OUTER SPACE & ROBOTS.

Today's news of China's space adventure, and a Robot named Philip are making people to think that technology has been able to find its way for persons and nations to do things without breaking a sweat.

If they have the resources, they could use that to create an Android that could talk and reason with humans; or they would send a space craft to put the world on notice that they have bold plans to exploit outer space, and even to show that they could replicate what the United States did in the 1960s, by landing men on the Moon.

The U.S. has been scaling back on its space program, not because of lack of interest or enthusiasm, but it could not afford the luxury that China has.

With a vastly growing economy and huge surpluses in its fiscal reserve, the scientists and engineers there could be funded quite easily and handsomely to do anything in the national interest, as well as to boost its (China's) image to the rest of the world.

Philip's creator has been dubbed god (with a small "g"), and that should tell one that there were a lot of people or companies that would be producing robots to do their will.

To do their will? That should not be a scary question in America, because inventions like that have always been used for peaceful purposes, such as the elevator, the coffee maker, the vacuum cleaner, and the little robotic machines that could mop the floor.

They have made house cleaning to become easy, and people who could hire maids for domestic housekeeping would have the equipment for them (maids) to use to cut down on the chores they needed to complete each day.

Car manufacturers were already having robots that could be programmed to build automobiles from start to finish or with very little supervision by men, of course.

Flower gardens and golf courses have been seen to be manned by machines, and so Philip's kind could be put to work on so many types of work that computerized gadgets could even outperform humans on.

As for space, there would be no limits, and there would be no watchful eyes to see what was really going on; and that could make one to cringe, if only a little bit, and have grounds to be suspicious, not that China has any ulterior motive other than for national prestige.

However, since there were other countries, like Russia and Japan, that were having similar plans to invade outer space in the near future, the International community should get involved.

There would be chaos up there; and so, what came to mind was the world's own security being placed in the hands of robot makers and those, who could set up stations in the sky to orbit the earth. They would be inclined to do anything they preferred.

The news, nevertheless, has this to say, that "Some experts say a critical gap in Chinese-U.S. space relations is the absence of regularized talks on space security, which took place between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War.maned." (CNN 12/31/11).

Let us hope that could be brought back for all nations to participate in; and though, guidelines were not possible for anyone to follow or observe, mere talks would be better than nothing.

As for Philip, he and his friends would start dating other robotics to produce more of their own kind.

By the way, his full name is "Philip K. Dick Andriod". Perhaps, the spelling of the last name has been changed for the sake of copyright law.

SANTORUM; A STRONG POSITION.

Santorum's surge in the Iowa caucuses polls is not surprising, for the simple fact that he has not wavered even slightly from his conservative beliefs. That alone will be the qualification he needs among party loyals and fanatics.

He will be a better candidate for the Republican Party, if it will see fit to nominate him for the 2012 general election; however, party leaders as well as rank and file of the party consider him to be too "pure" for this day and age; and that his message will not resonate well with the "iPad/texting" generation.

However, looking at his age and his political background as a former Senator, he will be the quintessential individual, who fits the mold of a future president. He is younger than his colleagues on the campaign trail, and he seems to be in real good health; and that can be an attraction for voters.

Hence, his rise in Iowa, which is not at all sudden, is now coming to the forefront. In other words, people are always having him in their sights.

His natural mannerisms are what is holding him back, as he portrays too much gentility and candor for a modern day politician. He must look a little bit "cagey, ruffled and aggressive" as some of his rivals in the Republican Party's nomination race.

What people like about him most, though, is his stance on abortion, that life begins at conception, and that there is no other way to look at it as being an act decent for society; and that makes him a true darling to the pro-life sector of his party.

A mother's life might be in danger; yes, but that is what doctors and science are liable to work on, and be able to save it, instead of destroying another life or taking it out on an innocent human being, a little baby.

Yet, it all boils down to the nitty gritty of politics, whether Santorum can be a match for President Barack Obama, who is witty, forceful and having a deluge of campaign skills under his belt.

He is a liberal with caution, who does everything moderately to appeal to Americans, both young and old, as well as women of all ages, particularly, those aging from the mid-thirties to the fifties; and they tend to be the voting crowd, according to political analysts and pundits.

He is also taking his reelection very seriously, with a formidable team of campaign professionals, who will not allow anything to chance.

Whatever is thwarting his candidacy for a second term in the White House, they are capable of fixing; and so, it will be an uphill battle for anyone, who wins the Republican nomination to challenge him for the office of the United States presidency. He has been able to win it once, and he is ready, able and willing to do it again.

Out of the field of the candidates running in the Republican race, comprising of Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Bachmann, Huntsman and Santorum himself, he (Santorum) stands a better chance of winning the party's nomination, due to his youthful appearance; and also, if he can build on his new momentum and go on to be the winner of the Iowa Caucuses.

It will not be a surprise; because he has been working hard toward it. That is why he is in a strong position in Iowa; and he deserves it.

IOWA CAUCUSES & FREEDOM.

The hustle and bustle of politicians and their supporters in Iowa will not mean much in places like Syria, Iran and North Korea, because the political systems there are not people oriented or even friendly, in relation to those who are governed.

They are dictatorships, whose backgrounds are not similar, but the basis of government is the same, except perhaps Syria and North Korea, where a son is made to succeed a father as the leader of a nation.

In these systems, the involvement of the people is not considered necessary, for the mere reason that they are using military force to tie down the citizens, and the least disruption by anyone being a dissident, will be crushed within minutes.

In Syria, President Bashar al-Assad is killing his people to stay in power, which has been handed down to him by his father, Hafez al-Assad, who has ruled the country for 29 years, using brutality to remain in power; the Hama massacre being an example.

His second son, Bashar, has been handed the reins of government on a silver platter, and therefore, the crackdown of fellow Syrians is just a cinch, for it has been demonstrated by his father and so it is easy for him to follow suit.

On the other side of the world, the ridiculous handing over of power to an untested, young Korean after his father's death, is being witnessed, as the people look on as sheep to slaughter and without a say.

Iran's religious leaders, the Ayatollahs, who have control of the real political power in that country, are flexing their muscles and provoking countries in the Western hemisphere, indicatively, the United States, with the closing of the Strait of Hormuz -- "the passageway for one-sixth of the world's oil supply.", and they (leaders) are having dreams of acquiring nuclear weapons to terrorize their neighbors and others.

All these actions are taken in these countries without the consent of the people, solely because the governments there are dictatorial systems.

However, in America, the people have more say in the affairs of the country through a Constitution that grants them the freedoms to express themselves in several divers ways. There is also the United States Congress that makes the laws, and all its members are elected through the ballot box, just as well as a president, who governed by virtue of having to negotiate a political process of an election to reach that goal.

What is presently going on in Iowa is the quintessential social illustration that the people are free to have a choice; they can express their views in dialogues that are pertaining to how they are governed; they have the right to vote, that can make those views factual; they have a system of government "of the people by the people for the people."

There is nothing else that can be fairer than that to any people, to have the responsibility in choosing a leader. They, as a result, have democracy; and they prefer it to any other form of government.

The noisy gatherings are named as "Iowa caucuses", but they mean more than that. They mean freedom.

THE FUTURE & THE WAY TO GO.

It was not long ago that President Barack Obama signed a bill, which provided tax credits to companies putting veterans back to work (Nov. 21st. 2011).

He has been going round the country stressing on the issue that those coming home from oversea after serving in the military should find work immediately or that they have to be given training by companies that needed to increase their trained or skilled staff.

