsterdam) through one of those corporations. (This was not like the colonies formed by the Spanish, Portuguese or the English in the New World). They selected people to run these things and became very astute in managing people, money and large assets --- let's say they could have coined the term "Win-Win Situation".

Another thing they did that is still at work today is they built dikes and lived on reclaimed land that is below sea level. Trite saying, but true - "God may have built the world - but the Dutch made the Netherlands". With 25% of the country under sea level, and the North Sea always ready to reclaim itself - the Dutch have had to have a way to protect everyone living in the lowlands, almost all of the Netherlands is at sea level, and below.... The reclaimed lands are called "polders" -- polders have representatives that serve on a "waterboard".

This may seem unimportant to most of you - but while our country was living on isolated farms and homesteads, and even our Eastern cities were days away from our seat of government. (This is why the US needed to have a representative republic -- we were too big to wait for everyone to voice their opinion on every thing we needed done).

So, back to the Netherlands, the waterboards started out working to maintain the water, the dikes and things having to do with local government. These groups worked almost directly with every citizen in the community and provided an infrastructure that HAD to work or people would drown and things would be washed into the North Sea.

The Dutch have found a way to work with all the different opinions and cut through the crap to reach a consensus. A consensus to just get the job done. In the beginning to keep the whole North Sea at bay in the end it set an example for how to run country.

Because of their experience with world trade the Dutch became very tolerant of individuals right to pick their own lifestyle. The economy is very open and still relies on international trade.

Because of the polders and the waterboards the Dutch have learned to represent themselves in a way that they can all live and prosper with.

Because of their belief in consensus the Dutch have close to 20 political parties right now. About ten have some real clout (some of those are a couple of christian parties, Greenleft Party, Labor Party, Green Party, Democrats, an animal rights party --- and on and on).... No one can get a majority -- how do they get anything done? They do it by forming coalition governments and by compromise. Some of their parties are very extreme -- but people have learned to respect, listen and accept differences. They even have a word for acceptance (I can't remember it right now) - the word has no translation in English; it sort of means, 'They don't agree - who cares?"or "So, its illegal - it doesn't hurt anyone - who cares?"

Again I go on and on.......

Back to --- we are not a Democracy -- my point is we may not even be the best Republic --

From – Life Magazine – December 15, 1972

I read old magazines and love the historical perspective that comes from reading "primary" documents. Ironically I was reading this one, this week, on a day that John McCain and Pres. Bush spoke about opening up domestic oil fields. (errors or word omissions in text are probably because of OCR scanning article into word program).

Everything old is new again.

This lead me to read statistics at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ for what our real reserves are. Take some time and read through these - when you get into the numbers some of them go back to 1890's - many to 1973, and the rest seem to be back to at least 1982.

Some numbers were surprising to me -- for instance, we get oil and natural gas from the US Virgin Islands; we get 6,693,000,000 barrels more per day now from imports than we did in 1973. And, of course, we go no oil from Iraq in Jan 1973 - we got 10,000,000 per day barrels from Iraq in Mar 2008, we spiked to 1,126,000,000 per day in December 2001(we did not invade until Spring 2003) (?). (history is going to tell us that there is more to this than we know).

Just interesting -
------------------------------------------------------

ENERGY & AMERICA
By John G. McLean, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Oil Company, is also chairman of the National Petroleum Council’s Committee on US Energy Outlook. The committee’s initial appraisal provides the statistical basis for the following. The conclusions are Mr. McLean’s.
LET’S FACE THE FACTS ABOUT OUR ENERGY OUTLOOK
The nation’s requirements for energy, will about double between now and 1985. In this period, we shall have to rely upon oil, gas, coal and nuclear power for at least 95% of our needs. If present trends continue, our indigenous resources of these materials will not be developed fast enough to meet our growing requirements.

NATURAL GAS IS SCARCE.
Shortages already confronting us will increase. Domestic production is projected to decline about 1/3 during the next 15 years. With more imports of natural and liquefied gas and synthetic gas from naphtha and coal, we may hold gas availability at about its present level. This will be sufficient to satisfy less than half of our potential gas requirements by 1985.

