A Level Playing Field

I sent the following article, via E-mail to Charles Harlow (aka III):

Liberals, too, should reject the Fairness Doctrine

By Nicole Hemmer Nicole Hemmer – Tue Nov 25, 3:00 am ET

Charlottesville, Va. – Having won control of the White House and Congress, Democrats are turning their attention to their legislative agenda. High on the list of priorities? The Fairness Doctrine. Democrats such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York hope to use their party's victory to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine on radio, but the return of the doctrine would be bad news for them – and could end up being good news for conservatives.

Not familiar with the Fairness Doctrine? It's not your fault – it hasn't been in existence for more than 20 years. Meant to ensure every side received fair hearing on controversial issues, the doctrine was tossed out by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) during the Reagan years.

Many Democrats are eager to bring the doctrine back, and it is likely to be introduced early on in the next Congress. Senator Schumer underscored this point when, on Election Day, he made his case for the doctrine on Fox News, arguing that government has a right to regulate radio for the public good, as it does with pornography.

In conservative media, the doctrine has been getting play throughout the campaign. As Barack Obama's victory looked increasingly likely, David Frum used the Fairness Doctrine to argue for divided government, warning that a Democratic Congress would try to silence the opposition through the Fairness Doctrine. Others contended that Democrats wanted the doctrine to force more stations to air less-popular liberal radio programming.

Perhaps these are the goals. If so, they show how off-base these Democrats are about the history of the Fairness Doctrine, and how out-of-tune they are with the current direction of the Democratic base. Liberals aren't clamoring for a voice on radio – they're staking out territory on the Internet, which they've effectively used not only to air grievances and ideas but to organize political action.

More important, though, the Fairness Doctrine did more to help develop conservative talk radio while in effect than it has in the 20 years since its revocation.

Admittedly, that conclusion isn't obvious. Democrats' decision to advance the Fairness Doctrine makes sense according to conventional explanations of conservative broadcasting's rise. In talk radio lore, the abolishment of the doctrine in 1987 gave rise to Rush Limbaugh and a slew of conservative imitators. That Limbaugh went national in 1988 lends credence to this theory.

But the Fairness Doctrine presented conservatives with a sweeping example of liberal media bias, a charge they have used to build and justify alternative conservative media. First articulated in 1949, the doctrine had a chilling effect on conservative opinion. No one – not the FCC, not Congress, not broadcasters – knew what the doctrine required other than that broadcasters ensure fairness.

But what did "fairness" mean? In many ways, the standard seemed to be the one a Supreme Court justice famously adopted toward pornography: FCC officials would know it when they saw it.

Rather than air controversial issues and risk license revocation if the FCC deemed the coverage unfair, many broadcasters simply steered clear of such material. This decision hit conservative broadcasters hard. In a political culture dominated by liberal consensus – the belief in the positive value of government action, containment of communism, and regulation of industry – conservatism was controversial in a way liberalism was not.

Take the case of Clarence Manion, whose conservative radio show ran from 1954 through 1979. In October 1957, Mr. Manion taped an interview with Herbert Kohler about an ongoing strike at Mr. Kohler's Wisconsin plant. The national radio network carrying Manion's program refused to air the broadcast. Too controversial, network executives said, claiming (incorrectly) that the network would have to give time for the union to respond.

The incident convinced Manion and his listeners that conservatives couldn't get a fair shake in established media outlets. Episodes such as these allowed conservatives to seize a populist platform, to decry censorship, and cement their perception of liberal media bias.

That bias argument is central to conservative media: If established media are intractably liberal, then balance demands the existence of alternative right-wing media. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine resurrects these issues without any prospect of achieving balance in radio broadcasting. Attempts to limit conservative broadcasting would meet instant legal challenges. No court would uphold the doctrine in its earlier ambiguous form, which survived so long only because it faced few legal challenges.

Moreover, liberals would do well to consider the implications of government regulation of on-air content. Do we really want government monitoring broadcasts, weighing their politics, and pushing program remedies? The doctrine died in the 1980s because it was seen as a muzzle on controversial broadcasting. It would do well to stay dead.

III's response, which stimulated this present post, follows:

Mike,

This is an issue that I have mixed emotions about. While I agree with you and the basic impetus of the article, I do have some reservations. I think the so-called fairness Doctrine should be in effect to protect those running for public office who do not have the personal resources of their opponent. But I don't believe it should be applied heavy handedly in all cases. But because I do not believe that the major broadcast networks are demonstrably liberal biased in their reporting, that may distort my opinion. Having read Eric Alterman's What Liberal Bias?, and Joe Conan's The Big Lies, I find that basic premise hard to accept, especially as espoused by Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Drudge, and others of their ilk. Can you name even one liberal on privately owned broadcast radio? I can't, and I don't believe that is simply a matter of marketplace economics. Public radio is another matter entirely, but those folks are "preaching to the choir", as it were. Like most issues, this one is made up of all shades of gray, with very little pure black or white.

My thoughts, which of course are evolving, on the issue are:

For the purposes of full-disclosure, I need to state that I not only am a devotee of PBS, especially National Public Radio, but I have supported this organization with "generous" annual pledges. I first began listing to NPR after we moved to the Cleveland, OH, area in 1967. I do not, however, believe PBS should receive any Federal Support whatsoever. My understanding is that Federal Support for PBS amounts to approximately 20% of its annual budget. In the same context, I don't believe any media outlet, Main Stream or otherwise, should receive Federal Monies or tax breaks.

Why? For the simple reason that Federal support comes with Federal "control" or, at least arguments about how liberal or conservative PBS/NPR should be. The best control would be based up listener/view support. That is, the level of contributions would reflect the listeners' views/agreement with what is broadcast. I am confident that, were Federal and, for that matter, State support withdrawn from PBS/NBS, the clientele would make up the different. From this perspective and without any attempt at self-aggrandizement, ego gratification, or elitism, several surveys have shown that PBS/NPR supporters/listeners typically have higher income and educational levels than the rest of the population. Therefore, even a modest amount of advertising (only at the hour and half-hour time periods) for high quality products would more than make up for the loss in governmental funding. If not, too bad: PBS/NPR would then deserve to flounder or disappear.

While I get most of my "news" from PBS/NPR, I also watch CNN and, sometimes, FNN. I seldom watch NBC, CBS, or ABC because I find their programing dull. I do not, however, resonate with the "in your face" combative conservative style often seen on FNN.

Is there bias in the Main Stream Media and PBS/NPR? Indubitably, but to no more extent than on FNN, conservative talk radio, O'Riley, Coulter, etc., etc., etc. etc. III asked if I could identify one liberal on MSM? I can't but I do detect liberal bias in the reporting on some occasions, most of the time with more difficulty than I make the same detection on FNN, etc.

