Presidential Elections

Another presidential election year has drawn to a close. From my perspective it has been one of the most annoying, exasperating events that I have endured in my adult life. What used to take nine months from start to finish has now been elongated into a two year process.

More than a year ago I was already annoyed by the deluge of political television commercials. During both the morning and evening prime time, candidate ads were consistently repeated. Adding to my annoyance was the nearly constant, mostly biased commentaries from media sources that aired, day in and day out. Frankly, my tolerance of it all had peaked well before New Years had arrived. At the time, I was certainly not looking forward to the spring primary season where I knew the campaigns would intensify in both ads and media coverage.

The passion of the fall campaigns was merely the prelude of what was to come in the months ahead. Once the primaries were in full swing, fueled by the energy of the Obama – Clinton battle, we were totally consumed by the political process as it played out. The theatrics of it all continued to build until the crescendo finally climaxed on Election Day.

One point of note that set this campaign apart from historical others was the amount of money raised and spent. I recently read that Obama raised more than 750 million dollars prior to the convention. In contrast, candidates in the 04 election raised only half that amount. One needs to look at the industries that profit from all this money. Obviously some goes to pay staff, office supplies and such. But that amount is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of money that is funneled for printing campaign material or to ad agencies, newspapers, radio and TV advertising. Is it a wonder that the guy spending the big bucks on media advertising gets the most favorable press?

In addition, think of the millions of dollars spent by the states and counties for their roll in conducting the elections. Such direct costs include not only the purchase of the voting machines but the computers, materials and staff needed to run the election.

After the infamous “hanging chad” fiasco of the 2000 Bush – Gore election, counties in Florida quickly moved to purchase new automated voting equipment. Most purchased state of the art touch screens that were not only simple to operate, but cost effective and reliant. Then a year ago the State mandated that in addition to the electronic count of votes, the machines must furnish a paper trail. Since the touch screens could not accomplish this added task, the counties spent millions replacing the machines.

It is my opinion that in this automated, electronic, 21^st century that we live in there has to be a cheaper procedure for holding such an election. From seeking qualified candidates that may not have the financial resources or star power to rise to the top, to one’s ability to campaign and conduct an election more economically, a solution should be found.

For example, think how simple and unsophisticated the voting is for shows such as American Idol or Dancing with the Stars. Millions of votes are electronically cast each week to choose winning contestants. Obviously such systems as currently set up are not fool proof since they allow voters to cast multiple ballots for their favorites. Yet I’m sure with American ingenuity such issues could eventually be overcome.

Instead of the long drawn out primary process we now endure, the political parties could hold a series of televised debates for their candidates. The debates would focus on the pertinent issues with each candidate being given an opportunity to state or argue their position. After several debates an elimination process would begin where each week, the candidate collecting the least amount of votes, would be eliminated. Once each party has selected their candidate a new series of debates begins to select the ultimate winner.

Such a solution is probably too idealistic and not doable since it eliminates those who make their riches off the election process. Yet I can certainly think of better, more charitable ways to spend 750 million than on a political candidate. Investing such money in cancer or heart research are two points that come to mind.

Arizona Holiday

Please feel free to look through my latest book about our vacation to the Grand Canyon this past summer.

Arizona Holiday

By Bill and Sarah Ba...

Book Preview

Commercials are Annoying

If I remember correctly, cable television was originally hyped as a source of entertainment without commercials. It was the new, fresh alternative to network television with its proliferation of one commercial after another. The real value to early cable subscribers was solely the likes of HBO, Cinemax and the Showtime movie channels which were presented, as advertised, commercial free. At this early stage the jury was still out on cable. It took years before broadcasting companies both new and old recognized its value and began producing specialty programming.

Today, with the exception of some of the subscriber based movie channels, we are inundated with a variety of program choices that are virtually packed with an equal amount of commercials as programming. From the Food Network and Lifetime to ESPN or CNN, commercials almost, but not quite consume the lion’s share of a program’s length.