"The legislation, which creates tax breaks for companies that hire jobless veterans, marks the first proposal from Obama's $446 billion jobs bill to be signed into law. The rest of the package of new taxes and spending has largely failed to garner support from Republican lawmakers." a news report said (11/21/11).

Yet, in today's Fox News, another headline appeared as "New Plan to Help Vets Find Work After War", and that the plan was being sponsored by another Democrat from Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet.

His emphasis was on veterans coming home from overseas at a time when employment was very scarce in the country, the rate of unemployment was at 8.6%; however, the article was making it to look as if the initiative of getting jobs for veterans was the Senator's idea.

It made one to wonder whether there was unity in the Democratic Party, or cohesion among its liberals and moderates.

"Our troops are coming home and we need to be ready," Sen. Michael Bennet had said. "He has proposed legislation to create a National Veterans Foundation that would operate much like the National Parks Foundation already does.", the Fox News article continued.

Well, that made confusing reading, that the media, or a section of them, found it too hard to give credit to Obama in person, and his administration in particular, for anything worthwhile that he has proposed during his tenure of office as president.

On the issue of veterans needing work to enable them to assimilate into "a wider society or culture", the president has already signed a law that granted employers an incentive to hire those, who were coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was, therefore, more than interesting to notice that a Democratic Senator was being placed ahead of the president of the United States as having more concern for veterans, although his plan was similar, it was not more aggressive than that of the president.

The television channel of Fox News has programs that were specifically designed to berate Obama, and to discredit every effort that he was making to make his administration viable to the American people.

It would be hopeless to name those programs, but their aims have been misplaced, because many citizens have been aware that he (Obama) has inherited a difficult economic situation, right from the start, caused by two wars, one of which he has been able to bring to an end.

The other one was still being fought; and there too, he was putting so much effort into getting the opposing side to come to the table for peace talks, through diplomatic negotiations.

So, the public would see how that particular TV channel was doing all it could to "blacken - slander - defame - vilify - asperse - malign," Obama; but would that be fair, especially when he was running for reelection in 2012?

Journalists were supposed to be objective in dealing with topics that would affect the lives of millions of people, and the next general election would be just that. It would be pivotal in deciding in which direction the country should go.

The Democrats were moving toward a society that would "level the playing field" for everyone, while the Republicans wanted the status quo to continue; where the rich got richer, and the poor was left to fend for themselves. The financial freedom on Wall Street and other such places to be optimized, while others suffered. The 1% Vs 99% ideology to go on unabated.

The two scenarios were as different as day and night, and so people must have the opportunity to decide which one of the two would be better for the country to choose.

Therefore, if some of the media chose to be impartial and sided with one political party against another, it would only be doing a great disservice to the future of the country.

Many were saying in anticipation that in the forthcoming general election, let the people decide; and not the talking heads on television.

It would seem as if the media stood to gain enormously from social upheavals and demonstrations, some of which were awful disturbances and destructive to society as a whole (hey, not Occupy Wall Street, please.); however, that was not what the general public wanted.

In fact, what life should be about was fairness for all.

IRAQ'S FRAGILE UNITY.

Iraq's disintegration should not be a surprise, because the country already has natural and sectarian divisions that could not be bridged, and to surmise that a Democratic type of government in its present form there would survive, would only be a fantasy.

Vice President Joe Biden, when he was running in the 2008 Democratic Party's nomination race for president, made a suggestion that Iraq should be a federation; however, people there and even outsiders poo pooed the idea, thinking that a unified country would serve its citizens better.

Now, the Vice President (Biden) is seen to be right, as there is not the slightest of doubt that the country is breaking up under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is a Shiite, and for that matter, who is trying to hold his lose coalition government together.

The Sunnis, which are his somewhat "natural enemies", will always create problems for him, based, if not on anything else, but strictly or primarily on religious beliefs.

The Kurds in the north of the country are autonomous, and they have more or less isolated themselves from Iraq since the end of the Persian empire, which itself was made up of a myriad of tribal groupings.

Persia has managed to exist through violence, domination and war, and it covered present day Iran and Turkey, plus other subsidiary and neighboring countries, in addition to Iraq.

Saddam Hussein has used the same tactics of violence and autocracy to keep his country to become united. He has brutalized the Kurds, with mustard gas attacks in their attempt to break away. The consequence of which led to his trial and ultimate execution.

Under the present circumstances, and since the introduction of Democracy, after the United States and allied invasion, the tribal and religious demarcations, with their numerous differences, have been covered up, for the sake of a unity; but it was one, which was still disquieting.

Yet, the least incident, as al-Maliki, requesting the return of Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is a wanted person "for plotting assassinations during the insurgency," and who has since fled to the Kurdish region, it is rather very unlikely that the al-Maliki government has any chance of survival; due to the unity in the country being so fragile.

After the pullout of U.S. troops, many anticipated that the Iranian influence would intensify, and that would make it impossible for the country to maintain a truly political and centralized government.

So, Vice President Joe Biden's prediction during the 2008 Democratic Party's nomination campaign has come back to haunt the Iraqis. They could use his advice now, even if they have turned it down before, and settled for a federated government.

The U.S. has done its part to free millions of people in Iraq from a despicable and brutal dictator.

It is about time the Iraqis themselves have to take their future in their own hands and nurture it into something that they will be proud of as a nation.

In fact, and on a jocular note, if there is one element that can really unite Iraq, it will be the game of football or soccer.

Otherwise, nothing else can.

ZAKARIA & HIS ARTICLES.

This guy, Zakaria, is doing a disservice to American politics, to say the least. He thinks that he can write anything and get away with it.

His articles anger a whole lot of people, when they appear, and they, people, wonder why CNN has allowed him to be narcissistic and bombastic at times, without any attempt to correct him or slow him down in many of the incredible statements he makes.

The most annoying thing of all is that he tends to write in the first person plural, as if he is the only individual that has become a naturalized American.

He writes like he is not expressing his own opinion, but that of groups of his Middle East or Arab friends and colleagues, making him look as if he is a mouthpiece for them.

His latest is his piece, "Too soon to judge Obama" of comparing past and future American leaderships. The article shows a great deal of naivete on his part, and it perplexes most people, if he cannot find any other perspective in his writings, but only that of criticizing the United States foreign policy or the kind of leadership that it has had before, now and in the future.

It may be CNN or some news publication that has appointed him judge over how American leaders have to behave, from a Muslim or Arabic point of view, but that will be absurd, because there are many writers from the Middle East, who can do far more better than he.

The statement that, "Many think that Obama just doesn't have what it takes to be the kind of leader we need - the kind we have had in the past. Many Democrats pine for someone like Bill Clinton who was just such a 'gifted political player' and a 'legendary leader.' ", demonstrates how very little this man knows about American politics, except perhaps from, as said before, an Arab vantage point.

Bill Clinton is the luckiest man to be president of the U.S., because apart from his impeachment trial, he is not notable for any real achievement, except for the economic surplus that he has obtained for the country at the end of his tenure at the Oval Office; and even that has its critics, but that is for another story, another day.

However, to compare Clinton or even Carter to Obama can be a no-brainer, as Obama has achieved a better record in National Security and foreign policy than any of them.

He has been able to conduct an operation that has nipped Osama bin Laden, and his war, as part of America's friends in NATO with Libya has put out a brutal dictator like Gadhafi.

He has been able to end the war in Iraq, and although, some critics are saying that it is a bad move; yet, isn't it about time for the Iraqis to take responsibility of their own affairs, after thousands of American casualties; the dead and the injured?

Also the costs of that war and the Afghan operations are affecting the present U.S. economy in an unfair manner. All that money must be brought back to Mainland America to solve its domestic problems; and he is doing just that.

