Taxes, Tourists, Kias, Socialism and Stuff

For a large society to function properly, long-term, people must be able to earn an income to live on which is independent of the government. Or, conversely, a government must be able to get an income from outside sources other than it's own people.

Government cannot really solve unemployment by simply hiring everyone to work for the government. To avoid stagnation and the eventual gridlock that is pure socialism, there must be an influx of actual "new" capital into the system.

There are two groups of people who are working for the government. First, there are actual workers who go to work each day doing the business of the government. Second are the people who are receiving monthly checks from the government as benefits or help of some kind.

Mostly, a government gets the money to meet these various "payrolls" by (1) making some of it's citizens pay certain taxes, and ALL of it's citizens pay other types of taxes; and (2) by taxing everyone indirectly through the back door by making their money worth less.

We certainly have socialism, to a degree, a large degree, in the United States. That is as it should be, I believe (except I think the proportion is too large right now.) Certainly, some things can only be done by government, and, just as certainly, our more unfortunate brothers and sisters need us to help them get by. We help these fellow citizens by each of us giving some money to the government, and then having the government pass out that money in proportion to need. (Like Karl Marx said.) That's socialism pure and simple, and there is nothing wrong with it unless and until it gets totally out of hand.

Where the danger comes in is when the government tries to take too much upon itself and forgets that "fresh" capital - that which is not simply being recirculated by the government - is necessary for the survival of the system. The second thing that must happen in order for the system to survive is for the government to keep the money supply reasonably finite and not expand it until it is worthless.

What is "fresh" capital? Fresh capital is "outside" capital. It is money a person earns or receives from sources other than the government. And it is money received by governments that they get from sources other than their own citizens - for example by selling natural resources it owns. Examples? When tourists from Japan and Germany visit the U.S. and spend money to eat and sleep and travel and to get into our national parks, that's fresh capital. When Saudi Arabia sells oil to the world that it gets from under it's ground, that's fresh capital for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia doesn't have to tax its citizens highly (or even at all, probably) because it has this fresh source of income. Saudi Arabia also, one assumes, does not have to make it's money worth less and less every day by "creating" more and more of it on the printing presses. [Incidentally, pure socialism would probably work in Saudi Arabia since the government is making enough money - now, at least - from the outside. Unfortunately a "royal" few are keeping most of it.] When a Canadian farmer sells wheat to some country elsewhere in the world, that's fresh capital for Canada. When China sells plastic toys to the world, that's fresh capital for China. When South Korea sells Kias in the U.S. (as President Obama noted in his recent jobs speech) that's fresh capital for South Korea. I might add that when a country agrees to protect South Korea or Canada so they don't have to pay for the size of army they would normally have to pay for, that is also fresh income for South Korea and Canada (or whatever countries do that.) North Korea could probably cut the size of its military by about 80% and use that money to buy food for its people, and all it would take is for North Korea to start being nice to the rest of the world. There are all kinds of possibilities for "fresh" capital generation. Don't buy U.S. Savings bonds - that's silly to lend yourself money and then pay yourself interest. Invest in British municipal bonds and make Londoners pay you interest instead. See? Fresh, non-governmental, capital for you and me.

Any money you get from sources outside your government is fresh capital. Any money your government gets from sources besides its own citizens is fresh capital. Fresh capital is an object of desire. Fresh capital creates "real" jobs and makes you pay less taxes and makes your money worth something.

In my opinion, one major goal of a government should be to facilitate the influx of fresh (non-tax) income. In my opinion, when the government "borrows" more money and uses that money to hire people (even through private companies) to build bridges and roads, those are fake jobs. They are fake because the workers are getting paid by the government (by proxy) and because the contractors are getting paid by the government (directly.) Good has happened but nothing fresh has really been produced. All this is just another example of the government "churning" tax money.

