It would be impossible to list in order, my favorite movies. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to list all of the movies I have see
June 21, 2026
Thoughts About the 2008 Election
To me, the year 2000 was the 3rd most important year since our country became a nation.
Really the second most important if we do not count 1776 and our Declaration of Independence.
In 1776 our country was like a newborn infant and although not all newborn infants are in intensive care, those first few weeks of their life are critical. The same is true of our post revolutionary era when our country was a fledgling democracy.
The second most critical time was the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln said it " A house divided against itself cannot stand." Divided, it was unlikely our great experiment in democracy could endure.
Since that time, our country has faces many crisis - you could pick any of them. World War II, the Great Depression the Vietnam War. Each of those which were crises in themselves were not of the far reaching consequences that could or would weaken our nation.
In 2000, there were circumstances of history that did have the potential to threaten our nation and it is of great concern we have not handled it property. In this case, the fate of mankind is in the balance and the U.S. should be in the position to create a positive outcome. I'm not sure that it can.
The importance of what is going on in our country and the world is not made disproportoinal or exaggerated, as more current events usually do. The issues today are pretty big ones. If there were a time in history that our country needed great leadership, it was starting in the year 2000.
Most of us are quite well aware of what has happened in the past eight years. It took not only 6 years or so of the people to realize this, but also the president of our country and our leaders. This specifically is the control of nuclear weapons after the break up of the USSR, the related effects of global warming and depletion of the worlds fossil fuels and the new method of warfare in terrorism with fanatic, religious ideologues.
Our country has, by and large failed in addressing any of this issues to a point where they will avert worldwide disaster. So the next president and our leaders may have to do even stronger than our forefathers in getting these resolves. Were 8 years late, at least.
Our entire infrastructure, commerce, way of life has become dependent on oil. We never really thought a lot about this when the worlds oil reserves were less known and with the internal combustion engine, we just ignored it ( any look at geological history should have told us it took tens of millions of years for this oil to develop and we were using it up at a miniscule time frame, in comparison. Secondly, we ignored for way to long, the scientists who warned of global warming ( this they have been doing for over 30 years).
So we needed leadership as people are people. They choose to follow and for reasons I cannot explain, always opt for the most immediate gratification if it does not directly affect them in some concrete way. The visionary leader says "Whoa ! There are consequences to all of this that are far down the road. But people being people in a free and laizze faire country would not listen. So it took a very dynamic leader and there was none there to convince and lead the people to sacrifice and start making changes. Maybe such a human being does not exist. That we well, despite any effort that could have been made - can only take the road of the junkie right up to our deaths.
But we have to hope. We have spent much of the principal and quite possibly far too late into this, all we have left is hope. Hope that one of these presidential candidates and the leaders we chose in November can turn it around in time. So what must be done and who can best do it? It will take someone who is a visionary, charismatic to the point that people will believe and sacrifice and then, introduce pass and make into law - some draconian measures.
The problems are so serious, so important in terms of survival of the planet, it is difficult to even chose those that should come first. It appears there will need to be three or four that must be worked on immediately. Issues like healthcare, economy, and all those social issues are dwarfed by comparison.
Its seems we must, at one time deal with controlling nuclear weapons as one mistake here can make all the others somewhat irrelevant. At the same time, not just the U.S. but the entire world will need to go through withdrawl of dependence of non-renewable sources of energy. The only bright spot and there is one - if we could tackle the worlds oil addiction, there is a good possibility we can concurrently slow down global warming.
Those three seem like the big ones - at the same time we will need to provide some cushion to the shock affect this will have to the world population, but this will have to be of second importance. There is no other way. If one would want to view it in a more positive light - we did survive before the internal combustion engine and we do have some new technologies ( electricity and electronic communications) to make life a little bit better than say - it was in the 1800's.
The next, which is likely a maneagable problem is the new asymetrical method of warfare that does not recognize the Geneva Conventions, faceless enemies without a nation who have pre-dark age mentalities with 21st century technology. This one should be able to handle with extensive emphasis on intelligence, counter-intellignce, monitoring and taking the terrorist out. With enough decades or even a century of failure - these terrorist's will finally quit. Fanaticism will give way to a more comfortable, secular way of life with all the attendent happiness that freedom and libety brings. It just takes time.
To me, that is the important agenda of the next administration. They must get it started. I think there is one who does understand this and understands what it takes, but I don't think he is has delusions of grandeur. He knows regardless of how visionary, how convincing, how educating, how charismatic, it will only be a long shot at best - to get the addict off of the drug.
Really the second most important if we do not count 1776 and our Declaration of Independence.