Last week we watched a movie on the Lifetime Movie Channel. The movie ran eight minutes then ran commercials for the next four. This schedule was fairly consistent throughout most of the movie. However in many instances as movies near the end, commercials often outpace the content.

Today, most network shows on CBS, ABC, Fox and NBC run slightly different schedules although I guess the average is about six minutes of programming to three minutes of commercial. That’s 20 minutes of commercial every hour. Another way of looking at this is 33% of your television viewing is commercial oriented.

Some of the talk shows run even more commercials. Take Dr. Phil or Montel for instance. Their schedule is approximately four minutes of programming to a two or three minute commercial break. Not only is the deluge of commercials annoying, it takes away from one’s interest in the program dialog.

Then there’s the repetition. Some advertisers see fit to run the same commercial numerous times within a program, if not back to back. It’s enough to make you want to pull your hair out! Toyota, are you listening?

And to add insult to injury this is an election year. Seems politicians employ the most mundane ad companies to produce their lies for them. Sure wish one or two would hire the company that produces the Anheuser Busch ads. Certainly at least one of the candidates might benefit from using the Clydesdale's. Might give new meaning to a horses’ ass.

Human Cloning

Most news networks on Thursday reported the story about a private laboratory in California who has successfully cloned a human embryo. Accordingly DNA was extracted from the donated egg and replaced with DNA from a lab donor. Reportedly, the altered embryo was later destroyed.

This is obviously mind boggling science. Yet with all the research going on in this area one knew that such a breakthrough would soon occur. I would expect that we will hear a lot of radical comments from the religious community over the next few months. From their perspective science is definitely prodding into areas reserved solely for Mother Nature.

One of the reports I listened to explained some of the positives associated with this knowledge that I hadn't even considered. Theoretically a laboratory could grow a new organ that would be an exact replacement for one that had failed or become diseased. Since the new "part" would be a duplicate, the body would not reject it. Quite a plus for someone with say heart or kidney problems.

From a sinister point of view I can perceive a lot of negatives. Imagine if someone such as Adolph Hitler had this science available to him. Would his dream to create a superior Arian race be possible? What about some of the other off-the-wall lunatic dictators in the world today? Would not their ego alone impel them to insist that their linage continued through subsequent generations?

Then on the other hand there's the Hollywood crowd. Could any of us stand ten more Britney Spears or five more Paris Hilton's?

Food For Thought

I have strong Midwestern roots, having been born and raised in the Chicago area. Yet even as a city boy with a public school education I learned a little about farming. In the rich farmland of Northern Illinois, corn was the major crop. As one headed either west or south from the city, it was all that one could see. Knee high by the Fourth of July I was taught. For some, the sign of a good crop was measured that way.

Once the corn crop was harvested the farmers often planted a crop of soybeans. The crop usually matured by late fall and was simply turned under by the farmer. Why would a farmer plant a crop, then till it under one might ask? To simply add good, natural nutrients back into the soil. Such measures helped to insure another good crop the following season.

Times have certainly changed in the past twenty or more years. Soybeans are now grown for profit, not fertilizer. Natural fertilizers and soil enrichments have been replaced with a variety of chemical substitutes. Chemicals are used to insure product growth and increase the crops productivity or yield. Additional chemical products are used to insure against plant disease or insect infestation. With the exception of organically grown foods, chemicals are used to produce nearly every grown food we eat.

Animals grown for human consumption are not much different. Be it a cow, pig, sheep or chicken, chemicals are used in a variety of feed products to unnaturally prepare the animal for market purposes. A plumper chicken breast or a tenderer, tastier strip steak are quite often the by-products of such procedures. But hey, it looks good and tastes good! Isn't that what the market demands?