In order for socialism to work (we have already agreed - at least I've said it - we need some socialism) there must also be some capitalism, some incoming of NEW money. How do we do this? Well, tourism was a good example. Work it more. The government should facilitate tourism more, and it should also encourage private travel companies to aggressively seek out tourists from overseas. Each state has unique attractions. Each state should be working hard to get foreign tourists to come there, not only American tourists. Some already are, of course, but all could probably do more. And food. We need to go back to selling food to the world. We need to stop paving over farmland and start growing crops that other people in other countries want to buy.

And we need to start manufacturing goods for sale again. Somehow we (and most of the rest of the Western World) have got this complex in our heads that cheap is the answer and only China can do that. Well, cheap is NOT the only thing! Innovative quality products are the thing. We can sell farm tractors to the world even if they may be more expensive than China's tractors, if they last longer or if they can do things China's tractors can't do. Inventive countries can always stay ahead of, and beat, copycat countries.

The other night, President Obama made a speech to the nation about how to create jobs. One of the good points he made is that our goal should not be to see who can get to the bottom by making things cheaper than everyone else, but by aspiring to get to the top by making things that are better and and more innovative and thus more valuable to buyers around the world.

Wake up and smell it

A philosophy is one's system of beliefs with regard to reality. There is only one true reality - that which is - but everyone has their own view of the world, and thus anyone can play the "magical reality" game. Barack Obama comes to mind as someone who should be mentioned here as a fine example of a magical reality kind of guy.

Well, by gosh, a philosophy seeks to understand and even explain the nature of our existence. By "our" I mean, of course, "your" - I already know the nature of my own existence. Poverty. They say (and by "they" I mean Wikipedia) that our philosophy - our belief system - becomes our personal standard through which we perceive and process ideas. In this sense, you could say that philosophy is the foundation of knowledge. I'm not sure I would say that, but smart people have said it. You are smart, so you may say that too. Barack and company destest knowledge and sound ideas, so "they" wouldn't say that.

Basically, what we want to know is, what the heck is going on and what our place is in the world. Maybe in the universe even. Somebody once said that once you start philosophizing about your purpose in life, in the universe, then you are sick. So it's a catch-22. Was it Freud? Sounds like something he would say. Somebody smart like him, anyway.

Anyway, I started out wanting to do a little post on Objectivism, a word (and philosophy) coined by Ayn Rand to explain her philosophy of life (or personal crazy sickness) because... well, because the word existentialism had already been taken, I guess. Actually, I don't have to guess - Ms. Rand admitted those very words herself. BTW, please don't get Ayn Rand mixed up with Georgia O'Keefe.

Why did I want to make a little post on the subject of Objectivism? You might well ask. I don't really know. Just because it is the weekend and J.E.B. Stuart still hasn't returned in the other series of posts anyway. Besides, Ojectivism is REALLY interesting (just not that interesting on a blog, sadly) and has the added appeal of probably pissing off liberals. Win-win. But I ramble. I know I do. Getting back on topic now. Very soon.

Gary Cooper WAS Howard Roark in "The Fountainhead." I tell you this else no one but the Rocket Scientist would have gotten the connection of the clever picture insert. Well, A. would have gotten it, because A. knows most everything and is good at free association.

Incidentally - as if you weren't impressed enough already - there is an Ayn Rand Society, which is affiliated with the American Philosophical Association (A. Phil Ass) which you also may not have heard of (your loss) because there are only a few members. Ayn Rand, Georgia O'keefe and her buddy D.L. Lawrence (and almost surely his philosophical gardner) and myself and probably Soubriquet. Most assuredly NOT Adullamite. All are dead. Well, not ALL. But the famous ones are.

Objectivism promotes the values of love, friendship, wealth, and comfort. Sadly, Ayn realized none of these things, but hey. I personally like Objectivism because it emphasizes reason and clarity, both of which I could be a universal model. in.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." —Ayn Rand.