His foreign policy, with another Clinton as his Secretary of State, is winning friends for the U.S.; the latest being Burma.

American journalists must be dwelling on these achievements, instead of writing stupidly about or ignoring them.

Except for presidents G.W. Bush and W. Bush, who must be credited for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, Obama has accomplished more than any other president in recent history.

Reagan has not even done anything as notable, except to ask "Mr. Gorbachev to tear down this wall," and that has contributed to the end of Communism, as some people may lead one to believe.

Otherwise, Obama is the only American leader that has gone to war in which there has not been a single U.S. casualty and at the most minimum of cost in Libya to get rid of a despot, who has killed several Americans in the Pan-Am Lockerbie bombing.

Obama's only issues are the economy, border protection and immigration; and he is fighting hard to put the economy right, and on the immigration question, which goes hand in hand with border protection, he is developing a comprehensive legislation with the Congressional Democratic Caucus to bring those under control.

The effects of his policies on immigration and border protection will be seen in his second term as president, and they will good for all Americans to judge him on.

Though, he must not be congratulated as yet, since his work is not fully finished, but rather, he must be encouraged to pursue the policies that will make Americans proud.

Pieces from journalists like Zakaria, must be read with seriously looking at the background of that person. They must be read with "a grain of salt", because they (pieces) may have ulterior agendas, which the public may not have any inkling about (or is it "of").

PAYROLL TAX, PEACE, JOY & GOODWILL.

The payroll tax cut fight is not exactly over yet, but if it is looked on as a boxing match, the winner is President Barack Obama.

He was able to sign the two month extension of the legislation in the White House before he left for his Holiday break in his native Hawaii.

He has had the full support of the nation behind him, which was a rare sight to see in a confused political situation in Washington D.C. that seemed to have polarized America.

The struggle over the debt ceiling and deficit reduction, which led to the formation of a Super Committee, has gone on for too long, and the shadow of it has been allowed to permeate every deliberation of the United States Congress, to the extent that nothing would ever cause the Democratic Party and the Republican Party to reach a single agreement.

The gap was too big for liberals on one side and conservatives on the other to be bridged, not that both parties did not have the country's best interest at heart, they wanted to do so in their own, but separate ways.

However, when President Obama, Sens. Reid and McConnell with Speaker John Boehner put their heads together, what was strange in American politics recently occurred, that the two factions, Democrats and Republicans, would be able to compromise on a great number of issues facing the country, despite all their differences.

It must be obvious that an astounding amount of hard feelings was going on in the Republican Party, and the frustration of many of its Congressional members would be directed against the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner, to the point of threatening his position as Speaker.

Yet, to many, he did succumb to the pressure of the American people, who have been aggravated by the conduct of Congress that it was not doing the job that the whole country expected of its members.

They were engaged in too much disagreement for them to see their way clear to deal with the issues affecting the people that voted them there, owing mainly to party dogma. Its (Congress's) approval rating has hit the lowest point of 14%; and there was no sign in sight that the members were seriously doing anything about it.

There were only deadlocks and gridlocks, stalemates and impasses, stand off after stand off, and with such attitude nothing could be achieved, the people surmised; hence, the low approval numbers that were getting worse as each day went by.

The Holiday season has never come at the right time as now, for lawmakers to have a respite that they so much needed, to enable them to break away from the tedium of grand standing and abject stubbornness by Democrats as well as Republicans in Washington(ian) debates.

It would be the hope of all Americans that they would come back next year with a renewed kind of verve to continue with their work.

They, as our military men and women, must always be congratulated and appreciated; because, come to think of it, they were all volunteers serving the citizens of this country.

2012 is an election year, and it is bound to be hectic, and that is why this year's spate of uncompromising stances are to be put behind, for the nation to have a new beginning, and be able to tackle its problems in a spirit of cooperation transcending all idealism.

Peace, joy and good will to all men (and women).

PAYROLL TAX CUT & PEACE.

The Conservatives blinked, and the payroll tax cut extension would be a possibility today, Friday, 23rd Dec. 2011.

Common sense tells us not to be happy over other people's misfortune, but this is one that needs to be celebrated, because it is a fight that has been won for the nation as a whole by President Barack Obama against those, who have been holding his programs and policies back in the United States Congress.

Opposition, we are told, must not be just an opposition; it must be constructive, with a spirit of give and take for important compromises to be reached on some issues.

Yet, that is not what the American public has been watching on television and reading about in the newspapers of what is going on in Washington D.C., but rather, it has been forced to put up with debates that are not reasonable, arguments that are not necessary, differences that cannot be overcome, deadlocks and gridlocks that have no real meaning attached to them and therefore cannot be resolved; and on, and on.

Such has been going on for months, if not years (three years to be exact) between a recalcitrant Congressional Republican Party membership, most of whom have been sent to Congress by the so called "tea party" and the Obama administration. They were to do all they could to obstruct the (Obama) administration in any way possible.

On the surface, it would be like simply safeguarding the interests of the American people, because that was what we mostly heard in their statements and sentences.

Probing deep down into the issues, however, one has been forced to jump to the conclusion that there were racial elements in the group, who would even go farther and do anything to dislodge an administration being headed by an African American (and I did not say "black").

Most people have been thinking that race relations in America have been getting better, but that could be a false assumption, because people have failed to take a closer look at the issue and have gone on with their lives as if it was nonexistent.

However, it is there, and no one is accusing anybody of being a racist, but there are some people, who will never accept change; and also some of them will always feel that one race is superior to another. Also that, feelings cannot be legislated against, and therefore it is natural for them to assume those types of sentiments anyway.

They forget that, in the real world, change is bound to come; and so long as the majority of people are comfortable with it, as through the process of the political ballot box or by voting, those in the minority have to learn to live with it.

In other words, racism can exist in people, and it only becomes a problem when they drag it into the affairs of national institutions, such as political parties, civic life, the military and the like.

One cannot therefore help thinking that the Capitol is any different, when it comes to accessing the racial affinities of those that are assembled there to represent the whole nation, and to deal with important matters that affect every citizen in the country; that some of them may entertain the liberty of showing some kinds of partiality in their deliberations or dealings, based on race.

Of course, they have every right to have any kind of feelings, but they have no right to let such feelings interfere with their work.

Most probably, one may be wrong; but one also has the right to assume any perspective that one chooses; and so, one can deduce that some of them have racial inclinations, or are even die hard racists.

Cooperation in what goes on in Congress is what everybody must be advocating for, instead of strife, misunderstandings and even racism.

The payroll tax cut measure that will serve 160 million Americans must pass without rancor or animosity, for the sake of unity, and peace among all citizens in this Holiday season.

CANTOR INFLUENCE IN CONGRESS.

The current actions of the Congressional Republicans are seen as placing the country's fragile economy in serious jeopardy, and making it difficult for American workers to have the privileges they deserve.

They have been given many chances to step away from blocking the payroll tax cut that President Barack Obama is requesting for American workers; and whose extension is needed, otherwise, the tax burden of the middle class and working people, particularly, will go up as early as January 1st, 2012.

The payroll tax cut favors 160 million Americans; and they will twice be at a loss, if the deadline is allowed to expire at the end of the year. First, they will lose the tax reduction in their pay checks, and second, their taxes will be forced to soar.

The United State Senate has a bipartisan bill on the table for a two month break from the talks to reach a compromise on the payroll tax extension, so as to buffer the limited time that is left for its expiration.

The related discussion for an extension of it (payroll tax cut) for at least one year, as suggested by the White House and agreed upon by a majority in Congress, will then be continued in February of next year.