Philosophically, I believe the chances of reporting a perfectly unbiased news story are vanishingly small. Despite our best efforts, when and if we choose to employ them, even our basic vocabulary with which we report "news" derives from personal experience and outlook.

If, however, a perfectly unbiased news story where placed over the airways or in print, liberals and conservatives each would declare the story biased simply because the reporter did not explicitly support the viewpoint of the reader/viewer/listener. I make this statement (which I hope comes through in boldface) because I think the observation is at the root cause of conservative discontent with the Main Stream Media, whatever that is.

I do not comprehend the Conservative malaise, discontent, and anger over the alleged MSM liberal bias. If my Conservative brothers and sisters believe they have detected such bias, they have plenty of opportunities to make rebuttals, even refutations. Let's keep in mind that the MSM (e.g, newspapers, and network TV) continue to "suffer" declines in readership and viewership.

I read a recent survey that found approximately half of Americans now rely on the Internet for their "news". Certainly during this last presidential campaign, I observed conservatives flooding the net via E-mails and blogs with counters to liberal positions. Yes, many of these counters degenerated in racist and religious diatribes.

I am not pessimistic that some of my more extreme liberal brothers and sisters will be successful in reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. This past election confirmed: This Republic remains slightly right of center with regards to politics. So far, President-elect Obama, despite his campaign rhetoric, has hewed to this position with his statements and appointments. I am optimistic that the majority of the electorate will tell the extreme liberals supporting a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine to (in military terms) "Suck it up and drive on". That is, if you can't compete in the open market place, get out of the game. Can you imagine the field day conservative radio hosts, bloggers, etc. will have if a serious attempt is made to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? I suspect the next mid-term elections would, as a result, generate a conservative landslide. P-E Obama would be an idiot to support the effort at reinstatement.

Additionally, would extreme Liberals want to risk application of the Fairness Doctrine to P-E Obama's (Democratic Party's) massive Internet fund raising so successfully conducted in the last election?

If the majority of Americans are so naive as to be unable to detect bias in the media, regardless of the political origin, the Republic deserves to fall. Yes, I may be highly educated (some persons would even say, over educated) but, if I can detect bias, almost anyone can.

Rather than succumbing to irrational feelings of persecution over media bias, my Conservative (and Liberal, for that matter) brothers and sisters should offer rational counters to that bias. Diatribes, personal attacks (as opposed to attacks on positions), insults, and predictions of gloom and doom do not constitute rational counters to bias.

Finally, my sense of "rational" optimism places me solidly with Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln: I trust the common sense of an educated public and you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I see the task, therefore, as one of education.

You can tell that III punched one of my "hot buttons".

Bio/Legend

In response to an earlier posting about my new Internet friend/correspondent, Charles Harlow III (AKA III), this post will present some of my biographical information he requested. Other readers of this blog may not be familiar with the broad outlines of my life. Devotees of spy novels will recall that, when going on a dangerous assignment, undercover agents always prepared, or had prepared for them, a biographical "legend". Here's mine.

The Frosolono family originated in or near Marsiconuova, a city in the Calabria region of southern Italy. According to family legend,my great grandfather, Frederico Frosolono, was an officer in the Italian Army. He also played the trombone. I speculate that he may have served in an Italian Army band rather than as a front line officer. At some point in the 1860's-1870's, he became enamored of a world-wide socialist movement, which I suspect was actually the Communist Party. He resigned his army position and began to travel throughout Europe to recruit workers into this socialist/Communist organization. Hence, my paternal grandfather, Michael (Daddy Mike)Concello Frosolono was born in Marseilles, France. The organization sent Frederico to the US in order for him to recruit workers on the Eastern seaboard, from outside New York City to Florida. Frederico brought his two oldest sons, Antony (not Antonio)and Giuseppe (Joseph,Joe) with him. The three men traveled together by train on the recruitment trips. Subsequently, Frederico sent for great grandmother Rosa Concello Frosolono, Daddy Mike, and younger daughter, Lusetta.

Frederico and his sons often stopped in LaGrange, GA, to stay overnight at railroad hotel. The LaGrange area reminded the family of Calabria. My recollection is that Frederico did not recruit in the LaGrange area textile mills, most likely because he wanted a relatively safe place to stay. Callaway Mills, in LaGrange, had a long history of anti-union activities, sometimes violent in nature. Frederico seems to have been a good recruiter. He was so successful in Montgomery, AL, that some of the local industrial leaders arranged for a black criminal to assassinate him. The dirty deep was accomplished through a stab wound. I have seen a copy of the death certificate, which lists the cause of death as "peritonitis". Frederico is buried in
the Montgomery Catholic cemetery.

After Frederico's death, Uncle Tony, who was already an accomplished violinist went for further intensive study in Russia. Upon his return to the US, he lived in Chicago where he organized and led several orchestras, some of which played in the local nightclubs. Daddy Mike, Uncle Joe, Rosa, and Lusetta settled in LaGrange. Uncle Joe opened a barber shop that was highly successful. Tony became quite wealthy through various capitalistic enterprises.

Tony summoned Daddy Mike to Chicago and enrolled him into a tailoring school. He ultimately became a highly skilled tailor. While in Chicago, Daddy Mike had aspirations to be a boxer in the flyweight category. He managed to defy Tony and won several professional boxing matches. On the afternoon of a highly anticipated with a top ranked opponent, Tony and several other men locked Daddy Mike in a closet and refused to let him out until the next day. This tactic more or less ended Daddy Mike's boxing career. He returned to LaGrange and set up his tailor shop. During the depression, he supported the family mainly with his gambling at the pool and poker tables.

The above family history accounts, in some people's mind, for my genetic disease of presumptive liberalism, i.e., I inherited by this affliction as a result of the Frosolono gene pool. On the other hand, I have no ability at tailoring, boxing, pool, poker, or music. All of the Frosolono men and my paternal grandmother (Mama Ruth, below) had significant talents in music. For instance, Mama Ruth had a wonderfully clear and beautiful soprano voice with great range. She was the lead soprano in our church choir. Go figure.

Daddy Mike courted and convinced Bonnie Ruth (Mama Ruth Birdsong) to marry him. Mama Ruth, a staunch Presbyterian, agreed with two provisions: (1) Daddy Mike had to give up his Catholic church membership and (2) Refrain from teaching Italian to his children. I suspect that Mama Ruth wanted her children to be fully accepted as Americans, not Italian-Americans.

Mama Ruth's father was twice elected sheriff of Troup County. My paternal and maternal ancestors fought in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, although no one in the families ever made much reference to this fact. I found much of the details a few years ago from the Troup County Historian.

My father, Michael Concello (Cecil) Frosolono, Jr., and my mother, Sara Neese Frosolono, married at a young age, 18 and 15, respectively. Mama Ruth considered them too young to know enough to be married, much less raise me when I was born approximately three years after the marriage. Mama Ruth insisted the young couple live with her and Daddy Mike. This demand caused Mother some difficulties. Interestingly, Mama Ruth often told me, "You should marry young so you can get all the mystery of sex out of the way and get on with your life." I ignored this advice, as I did other aspects of her "teachings", often rendered as imperatives.