Sort of like President Obama's philosophy of life, only backwards. I was reminded of the man's hatred of self-reliance as I watched his jobs speech the other night. Pretty darn good speech, by the way. I mean, pretty good for a socialist. Count me in on that more spending and higher taxes thing. Put me down for another $75. And tax the living crap out of the small businessmen who create jobs; that'll do the trick. That's fair. Heck, more than half of Americans pay zero income taxes now. You call THAT fair? Everybody should pay SOMETHING. Oh, god, I kid you.

Of Robin Hood, Toto, and Scarlett

Soubriquet is all in favor of taxing the rich. Stephanie couldn't agree more, I'm sure, since a major plank in her platform has always been to tax the rich to fund social programs. That's fine and dandy. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and no socialist progressive worth his salt would be against income redistribution.

The question remains, though, just how much should we be taxing these rich bastards who've spent their lives building their businesses and investments? I say take it all. Take every cent from the rich and give it to the poor, Robin Hood style, and then the progressives (and the poor) will be happy. Well, maybe not the progressive politicians who would want to remain wealthy. Like Algore and Hillary.

Wait.

That would only mean the poor would then be rich and the rich would be poor. What would we have gained? Obama has just appointed a "diversity czar" to go with his 100 or so other czars, whose job it is to make sure the spoils go to a diverse lot. This czar told us a few days ago that a huge lot of important positions of authority are held by a lot of smart competent white people, but, nevertheless, and notwithstanding they are doing a competent job, it is time they should give some thought to stepping down and giving "someone else" a chance at power. I'm guessing the "someone else" he has in in mind isn't white. But then, neither is he. That probably colors his thinking. No pun intended.

So in the spirit of diversity, let's give the poor a chance at being rich, wot? Except there is a hell of a lot more poor than rich, so they aren't going to end up with as much money per head after the redistribution. That sucks. And somehow you just KNOW these new rich aren't going to be any more charitably-minded than the newly ex-rich were, so who is going to feed and clothe these new poor people who used to drive fancy cars and live in mansions? Screw them, I say. (It's ok to say that about ex-rich bastards, whereas it would be politically incorrect to say that about the current non-producers poor.

Wait.

Here's a better idea: let's just take all the money from EVERYBODY, rich and poor, and put it in a big pile somewhere, maybe in a mall parking lot, and then just divvy it up equally amongst us all. Now there's a Karl Marx progressive dream if ever there was one. So we take all the money from the banks and the stock markets and sell off all the real property and personal property and we would have (in the U.S.) a mound of cash amounting to some 3 trillion dollars. Whoa. (At this point, try not to think of the fact that Obama just popped us 9 trillion into the hole recently, if you count the Bush dumbassedness as well. Keep your mind on the prize here.)

So we divide all this wealth up by 300 million drooling souls and each will get... what?...$10,000 or so? And if that's not bad enough, you just KNOW the old former rich would soon have the money back in their hands again anyway; the poor are not that good at making money with money, else they wouldn't have been poor in the first place. Ummmm.... some of them.

Fuuuuuuuuck.

Something is wrong with this picture, no?

Hie ye back to The Wizard of Oz where Toto runs behind the curtain and unmasks the "wizard" manipulating all the fake controls. Now substitute "Federal Reserve" in place of "wizard."

It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain that there is no real money in the USA or anywhere else anymore. Take out a piece of that boring green paper and look at it. "Federal Reserve Note" it says. It doesn't say "Silver Certificate" anymore, and it DAMN sure isn't backed by gold - not for a VERY long time.

Your money - your wealth - is only a promise. Backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America." What exactly does that mean? It means you are going down with the ship just like me, that's what it means. Let's hope the poor are good swimmers. We want no poor flotsam.

So, in a very real sense, we are only arguing semantics here, and "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. Actually the poor have more certainty as to what they will be tomorrow; the rich may be poor tomorrow.

Are you going to be the first to tell the rich that the "faith" has been broken? Sounds like you are eager to do that.

There is only one way to keep the magic balloon floating, and that is to kick Toto out of the way and close the curtain back up. It is too late, by far, to do it right - there just aren't enough assets in the US of A to back up THIS kind of debt. Put your hands over your ears and sing "DA DA DA DA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Everything will be ok.