In 1776 our country was like a newborn infant and although not all newborn infants are in intensive care, those first few weeks of their life are critical. The same is true of our post revolutionary era when our country was a fledgling democracy.
The second most critical time was the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln said it " A house divided against itself cannot stand." Divided, it was unlikely our great experiment in democracy could endure.
Since that time, our country has faces many crisis - you could pick any of them. World War II, the Great Depression the Vietnam War. Each of those which were crises in themselves were not of the far reaching consequences that could or would weaken our nation.
In 2000, there were circumstances of history that did have the potential to threaten our nation and it is of great concern we have not handled it property. In this case, the fate of mankind is in the balance and the U.S. should be in the position to create a positive outcome. I'm not sure that it can.
The importance of what is going on in our country and the world is not made disproportoinal or exaggerated, as more current events usually do. The issues today are pretty big ones. If there were a time in history that our country needed great leadership, it was starting in the year 2000.
Most of us are quite well aware of what has happened in the past eight years. It took not only 6 years or so of the people to realize this, but also the president of our country and our leaders. This specifically is the control of nuclear weapons after the break up of the USSR, the related effects of global warming and depletion of the worlds fossil fuels and the new method of warfare in terrorism with fanatic, religious ideologues.
Our country has, by and large failed in addressing any of this issues to a point where they will avert worldwide disaster. So the next president and our leaders may have to do even stronger than our forefathers in getting these resolves. Were 8 years late, at least.
Our entire infrastructure, commerce, way of life has become dependent on oil. We never really thought a lot about this when the worlds oil reserves were less known and with the internal combustion engine, we just ignored it ( any look at geological history should have told us it took tens of millions of years for this oil to develop and we were using it up at a miniscule time frame, in comparison. Secondly, we ignored for way to long, the scientists who warned of global warming ( this they have been doing for over 30 years).
So we needed leadership as people are people. They choose to follow and for reasons I cannot explain, always opt for the most immediate gratification if it does not directly affect them in some concrete way. The visionary leader says "Whoa ! There are consequences to all of this that are far down the road. But people being people in a free and laizze faire country would not listen. So it took a very dynamic leader and there was none there to convince and lead the people to sacrifice and start making changes. Maybe such a human being does not exist. That we well, despite any effort that could have been made - can only take the road of the junkie right up to our deaths.
But we have to hope. We have spent much of the principal and quite possibly far too late into this, all we have left is hope. Hope that one of these presidential candidates and the leaders we chose in November can turn it around in time. So what must be done and who can best do it? It will take someone who is a visionary, charismatic to the point that people will believe and sacrifice and then, introduce pass and make into law - some draconian measures.
The problems are so serious, so important in terms of survival of the planet, it is difficult to even chose those that should come first. It appears there will need to be three or four that must be worked on immediately. Issues like healthcare, economy, and all those social issues are dwarfed by comparison.
Its seems we must, at one time deal with controlling nuclear weapons as one mistake here can make all the others somewhat irrelevant. At the same time, not just the U.S. but the entire world will need to go through withdrawl of dependence of non-renewable sources of energy. The only bright spot and there is one - if we could tackle the worlds oil addiction, there is a good possibility we can concurrently slow down global warming.
Those three seem like the big ones - at the same time we will need to provide some cushion to the shock affect this will have to the world population, but this will have to be of second importance. There is no other way. If one would want to view it in a more positive light - we did survive before the internal combustion engine and we do have some new technologies ( electricity and electronic communications) to make life a little bit better than say - it was in the 1800's.
The next, which is likely a maneagable problem is the new asymetrical method of warfare that does not recognize the Geneva Conventions, faceless enemies without a nation who have pre-dark age mentalities with 21st century technology. This one should be able to handle with extensive emphasis on intelligence, counter-intellignce, monitoring and taking the terrorist out. With enough decades or even a century of failure - these terrorist's will finally quit. Fanaticism will give way to a more comfortable, secular way of life with all the attendent happiness that freedom and libety brings. It just takes time.
To me, that is the important agenda of the next administration. They must get it started. I think there is one who does understand this and understands what it takes, but I don't think he is has delusions of grandeur. He knows regardless of how visionary, how convincing, how educating, how charismatic, it will only be a long shot at best - to get the addict off of the drug.
Voting - My Analysis of Obama Victory
It is a somewhat disturbing to learn of the animus that remains among some people with the election Barak Obama as president. This dislike, I believe is primarily amongst those uninformed who disparaged him with the garbage misinformation of him being Muslim, the flag thing, or just plain prejudice. For those of you concerning him being Muslim, well, his selection of chief of staff, then support of Joe Lieberman in retaining his committee assignment, both persons are of Jewish background should show how uninformed you are.
