Election Musings

                We now have a President-elect, Barack Hussein Obama, who will soon be the 44^th President of the United States of America. We have collectively turned our backs on 400 years of history to look forward, with hope, into the future. We have affirmed Martin Luther King Jr’s vision, and claimed America’s promise as its practice. We have said no to the fear-mongers, the hate-mongers, and the greed-mongers in hope of building this country on its constitutional ideals, rather than the financial interests of the corporations who left us afraid, confused, betrayed, and economically devastated. We look to re-building on trust and respect, not for the major benefactors, but for all Man, everywhere. We know that we have disagreements, within our supporters as well as with our detractors. But when has any relationship, however large or small, not suffered its disagreements? Regardless of disagreement, at least now there is an opportunity for the American people to come together in disagreement under the lawful protection of the Constitution of the US and know that their voice will be heard and not suppressed.

 

                Much has been promised, not all can be delivered. Remember, though, that not too long ago, a certain President was able to make good on much that was promised, and Americans as a whole prospered. Nothing will come overnight, but as many may have noticed, the general mood has improved already. There is much work in repairing the cataclysmic decline of our country effected during the last eight years, and there will be struggles among existing, dying, re-structuring, and, emerging power structures. All of this is normal for the US during periods of corrective change, while it will cause momentary and periodic volatility, it will be far less unpleasant than the sustained chaos of the soon to be previous administration. This will produce opportunities for all that are willing to embrace the future rather than cling to the past. Change is usually painful, but it should be met with expectancy rather than dread. I have no doubt that this man we, the people of the United States of America, have elected to our Presidency is the most capable and competent in generations. For once in my life, I am totally at ease with our collective selection.

 

                Of Kentucky and its voters, I am not so sure. The McCain campaign, as well as that of Mitch McConnell offered, for the average Kentuckian, nothing. Not one word on repairing a battered and damaged American economy and reputation; in fact these two senators kept insisting upon the soundness and strength of both our economy and diplomacy as they sank to the lowest levels experienced, not in decades, but in generations. Kentucky voted for stasis, for the status quo, when the status quo had long been proven untenable. Kentucky voted for the misery they know rather than the change they need. I have, in this campaign run across those who supported John McCain and Mitch McConnell, and have yet to find anyone with a rationale that spoke of progress. Regrettably, many of these had uglier reasons for their support; some of them made it obvious, while others concealed their true motives. In the end, Kentucky voted either on micro-issues or ignorance, frequently willful, of the facts. Mitch McConnell is an embarrassment for Kentucky and the US, yet the people of Kentucky chose to retain his services for the corporate body of Kentucky. And, again, in the 17^th District Senatorial race, the constituency voted for stasis, voted for the corporate industries that bring almost no jobs to the District, voted for a Senator who has done more good for Lexington outside his district, than for Georgetown, the center of it. Kentucky voted for stasis, for recession, for war abroad and conflict at home. Kentucky voted against reason, against the Constitution, against the Rule of Law, against the veterans asked to shoulder the burden of their country’s misdeeds, against education, against the middle class. As a transplant, I am embarrassed by the choices of my new home; Kentucky voted as if it was Arkansas.

Moments

All great​ human​ endea​vors arise​ from subsc​ribin​g to somet​hing great​er than self.​ As I sat on the N/S Korea​n DMZ in 1989, the Berli​n Wall started​ to come down and I thoug​ht that the great​est momen​t in my life;​ today​,​ this momen​t,​ I know bette​r.​ At 11PM EST, 4 November, 2008, with my new wife beside me, I realized and witnessed that I had helped reason to overcome fear.