Like Scarlett O'Hara, we will think of these things tomorrow and be at peace tonight.

---------

I do understand that my definition of rich differs from Soubriquet's. The rich I'm talking about were hard-working and made sacrifices and used the extra money their sacrifices provided to invest in starting businesses and putting people to work; eventually they found themselves in nice houses and driving nice cars. They paid by deferring their gratification, unlike the poor in many cases. My friend Soubriquet sees the rich differently. He sees the CEOs and robber baron money movers and cheats making ridiculous salaries and bonuses that they could NEVER deserve, and he's right. Those people I would, as always, shoot behind the ear. I just want you to know who I am talking about when I defend the right of the self-made wealthy to keep their gains. I won't comment on ball players and other entertainers except to say it is we, the masses of hungry poor, who are the ones who drive that kind of worship and income.

Hit me with your best shot. Even if you have to flout logic to argue.

---------

But Oz never did give nothin' to the Tin Man

That he didn't, didn't already have...

—America

Letter to Barack

I came across the above picture today in my web surfing. Supposedly, outgoing presidents leave notes or a short letter in the desk in the Oval Office of the White House to give little tidbits of private advice to the new incoming president.

Now, I don't really believe this is true - if only because outgoing presidents take their desks and other furniture with them when they leave - but it makes for a bit of humor. This is the letter that Bush supposedly left for Obama.

Healthcare update

Many Americans watched the great health care square table summit, ostensibly to give Republicans a chance to give their input into a bill which Obama says is set in stone. It was defeatist and futile from the onset, but it gave me a chance to see how polarized the two parties are and how they just used the occasion to repeat their talking points. At least that is what I came away with from my hour or so watching of the non-event.

The Democrats talked about our moral responsibility to pass universal health care, and the Republicans talked about the equal need for fiscal responsibility. I personally think we need a big dose of both, not one or the other.

Some of you may suspect that I am not in favor of big government. I sort of like government by the people rather than government by the government. However, the deep need for some things have made me moderate my position for some big causes. Health care is one of those exceptions.

I have blogged about this before, and I made a list of the things I wanted. That list has been refined after a year of debate. Some things are still the same.

---------

1. I want everyone to be covered. No exceptions.

2. I want everyone to participate in both the coverage and the payments for it.

3. "Everyone" means nobody gets to opt out or have their own special plan. Not even congress.

4. There must be one price for everyone. No special people and special low risk pools. One pool. Everyone is in that pool.

5. Every disease and injury is covered. Elective things like cosmetic surgery is not covered.

6. People who abuse the system go to jail.

One problem: the bill they came up with doesn't do this. Did we not say that congress would screw this up? Ha!

---------

What do we do about insurance companies who now employ zillions of people?

Do we get to choose our own company still? (I don't want the government as my insurance company, friendly and compassionate and efficient as they are.)

Do we get to go across state lines to choose a company? Why would we want to if all charged the same and covered the same?

Where does the competition come from if all companies charge the same and cover the same?

How about all the people who don't have to pay because they made wrong life choices and don't have any money? I mean, are we going to do anything to make them go to work, or just pay their way? A lot of them are deserving and have nowhere to turn. But a lot of them just chose not to work as hard as others did or educated themselves. Will there be some justice there? Will they get to do some work for us one day a week? No? Not fair to them? Well, so be it.

---------

A work in progress.

The good stuff and the crap

I have had the good fortune to read, and even come to know, many good writers since I have been blogging. Some are very good indeed. I say "good fortune" because I like to write too, and I have learned a lot from some of these people.

One of the things one sometimes hears as he visits the blogs of writers is the lament that, too often, "good writing" doesn't get published, but a lot of "bad writing" does get published. Often, this lament is frequently followed by a rather bitter assertion that this situation just isn't "fair."

The fact is, publishers are in business to make money. The way they make money is when books sell. They are not in business to publish "good" writing or "bad" writing; only writing which sells.