CRUDE OIL IMPORTS WILE HAVE TO QUADRUPLE.
Domestic production of crude oil is projected to show little net change. To meet rising demand, imports will about quadruple reaching 10 to 15 million barrels a day in 1985. Even larger imports will be needed lf we fail to meet our goals with respect to nuclear power and coal.

NUCLEAR POWER – WHERE IS IT?
We should launch a major new effort to construct the equivalent of at least 280 nuclear energy plants of 1,000 megawatts each during the next 15 years. Today, we have the equivalent of only ten such size plants operation and only 46 actually under construction. Progress is being retarded by technical difficulties and environmental restraints.

COAL-WE PRODUCE NO MORE NOW THAN 50 YEARS AGO.
Production of coal should be approximately doubled during the next 15 years. We have adequate reserves. Limiting factors are the availability of manpower, environmental considerations, and health and safety precautions.

INVESTMENT - WE'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE IT.
Enormous capital inputs will be necessary to provide for our energy requirements. Between now and 1985 the United States energy industry will have to invest between $400 and $500 billion in new productive and distribution facilities, an annual average of about $30 billion, compared to present outlays of about $16 billion.

NEAR TERM SHORTAGES - WE CAN T ESCAPE THEM.
We may be able to relieve our near term energy problems through appropriate government and industry action, but there is no realistic probability of a complete escape from them. This is true because of the long lead times - often five to eight years - required for the development of major new energy supplies. The critical "balance wheel'' will be the volume of foreign oil imports; this will be the element which will adjust for our failures or successes in other energy areas.

WHAT DO THE FACTS FORESHADOW?
We shall become increasingly dependant upon foreign countries, primarily in the Middle East, for a vital portion of our energy supplies. At the present time we obtain about 26% of our crude oil an 12% of our total energy requirements from foreign sources. By 1985, we will probably draw about 40% to 55% of our oil and 23% to 32% of our total oil from abroad.

CONCENTRATED DEPENDENCE.
Most of the oil will have to come from the eleven OPEC counties (particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran), which today have 85% of the Free World crude oil reserves outside the United States an Canada and account for 90% of the oil exports moving into world markets. Dependence upon a small number of distant foreign countries for a vital portion of our energy supplies will be a new fact of life in the history of this nation. We shall need to take a new look at our foreign policies with respect to the Middle East and attach to them a much higher priority than they have thus far been accorded.
We will be vitally dependent upon peace in that trouble area for continuity in oil supplies; our friends In Western Europe and Japan will be in a similar position; and Russia will be the only major world power In the coming decade that will be self-sufficient in energy resources. The diplomatic and nations security aspects of this situation demand a great deal more attention than they have yet been given.

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS PROBLEMS.
Growing oil and gas imports will provoke a large growing deficit in the U S balance of trade in fuels. By the early 1980’s, this deficit could be in the $20 to $30 billion range, compared to a current deficit of less than $3 billion. Today, our total exports of goods and services are only about $66 billion. To pay for our imports of fuel, we will need to seek additional exports of other goods and services.
What will we sell and to whom? We cannot look to the industrialized countries of Western Europe and Japan, because they will be struggling to increase their own net exports to pay for growing fuel imports. Ultimately, the situation can come to equilibrium worldwide only when the oil exporting countries are able to absorb greatly increased imports from us and other oil importing countries. But they do not have the populations, markets, and economic infrastructures to accept large imports from us. This problem will be a critical national issue in the decade ahead.

NEW FINANCIAL CENTERS
Our growing purchases of oil and gas coupled with those of Western Europe and Japan, will create major new centers of financial power. By 1985, the oils producing counties of Africa and the Middle East could be collecting oil revenues at an annual rate of almost $50 billion. Most of these countries are not yet ready to use internally new funds of this magnitude. A large portion of the oil tax revenues will thus move into the short – and long-term money of the Free World in ways, and with impacts, which are difficult to predict. One clear possibility is that these countries could become large equity holders in the financial institutions and industrial companies of the United States, Western Europe and Japan.
ENERGY COSTS ARE BOUND TO RISE.
We have exhausted a large share of our cheapest and most accessible energy materials. New indigenous supplies will come at higher prices. Coal mines will be further underground; oil and gas wells will be drilled to greater depths and in deeper waters offshore, the development of oil shale and other synthetics will require expensive new technology.
At present the composite wellhead or minemouth cost of energy produced in the United States is about 35 cents per million BTU'S. By 1985, it could easily be 50% to 100% higher.
These increases are significant, but they can be absorbed in our economy without serious disruptive effects. For the past decade, the real cost of energy in the United States has been declining. Today, we spend only about 5% of our national income for fuels. We are in a favorable position vis-a-vis the other world powers with respect to basic energy costs and will probably continue to be so even after the increases I have suggested. Our most urgent problem is one of adequacy and continuity of energy supplies - not one of energy costs.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE OUR SITUATION?
We should take prompt action to establish a single, high - level agency in our government to develop a national energy policy and to coordinate our efforts relating to energy matters. I do not mean that our federal government should play a larger role m the discovery and development of natural resources. This task should be left to private enterprise. The chief mission of the central government agency should be to establish priorities and guidelines and to eliminate delays, conflicts, and confusion.