Never thought much about this until my wife and I began traveling out of the country. Spend a week on a Caribbean island or in Europe and you begin to notice a change. After a week or more of eating organic foods and consuming meat that has naturally grazed in fields or eaten organically grown feed, you'll notice a difference. Your body not only feels better, it shows in your complexion. There is a decided difference.

The FDA claims none of this should be concerning to us. After all, they're the Government, and they know best. Yet, time is the real measure of acceptance here and frankly, in my opinion, we haven't traveled far enough down that line to accurately gauge the results. Certainly changes in the younger generations are apparent to me. Can the same chemical that was used to grow the corn stalk two feet higher be ultimately responsible for abnormal body growth or obesity? What long term effect does the chemical preservative in the slice of bread you ate for lunch have on your ultimate health and longevity? Believe me, the FDA doesn't know.

Secret Societies

Over the holidays I enjoyed reading Sylvia Browne's newest book Secret Societies. For one who enjoyed the intrigue of The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, this book added insight to many of the questions raised in the novels. Sylvia acknowledges author Dan Brown for the thoroughness of his research, therein clarifying that many of the theories presented in the books have indeed more truth than fiction.

On our recent visit to the Louvre in Paris, our tour guide paused us at the base of the inverted pyramid. He commented that "according to the Da Vinci Code, it was hinted that Mary Magdalene might in fact be buried here". Fiction I'm sure, but pause for concern. In Secret Societies Sylvia does point out that Mary Magdalene was buried in France.

Three of the Societies mentioned in the book are of special interest. The first is the Skull and Crossbones, a prominent clandestine group of sorts that calls Yale University its home. Prominent members include both George W. Bush and John Kerry. Can you imagine those two sharing the "secret" handshake? Two others of interest are the Freemasons and the Knights Templar, both which share histories back to biblical times. By chance I caught a program recently on the Discovery Channel which highlighted much of the historical knowledge of the latter two. It was quite enlightening but did not include some of the facts outlined in the book.

To accept some of the research that Sylvia Browne used for her book you have to first understand the psychic nature of Ms. Browne. This highly talented psychic often uses her spirit guide Francene to assist her. As such, you have to have a belief and understanding of spirit guides and the role they play in all of our lives.

My wife and I have both learned of the importance of our spirit guides. It is all part of a bigger picture that is time related and includes the supposition that we have all gone through many lives before reaching the one where our souls now reside. Dr. Brian Weiss has done considerable research on this subject and has written several interesting books on past regressions and future ones too.

For further insight you might go to one of the following websites. Sylvia's is www.sylvia.org and the Dr. Weiss website is www.brianweiss.com. If you want to experiment with your own past regressions you might try

http://caliente1.isis77.hop.clickbank.net/

Have a fun and interesting journey.

Cell Tower Proliferation

This past summer we took an extended tour through France. As our bus rambled through the countryside I was quite amazed at the solemn beauty of it all. From quaint towns that are hundreds of years old to stunningly beautiful vineyards, farms and mountains, the scenery is inspiring. What we didn't find was even more amazing. There were no billboards, no roadside trash or litter, or more importantly no cell towers to proliferate the landscape.

I asked our tour director about such things. She told me that France had laws which protected the beauty of their countryside. Structures such as cell towers have to be integrated into the landscape in such a way that they are either invisible or inconspicuous. Antennas are often placed on water towers, barns, high buildings or on treed hilltops to conceal their appearance.

I know some States are more restrictive than others but here in Florida, cell tower proliferation has become a cancer. Towers that are extraordinarily ugly in appearance seem to be popping up at an alarming rate. Within a five mile radius of our home I can count at least five of these 200 foot abortions that have been erected within the last year.

Who to blame? Why our local and State government, of course who are obviously oblivious to such matters. However, laws or regulations that legislate aesthetic standards are often hard to defend. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so they say. Yet somewhere, somehow we ought to be able to legislate against ugliness.

I plan to pose the issue to my State Senator. I'd be interested to hear is take on this issue. Time will tell.