We need to stop and think. Being an independent voter, I held off until about 2 weeks after McCain chose Palin as a running mate. I admired McCain, read his books but questioned his judgement after this. So in the end, I voted for Barack Obama. As I thought about this person, I thought - this is a black man who seems to have done everything that the majority of American's have wanted black people to do. Pull themselves up, get an education, end their prejudice towards whites, be a family man, good father, go to church. He did all these things and did them well.
When casting a vote for a politician, I use criteria I have never seen written about. First, I discard all the liberal/conservative junk. I discard just about all what the candidates say (these things are a part of modern day politics because we did not end up with an "enlightened electorate" as our founding fathers envisioned). In a political race, they say these things for national political purposes to appeal to a segment of people that will get them elected. They all do it and it is amplified, overstated, misrepresented by the press - whatever bias they may be (Hannity and Combs, O'Reilly, or Olberman. People listen to and believe this crap.
I give only slight consideration to specific issues. All candidates believe very much the same. They believe in the United States of America and when the election is over and preparations start for governing, they start looking very much alike. Witness the recent meeting of president elect Obama and senator McCain.
What I look for as the candidates present themselves for months on end is this: Are they intelligent. I want an intelligent president. What are their analytical, thinking skills, do they appear to be competent to handle the presidency, how well do they communicate and how good will they be in working with and persuading congress and the people. Do they have executive ability. I do consider charisma as part of the communication/pursuasion process. Can they think on their feet and what would they be like when looking a foreign leader like Putin in the eyes?
We need to stop and think. Being an independent voter, I held off until about 2 weeks after McCain chose Palin as a running mate. I admired McCain, read his books but questioned his judgement after this. So in the end, I voted for Barack Obama. As I thought about this person, I thought - this is a black man who seems to have done everything that the majority of American's have wanted black people to do. Pull themselves up, get an education, end their prejudice towards whites, be a family man, good father, go to church. He did all these things and did them well.
When casting a vote for a politician, I use criteria I have never seen written about. First, I discard all the liberal/conservative junk. I discard just about all what the candidates say (these things are a part of modern day politics because we did not end up with an "enlightened electorate" as our founding fathers envisioned). In a political race, they say these things for national political purposes to appeal to a segment of people that will get them elected. They all do it and it is amplified, overstated, misrepresented by the press - whatever bias they may be (Hannity and Combs, O'Reilly, or Olberman. People listen to and believe this crap.
I give only slight consideration to specific issues. All candidates believe very much the same. They believe in the United States of America and when the election is over and preparations start for governing, they start looking very much alike. Witness the recent meeting of president elect Obama and senator McCain.
What I look for as the candidates present themselves for months on end is this: Are they intelligent. I want an intelligent president. What are their analytical, thinking skills, do they appear to be competent to handle the presidency, how well do they communicate and how good will they be in working with and persuading congress and the people. Do they have executive ability. I do consider charisma as part of the communication/pursuasion process. Can they think on their feet and what would they be like when looking a foreign leader like Putin in the eyes?
The Problem is the People
People complain about the government when the problem begins with them. Thomas Jefferson said over two centuries ago that "a people who want to remain ignorant and remain free want what has never been and will never be."
The people in this country never take blame and most of them are illiterate, driving around in their super cars, cell phones and I-pods. And 50% of them can not pass a basic literacy test put out by the American Civil Literacy Institute.
The representatives they vote in such as George W Bush spend billions on wars when all George W Bush had to do was have a good reading of history. He should have known the Tunisas, then Egypts, and then Yemen's would eventually come about and we did not need to spill a drop of our own blood or spend our money and run this country into debt. Pope John Paul ll told him this and Pope John ll made 123 public statement about how wrong this was.
So people, please understand that the people you are electing to lead this country are picking your pockets and spending the money on some really foolish things. Its time you start reading economics, history, political science and gain an understanding of the world. With this education, keep track of your leaders. As you have seen, they will spend all the money they can collect and spend it on many unessesary things, then borrow more to spend more - the majority of them also fail the American Civil Literacy Test. If you want to know what this test is - Google it and take the test.
The people in this country never take blame and most of them are illiterate, driving around in their super cars, cell phones and I-pods. And 50% of them can not pass a basic literacy test put out by the American Civil Literacy Institute.
The representatives they vote in such as George W Bush spend billions on wars when all George W Bush had to do was have a good reading of history. He should have known the Tunisas, then Egypts, and then Yemen's would eventually come about and we did not need to spill a drop of our own blood or spend our money and run this country into debt. Pope John Paul ll told him this and Pope John ll made 123 public statement about how wrong this was.