In Case You Forgot

What this Election is About

 

War on Terror vs. War on Islam

 

Patriotism vs. Nationalism

 

Freedom vs. Fascism

 

Inclusion vs. Exclusion

 

Economic Stability and Expansion vs. Recession and Depression

 

Employment vs. Outsourcing

 

Security vs. Fear-mongering

 

Dialogue vs. Diatribe

 

Diplomacy vs. War

 

Acceptance vs. Assimilation

 

Diversity vs. Homogeneity

 

Responsibility vs. Greed

 

Informed Opinion vs. Disjointed Rants

 

Taxpayer support of the government vs. Taxpayer support of corporate America

 

Progress vs. Regress

 

A Constitutional Democratic Republic vs. a Corporate American Empire

 

 

I leave it to the reader to assign the parties and candidates to their respective columns.

Barack Obama’s Gun Control Question Answered, in Part

            Revising the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton administration, or proposing anything similar, is foolish. The ban did nothing to curb violent crime committed with firearms, whether with assault weapons or more conventional firearms. Further, “assault” weapons are used in such a minority of firearms crimes as to be statistically insignificant. Then, too, the banning of “assault” weapons does not ban “weapons that belong on a foreign battlefield”; it bans their semi-automatic, less robust and capable civilianized clones. This is why the Clinton ban was allowed to die, with even John Kerry refusing to back renewal, when it came up for renewal in 2004.

 

            Most of the uproar regarding the use of “assault” weapons comes from a very few incidents in which weapons of this type were used, but the uproar misses the point. The weapons used in these incidents were most typically not the banned assault weapons, but illegally acquired fully automatic military arms or illegally modified and/or obtained “assault” weapons. Issues of definition aside, the “assault” weapons ban was a failure. Such a ban is a visible way to indicate being tough on crime and violence without actually doing anything about crime and violence. The ban was and would be pointless and did and would have about as much effect on crime as limiting the ownership of straight-razors to licensed barbers.

 

            I, having lived in the Chicago area myself, understand and appreciate the concerns of those worried over this year’s apparent free-fire attitude on the parts of criminals and gangbangers. But, remember, most of those shootings were not committed with “assault” weapons; in fact, few of them were committed with even semi-automatic handguns. Also, the rash this year seems to be more likely gang-related than gun-related, although the police officials want both to carry equal portions of the blame, as this helps absolve their culpability and put it on the legislature. As you may recall, in the 1970’s gang related violence did not necessarily rely upon firearms, but would occur regardless of the weapons available. This truth continues today; those prone to violent behavior are going to use whatever means are at their disposal and only sufficiently forceful opposition will stop them.

 

            This brings me to my next point. Concealed carry laws have been demonstrably proven to reduce crime in those areas where they have been enacted. No gunfights in the street, no disputes blowing out of proportion due to the presence of a firearm, and many lives saved, crimes prevented, and criminals apprehended by the law-abiding armed citizen. Of the fear of criminal acts perpetrated by the now hundreds and thousands of licensed carriers, there have been less than 10 in several years, nationwide, and those mostly misdemeanors.

 

            Part of the support that Barack Obama has received comes from the lack of connection to Rebecca Peters and her mentor/benefactor George Soros, both of whom were behind the Clinton era ban, and whose known relationship with her was a factor in Hillary Clinton’s loss in the primaries. George Soros, acting in concealment through Rebecca Peters and other activists and the UN, seeks to eventually relieve all citizens throughout the world of their firearms. Without firearms in the hands of private citizens, the US would not exist. Our governmental model of self-determination for the world would never have come into being. This fact is so fundamental, that the Founding Fathers made it the second member of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was formed in order of importance, and that the people’s right to keep and bear arms was placed in front of property rights and rights to fair trial and due process indicates its importance to the men who started this country. What did the fascists, Nazi’s, and communists do as a first act to ensure their control and consolidation of power? They restricted the rights of private gun ownership to a privileged, known to be loyal, few. Mr. Soros, being an industrial and shipping magnate, knows that under his proposals, his right to keep arms would remain intact. Mr. Soros and his allies have a strange view on what it means to be a citizen. Per Ancient Greece and modern America, a citizen must possess two rights: a voice in government and the right to arms, the lack of either makes one a subject. Those who would disarm citizens remove the second qualification outright, and thereby greatly impede the first.