Let me tell you what kinds of books I buy: I buy books that I find interesting. Others also buy on this basis, as well as buying whatever is on the best-seller list, regardless of whether they like it or not. I'm not sure of the psychology of the latter, but it is true.

I don't really buy books based on whether or not they are "well-written" when compared to the standards or the Classics, or the talents of past "great" writers. Nor do I NOT buy books because everyone says they are garbage and shallow, poorly written and mistaken in their theses. I simply buy books which look like they would be interesting and/or are on a subject I want to know more about.

If you were a publisher, would you put up the money to publish and publicize a book because it was written well? Because it was authoritative? Or because your experience told you it was salable? Which would be your primary criterion?

And so, a lot of books that are disdained by literary professors as simply poof and puff get published and make millions.

Is this "fair"? If not, why not?

This doesn't apply only to books and publishing. There is a huge amount of crap being sold today. It's plastic. It's made in China. It isn't hand crafted and polished "good stuff."

None of us demand the "good stuff" when we select our politicians. You don't believe me? Look around you.

Shall we talk about "good" movies? Some people love the Sense and Sensibility genre, but more go to see Harry Potter and Avatar. And, collectively, even more still will go to see blood and guts and things being blown up. True or false?

Who gets to tell us what we should read, what we should go see, what we should eat? Who among you are the quality police? McDonald's is crap, according to the nutrition police. Why do they sell so much of it? Because lots of people like me like it a lot, that's why. Cheap, too.

I think the answer, in all cases, and in all of these examples, is simple: PEOPLE WANT IT.

All markets, food, cinema, toys, BOOK SALES, are driven by what people - buyers - want to buy. Give people what they need and you will do well. Give them what they WANT and you will make a killing.

True, sometimes something sells because of its packaging or because it is well hyped. A lot of people take things at face value and buy simply because it glitters, or because everybody else is buying the thing. Later, after you have made your purchase, you find the thing is not as advertised, or that it is found wanting in substance or performance. Barack Obama comes to mind. So does George Bush and most of congress. But it is up to you to investigate before you buy.

Is this "fair?" Damn right it is. If you want to write to please yourself, fine. If you want to make money writing, then write what people want to read. I wish I could.

Lest I leave you with the mistaken thought that I believe it is the Liberal Left who is the cause of all of America’s troubles, let me be quick to say that I firmly believe it is the Rabid Right - the Ridiculous Right - who continually paves the way for the Loony left and even makes them necessary.

If Communism suddenly seems to be attractive to the “masses” of despairing people who see no future anymore for either themselves or their children, it is because the policies of the Right drive them to that despair.

“... the Right prepares the way for the Left — in both the United States and Russia. The Right gives the motivation and creates the sense of desperation and moral outrage that leads people to embrace utterly implausible solutions like socialism and communism.” —Jeffrey A. Tucker

Without wars, unemployment, inflation, there is no need for revolution. Without those things, there is no specter of evil capitalism with which the Loony Left can strike fear into the hearts of the desperate.

For all of Obama’s socialism and semi-brainless economic strategies, the Right have only themselves to blame. Those of us who take neither side suffer the the futility that goes on around us. We are left with the attacks and counterattacks, Left against Right, Right against left, on and on and on - when all we really want and need is progress through greater liberty.

Changing times: two visions

Times change, circumstances change. 50 years ago, America had an "Affirmative Action" policy with regard to supporting people of other countries who were struggling to throw off the oppression of dictators and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves. That policy was that we would not remain silent and take a wait-and-see attitude; that we would stand up and speak out in support of anyone brave enough to engage in such a struggle; that we would let the world know without a doubt which side America was on in any such struggle.

Today? Not so much. Today we don't want to offend anyone, least of all our enemies.
I'm not really sure we ever really lived up to that "affirmative action" ideal, but I think we tried. There must have been several embarrassing lapses on our part. Another one of those "lapses" took place during the recent Iran election protests, in my opinion. We watched. We waited. We kept our mouths shut.