WE CAN INCREASE DOMESTIC ENERGY PAODUCTION.
We should take prompt action to stimulate the development of our indigenous energy resources. We have an adequate resources base, our problem is to get new supplies at a faster rate. We need some practical trade-offs in the ecological area. The production and consumption of energy inevitably involves some ecological impairment. We cannot achieve our environmental goals overnight and still give the U S economy all the energy it requires and the pubic demands. Some pragmatic, graduated approaches to our ecological goals are urgently needed. Here the federal government should take decisive action and very promptly.
We need to decontrol natural gas prices and to establish that the price of synthetic gas manufactured from coal and naphtha will not be subject to federal restraints. Our present preoccupations with imports of liquefied natural gas from Russia and Algeria are a national absurdity in the face of continued control of indigenous gas prices at much lower levels.
We need to accelerate the leasing of federal lands on reasonable terms for resource development, particularly the Outer Continental Shelf which contains some of our most promising potentials for new oil and gas discoveries.

WE CAN CONSERVE ENERGY
We should reduce waste in the consumption of energy. I am not suggesting curtailments which would have a negative impact on the growth of our economy. On the contrary, I believe the consumption of energy should be encouraged because it increases the efficiency of our economy - providing the energy used for socially desirable ends.
There are, however, many areas in which we - could conserve energy without impairing economic growth. For example, 20% of our energy is used for commercial and residential heating, savings can be made through better insulation. About 25% of our energy is used for transportation, savings can be made through the development of mass transportation and smaller and more effluent automotive engines. Another 25% of our energy is used for the generation of electric power in processes which waste about 70% of the energy input, savings can be made through the development of more efficient conversion systems.

WE CAN COOPERATE WITH OTHER NATIONS.
Most of the major industrial nations of the Free World will be facing the same energy problems as we do. Clearly, the situation provides opportunities for cooperative research and engineering in the development of new energy sources. And clearly, there is a need for collaboration in the development of a sound framework of political relationships with the countries of the Middle East to promote stability and peace in that area.
WHAT ABOUT OUR LONG TERM ENERGY POSITION?
While our medium-term problems, (through about 1985), are acute, our long-term energy position is reasonably sound. Our country is liberally endowed with energy materials. To meet our long-term requirements, we have:
o Potentially recoverable oil reserves sufficient to meet present demands for over 65 years,
o Potentially recoverable gas reserves sufficient to meet present demands for over 50 years,
o Measured and indicated coal reserves, commercially accessible with current mining methods, equivalent to nearly 300 years' supply,
o Uranium reserves sufficient meet our present total electric power needs for 25 years, and
o Recoverable shale oil reserves sufficient to meet our oil needs at present demand levels, for about 35 years after our natural oil reserves are exhausted.

Taken in the aggregate, our potential energy resources have an energy content sufficient to meet our needs for at least 200 years, at present consumption rates. Long before the end of that period, advances in technology should bring us new energy sources, such as nuclear fusion and solar power, which will greatly diminish the drain upon our natural energy materials.
It is our medium - term energy outlook that is of serious concern. We can and will solve these problems. But the task will not be easy, and it will require a greater sense of urgency and commitment on the part of both industry and government than presently exists.



Signed by: John G. McLean, Continental Oil Company

This statement comprises excerpts of an address by Mr. McLean. For full text in booklet for form write Continental Oil Company, Dept LF, High Ridge Park, Stamford, Conn. 06904