 

            Most of the problems gun control seeks to prevent can be better addressed through other means. Crime, and violent crime in particular, goes up as the economy goes down bringing desperation and despair out of those worst hit. Many of your other plans to improve our US economy and standing in the world are workable, and these plans will have the side effect of reducing the tension among those likely to commit crime as a result of lack of other resources. The Clinton ban has expired, and yet violent, gun-related crime has continued to decrease nationwide, excepting the areas always troubled with the problems of poverty and unemployment. Doing something about the poverty and unemployment levels in these continually repressed areas will see far more progress towards civil peace than another restriction on American citizens. 

Democratic Campaign Signs Stolen by Highway Department in Georgetown

Scott County democrats have heard several complaints of campaign signs stolen from or vandalized on private property. Republican campaign signs under similar conditions were left in place.

 

The signs pictured above were all reported to us as having been stolen; they turned up, not reported to us, at the dumpsters at the highway Department’s salt storage facility off Main Street extension in Georgetown. As these signs were not originally posted in any way violating laws regarding distance from roadway, etc., and as they were on private property and found dumped for disposal at the Highway Department, it must be assumed that at least one Highway Department employee is guilty of trespass and theft. However, given the number of complaints we have received, as well as the number of signs not all coming from the same location, it is entirely conceivable that this represents an organized effort by government employees on government time.

Robert Powell for Kentucky Senate 17th District:

Because There is Something Wrong With Thayer's Traditional Values

Robert Powell, a Democrat, of Georgetown, is running against incumbent Republican State Senator Damon Thayer, also of Georgetown, for the 17th District. The difference between the candidates is stark and compelling. Even upon first introductions, these two stand apart. Having met each under circumstances where they had no idea as to my leanings or positions on various issues, I had the opportunity to see them as they should have been presenting themselves to an undecided voter. I found Robert Powell to be warm, genuine, and interested, perhaps even a little insecure, while Damon Thayer presented himself as condescending, dismissive, and simply glad-handing. My first impression was that Mr. Thayer doesn’t seem to believe that he needs the “common” people to get elected. Then I started looking into their backgrounds.
While Damon Thayer has spent his entire adult life lobbying for the Kentucky horse industry, Robert Powell has spent his in public service, working as a director for the Kentucky Department of Corrections (i.e. directly to keeping our communities and citizens safe) and as a small business owner, running a criminal justice consulting firm and family-owned lawn care business. Mr. Thayer, in his associations with the wealthy of the horse industry has distanced himself from the realities of everyday life and its problems, while Mr. Powell has been deeply involved with the worst and best that everyday life can bring a community and its people.

Damon Thayer talks a lot about serving the interests of the people of Kentucky, but all that this writer has been able to discern is his service to the interests of the wealthy in the horse industry and big business in general of Kentucky. While Mr. Thayer has been lauded for his efforts towards state campaign finance reform, it can be equally argued that these efforts are designed to prevent the unseating of incumbent office holders like himself. He sponsors a bill that mandates electronic reporting to the campaign finance authorities at the benchmark of collecting $25,000; this serves as an early warning mechanism for those already holding office in Frankfort. This early warning would allow the incumbent, Mr. Thayer, to marshal in-place mechanisms and supporters to effectively drown out the newly arisen challenge. His other efforts, including the elimination of Kentucky taxpayer support, while freeing taxpayer money from the election cycle, reflects only a very modest savings for taxpayers, and it effectively reduces the chances of a grassroots startup campaign being able to effectively assault a seated politician; again, legislation favoring, not Kentucky, but Mr. Thayer and his ability to continue to legislate for the wealthy in the horse racing industry.