The following quotes by two different U.S. Presidents, almost 50 years apart, show clearly we are now traveling on a very different road. There is no need to judge, and each man should be allowed to live in his own time, but do compare:
---------

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
—John F. Kennedy (1-20-61)

"Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling."
—Barack Obama (6-16-09)
---------

I'm sure most of the world agrees with our current president's decision. But something - some ingredient from the American recipe - has been lost along the way. Just my opinion.

President of the world?

President Obama made a short visit to Africa last week to a fine welcome. He didn't have a chance to visit everywhere, of course, though many in Africa wished he could have done so.

One South African website gave people the opportunity to ask President Obama general questions. He promised to try and answer as many as he could this week. I need to go try and find his answers, since I assume he did answer some of these. But in the meantime, since he and I are following each other on Twitter, I'm sure he won't mind if I take some of the load off him and try to answer a few for him today.

I probably shouldn't have to say this, but these are not the official Obama answers to the questions.

Most of these came from South Africa, but people from other countries also found the website and asked questions. I tried to choose a fair sampling. There were a couple hundred altogether, so these are just the tip of the... ummmm... iceberg, I guess.

Thank you very much to Frostygirl for providing the link to these questions on her blog. I hope she knows I am only having a little fun and am not choosing the most serious questions. (Right, Frostygirl?)
---------

Well done for occupying the highest office in land, tell me about your view of Iraq and the killing of Saddam, do you think Bush was finishing were his father left off, or he was drunk by power when he killed thousands of people in Iraq and afganistan under the false pretandance of weapons of mass distruction ? Tshifhiwa Magadani

Dear Tshifhiwa:
I think Bush was just drunk with power. Thank you for your question.

From: Chloe Hardy
Dear President Obama, I know that you are concerned about the HIV epidemic in Southern Africa. One of the main drivers of the HIV epidemic is violence against women and gender inequality. Are you planning any major programmes or funding initiatives to address issues of violence against women in Southern Africa?

Dear Chloe:
I will do my best to continue whatever I can do. Thank you for your question.

From: The messenger

Dear Barack Obama. What do you think of the indisputable findings of large quantities of nano-thermite explosives amongst the dust of the WTC?

Dear Messenger:
Until you just wrote me, I didn't know there were findings of what you said, much less that any such findings were indisputable. I will take your word for it, of course. I guess that means we blew up the World Trade Center ourselves and the film of the planes crashing into them were a big hoax. Wow. Thank you for clearing that up, Messenger.

From Redaa najaar

Dear President, What do you intend on doing about the war in the middle east ? Will you continue to support Israel whilst they continue to break humanitarian laws or will you finally bring them to justice.Your country was quick to stoop into Iraq to stop Saddam from ``oppressing`` his people, the same thing if not worse is happening in Palestine, why are you not putting a stop to it?

Deaar Redaa:
Why am I not putting a stop to it? I am not sure how to do that Redaa. It is America's responsibility though, right? I will try to work with the U.N. instead. Thank you.

From Gregory Booth

Why is it that the developing countries have to continue paying to bail out the US economy when Americans are living beyond their means? Have sufficient structural changes to your banking system been put in place to stop this happening in the future?

Dear Gregory:
We are certainly working on our banking system right now. If the developing countries wouldn't mind continuing to bail the U.S. economy out for just a little longer, it would be great. Thank you Gregory.

From Good Nigerian

Dear President, Nigeria is ripe for breakup, the country is too big too be ruled and governed by these political thieves resulting to the deprivation in the Niger Delta that is causing WAR now. Mr President, how can u help Nigeria to break up peacefully?

Dear Good Nigerian:
(That name is a joke, right?) How can I help Nigeria to break up peacefully? I assure you this is on my short list of things to attend to, just after the Middle East. And Iraq. And perhaps Afghanistan. And the U.S. Economy. Soon, GN, soon.