I was born at City County Hospital in LaGrange, GA, early in the morning of 27 Jan 38. Our Frosolono family "history" states that my mother, about 18 years old at the time, developed a pregnancy-induced craving for boiled peanuts. She consumed a large quantity of the nuts, thereby inducing premature labor and I was born six-weeks early. Yes, I like almost all types of peanuts but am not at all fond of the boiled variety.

Mama Ruth foresaw the on-coming WWW II and, Christian pacifist that she was, did not want Cecil or his older brother, Frederick (Fritz) to serve in the armed forces. She also thought that everyone should have a marketable skill or trade. Uncle Fritz, however, was drafted into the Army Air Force and served in Europe, although he did not become enmeshed in any combat operations. He often referred to his AAF service in Europe as the "best time of my life". I speculate much of the reason for these fond memories resulted from the fact that he was away from Mama Ruth's domination.

Mama Ruth sent Cecil to Nashville, TN, to learn sheet metal working skills. Once the war was underway, he was exempted from the draft because of his critical-to-the-war skill and worked in a shipyard in Chickasaw, AL, near Mobile. This shipyard built Liberty Ships. Mama Ruth sent Sara to beautician school in Macon, GA. She lived with Mama Ruth's sister and her daughter. Mother became quite notable as a beautician once the family returned to LaGrange after the war.

Where was I during this period? With Mama Ruth, of course. She became the dominant figure of my young life. She took me with her to church (Sunday morning and evening services, Wednesday prayer meetings, Thursday night choir practice, and afternoon circle meetings), social engagements, and many other places, including to plays and musical events at LaGrange College ("The Hill"). The family history also states that I was a compliant child with a maturity much beyond my years. By the time I reached Jr. High/High School, I became non-compliant with most expectations of my family. I won't go further into these early years but, as an adult, I often wondered whether I am who am because of, or despite of, Mama Ruth's influence that lasted well into my high school years. I finally realized that the answer is "yes" to both.

I had a different set of interactions with Daddy Mike. For instance, when I was still in elementary school, I was engaging in pre-adolescent exploration of my penis when Sara barged into the one bathroom in Mama Ruth's house. She wanted to know why I was taking so long with my evening bath. When Sara saw what I was doing (I didn't try to conceal the fact.), she went ballistic, telling me I was "sinning, being a pervert, etc." Daddy Mike came to see what the commotion was about. Sara said, "He's playing with his peter."

Daddy Mike replied, "Sara, it's his. If he wants to play with it, that's his business, not yours. Now go back to the living room and leave the boy alone." Good man, Daddy Mike.

By the time I began school, I was reunited with Cecil and Sara in Chickasaw. We came back to LaGrange soon after I began second grade. The war had ended, the shipyard closed, and Cecil needed work. He joined Daddy Mike and Mama Ruth at the family tailor shop, and Sara began full time work as a beautician. I started working in the tailor shop, picking up and delivering clothes for alterations. The shop served about six major stores, several smaller ones, and many individuals.

I well remember a consciousness changing event that took place when I was in 3rd or 4th grade. Instead of going to the tailor shop to work after school, I went home with a friend. I was amazed at all of the "stuff" they had, including an early TV, in their large house. That evening at supper I remarked on what I had seen and asked Cecil why we didn't live like my friend's family. "They're rich, Michael," he replied.

"Aren't we rich" I asked.

"No, we're poor and you'd better get used to that fact."

I never became accustomed to that reality.

I began to read at an early age. Sara, along with Cecil's sister, Anita Frosolono James, greatly encouraged my reading, which opened up a wider world to me. While still in Jr. High, I tried to check out a copy of "Forever Amber" from the city library, an attempt that appalled the head librarian. She called Sara about my "poor taste" in reading materials and her lack of parental control. Sara said, "Let him have the book. Once he finishes the book, I want to read it." By the time I was in high school and often reading at least one novel per day, I was the chief "reviewer" at both libraries in LaGrange. As you may infer, I read very fast. The librarians gave me first crack at the new novels with the stipulation that I provide "reviews". I found out that the librarians would tell other clients, primarily women, "Mike liked this book", or "Mike hated this book." Many of the clients apparently relied on my reviews.

Some of my strongest memories relate to feelings about my childhood. I felt as if I were in a warm mud bath with my family, who were content with their world. I wanted out. My extensive reading at that time and the world that books revealed, along with my "cultural" visits to The Hill, made me dissatisfied with my family's insular world. I began to scheme how I could enter a different world.

I quickly determined that I would not be a good athlete. Yes, I played a lot of tennis and golf, and became reasonably proficient at those sports. I ran track but, with my short legs, had limited success. Football and basketball had no appeal to me. Bottom line: Sports would not be my way out my environment.

Well before I entered high school, I realized my mind and intellectual pursuits were my ticket out of the "mud bath". I strove to become a scholar. My high school years and the efforts of several outstanding teachers gave me a love of science and writing. These same teachers often "corrected" me on my rebellious nature. I was impatient to get on with my life away from LaGrange and somewhat bored with scholarly studies because they didn't soak up much of my intellectual ability. That is, I was at this time an underachieving scholar who, nevertheless, made good grades. Consequently, I looked for things that would bring some excitement to my life. Without going into further detail, I became familiar with lawyers, law enforcement officials, and other city/county officials but - importantly - I was never indicted nor caught in any of my more serious mischief. Yes, a charmed life, but I was kicked out of the Boy Scouts and a couple of other organizations for being disruptive.

Throughout this time, I attended church services and youth groups faithfully. I had the great good fortune to have been born into, and raised in, the Christian Community of Believers at the First Presbyterian Church in LaGrange. I came under the influence of two outstanding ministers, against whom to this day I judge all other ministers. Drs. John E. Wilson and John McClain preached erudite, well-crafted, intellectually based, and well-delivered sermons that challenged my young mind without degenerating into sentimental sloppiness. Importantly, both ministers spent a lot of time with me, showing me how to reconcile my increasing love of science with Christianity. As a result, I have never left the Community of Believers and have developed what I term a rational faith.

I enrolled at LaGrange College because I could not afford to go away to college. I lived at home but spent most of my waking time on "The Hill" or working at the Callaway Mills water purification plant. This facility, a one person operation, supplied water to several of the mills through an eight-mile pipeline from the Chattahoochee River. These textile mills required water with different characteristics (e.g., pH) than the LaGrange City water system provided.

I earned a double major in Chemistry and Biology on The Hill. In my senior year, I decided to take a course in Philosophy rather than Differential Equations. Had I taken DQ's, I would have had a triple major, adding Mathematics to the other two. I firmly believe, however, that this beginning course in Philosophy, taught by a truly remarkable person - Prof. Franz Joseph Kovar, was the single most import course I took on "The Hill".