Mr. Thayer claims to serve the interest of the people of Kentucky, but the majority of the people of Kentucky have little or no connection to the horse racing industry, not to the large businesses he actively supports at the cost of social programs that are in the interest of the people of Kentucky. Damon Thayer’s voting record reflects the sort of pro-business/anti-worker recklessness in Washington that has engulfed our country in the current financial crisis. Mr. Thayer believes in the failed economic philosophy of his Republican Big Brothers in Washington. Damon Thayer claims to have held the tax rate down; but he has paid for that by leading the call, though he’ll deny it and lie to your face about it, as he did during the NKY debate, for increases in State fees. These are the fees that you pay when you go to the DMV or call 911. These fees increases are small for the wealthy, but just as gas price increases showed over the summer, they hurt mostly the middle class. He claims that he helped reduce the education cuts of the last administration; but he says reduced, not stopped. For a state in the top ten spenders on education of the 50 we have in the U.S. to cut lightly is permissible, perhaps. For Kentucky, it should have sparked a public outrage. Especially is this made true by the fact that Mr. Thayer then went around and, with his buddies in the Senate, re-distributed that money amongst, whom else, the horse industry! Cutting education funding to better support an entertainment industry that practices cruelty to animals is irresponsible and immoral.

Robert Powell, on the other hand, wants to pass legislation that holds public officials, appointed, hired, and elected, accountable for their misdeeds. Robert Powell wants to see the Commonwealth of Kentucky better enable opportunities for the small business owner. Mr. Powell is also a staunch advocate of better funding for education; he wants to see the state budget for education increase, and he wants to find new streams of revenue specifically targeting the enhancement of education. These are issues which will prove a positive representation of the interests of the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Mr. Thayer claims to be an ardent supporter of “traditional” Kentucky values. Recently, there was a news release by Mr. Thayer’s opponent, Robert Powell. It was discovered, upon investigation of Damon Thayer’s financial disclosure, that Mr. Thayer had received a maximum individual campaign contribution from an individual in South Carolina. This individual was listed as a partner in VCG Holdings, which, it turned out, is the parent company for a series of strip clubs spanning across the U.S. from the East Coast to Colorado. Among other venues owned, VCG is proud owner of PT’s in Louisville, where many horse industry executives are known to hang out. Mr. Thayer’s response was to vehemently deny any knowledge of or connection with the contributor. Damon then gave the money to a women’s shelter and proclaimed his moral superiority. Problem is, Mr. Thayer’s declamation rings false. The contributor, Mr. Gregory K. Gaines, of South Carolina, is involved in a number of business enterprises, most of them are legitimate and socially acceptable, being focused on technology. If Mr. Thayer had wanted to mount a credible defense, then one might expect that he would have referred to one of Mr. Gaines’s other business endeavors and claimed no knowledge of the strip club connection; but, instead, Damon went for the wholesale denial, leaving his claim highly suspect. It seems more plausible that Mr. Thayer is a regular at PT’s or some other VCG strip club, and that his frequenting of said establishment is the reason behind the relationship and the contribution. There are other indications of the weight of the more plausible explanation, but I will leave those for another posting.

Robert Powell also received a donation from a former strip club owner; but Mr. Powell, a devoted monogamous family man of many years with his wife Barbara, is not running on a “traditional values” plank. He readily admitted to the donation and let the matter stand.

Damon Thayer, running on a claimed plank of “traditional values”, has well demonstrated his concept of “traditional values”. Mr. Thayer believes in taking public money from the public, stripping social programs and education, in order to support those who have plenty of money. Damon believes that treating animals cruelly through doping, over-breeding, beating, sorrelling, and other practices for the sake of entertainment is a positive thing and that Federal regulation should be avoided, because the industry committing these horrendous acts polices itself. He also believes in robbing the poor through fees to feed the rich through no “tax increase”. He also apparently believes in “strategic” church attendance, being in regular attendance only during the four months immediately preceding an election. Damon Thayer believes that big money and donors, not his interaction with and representation of the people, will get him re-elected. Mr. Thayer also believes that he can tell just about any lie necessary and that the people of northern Kentucky are ignorant enough to believe him. And, it seems, from thorough and ongoing analysis that he believes in the exploitation of young women and the promotion of lust through the adult entertainment industry. These are simply this writer’s opinions on the matter; opinions derived from looking at the voting record, contribution record, employment record, history, and statements of the candidates, as well as personal contact with them. In assessing which candidate to support, the choice for me is clear: Robert Powell should, even as an unknown in the political arena, replace the defective values, philosophy, and ideology of Damon Thayer.