From Value all life

Dear Mr President. You espouse upholding democracy yet a democratically elected Hamas govt is denied recognition in Palestine. You saw genocide in Palestine in December yet you want to charge Bashir for war crimes. Were is your justice. Israel is geiven carte Blance to murder and kill yet detainees sit in guantanomo bay for no reason. Uphold justice and value all life.

Dear Val:
Yes, Hamas was democratically elected. So was Saddam. So was Hitler. So was... umm... Sarah Palin. This doesn't mean I have to like all these people, Val. You would give me that much, wouldn't you? I am not getting picky, but (if I may) some would say these folks in Gitmo are not sitting there for no reason. I guess it depends on your perspective. I hope your view of the world works out for you, Val. Thank you for writing. And Go Sharks!

From Anonymous

Dear President Obama what is your stance on the Morocco-Western Sahara conflict?

Dear Anonymous:
A lot of these questions seem to be coming from you. Thank you for your broad interest in world affairs. What is my stance on... M-WS conflict? Decidedly three-point, I can say with a certain degree of certainty. If you would write back and tell me what your own stance is, then I might be able to give you an answer you will like better. Thanks.

From Justice

Dear President Obama, when is the USA going to start applying pressure on Israel to stop the continuous oppression and apartheid style settlements in Palestine? Palestine has been illegally occupied by Israel and yet no international pressure is being applied, yet elsewhere in the world the USA wants to act on countries they deem are transgressing? Why is that so?? Regards

Dear Justice:
What an apropos name for such an even-balanced thinker! All this time I was thinking Israel was attacked by the other countries in 1967 and won the war anyway. Doesn't that mean all the land now belongs to Israel? Please write back and explain the "illegally occupied" part. Thank you.

From Anonymous

What difference would you bring to Africa,besides promises made by previous Presidents.Are you allowed to deal with things your way or you are monitored and told what to do?

Dear Anonymous:
You again? What difference would you like me to bring to Africa, Anon? I gotta tell you, my plate is pretty full already in the U.S. Just sayin'.

From wako

Hi mr President, congratulations on maing us a proud black people. I just want to knw why you sit by and let the Isrealis take all the palestinian land. Do you think that is good for world peace and the image of Isreal in the world? I think it does more harm than good for the Isreali oublic. thanks

Dear wako:
I was, like 7 years old when the Arabs attacked Israel and lost all their land. I really had no choice but to sit by and let it happen. You know? Oh, you mean NOW? I'm not sure what to do about it. They are other countries. I really am trying to bring them together, though. Thank you, wako.

From Mary Fanner

Dear Mr Obama, Why does the American health care system help medical practitioners and pharmacists to prosper despite making fatal and damaging mistakes, and engaging in criminal acts like assault, fraud, manslaughter and murder? Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe...and how many others have died because the pedlars of remedies are protected like gods by besotted government officials? Mary Fanner

Dear Mary:
I feel your pain. I sense your anger and frustration. Does this really rile Africans that much? Truly? Well, I think the vast majority are honest and hard-working. I wouldn't condemn a whole huge system because of a few bad apples. I know YOU would, but I wouldn't. We will just have to agree to disagree, Mary. Thanks.

I can't take it anymore. I think I will let Stephanie B or A. (or anyone else - even Obama) handle the rest of these. It isn't nearly as much fun as I had thought anyway. I wish I had chosen some nice ones instead of the hard ones. I'll bet President Obama chose the easy ones.

---------
5 Days ago Anonymous wrote :

Good day Mr. President. You see I do not like colonialism but at the rate at which African leaders and their families are looting, Africa has no hope for menaingful progress. I am aware that there are many Africans who more than often apportion blame for our poverty to colonialism and have thus come to hate white people, big time. If I were to ask you to effect benign colonialism on Africa by coercion, what would be your reaction? Boago

5 Days ago Wiri wrote :

Dear President Obama, what is the USA doing to stop the growing trend in Africa where incumbent presidents are seeking to remove terms limits so as to cling to power? Shouldn't the USA be safe guarding democracy in Africa??