That will give both parties, Democratic and Republican, a breathing space to regroup and have a chance for a closer look on finding a solution to the issue.

It is now incumbent on the Republican controlled House of Representatives to vote on the Senate bill for the crisis to be held at bay, while Congress is on its Holiday recess.

If that opportunity is to be missed, taxes will go up for millions of workers and the recovery of the economy will be drastically affected.

Now, it looks as if the ball is in the court of Congressional Republicans, to cast a simple up or down vote to alleviate the problem that is facing the country, its workers and its economy.

The scenario now is like Eric Cantor, the majority leader in the House, not being able to swallow his pride, and allowing Speaker Boehner and the whips of the Republican Party members in the House to do their work, to galvanize support for the Senate bill, for it to go through and to get the matter to be resolved.

His, Cantor's, influence has been seen as laying out the rules and guidelines for the Republican Party's policies, during the debt ceiling and deficit reduction talks, as well as the recent deliberations of the Super Committee, both of which have come to nought as a result of that influence.

It seems as through him, the Republicans are asking for another "committee" to be set up to deal with another delicate issue, when there is actually no need for that.

With a majority backing within the Republican caucus, Speaker Boehner now has the chance to go over the authority that Cantor has been wielding all these months in Congress to create stalemates, gridlocks and uncompromising stances, in regard to almost anything that has come before the House.

That will be the only way to break the present impasse on the extension of the payroll tax cut.

The Senate bill will then pass in the House and become law with the signature of the president.

The whole controversy that is threatening every American family's joy during this holiday season will then be averted.

For the tail being allowed to wag the dog in the Republican Party must come to an end; meaning Cantor and the tea party group must be stopped for the country to be really free.

POLLSTERS & BONE RATTLING.

Pollsters have gone amok, with changes in poll numbers sliding up and down faster than the pistons in a racing car. Not even engineers at Indy or NASCAR auto racing want their cars to go that crazy fast.

However, it is happening right now with pollsters even matching the candidates running in the Republican Party nomination race for president against the one presently occupying the White House, President Barack Obama.

What makes the polls most interesting is that, generally, nobody has taken part in them or nobody knows anyone who has, but the pollsters claim that there are people, who will and who have answered their questionnaires, and therefore the figures they come out with are likely to be believable.

According to an article in Politico.com today, out of over 300 million people living in the United States, only 1,005 adults have been surveyed in a recent Post-ABC poll, and that makes it, on the average, of 0.0003 percent of the country's population.

That makes the result or the outcome to be somewhat miniscule or infinitesimal to be seriously considered as being representative of what the people are thinking at any given time.

Some of the polls do not even care to add the "margin of sampling error" in their final statistics, because they do not really know what that means.

Yet, the pollster companies will be zealous to throw those numbers out, knowing that they will be acceptable by a combined viewing and reading public, which does not comprehend what is going on around it or which will just take things for granted.

The percentage of 0.0003 must tell one that "abracadabra" is even better, and to make that worse, the Politico article goes on to say that, "They toss numbers around the way astragalomancers once tossed bones to foretell events to come. (The name comes from the Greek astragalos, meaning “knucklebone.” But you knew that.)"

Many have never seen that word, astragalomancers, before; but they know what it means now, because they will be picking up the newspaper this morning or go to a website, and there it is.

Even one can take the trouble to be a pollster for just a day and ask people what that word stands for and they will shake their heads and say they have never come across it in their lives; however, they can tell you what the pollsters are telling them now; yet, the two actions are almost the same, except that one is bone rattling and the other is gumption manipulation.

The travail of it all is that people believe these polls to be factual and they will allow them to influence their decisions; but the question is, must that be the case?

This blog has written about the topic before, once or twice, that it will behove the pollsters to conduct, at least one or two surveys in the open, like in the newspapers, with names and answers of the interviewees. Or on television (and not the one on a very particular channel, which has a well known specific agenda), only this time, by ordinary men and women from the public domain and who are not part of the pollster industry.

That can be practiced weekly, on Saturday, when people are at home; but not on Sunday, because they will be in church.

The pollsters will choose a person at random, give him or her a camera crew to go through a neighborhood asking questions that have been prepared for him or her.

The telephone calls are alright, but they do not clarify the situation as they are held in private or even in secrecy. They are almost like the astragalomancer sessions. However, ordinary folks asking the questions in plain view of their peers will be a better idea.

Many are hoping the industry will take that up, and when they do, their numbers will then be verifiable by the public at large.

Bone rattling has been over for years and it is not supposed to come back, even in its modern form.

TELEVISION PUNDITS & "NEW IDEAS".

The year 2012 will be strenuous for everyone in the country, as the buildup to who will be the nominee of the Republican Party continues, not only in Iowa, but throughout the length and breath of the United States.

It is already a backbreaking undertaking for media pundits, some of whom are now throwing out "new ideas", thinking that people will be foolish to forget that those ideas are not new at all, for they have been seen and practiced before in American political history.

The one idea that stands out is the third party option, and that will make a "Ross Perot comeback" for the Republican Party, as how, people will vividly recall, he has thrown a "wrench in the works" of the 1992 presidential campaign that has caused so much hoopla; but it has finally come to nought in the end.

The pundits are insisting that Gingrich or Romney, none of whom fits the mold of the political expediency that the majority of Republicans want, and so Ron Paul, if he wins the Iowa caucuses, will be a perfect attraction for voters.

That will set him against the two front runners in the Republican nomination race, and party loyalists will have a better perspective of candidates to choose from. So, the fight and negative propaganda between the three will be as fierce as they come among the rank and file of the party. It tells one that the turmoil has already begun in the Republican camp.

However, there is another interesting "idea" being developed by the same pundits that Hillary Clinton is a match for President Barack Obama, and so she has to consider running against him.

Nevertheless, how come that has to be so? There is a kind of peace in the Democratic Party, and why must a second person come out to challenge Obama in his party?

Besides, Clinton is repeatedly saying that she is alright where she is now in her career, and if so, why are the pundits still interested in her to throw her hat in the presidential race? They are even forcing her to jump into the fracas.

The reason is quite obvious, that the tranquil in the Democratic Party is disturbing, and that calls for something to be done about it; and whatever that will cause an upheaval in that party will be fine. It will be a welcome incentive for those, who do not want Obama to win another term, even from within his own party.

Yet, has American politics come to that? That if there is fire consuming your house, you must set fire on your neighbor's house too?

There is arson in the real world, which is a serious felony. A crime that can get a person a whole number of years in prison.

Therefore, if these pundits, who are presumably conservative sympathizers, are capable of committing political arson, is there a possibility that they will get away with it and go free?

Certainly not; for the voting booth must be the "decider".

They, pundits, are being interviewed here, there and almost everywhere, and more so by a section of the media, which has organized a group of professional agitators to reek havoc anywhere they find necessary.

It will therefore be incumbent on voters of all kinds, but particularly Independents, to be wary of the skulduggery that is presently going on to trap and influence them. It is designed to ruin politics, as they have come to know that a third party option or a write-in strategy to divide a party will not do the country any good.

In other words, the voters are going to be asked to accept the unacceptable, whether they like it or not; and so they must do their best to resist such caper, for the sake of peace and harmony, as well as unity, to exist among all citizens.

Democracy provides freedom of choice, that one can vote for whomever one desires; however, going past a person, who is able to put America's number one enemy, Al Qaeda, on the run will be atrocious and unforgiving.