Andrea and I met and fell in love at LaGrange College. My most important memories of that time revolve around classwork, being with Andrea at every opportunity, and
suffering from chronic sleep deprivation. To illustrate: Many quarters, I would manage to arrange my course work so that I could work the second shift (2:00 - 10:00 PM) at the water purification plant. Then, I would rush to "The Hill" to be with Andrea until the college closed at 11:00 PM. Some quarters, I would not be able to work during the week but had my work time at the water purification plant from 6:00 AM to 10:PM on Saturdays and Sundays, often with an additional shift on Fridays from 2:00 to 10:00 PM. I usually managed to work at least 32 hours at the water plant during my college years.

The water plant was a great place for me to work. I was there by myself. I had to test the water for pH, various ionic and chlorine concentrations, etc. every hour, a process that took 10 minutes. Every other hour, I had to fill the chemical hoppers, which added another 10 minutes. I spent the rest of the time on my academic homework/studies and, yes, reading those novels and other books. What a life!

Once I remarked to Daddy Mike about how chronically I needed sleep as result of my college/work/social schedule. The grand old gentleman replied, "Michael, quit bitching. You can sleep when you're old." That's the only time Daddy Mike ever lied to me: Now that I'm old, I have difficulty sleeping.

Andrea went to summer school so she could graduate with me, in three years. I went to summer school so I could double, almost triple major, and take courses outside of my majors that interested me.

We graduated in June 1960 and, one week later on 10 Jun 60, were married at Andrea's ancestral church, Lavonia United Methodist, the church we attend now. After a prolonged, two-day honeymoon in a cabin at Vogal State Park, we traveled to Chapel Hill, NC, where I had a fellowship in the Biochemistry Department at the University of North Carolina (UNC-CH). I spend that first summer working in my adviser's lab but did not take any courses. As a result, we had a summer-long honeymoon, at least after work hours and on the weekends. The following fall I became totally immersed in my graduate studies. Andrea worked as a secretary/administrator in the General College. We left UNC-CH in 1965 with a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and a minor in Physical Organic Chemistry.

The newly minted Ph.D. and his wife moved to the New York City area. I had a post-doctoral fellowship at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the Bronx. We lived, about 30 minutes north via road, in a garden apartment complex in Yonkers. Our older daughter, Anne-Marie, was born at the new AECOM Hospital. Had she come reasonably on time, she would have been the first baby born at the hospital; but, she did manage to come in third.

Two and a-half years later, I had my first true academic appointments in the research department of Mt. Sinai Hospital of Cleveland and the Biochemistry at the Case-Western Reserve Medical School. In many respects, I made my academic "bones" during the six years we were in the Cleveland area. Christina was born at Mt. Sinai Hospital. We lived in the eastern suburbs of Cleveland - Euclid and Willoughby Hills. We still have great friends in Willoughby Hills and wonderful memories of our church, WHUMC.

Six years later, we returned to the NYC area when I accepted appointments in the Pediatrics and Pathology Departments at AECOM. My research expertise at this time related to diseases of prematurity. We lived in Rye, NY, which had (and still has) one of the finest public school systems in the US. We stayed at AECOM/Rye another six years.

Throughout my academic career, I supported us through the US Public Health Service research grant programs. I was known as "Dr. Grant Getter". At one time, I had approximately $1 million in research grants under my own name and as as a collaborator with other investigators. I won't bore you with my research accomplishments/publications. If you're interested, do a Goggle search with my name.

I came to understand that I much preferred to write the grants, direct the people who worked with me, and report on the results rather than performing the actual research/laboratory work myself.

One of my academic friends/competitors at Duke mentioned my expertise to Dr. Allen Cato, who at that time was the Director of Clinical Research at the old Burroughs-Wellcome Co. in Research Triangle Park, NC. Allen convinced me to leave, almost, academia and come to work at B-W Co. "Almost" because I also had an adjunct appointment at Duke University Medical School, collaborating with one of the best friends of my adult life. This friend, Bill Currie, served as the model for Terrance Harrington in my novel, "Beyond Duty".

We moved back to Chapel Hill and stayed there 15 years. We had a great time back in NC. As an example, we had season tickets to the UNC-CH basketball team, who played in the Dean Dome within a mile of our home. Anne-Marie and Christina finished high school in Chapel Hill.

Andrea and I next spent five years with the IVAX corporation in Miami. We lived in a great house in Weston, at the far western limit of Ft. Lauderdale.

Throughout my corporate warrior years (I hesitate to say, corporate chieftain), I traveled frequently around the US and to the UK, Ireland, and Europe. Sometimes I was in the UK/Ireland five or six times a year. I participated in, and often led, project teams that conducted clinical trials programs resulting in registration of new pharmaceutical products in the US and extra-US territories. My writing skills helped immeasurably in these endeavors.

I enjoyed working at IVAX for the first three years. I interacted with some super individuals. Nevertheless, IVAX and I developed a "Mexican Stand Off" relationship. IVAX was afraid I would reveal certain things I had learned if they fired me and I wanted to stay there long enough to access some stock options. We finally agreed on terms, and Andrea and I left South Florida in 1998, "retiring" at my advanced age of 60. Two years earlier, we had bought a small home on Lake Hartwell, near Lavonia. We used this lake house for two purposes: (1) A place Andrea could stay when she came back to Lavonia to help her aging Father and Step-Mother, usually when I was traveling abroad, and (2) A retreat from the craziness of IVAX. We didn't have any other place more attractive as a "retirement" place (OK, that we could afford). So, we "retired" to Lavonia/Lake Hartwell in 1998.

These 10 years of "retirement" have been most satisfying. Andrea has resumed many of her childhood relationships and has become involved in church and community activities. I have been able to write. For several years, I wrote an opinion collumn for our local weekly newspaper, "The Franklin County Citizen". This "gig" ended a little over a year ago when our local knuckle dragging Philistines exerted economic pressure on the management of the chain that owns "The Citizen", pressure that resulted in my "firing". The KDP's maintain that I am a liberal, pointy-headed intellectual, secular humanist, and enemy of Christianity and the US. The newspaper management caved under the pressure, exhibiting a fine example of journalist integrity.

A local politician recently told me that the real reason the KDP's were irritated with me related to my ability to sway public opinion with my newspaper columns. The tipping point apparently came a couple of years ago. In my columns, I endorsed candidates that the KDP's and the reactionary Franklin County Taxpayers Association opposed. Except for one person, all candidates I endorsed won election/re-election. What a blow to the KDP's. To my way of thinking, this turn of events made them want a dip of snuff and a bite of raw lemon chased up their rear ends.