5 Days ago Justice before Peace wrote :

Peace be unto you No mention is made in your speech(s) of the illegal occupancy of Palestinain land and the contravention of International laws by the Israeli government. How can we as muslims honestly believe you'll objectively assist in a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. Thanks for opportunity to place my question. All the best with your term as President.
---------

Sigh.

Happy Father's Day!

Tomorrow, Sunday, is Father’s Day in the USA.

Gifts from the kids. A special meal. Good family time.

I have been watching the news reports of President Obama giving speeches with a Father’s day theme. A funny speech last night speaking in front of the Washington press corps.

In between jokes, he reminded us of his own father, and challenged us all to be better fathers than his own was.

Obama has written a whole book about his father, “Dreams from My Father”, in which he talks about the man who abandoned his family. But Obama mainly talks about his own parenting today; a father to his own Sasha, 8, and Malia, 10.

As usual, he is telling American men what sort of fathers they should be, what kind of father he himself wants to be. The method is pretty simple: just be the opposite of what his own father was like.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a sometime Kenyan Goatherder cum Harvard scholar. Or so the storyline goes. Left his Kenyan family behind for a U.S. education and started a new family there, only to return to Africa with another woman when Barack Jr. was 2 years old.

Senior worked for an oil company in Africa, and for the government. His promise never materialized and when his 21-year-old son in America was a student at Columbia University, the senior Barack finally succumbed to the bottle and then died in a car crash.

He left his son a Muslim name, an African heritage and a basketball. Not much else.

“I don’t want to be the kind of father I had,” the president says quietly.

Although Obama’s preaching is most obvious when addressing other black men, his message is for all men: Be better fathers.

"Let's admit to ourselves that there are a lot of men out there that need to stop acting like boys; who need to realize that responsibility does not end at conception; who need to know that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise a child."

"We need to step out of our own heads and tune in. We need to turn off the television and start talking with our kids, and listening to them, and understanding what's going on in their lives."

"Any fool can have a child. That doesn't make you a father.”

Obama is quick to acknowledge his own shortcomings as a father. His fierce career ambitions many times kept him separated from his family.

"I know I have been an imperfect father. I know I have made mistakes. I have lost count of all the times, over the years, when the demands of work have taken me from the duties of fatherhood."

But, during the recent campaign, and now that he is in the White House, Obama finds time - makes time - to spend time with his girls and wife.

Obama was a schoolboy in Hawaii when his father came back to visit one time. He gave his dad a tie. His father gave him some African figurines and came to his class to speak about Kenya. And then he left again.

Before he left, he gave his son a basketball.
=========

Cat’s in the Cradle
by Harry Chapin

A child arrived just the other day,
He came to the world in the usual way.
But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.
He learned to walk while I was away.
And he was talking 'fore I knew it, and as he grew,
He'd say, "I'm gonna be like you, dad.
You know I'm gonna be like you."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

My son turned ten just the other day.
He said, "Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let's play.
Can you teach me to throw?" I said, "Not today,
I got a lot to do." He said, "That's ok."
And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed,
Said, "I'm gonna be like him, yeah.
You know I'm gonna be like him."

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, dad?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then.
You know we'll have a good time then."

Well, he came from college just the other day,
So much like a man I just had to say,
"Son, I'm proud of you. Can you sit for a while?"
He shook his head, and he said with a smile,
"What I'd really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.
See you later. Can I have them please?"

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."

I've long since retired and my son's moved away.
I called him up just the other day.
I said, "I'd like to see you if you don't mind."
He said, "I'd love to, dad, if I could find the time.
You see, my new job's a hassle, and the kid's got the flu,
But it's sure nice talking to you, dad.
It's been sure nice talking to you."
And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,
He'd grown up just like me.
My boy was just like me.

And the cat's in the cradle and the silver spoon,
Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
"When you coming home, son?" "I don't know when,
But we'll get together then, dad.
You know we'll have a good time then."