It will also demonstrate how ungrateful some people are, to look away from the diligence and tenacity that a leader has engaged in his leadership to protect and defend the U.S. from its enemies at all times, especially, as there is no sign in him of ever relenting his efforts to accomplish that objective.

Should he not be the person Americans can trust and feel secure with their own protection and that of their families' lives in an ever increasing dangerous world?

The pundits will have their day on their interview rounds on television, and in their articles in the newspapers and posts on the social media, which have now become the newest tools to convince younger voters and telling them how to vote and for whom.

The average voters will always have the final say; and although the task of rifling through the heavy amount of information the mainstream media may dump on them, they will do what they can to make their decision to choose a formidable and trustworthy person for president in November of 2012.

They should not allow any ruse or trickery of the political pundits to gain the upper hand, for their own sakes and that of their fellow citizens.

HONESTY, THE BEST POLICY.

Most people are members of the media, even if they are not part of the mainstream sector of the industry; and so long as they write for a living, they must not be biting the finger that feeds them.

Yet, the industry, which is protected by the first amendment, and therefore part of the United States Constitution, enjoys the privilege of being free and independent. As such, it must be impartial, unbiased, objective and to a great extent neutral.

However, unlike the medical profession, which has the Hippocratic Oath as its guidance, the media, as news gathering organizations are now generally called, are free and must be allowed to operate without any type of hindrance, good or bad, official or unofficial.

This freedom is equivalent to freedom of speech and therefore it must not be restricted in any way whatsoever. There must not be any kind of censorship, in the way of disseminating information as it must be practiced in a free country such as the United States, and places like the United Kingdom, France and Germany.

Yet, editorial boards, usually or mainly for political reasons, tend to deviate from a self imposed doctrine by the industry to be truthful in exercising the right that the Constitution grants its member organizations.

Now, the pollster companies form a part of the media, and they are supposed to conduct surveys and researches on issues of interest to the public. Such surveys must be done on the basis of them being honest and truthful, as they must follow the rules as set, though not mandatory, for the rest of the industry.

As most of the media conform to those rules, to the best of their ability, and to be frank and forthright in the delivery of information, pollsters are a little bit different. They can be honest; but they can also come up with any kind of artificial figures and dump them in the news for public consumption.

When that happens, it is just like dissing the same public, which the media must be honest with and respect.

So, the pollster companies and organizations must do what is expected of them to avoid friction of any kind between themselves and the reading and viewing public. They must not be influenced by any political dogma or entity.

However, it will not be too difficult to say that such a thing is going on in the United States now, more that ever; and it has to do with the approval rating of President Barack Obama, which according to most of these pollsters, is diminishing or sliding down; but that must be driving many people crazy and making them angry, because the figures seem to be fabricated.

Of course, his approval rating will not be favorable in view of the slow economy; but that alone must not be a gauge of the president's overall political performance.

Comparatively, apart from the failing economy inherited from the previous administration, Obama has achieved more than any president in recent history.

He has done better than Reagan, G. W. Bush, W. Bush and Clinton all put together.

He has been able to end the War in Iraq, Osama bin Laden and Gadhafi have been eliminated, and his foreign policy is winning friends for the U.S., with Burma being the latest example.

An arch enemy of the United States, the leader of N. Korea, Kim Jong-il, has died on his watch, which must be a plus for him.

Besides, he is the only president that has gone to war with another country, as being part of NATO, in which there has not been a single American military casualty; and that is from how he has approached that war, by having a firm conviction that putting troops on the ground in Libya will not be a good idea. The war can be fought by using modern methods, and he has been proved to be right.

It (war) is now over, with the U. S. getting most of the credit of how it has been handled, and so winning a victory for the U.S. and its allies.

The question now is, where are these pollster companies and organizations conducting their surveys? Whom are they interviewing to get their results, all of which look like they are framed? Are they playing on the ignorance of the American public; and if so, why?

Obama's record must not be considered as being wholly successful, with immigration and border protection issues not being resolved completely or satisfactorily; however, he has done very well with respect to most of his priorities, compared with where he has not yet succeeded.

One media outlet in particular has made Obama its whipping boy, and if it is not lambasting him on his foreign policy, or the economy or unemployment, it is criticizing him for having long vacations and playing golf in Hawaii. What?

It is as if it (outlet) is acting on the advice of Obama's opponents; and that will not be fair to him personally, and to the country he leads as Commander-In-Chief of its armed forces.

Nevertheless, the facts are there, in black and white, for the people wanting to know the truth to analyze them any way they choose.

Giving false poll numbers does make the media to be untrustworthy; and that is not what Americans want the media and pollster companies and organizations to be noted for.

In a Democracy, the media is the reflection of the people's mindset; and if they (media) are full of liars, so is that country, which accepts lying as being the norm. Its credibility is always on the line as being questionable and therefore unacceptable, especially, in international circles.

The media and the pollsters, therefore, have the responsibility to be honest and fair, in accordance with their own rules and guidelines that they have voluntarily imposed on themselves, for readers and viewers to appreciate them the way they want to be appreciated.

Honesty, they say, is the best policy.

TWO CONSERVATIVE BROTHERS.

Jumping around like a rabbit finding a bite to eat does not make a passionate person or candidate. He may get attention, but he has no charisma.

Plenty of people also judge a man, in particular, by his mannerisms; the way he will answer questions; and if he gives off-the-cuff answers before he turns around to correct himself, he is figured out as unreliable.

A woman can sometimes get away with being frisky or even feisty in one minute and sedate and intriguing in the next, because that is somehow built in her nature; however, not a man, who must be bold and gentle, as well as being genteel in his composure.

That is socially or generally deemed as how a man is supposed to behave, though a deviation from it is not mandatory upon anyone, as one person may differ from the other. Yet, the basic or principal tenet of character is behavior.

He must not be too aggressive in relating to others, but he must not also be demure, or he will be looked on as self centered and immature in his upbringing, or withdrawn and without upbeat moments in his everyday life.

Two brothers or even twins have their own individual characteristics; and Mom is first to notice the differences, as she will be looking for them, because she is designed to do so, naturally.

Those two divergent characters are on display in the current political scene, as the candidates go about their business on the campaign trail, with respect to the people running in the Republican Party's nomination race.

One is described by someone who knows him very well as a weather vane; that he "never seen a guy change his positions on so many things, so fast, on a dime,” he says about him. (ABC News, 12/17/11). However, he is the one who looks electable.

The other is shown as being forceful and aggrandizing in his ways, but not flamboyant. Even a political rival has said that he is very much condescending and not worthy to be bothered with. Yet, his power is that he will speak his mind no matter who is listening.

Many think being plain and straight forward pays, because his poll numbers keep climbing; however, he has more socialistic baggage for the political arena. There are too many concerns about his personal life.

Two brothers, and even twins, because they are both conservatives; and so, which of them will be suitable to be nominated to face off with President Barack Obama, who is clean cut, and who is making his second bid for the president of the United States via the 2012 presidential election.

In view of that, many assume the Republicans have a dilemma on their hands, which will be very hard to address, and to redress, before the general election is here in the month of November, next year.

MERRY CHRISTMAS, everyone.

NO FRACAS SIOUX CITY.

It was a remarkable evening that seven gentle people, one woman and six men, running for the Republican Party's nomination behaved so nicely, and although with no niceties toward each other, the beating was on the present occupant of the office that they themselves were seeking after.

Gingrich, as brilliant and alert as ever. He was on the defensive for most of the time, but he came out looking unscathed, as his answers were well thought out and straight to the point. The surprising fact was that he seemed to have toned down on his eloquence and has become just one of the "persons" on the stage.