Another bone in the throat of the KDP's was my role as a member/chair of the Franklin County Board of Taxpayers Equalization. This board rules on disputes between taxpayers and the Board of Tax Assessors concerning Fair Market Values of properties. When I joined the Board of Equalization, we embarked on a course of action that used actual data, not good ol'boy/ol' girl influences, to settle these disputes. The fact that we ruled against several of the KDP's didn't help my relationship with them.

The situation became so intense that I was urged by several individuals, some in the county administration, to arm myself and not to go to certain locations in the county. I bought a Glock .40 caliber pistol, took training from a licensed NRA firearms instructor, and then let it be known that I would be traveling around the county delivering Meals-On-Wheels and carrying out my BOEq duties with the Glock at my side. Things settled down.

I am working on my second book, "Through The Wilderness", a non-fiction work in progress (see my other blog, traversingthewilderness). At the same time, characters and situations from a second novel keep coming into my consciousness. I'd like to finish "Through The Wilderness" before embarking on another novel but ......

I don't like to characterize myself in anyway except as (1) a professing Christian, albeit one who struggles to proclaim, witness to, and serve God - Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit and (2) a scientist who strives to be data-driven. As I will expound upon in "Through The Wilderness", I have never seen a conflict between my religious and scientific orientations.

Politicaly, I can't categorize myself. I view life through the primary lens of my understanding of Christianity and science. The best I can do is: I am so committed to fundamental (not fundamentalist) religious and Constitutional principles that I often am, erroneously, considered to be a liberal.

I am a registered Republican but many times have voted for Democratic candidates. I am a dues-paying member of the ACLU, NRA, and International Pistol Defensive Association. I abhor political and religious cant, from all segments of the spectrum. I love the give and take of rational discourse.

Now, that's more than you probably wanted to more or, perhaps, in view of the verbiage, not as much as you'd like to know on a fundamental level. There's time, however, more disclosure and interactions.

Recounting this much of my family history confirms Andrea's often stated dictum: "Mike, write a novel about your family history." I usually follow her dictates, although my compliance sometimes is delayed.

Hope I didn't bore you.

Let's Not Waste Time and Energy

As a result of a plethora of E-mails sent to me, I am aware of the "controversies" over President-Elect Obama's citizen and Selective Service status. I believe my more "conservative" brothers and sisters continue to search for any reason, however tenuous, to reverse the outcome of the recent election. Persons interested in these claims of "illegitimacy" want to check out this link and the various embedded
sub-links within the main article:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/com/rumors/1/lawyersues.htm


This site, truthorfiction, appears to be relatively non-biased.

This site also has pertinent information:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

Yes, snopes.com has been tainted as "liberal"; however,
such a description doesn't necessarily preclude the site from
presenting truth on some occasions.

I find helpful comparing entries about the same subjects on both sites.

I haven't found anything reliable yet about the veracity of the
report concerning President-elect Obama's false
Selective Service registration; but, let's consider:

P-E Obama is a highly intelligent person, even if he is a "liberal"
Democrat. As a public figure, he surely knows that all aspects of
his life will be closely examined by his opponents. He planned this
presidential campaign for some years. Therefore,

(1) If he actually isn't a naturally born US citizen, he and his
team would make certain there's no way that fact could be revealed
except through unverified rumors.

(2) If there are irregularities in his Selective Service
registration, these also would be hidden.

So, we're left with the bottom lines:

(1) There's no way to legally/Constitutionally prove any
irregularities/crimes that would prevent P-E Obama from meeting the
Constitutional requirements to become President. Yes, such
irregularities/crimes might be true in an absolute sense; however, we
must deal with legal truth, something that can be conclusively proven
or disproven in a court of law beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. That is, absolute and legal truths don't always correspond but, in a country of laws, legal truth triumphs.

(2) Do we really want to plunge the country into discord and,
perhaps, a Constitutional crisis by continuing to search for a way to
void a legal election in which over half of the electorate voted for
P-E Obama? We'd be put in the same position as the Supreme Court
"re-electing" President George W. Bush, thereby raising an issue about
his legitimacy, an issue of discord that contributed to the current
mess we're in by inflaming passions so much that Democrats and
Republicans in the House/Senate could not work together.

US citizens opposed to P-E Obama need to chill out and become members of the "loyal opposition" by proposing solutions, not diatribes removed from reality, in order to move the country forward and to provide checks on the extreme left. The more we focus on supposed illegalities in P-E Obama's ascendancy, the
move we divert ourselves from the real task at hand.

To paraphrase Oliver Cromwell's imperative to the Rump Parliament with respect to Obama bashers devoid of reality: "Get Thee hence, you have sat too long in this place."

New Friendship

As a result of "matchmaking" by my cousin, Jim Dale, Charles Harlow III (AKA III) and I have begun a new Internet friendship. Jim, a really great guy, is one of he most conservative persons I know. Jim put III and me together because Jim considers us both "liberal", a label that I choose to decline. I keep telling people that I am so committed to fundamental religious and Constitutional principles that I only appear liberal. I prefer the term, "progressively fundamental".

I anticipate that III will soon join me in blogging. In the interim, III sent me the following message via E-mail and has given me permission to copy most of what he said into this blog:

I, too, am anything but doctrinaire in my positions. I am registered as "unaffiliated" here in Utah. I have voted for both Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Bob Bennett (R-UT) in the past, as well as Mike Leavitt when he was the Republican governor. Both he and our current governor, Jon Huntsman Jr., are moderate Republicans and the Democrats running against them were no great shakes. I voted for Ross Perot in '92 and Bill Clinton in '96.

I was a corrections officer at the Utah state prison for 22 years, retiring as a sergeant. At the same time I was, and still am, a member of the ACLU. My activities while in college preclude me running for public office, as I was either a member of or associated with SNCC, SDS, and the National Student Union. My first civil rights protest was in Baltimore in 1960 or '61. I was active in "Mississippi Summer" and spent time in Birmingham, Alabama as well. I attended the "Bring the Troops Home Now" march in Washington D.C. in November, 1968, as well as anti-war rallies in Carlinville, IL in October of that year and in Springfield, IL in December '68. I was a marshal at the latter one, trying to keep the peace between the bystanders and the marchers. While taking part in all those activities, from 1967-70, I was also either treasurer or vice-president of the Blackburn College Young Republicans Club. I met Phyllis Schlafly (sic), Everett McKinley Dirksen, and Senator Ralph Tyler Smith (R-IL) during those times. And I also was instrumental in having members of the Black Liberation Party from St. Louis, MO, come to speak at the college in 1968. I was in Chicago for the the 1968 Democratic Convention, but not as a delegate. However, I did have press credentials for both the Carlinville Democrat, a Republican paper, and the Macoupin County Enquirer, the Democratic paper. My folks lived about 35 miles from Chicago at the time, so I stayed with them. Of course my mother, being the staunch conservative she was, was appalled by both my behavior and what happened outside the convention.