So people, please understand that the people you are electing to lead this country are picking your pockets and spending the money on some really foolish things. Its time you start reading economics, history, political science and gain an understanding of the world. With this education, keep track of your leaders. As you have seen, they will spend all the money they can collect and spend it on many unessesary things, then borrow more to spend more - the majority of them also fail the American Civil Literacy Test. If you want to know what this test is - Google it and take the test.
Election 2012
Some pundit criticize the late undecideds. Some have called them names. I'm an independent and undecided but getting close. When I look at a candidate, I think I look at different things than these pundits. I look at history, I look at the persons reason for seeking the most conspicious office in the world, I look at intelligence, I place the candidate in the context of history. I compare them to the greats, the Lincolns, Washingtons and Jeffersons. Ideology is one of the lesser important.
My independence is as such: I voted for Reagan twice, George Bush Sr twice, Bill Clinton once, Al Gore once, never for George W Bush and once for Barack Obama. I'm generally against abortion with some exceptions but I'm for stricter control.
This year, when all the garbage advertising is over, there are really two issues. First is that something big is going to happen with Iran, second is this fiscal cliff. How would each do as president.
President Obama: He has really done a good job on foreign policy and I trust him on this. I do not think he leads from behind - that is - the U.S. does not always have to be the one to be first to engage. I mean we are only one member of NATO, they are closer to the trouble spots and I like him forcing them to do more with Libya. The Obama administration has pulled much of the world together against Iran and the sanctions are just about doing them in. I think this is going to force them to do something because they already had a near revolution several years ago and they are likely to go the way of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. Without American getting our own killed and our budgets overspent. I like this foreign.
Mitt Romney has much less foreign policy experience and like George Bush, is likely to surround himself with advisors - some neo-cons. He is more likely to intervene militarily. I think that is a bad solution.
The fiscal cliff - really, there is not much a president can do. A president can break an economy like guns and butter at the same time of tax cuts - but it is difficult for them to fix it. Really their power to fix the economy is more wishful thinking than reality. Ben Bernanke has more power than they do and there is little he can do. There is little Congress can do. So what will happen is the great American free enterprise will take over and correct it. It may result in austerity, recession - inflation, who knows but on this one - neither President Obama or Governor Romney can do anything but preside.
I don't think President Obama has done a bad job, not enough to turn him out of office. So I'm decided, its President Obama.
One the state level, I think Berg is a Norquist signer, is interested mainly in power ( he moved from the house to the senate). He is less likely to use his own mind, he will follow party line. Heidkamp is more likely to work across the isle. So it is democrat this time. For the house - undecided, I have more studying to do.
Some pundit criticize the late undecideds. Some have called them names. I'm an independent and undecided but getting close. When I look at a candidate, I think I look at different things than these pundits. I look at history, I look at the persons reason for seeking the most conspicious office in the world, I look at intelligence, I place the candidate in the context of history. I compare them to the greats, the Lincolns, Washingtons and Jeffersons. Ideology is one of the lesser important.
My independence is as such: I voted for Reagan twice, George Bush Sr twice, Bill Clinton once, Al Gore once, never for George W Bush and once for Barack Obama. I'm generally against abortion with some exceptions but I'm for stricter control.
This year, when all the garbage advertising is over, there are really two issues. First is that something big is going to happen with Iran, second is this fiscal cliff. How would each do as president.
President Obama: He has really done a good job on foreign policy and I trust him on this. I do not think he leads from behind - that is - the U.S. does not always have to be the one to be first to engage. I mean we are only one member of NATO, they are closer to the trouble spots and I like him forcing them to do more with Libya. The Obama administration has pulled much of the world together against Iran and the sanctions are just about doing them in. I think this is going to force them to do something because they already had a near revolution several years ago and they are likely to go the way of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. Without American getting our own killed and our budgets overspent. I like this foreign.
Mitt Romney has much less foreign policy experience and like George Bush, is likely to surround himself with advisors - some neo-cons. He is more likely to intervene militarily. I think that is a bad solution.
The fiscal cliff - really, there is not much a president can do. A president can break an economy like guns and butter at the same time of tax cuts - but it is difficult for them to fix it. Really their power to fix the economy is more wishful thinking than reality. Ben Bernanke has more power than they do and there is little he can do. There is little Congress can do. So what will happen is the great American free enterprise will take over and correct it. It may result in austerity, recession - inflation, who knows but on this one - neither President Obama or Governor Romney can do anything but preside.
I don't think President Obama has done a bad job, not enough to turn him out of office. So I'm decided, its President Obama.
One the state level, I think Berg is a Norquist signer, is interested mainly in power ( he moved from the house to the senate). He is less likely to use his own mind, he will follow party line. Heidkamp is more likely to work across the isle. So it is democrat this time. For the house - undecided, I have more studying to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)