Using big, fat words was not for tonight, he might have said; and he was right, for people were choosing a president, and not a college professor.

It was Romney who was not being so sure of what members of the audience might think, and of what the public would assume the day after, that he tried to repeat what he has said, time and time again, that he has emerged from the corporate world, and so he could be the best manager for the country's economy and finances; and that job creation was in his blood.

He chose his words with much caution than ever, to straighten out a bad impression he thought he might have made on the campaign trail; and that was good.

Paul had his eyes on Gingrich all night long, trying to make him look bad on a draft evasion charge; but it was not so, and Gingrich was able to prove it.

He, Paul, himself had a little trouble explaining why he was such an isolationist, when the world scene was calling for more involvement and participation by all nations for vigilance sake. Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb should be a no-no; and as such, it must be watched cautiously.

So, would the United States be safe for staying out of world affairs, and the answer would be a resounding "No". America keeping out of other countries' "business" would not bring world peace.

Santorum maintained his strong conservative beliefs, and said that he would not stray from them as long as he was president; showing that he was the most consistent person among his rivals, when pursuing ideological policies.

Huntsman showed brilliance in speech, more so now than ever, and he was able to extricate himself from the impression he has made, so far in the other debates, that he was too diplomatically minded.

That could play very well in foreign policy making, but not when it came to domestic affairs; namely, the economy, job creation, unemployment, etc.; people have said.

Perry, good old Perry, had his head in the clouds once again, thinking that a governorship was comparable to being the leader of the Western World; and that he could be a "mini-dictator", when it came to world matters. He would deal with the Congress of the United States in such a way that it would be a "part-time" profession for its members.

He was proud of his Texan record as governor, for lowering taxes in that State and making the economy there to grow faster than anywhere else in the country.

Bachmann was trouncing President Barack Obama anywhere she could, from health care to troop withdrawal in Iraq and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The president has been a "failure"; and that among all her Republican colleagues, she could do a better job.

There was, however, no change of the standings in the polls for any of the candidates, as they were equally prepared for the occasion, due to the Iowa caucuses scheduled for the first week in January, 2012.

The voting there would be pivotal for all of the candidates, as the winner could have the chance of meeting Obama head on for the presidency of the U.S. They all have the same inclination of becoming that person.

Though, there were some frisky moments, such as, for example, Santorum getting personal with Gingrich over a resolution against him, when he (Gingrich) was Mr. Speaker; as well as touching on his numerous divorces. Or, as said before, Paul's charge of AWOL (Absence Without Official Leave) by Gingrich, way back when.

Those were some of the hairy moments during the debate, but they amounted to nothing much. Otherwise, there was no real "juicy stuff" to write home about.

It would only be that Sioux City, Iowa, would remain agog with voters trying to figure out who the winner would be or should be in the caucus.

Media pollsters, political analysts and strategists, commentators and contributors of all shades and forms are there to supply all the information the public needs for it to make a sound judgment on all the candidates. You can count on that.

It was a Sioux City fracas that was no fracas at all.

ZANY?

Calling a fellow politician ZANY is rather uncouth. It is uncalled for in a fight that can make him the nominee of your party.

It makes for belly aching laughter in the living room after dinner. Only the other person must not react in the same way and use some smearing remarks that will embarrass himself, if his rival wins the nomination.

The situation will be very delicate for both persons.

It will be like the old story of one candidate calling the other's economic plans as "Voodoo economics" in the 1990s. That has happened in a similar, I beg your pardon, in the same race some years ago.

The two have finally become friends; and the one that has won the nomination chose to make the other person his Vice-president.

You may not have noticed it, but there is a lot of human frailty going on among the people running in the Republican Party nomination race; but one has just opted out; yet, the other one who has experienced almost the same problems is about to be attacked ferociously in due course.

However, traveling on the political campaign trail, there is the physical human trait that gives the nuances that every person has away, like inadvertently stammering or fumbling or stumbling over words in answering questions.

They are not weaknesses, but they become natural at times to one, when one least expects them to occur.

Jumping around like a rabbit, looking for young cactus to chew on, and calling a supposedly friend and ally a name such as "zany" does not seem to be right. It only causes laughter, for it does not show nimbleness.

"There is a great deal of instability in the man; and he says he wants to be the leader of the Western World?" People will be asking.

Many will doubt that, presumably, not only due to the profuse sweat on his face on the campaign trail, but also for him to make a stupid joke of that kind is not proper. They (people) are saying that there must be a full-time staff member wiping all that off his face; and also, his supporters should be telling him about it, the sweating; as well as asking him to be more serious with his utterances.

The same goes for Mr. Speaker Newt Gingrich, though from a different perspective, who needs some morning exercise than all of his colleagues on the stage.

Take his intellectual savvy and eloquence from him, and he has nothing or very little left in the way of his fitness. Being very smart is one thing, but being fat is definitely and entirely another.

So, if he does not deal with it, that will not connect well with many of his own supporters and sympathisers.

Both men have the chance of sitting in front of the cameras with President Barack Obama in the debates that the media are strenuously planning for November of 2012 presidential election..

He, Obama, will be at the peak of health and resplendent in his Wall Street suit; and as being the current president, he will be exhibiting a great deal of confidence during the debates.

On the other hand, with his opponents, and it can be either one of them, one will be having a watery face or the other will be too fat and clumsy.

In fact, it will be like another event in history repeating itself, with Kennedy versus Nixon being in the same scenario.

When that happens, who do you think the voters will go for? The sweaty or the overweight candidate or the healthy looking debonair, who is ever so clean cut and ready to lead?

You be the judge.

Zany is a caricature type; it must not be associated with a friend and fellow party member, just because he is a rival in a race that the two of you are involved in, for the presidency of the United States, or for that matter, any other contest.

By the way, the sweaty one, Nixon, lost to Kennedy, the clean cut one.

THE FATE OF A BILL.

There is no end to what the lawmakers in Washington D.C. will do to damage the enthusiasm of the people of the United States, for this holiday season.

Throughout the year 2011, they have accomplished nothing, in terms of bolstering the nation's confidence to meet what seemed to be ahead.

Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, and what it was going to do with it. Or Israel attacking that country in self defense, and that could trigger a third World War.

The latest being the fight over the payroll tax cut that President Barack Obama wants for the middle class and ordinary working families.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed its version of the bill that would oppose the one that the president favored, igniting a fierce argument that would reverberate through the other chamber of Congress, the Senate.

The Democratic Party majority in the Senate would defeat it; and even if it did not, the White House staff would have an easy obligation in presenting it to the president, who has vowed to veto it.

The reason being that, the House plan has been linked to the controversial Keystone oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S., terminating in Texas.

It was a separate issue, and it was still being studied by State Department scientific experts of its environmental concerns, and therefore it had no place in the payroll tax cut bill, whatsoever.

In view of that, there were a whole lot of issues at risk, which included the payroll tax cut per se, and government spending through the following year, that was equally important. So, if the bill has to fail, it could result in the government shutting down.

All that was happening, because of the intransigence of the Republican Congressional members, who were determined to do whatever they could to bring about the failure of the Obama administration.

It would be an anomaly to compare the homosexual community, who would destroy anything to be homosexual; like marriage, the only relationship, in any culture, which has a purpose.

That the purpose of marriage was, (and still is), for procreation only and nothing else.

The Republicans would do anything to remain reactionary, even if they have to do so and destroy the U.S., only to get the Obama administration out of the way.

To many, this must be a serious accusation; however, it underlay what was currently going on in the country today.

Yet, if only a simple bill would be made to pass through both the House and the Senate, Americans would have the peace of mind that they drastically needed to devote their energies to what was extremely and more important to them; and that was the well being of themselves and their families.