I subscribe to Time, Newsweek, Harper's Magazine, the Atlantic, and The Nation. I read The Deseret News, a local conservative paper, daily, and the Salt Lake Tribune, what passes for a liberal paper here in Utah, a couple of times a week. I usually watch "Hardball with Chris Matthews" and "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" week nights. And of course, I always try to catch "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Comedy Central. I also get emails and the magazines from both AARP and AAA. Other than Readers Digest, my other subscription is from International Wolf Center in Ely, MN. I get a lot of my news off the internet from numerous sites. I've tried to watch Bill O'Rielly and Hannity and Colmbs, but they raise my blood pressure too high. I do watch a little CNN now and again, as well as C-Span.

I do understand where you are coming from on Speaker Pelosi, but was Newt Gringrich or Tom DeLay any better?
While there has always been partisanship in Congress, with the advent of Newt and Company it quickly got way out of hand. I'm hoping to see, if not a return to "the good ol' days", at least a mellowing of the divisiveness that has plagued the politics of the country since '94, if not before.

I'm the product of varied background. I was born in Massachusetts, and have lived in Ohio (four different times and towns), New York, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, Arizona, and Utah. I managed to hit 14 schools before graduating from high school in 1963. And I attended Northern Illinois University, Mayfield Junior College, Blackburn College, and Syracuse University at one time or another. But despite all those bastions of higher learning, I never managed to earn a degree.

I agree with you about Jim's pessimism and paranoia. He keeps calling President-elect Obama, Senator Harry Reed, and Speaker Pelosi "communists". I think he considers anyone to the left of Attila the Hun as suspect. When he does that, I respond by referring to Newt, DeLay, V-P Cheney, and others of that ilk as "fascists". That usually gets him to back off a little.

I look forward to many more exchanges of ideas and issues with you. Hope I wasn't too verbose in giving you my background, but I tend to be that upon occasion. And please. call me "III". That is what my wife and Jim do, and if it is good enough for them, I hope it is for you as well.

Best Regards,
III

I had an interesting interaction concerning President-Elect Obama. I will do my best to use language that will not identify the person, a great friend of ours. This person stated, "I'll be interested to see if Obama takes his oath of office with his hand on the Bible."

I chose not to pursue the issue due the circumstances surrounding the conversation. Perhaps I showed some maturity? At long last some people might say.

I don't care if P-E Obama takes the oath of office with his hand on the Bible or any other book he deems holy. I care only that he takes the oath and then lives up to what he has sworn:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The following interesting historical tidbit came from Wikipedia:

"According to tradition, in the first inaugural, President Washington added the words 'so help me God' when reciting the oath, although there is no contemporary evidence of this. The words have been thereafter repeated by some presidents (as well as some vice presidents, while taking their oaths), including all since Franklin D Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt, for example, chose to conclude his oath with the phrase "And thus I swear." Only Franklin Pierce has chosen to affirm rather than swear. It is often asserted that Herbert Hoover also affirmed, because he was a Quaker, but newspaper reports prior to his inauguration state his intention to swear rather than affirm."

I note that, with respects to the US being a Christian country, no president has sworn, "so help me in the name of Jesus Christ."

If P-E Obama takes the oath on the Bible and then fails to live up to the principles laid down in our Holy Scripture, he will be guilty of violating one of the Ten Commandments. He will have committed the most serious form of blasphemy - to say he believes and not to live accordingly.

Now, if P-E Obama actually is a Muslim Anti-Christ as some vicious E-mails attest, he will have no trouble taking his oath of office on the Judeo-Christian Bible because he would not give any credence whatsoever to the consequences of a "false" oath on a book he would not consider holy.

My bottom line, therefore, is for P-E Obama to take the oath, with or without the Bible or any book he considers holy, and subsequently to fulfill the oath he takes: "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States".

So, I don't care what faith P-E Obama has or does not have as long as he fulfills, to the best of his ability, his oath of office.

Of course I reserve the right to comment on the way he goes about fulfilling that oath.

Free Speech for Unity

Since Sen. Barack Obama’s election as the next president of our Republic, I have received a plethora of racially-charged and derogatory E-mails about him. The following two relatively mild examples illustrate the tone of these messages:

(a) Special Bulletin – The White House rose garden will be plowed under and converted to a watermelon patch.

(b) US government clocks will be reset to CFT (Colored Folks Time) upon Obama’s inauguration.

Common decency prevents me from citing other more obnoxious examples.

I admit that some of these “jokes” are funny and, at least initially, elicited chuckles from me; but, reflection on the inappropriate content of these messages stimulated me to use this blog entry to decry their racially negative, even insulting, contexts. Further reflection suggested such an approach would indicate I had succumbed to “Political Correctness” by criticizing expressions of our Constitutionally protected right to free speech, no matter how hateful. More prolong consideration, however, led to this present entry.

Before getting to the “meat” of this entry, I must admit that I am a professing Judeo-Christian, albeit one who struggles to proclaim, witness to, and serve the God I worship as Parent, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, when under the influences of my better angels, I view all of life through the primary lens of Judeo-Christianity based upon my understanding of Holy Scripture and its application. My secondary lens is science, a profession I have practiced throughout most of my life. That is, I strive to be data-driven to the greatest extent possible. I cannot, nor do I wish to, abandon either Judeo-Christianity or science.

How do these disciplines relate to “jokes” such as those cited above? First, simply because we have the Constitutionally protected right to, and responsibility for, free speech doesn’t mean we should always exercise that prerogative. St. Paul, throughout his own epistles and those attributed to him, speaks eloquently to this point. His admonition from the fifth chapter of Galatians appears particularly appropriate to the subject of this blog:

"For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another. For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another."

That is, we should use our freedom of speech to build up one another and the unity of this Republic rather seeking to tear down our political opponents by vicious personal attacks. By no means do I advocate prohibiting legitimate criticism (although I prefer the term, critique) of the policies advocated and implemented by our governmental officials and candidates for these offices. Furthermore, we should preserve our long history of political satire as often expressed in editorial cartoons, comic strips (e.g., Doonesbury and Mallard), the opening scenes of Saturday Night Live, and talk radio programs (Boortz and Limbaugh) to name a few modern examples.

Reasoned critiques and satire can change the mind of the electorate; but, hateful speech, especially when focused on personalities, physical attributes, religious preferences, and racial stereotypes, inexorably leads to divisiveness. Do not misunderstand my position: I will fight against any attempt to use our legal system to enforce “Political Correctness” that in any way limits the full and free expression of our First Amendment rights. Obviously, there are some valid legal exceptions not protected through this amendment, such as libel, slander, perjury, revealing state secrets important to protection of the Republic, etc.

I advocate St. Paul’s position of restraining our right to free speech through respect, if not love, for another. After all, history shows the inadequacy of laws, no matter how harsh and justly implemented, to change human nature at a fundamental level. Laws at best can attempt to control behavior. More effectively but difficult, we must work to change hearts and minds, then alterations in behavior will automatically follow.