Still, I am left with a nagging question: what other “traditional values” does Damon Thayer Support? Slavery? Lynching? Wife beating? Prostitution? Child labor? Incest? Child molesting? Just curious.

Mitch McConnell Smears Bruce Lunsford

                Mitch McConnell has, in his too many years representing the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Washington, oops, allow me to correct: representing the big money interests of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, consistently voted against anyone in need of public programs. He has consistently voted to take money from the people of the US in the form of taxes and distribute it, as much as possible, among those in business with whom he shares a profitable relationship.

 

On a gas tax increase, the pressure to lower prices would have ultimately fallen, and fallen much faster, on the oil companies as Americans and Kentuckians sought to control their fuel consumption beyond the measures already seen. This has already happened and would have been accelerated by a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. Mitch McConnell obviously has no concept of economics; and his opposition originates in his typical Republican support for big business at the expense of the individual, as his claim doesn’t pan out when faced with the anti-gouging measures enacted, under Republican protest, including Kentucky and including him, by many states over the past summer.

 

Mitch McConnell, in campaign advertising, continues to reference the findings of inadequate care and fraudulent claims at a few facilities operated by Lunsford’s company Vencor, as well as the well publicized findings company-wide that Medicare fraud had been the typical practice while Vencor also sought to evict Medicare and Medicaid patients in order to make room for more lucrative private paying patients. Because of fines, business loss, and restructuring costs, Vencor eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and emerged again as a profitable company. What Mitch McConnell conveniently omits is that his own wife sat on the board, which actually made policy decisions, leaving it to Chairman Lunsford to implement them, of Vencor, as Bruce Lunsford has pointed out. McConnell himself lobbied, in the U.S. Senate, for protection of Vencor. Mitch McConnell has also had numerous complaints of false statements leveled by those used in his advertising regarding the Lunsford-Vencor connection. So, in the end, if Vencor is any derogatory indication of Lunsford’s honesty or business sense, then it reflects equally hard upon McConnell.

 

Mitch has voted almost straight party line on most issues before the Senate. He has voted to expand the illegal warrantless wiretapping of Americans, undermining the very foundation of constitutional protections, not just for terrorists, but for everyone. He has voted against minorities, women and homosexuals. Mitch McConnell’s voting record seems to reflect a preference for wealthy white Christian heterosexual male domination of all spheres, public and private. Mitch McConnell seems to be an enemy of transparency, inclusion, education, the rule of law, and the Constitution of the U.S.

 

Let us also remember that Mitch McConnell is a supporter of the Kentucky horse industry. While in itself not a bad thing, the stance taken by Mitch has been one not of business expansion and propriety but of retaining the status quo, especially where it requires repair. Mitch McConnell believes that, despite all of the evidence otherwise, the horse industry is fully capable of properly regulating itself. The Eight Belles incident is demonstrative of the need for regulation. Ordinarily, an animal crippled as a consequence of a race would be put down in secret; fortunately Eight Belles was not, and proved to the nation that the horse race industry has done nothing to regulate itself, and will not without federal intervention. Why else would participants in racing and stepping competitions leave when unannounced USDA inspectors show up? The industry is corrupt, and it is cruel. Mitch McConnell stands, along with Damon Thayer and others, for the continued traditional value of practicing cruelty to animals for the benefit of an entertainment industry. These two have also shown support for the traditional value of cutting public education funding because they and their wealthy industry supporters don’t send their children to public schools.