The future of the nation is at stake; for it is being held hostage by a handful of people, just because an African American is now the president of the U.S.

If there is any doubt of that, just ask the common man in the street.

P.S. I would not call anybody "Gay", unless that was their name. Besides, my cousin, Nat King Cole, used it in his songs, and I might add, in a positive way.

SPEAKER BOEHNER'S PLAN.

Speaker John Boehner will get the votes in the House of Representatives to pass the Republican bill for the payroll tax cut today, that will include the Keystone Oil pipeline from Canada to Texas; knowing fully well that it will be a stumbling block, and therefore a failure in the Senate.

He will not remove any single item from the bill that the Democratic Party members objected to, but rather he will adhere to what is traditionally a Republican stand on issues that mainly prevent wealthy Americans from paying more taxes.

The Republicans contend that small business owners are not to be considered as being wealthy, and although most of them are making more than the stipulation amount that the Democrats are insisting to be taxed, which centers around those earning $1 million dollars or more.

The most ridiculous aspect of the kind of football that is going on in the United States Congress is that everyone knows what is coming in either the Democratic plan, as well as what is contained in the Republican plan; however, each party thinks that it can overlook the other party's plan and get away with it.

Yet, to the man in the street, common sense shows that those who are paying lesser taxes must be asked to pay more to make the differential of covering the cost of the payroll tax cut possible.

It is as simple as that.

To suggest in any way that people earning more than $1 million or more are not to have a tax increase is preposterous, compared to reducing the number of weeks in unemployment benefits from 99 to 59. Where will the unemployed go after that.

Also, the idea that the Keystone oil pipeline must be included in the payroll tax cut plan is completely deliberate to throw dust in the eyes of the American people that the project will create jobs.

It has its environmental hazards, as many people are opposed to it for numerous reasons, including the destruction of water, agricultural and landscape systems along the pipeline route.

Accepting one plan has to be easy for Congress, and it must be the one that President Barack Obama approves, which is the bill that the Democrats are proposing; rather than the one that pits the government against labor, that it will produce jobs and cut down on unemployment. Of course, people want unemployment figures to go down, but not at the expense of their health.

That is the one that Minority Leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, is saying has "bi-partisan support", which is only a red herring philosophy designed to confuse the American public.

It is a political stunt, and voters will take notice of that and act accordingly in the next round of elections, of which the 2012 presidential election is part.

POLITICS & AMERICAN CULTURE.

As just discovered by Herman Cain, that politics is a dirty game; but, as if he does not know, it is what runs the world. As a businessman, it is a wonder that he fails to see it that way.

It (politics, collectively) only comes in different types; however all of them have the same organic tenets on which to exist, namely, social, economic and cultural pillars, with the last ... cultural ... being the most important.

It then can divide itself ideologically into organizations and parties through which governing bodies or governments emanate.

How kingships and sheikdoms that have ruled in centuries past have their individual basis from clans, ethnicity and tribal groupings; the advent of education and civilization have come to revolutionized it.

Through that comes the newer or modern systems, which are Socialism, Communism and Democracy; and here too, the last being the one that many nations are gravitating toward.

Yet, whether it ... Democracy ... is the best form of system, and how long it will be embraced by all the societies utilizing it, only scientists, sociologists and anthropologists can tell. The analytical processes by scientists, involving Democracy, continue to unfold as time goes on.

Historians have a part to play in its maintenance, but they, historian, can only comment after the fact of events happening, be they natural or man-made, but its survival is anybody's guess; at least, in the interim.

That brings us closer home to the United States. Why? Because it is a Democracy born out of the adversities of a revolution and a gruesome civil war. The greatest achievement of ordinary men and women being able to govern themselves away from the domination of aristocracy. (Kings, Queens and Sheiks or Shaikhs, in Arabic).

America's system or type of Democracy embraces individuality, and the ability to use one's strength and natural prowess to advance socially, economically and politically.

It also offers freedom (and some say, too much of it)to its citizens, and that has been its main attraction by other nationalities around the world, it has caused them to emigrate and domicile here.

They love it as a country to the point of being patriotic. They fight in wars to protect it, for the most reason (and there are several others) that it creates opportunities for them to establish and grow their families and enjoy life under its profound national security.

It is the greatest Democracy ever formed, as history tells us, by the Founding Fathers. "It is of the people, by the people and for the people."; "a system that will live forever." the Founding Fathers are likely to have anticipated.

There are so many famous quotes with respect to the American Democracy, and they are, or most of them are grandiose and affectionate; however, what is at stake here is its culture.

Change will come and change will go, but it must not affect its culture, which is based on its language, English.

Everyone who wants to live here must embrace the culture of the founders, and it becomes incumbent upon any person, who chooses to be a citizen of the United States to learn and make English his or her first language.

By virtue of all kinds of nationalities, with all brands of cultures making America a "melting pot", change is bound to occur; but it must not replace the mother tongue of its creators with any other.

In other words, despite the differences that people may culturally have, they must call themselves Americans first, and be able to use the English language.

Or, it (America) will lose its uniqueness, which sets it apart from other nations; and it will become like any other country, because its attractiveness will be gone for good.

One is not condemning any nation or nationality in the world as being inferior or mediocre; nonetheless, one wants to preserve America and its culture.

Politics can change everything; but it must not be allowed to change the culture of the people; in this case, the American culture.

GREED MUST GO.

It looks like 80% of Americans belong to the old school, for example that, labor laws, business regulations and restrictions must be removed or curtailed for corporate greed to go on as usual.

Or that the United States economy must remain the same as in the 1930s, when car manufacturing was the biggest industry and cars were made in America and Europe only.

There was a time when Japanese factory goods were thought to be inferior, but since after WW 2, most of the best engineering products in the world have emerged from the land of the rising sun. such as cars, cameras, television sets and other things.

Now, China, South Korea, India and other countries have joined what is called the industrial world, and they are competing for business with America and Europe.

Soon Africa and South America will join in the global economy with their own brands of manufactured goods for domestic and international markets.

In short, the world is rapidly changing, and the domination of the erstwhile powerful nations will diminish, as the status quo will tend to be a thing of the past.

Yet, it seems as if only a few people in America are waking up to know that history is organic and it does not revert into charting the same course, as it possesses an independent characteristic to move any where and in whatever direction it chooses.

If only most people can realize that for a fact, then the period the present world is navigating will not be a surprise at all; as every nation is working so strenuously to carve a niche for itself.

Nations do not want to remain in the dark, so to speak, where they will have to put up with mediocrity and inferiority by or from other nations.

Change is not coming; it is already here, and the sooner people begin to find a way to accept it, the more likely they will have a better chance to deal with it.

Of course the outsourcing of jobs has a part to play in the present economic trend, and technology or technological knowledge is spreading like wild fire across the world, and there cannot be a stopping to that, no matter how hard anyone tries to do.

It is synonymous to having a big pizza pie; you have to share it. You also have to know not to give yourself a bigger portion, as that will antagonize your friends.

The only mistake Americans can make will be in sitting in the past, thinking that history will revert itself. That will never happen, for from experience, as the world progresses, so are ideas and concepts of improvement; and they are the commodities that all nations want.

The conservative thinking is for America to stay in the past. It must speculate that everything will be the same always. Capitalism must be the stronghold of economies around the world, and that this country must be leading in that respect. However, that will be wrong. It will be as the old proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand.

There is so much hypocrisy going on in the country, like when have the Republicans start to fight for the working people in America, for them to attach the Keystone oil project to President Barack Obama's payroll tax cut geared to improve the lives of the middle class and ordinary workers, even as temporary as it may seem?