The survival of the Republic mandates that we eschew circulating personally demeaning “jokes” and diatribes about our political leaders and candidates. Consider the following analogy:

The powers-that-be in the Defense Department decide to promote an Army colonel, who happens to be black, to Brigadier General. This new general rose through the ranks primarily because of his (or her) primary expertise in non-combat areas, some peers would even say because of political connections.

Another colonel, a true fire-breathing Caucasian warrior with a chest full of medals won on the battlefield, also aspired to the new position in the same unit. He was greatly disappointed not have been promoted. One night, after a few drinks too many at the officers club, this Colonel remarked, “Now that we have a black commanding general, all of our Meals Ready To Eat will contain watermelon.”

The next day the colonel is called to appear before the general and read the riot act for making such a disrespectful and disparaging remark. The general asks, “Why did you disrespect me and the position I hold?”

The colonel responds, “I made a joke about you personally, not the office you hold. I will continue to salute you and will attempt to carry out your legitimate orders to the best of my ability because you are my commanding general.”

The general says, “You cannot separate me from my position. When you disrespect me on a personal basis you demean my position as your commander. If you disagree with my command decisions, there are appropriate channels for you to express you opinions. The officers club is not a suitable forum.”

Now, regardless of what next happen next to the colonel, he has a blot on his career.

By analogy, I do not see how we can avoid disrespecting the office of President of the United States with the demeaning “jokes” and racially-charged comments circulating on the internet about President-elect Obama. So what? These types of comments and inflamed reactions they generate play into the hands of our enemies by suggesting we are not united in our resolve not only to survive but to prevail. If we denigrate our leaders, our enemies can justifiably reason that we are divided and then exploit those divisions.

Again, as in the case with the general and colonel, we can disagree with opinions, policies, theologies, and politics through the proper channels. To do otherwise puts us in extreme peril considering the nature of our enemies. The dangers our Republic faces from both internal and external enemies mandates that we must learn to disagree without being disagreeable and fomenting disunity of purpose.

I suggest two small steps toward unity of resolve: (1) Refrain from the racially-charged, demeaning, and derogatory type of material presently circulating about President-elect Obama and other “liberals” or, for that matter, “conservatives” and (2) In our spoken and written comments, always refer to our leaders by their honorifics, for example, Senator McCain, President Bush, President-elect (President) Obama, Speaker of the House Pelosi (OK, that one hurts!).

Larger steps would be to offer reasoned critiques of policies and philosophies, not personalities and to suggest positive solutions rather than inveighing against past “sins” and harping on who is more responsible for our present difficulties.

Keep the faith.

Current Reality

Now that we know the broad outlines of the 2008 election cycle, all of us should take a deep breath before predicting either gloom and doom or happy days again for the Republic. We need to apply what has been called a primary rule of corporate management but also is an axiom relevant to broad swathes of life: The first task we face is to determine current reality.

The assessment of current reality means we must understand what is, not what we want or fear. Only after we correctly determine current reality can we move forward to implement what we desire to happen and to prevent what we fear might happen.

Assigning blame for the state of current reality doesn't really help except as a lesson in history so that we don't make keeping making the same mistakes. To paraphrase Albert Einstein: Insanity consists of doing the same thing over and over, and expecting the outcome to be different.

What are some features of current reality that the Republic faces? Let's look at few aspects of our financial situation: A national dept of $10 trillion dollars (that's 10 followed by 12 zeros); a budget deficit that probably will reach $1 trillion dollars in 2008/2009; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that consume tremendous amount treasure, both financially and human; and a world-wide economic slowdown, i.e., a recession that could become an outright depression.

The current reality of this dire financial situation militates against a major "spend and tax" program that some Democrats want and most Republicans fear. Where are we going to get the money, keeping in mind that we pay a tremendous amount of interest on the national debt, in large part to countries aims and policies inimical to our Republic?

Another aspect of our financial situation relates to reducing/paying off the national debt. We cannot continue to spend/borrow on the present basis without destroying the Republic. Simply put, we have to pay back, with interest, what we've borrowed. Like personal credit card balances with exorbitant interest for unpaid balances, the good times must come to an end.

How will we reduce/pay off the national debt? I double-dog dare anyone to produce realistic figures that show how we can stimulate the economy (yes, by borrowing more money) to such an extent that we can grow the economy sufficienly to reduce/pay off the national debt at the present level of spending and tax rates. Those of us raised in the South thoroughly understand the challenge of a double-dog dare.

A perhaps unsavory aspect of financial current reality, therefore, projects that we must judiciously raise taxes to the fairest extent possible on all segments of the population while restraining spending. Like a family trying to work itself out of a large credit card balance, we must spend only on essentials. No, we don't have to pay off everything in one year.

So, who do we want to make the payments? Hey, we're responsible; consequently, we should pay up rather than continuing our profligate individual and national lifestyles. Do we want our children and grandchildren to pay for our financial idiocy? If so, the Republic should fall.

Please don't respond by telling me the either the Democrats or the Republicans go us into this situation. We elected them and, by acquiescence, went along with their terrible budgetary mistakes.

Our financial situation suggests to me that the forthcoming Obama administration simply will not have the resources to implement, in the foreseeable future, a "spend and tax" policy so feared by many conservatives.

A next to last thought for this blog, taking into account a rational interpretation of history: A "trickle-down" economic policy derived by reducing taxes on high income individuals has a snowball's chance in hell of reversing our current financial morass.

Finally, the time has come for all of us to pay up: The only question is how to spread the pain equitably across the population.

Keep the faith.

Let The Games Begin

The following article gives an interesting perspective on what may transpire tomorrow.

Blessings,

The Frosolono Patriarch

Geopolitical Diary: A Disquieting Scenario for the Election

November 3, 2008 | 0255 GMT

This coming week will focus on the U.S. presidential election. We frequently have argued that the American presidency is not as important as the world thinks. As a measure of the United States’ continued importance in the world, please note that foreign newspapers are endorsing American candidates; it is difficult to imagine U.S. newspapers endorsing candidates in other countries. Still, the U.S. president has little control over any aspect of domestic policy. He is locked between the Federal Reserve and Congress. The president is much more powerful in foreign affairs, but even there, the agenda for the next president is fairly well set.

There is one critical thing for this coming election: that a president be elected without any ambiguity. The greatest destabilizing threat to the international system would be for the election to end in a complex deadlock as in 2000, with the courts forced to adjudicate. An extended period of uncertainty about the American presidency, considering the range of international issues on the table, would increase international political risk dramatically. It would also create a massive domestic crisis, not only for the usual reasons, but also because the polls have consistently shown Barack Obama ahead. His supporters would view a deadlocked election in the face of these polls with deep suspicion.

A deadlock is not likely, but neither is it inconceivable. When you look at the summary of polls found on realclearpolitics.com, you will see that the polls that began most recently and have the smallest margin of error show Obama about six points ahead. That appears to be a substantial lead, but it is not a decisive one. The lead has shrunk in the past week to some extent. It would require a shift in 3 percent of the voters, or a 1-2 percent shift plus a majority of undecided voters, to tie the election. Alternatively, any surprises regarding turnout could readily shift the election. One of the issues with polls is that they really are based on historical analysis of various groups. Shifts in behavior and the emergence of unidentified groups or new cohorts without history (such as cell phone users) increases uncertainty. A six-point lead makes a clear John McCain win unlikely. A dead heat remains a real, if outside, chance.

There has been movement in particular states. There is no clear momentum on the part of McCain in the national polls but he is moving in some of the key battleground states. McCain has made significant gains in Virginia, and the latest polls show him leading in Ohio by less than the margin of error, and also leading in North Carolina and Missouri. Obama’s lead is less than the margin of error in Florida, and he has made gains in Pennsylvania.

There have been several elections in which voter decisions made on the weekend and Monday have decided the election. The George W. Bush victory in 2004 is one example; Reagan in 1980 is another. In the case of Reagan, the shift was overwhelming. In Bush’s case, the shift was small enough that charges that Bush stole Ohio continue to circulate. The level of bitterness coupled with the closeness of the election decided that.

This election is bitter on all sides. There is already some emotional expectation among Obama supporters that someone will try to steal the election from their candidate. If there is a massive weekend swing (which may not become apparent until election night) that forces the election into recounts and litigation, the atmosphere surrounding this election could create political chaos in the United States, and that would mean that issues from Bretton Woods II to the status of forces in Iraq, to Russian plans in the former Soviet Union would all be affected. Bush’s ability to govern — as with all lame ducks — would be compromised, no transition would be in place, and the United States would be paralyzed politically. And, we might add, at that point Ralph Nader would again have been the pivot of an election.

We do not expect this to happen. The most likely outcome remains a 53-47 election with a solid Obama win in the Electoral College. In fact, the weekend shift, if there is one, could go to him. But as we look at the numbers, it seems to us that there is a not insignificant possibility of the worst case scenario of political paralysis. Obama’s national lead is much thinner than portrayed by the media, and some of the movements in key states indicate at least a small surge for McCain that began on Friday. We can’t imagine that surge being large enough to give McCain a decisive win, but we can imagine it being large enough to deadlock two or three major states, without either candidate having the electoral votes in place.

We are not predicting this. We are raising it as a possibility that must be considered.

An Interesting Experience

Check out the following article from The Christian Science Monitor in reference to my post from earlier today.

Keep the faith.

Blessings,

Mike

MY WIFE MADE ME CANVASS FOR OBAMA; HERE'S WHAT I LEARNED

By Jonathan Curley Jonathan Curley – Mon Nov 3, 3:00 am ET

Charlotte, N.C. – There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better "ground game" and superior campaign organization.

I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.

Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again.

I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.

I am the dreaded swing voter.

So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.

At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.

Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.

We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, "Who is it?"

"We're from the Obama campaign," we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.

Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.

Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.

We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work.

I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the "big things."

It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.

It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore.

I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.

I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.

My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me.

Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.

Anticipation

I suspect that I share a common opinion with most Anerican voters, except for hardcore political junkies: Thankfully this presidential election cycle will soon be over unless the lawyers and courts become involved. I hope for a clear decision on the outcome no later than noon on Wednesday, 05 Nov 08.



Baring a truly nasty last minute surprise, I expect Sen. Obama to win. Expect does not necessarily translate to hope, however. Once again I find myself in the position of having to vote on the basis of choosing the less undesirable candidate rather than selecting the most desirable person. Senators Obama and McCain share a fundamental characteristic of all humans: Each of us is flawed. Both cadidates bring flaws with them.



I am a registered Republican who often votes Democratic in local, state, and national elections. For instance, I definitely will vote against Senator Saxby Chamblis and I hope our Georgia Washington delegation will be rid of this odious mis-elected representative. His previous electorial shennigans continue to stick in my craw and poison his respectability: He called a true American military hero, Sen. Max Cleland, a traitor, and the GA Republicans promoted this lie with a vicious media campaign. Sen. Cleland, a tripple amputee, received his devastating wounds in action in Vietnam; Sen. Chambliss fought the war on the home front because of a dubious exemption from the draft.



If the Republicans loose this election, they have only themselves to blame. I think many potential and highly qualified candidates for President and other positions estimated that, because of the national leadership's overall abysmal record (O.K., I know some good things were accomplished.), this election cycle most likely would belong to the Democrats. The Republicans simply carried too much unsavory baggage. Sen. McCain's exemplary war record and military hero status, and the Bush administration's few commendable actions could not overcome the overall lack of good judgement and realtiy-based policies. Hence, several fine candidates sat out this election.



A second Republican failure related to their inability to get their message accross to the American electorate. I know Republican moan and groan about meida liberal bias; however, Republicans "own" talk radio, Fox Network News, US News and Reports, and many local and regional newspapers. The Republicans never designed and rationally implemented an effective counter media campaign. Simply put: Spending so much effort and money on inveighing against Sen. Obama's lack of experience, dubious citizenship, presumed lack of patriotism (Need I go on ad naseum?) rather than devoting energy to the positive aspects of Sen. McCain's platform turned off vast segments of the electorate.



I have been amused by many of my Republican/conservative brothers and sisters on the Internet. I have received thousands of screeds against Sen. Obama, with an occaisional rational e-mail. Often the same screed came from several different persons. From this perspective, these correspondants have been "preaching to the choir" and appear to believe they were making a positive impact for Sen. McCain. At least that's what they must have told themselves. I suspect that the vast majority of people sending these screeds already had decided to vote for Sen. McCain and wouldn't have voted for his opponent even if an angel of the Lord descended and annointed Sen. Obama. "Preaching to the choir" has little effect other than to inflame the correspondents and distort reality for the senders and recipients: We must be doing some good because we're highly active.



My Republican/conservative brothers and sisters should have been sending messages to Democrats/liberals, who are analogous to the "unchurched", not the choir. By following this strategy, perhaps some minds would have been changed rather than reinforced. How many liberals/Democrats where on the e-mail address books of these conservative/Republican internet correspondents?



A hope, not an expectation: After the election, all of us must refrain from extreme partisanship and work together for the good of the Republic. We face too many internal and external enemies and dangerous situations to allow inappropriate partisanship to deadlock the next Administration and Congress, thereby risking not only the decline of the Republic but its dissolution.



Nevertheless, I remain rationally optimistic and hopeful. Despair, an outgrowth of irrational pessimism, is a mortal sin because it denies and negates the providential grace and action of God.