They have always aspired to the chicanery going on in Wall Street, leaving Occupy Wall Street organizers to fend for themselves. That, if one is poor, one has no one to blame, but oneself.

Change has come, and wages of workers must grow, just as corporate profits increase each and every year. Standard of living must not be the opulent lifestyles of the rich and the powerful. It must be as simple as having "a chicken in every pot, and a Ford in every garage" for everyone.

Military power is alright. It is needed for protection from all kinds of enemies; as its advancement is vital to a nation's security.

Yet, greed must go, for safeguarding the interests of the nation at home and abroad to take its place; and then America will be proud and be able to lead the world as a good example.

PAYROLL TAX CUT; A POSSIBILITY.

The payroll tax cut proposal is still in contention, and the United States Congress is about to break for the holiday season, with no decision on its outcome.

President Barack Obama wants to have members of Congress to stay on the matter and to arrive at making the measure passed, otherwise the tax burden of ordinary working people will begin to go up as early as January 1st, 2012.

Meanwhile, the Senate has rejected a Democratic plan as well as a Republican plan, with the Democrats requesting a surtax of 1.6% on people earning $1 million dollars or more a year. While the Republican plan tend to reduce government workforce by 10%, among other things.

Showing that the conservatives aim of cutting the size of government was influential in the Republican plan, and the liberal side of the Democratic Party, which has the support of the Trade Unions and opposing such act would stand its ground; and therefore the situation would remain unmoved, with no compromise of any kind.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, John Boehner, has announced another version of the bill in a meeting that was held behind closed doors, and it was very different from the one from the White House.

He was saying that, "they’ve already cut spending, changed the culture of the Capitol and stopped Obama’s agenda in its tracks." (Politico 12/09/11).

His plan also has the attachment of the controversial Keystone pipeline that the Obama administration has given the State Department the responsibility to handle. The president has objected to it as being part of the payroll tax cut initiative.

Speaker Boehner's bill would definitely pass in the House, but it would not make any inroads in the Senate; and so the impasse would continue.

However, where would that leave the country? Should politics as usual prevail in Washington D.C., while the fate of millions of households was in the balance, whether the unemployment benefit, which formed part of Obama's proposal, would be extended?

Though, the breadwinners in those families were out of work, they would want to cater to their members, in terms of making the holiday season worthwhile for them. Should they be denied that privilege?

As said yesterday, that Congress should reconsider, as the spirit of the season demanded that goodwill should be extended to all citizens, and therefore a compromise was within its reach to have the payroll tax cut to become a possibility in the next few days.

It must shove politics aside and act without any hesitation whatsoever.

A CHANGE OF HEART.

The payroll tax cut, which would put money in the pockets of middle class and working people, was still being argued about in the United States Congress, although there were indications that the policy would help the economic recovery and stimulate job creation.

It was not a new idea, and according to experts, it made better sense than the Making Work Pay tax credit that it replaced, which dealt out about $400 a year for single workers and $800 for couples.

The payroll tax cut, on the other hand would be a little bit more, making single workers to have $1000, and couples getting no less than $1500 spending money, and that would help millions of households to handle their own personal and home economies.

That was the one President Barack Obama was pushing for, as that would give a boost to the country's flagging economy and assist job growth, while reducing the 8.6% unemployment rate, which was still too high.

The only problem was how to pay for it, with the Democrats in Congress wanting to score some vital points for the president in an election year, and clamoring for the wealthy to foot the bill, with which the Republicans disagreed; or whether the measure should apply to employers or employees.

The discussion has created more than a three-way tie in Congress, where some were saying that it should not come off the Social Security Trust fund, which some doubted, due to a letter from the Social Security actuary that the level of the funds would be "unaffected."

While others would not vote for a tax increase, no matter what, and with the rest saying that they should reverse to the old idea of the stimulus tax credit; and it certainly seemed the dialogue was headed for a stalemate as usual.

There has been a great deal of confusion about the whole issue, it looked as if Congress could not make its mind on anything to chalk up an isolated win for itself, and that was putting a sour taste in the mouths of voters.

To ordinary folks, the president was fighting to get something for the middle class and workers, as the wealthy had their tax cuts during the Bush era. The rational then was that the policy would positively affect the economy.

So was what the payroll tax cut likely to do, to achieve the same goal. Therefore, what was the problem?

The public could only deduce that Congress could never deviate from making a political tug-of-war about anything, or it would turn it into a political football, and not considering whether whatever step they took would benefit the people that voted them there or not.

With regard to the present state of the economy, let members put politics aside and do what was right for the electorate in this season of good will. They would have the appreciation of the nation, in that regard.

There must be a change of heart in Congress.

KEEPING A PROMISE.

This blog wrote about trickle-down economics and Newt Gingrich some time ago; and today they have captured the news headlines once again.

That the field of the Republican Party candidates for the nomination race, was going to be no match for Newt Gingrich, because he had the experience and the political connections to finally jump in front of the pack; and that has happened.

President Barack Obama also spoke about trickle-down economics in his Teddy Roosevelt like speech yesterday, and said that, "it fits well on a bumper sticker," but the problem was that it never worked.

His audience in Osawatomie, Kan., was about hearing the rebuilding of the middle class that has made the United States great, by its industrious nature of ordinary men and women wanting to make better lives for themselves and their families.

They have worked hard and have built the strongest economy, which was the envy of the world, and that made America to be the attraction for all kinds of people to come here and to take advantage of the opportunities that no other country in the world offered.

That had certainly stemmed from President Theodore Roosevelt's speech, which took place about 100 years ago, for the nation to be kind and generous, and to treat all citizens as equal partners, by getting rid of disparity and inequality in society.

He saw that the basis of trickle-down economics was detrimental to the progress that people chose to make for themselves, when they were not given the same chances as others, due to where they happened "to pitch their tents"; as less privileged and poor people were denied many of the opportunities that were open to just a few lucky persons. That was not right then and it was not right in the present age either.

Yet, that system was prevalent today, but it should not be allowed to exist, as it would pit one section of the community against the other; a notion that has materialized itself in the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon sweeping across the country.

In other words, the country was rapidly moving away from the principles of fairness for all members of society, and instead gravitating toward an awful situation of a close knit few that would use their fiscal powers to dominate the rest, who were in the majority.

That was the dogma the Republicans believed in; that people should be permitted to carve their own rules to fit society, instead of a set of common guidelines that would equally protect the rights of others.

The same would flourish under Gingrich or Romney or any person with conservative ideals, if they were to run the country. Wall Street would have the upper hand and use it to exploit the common masses.

To counteract that, President Obama's speech, like Teddy Roosevelt's, was designed to energize the middle class and working people into standing up for their rights in the workplace, demanding what they were due, through civil dialogue and negotiations, and thus making the playing field equal for all to participate in.

Not all of Americans voted him into office, but he was pursuing the change that he had promised his supporters during the 2008 campaign; and nobody could hold that against him. He has kept his promise through his policies, and he would continue to do so in the coming years.

Bravo, Mr. President.

Footnote: 95% of his policies have been blocked by the Congressional Republican Party.

BELLYFUL OF POLITICS.

Americans are having a bellyful of politics lately, with Donald Trump moderating a debate, and meeting with the most off the cuff remark specialist, Newt Gingrich; while Ron Paul, the isolationist of the greatest caliber, raises an objection to such an event.

In the defence of Trump on the attacks from Paul, Newt, who was visiting him (Trump) in his tower in New York City, remarked that Trump was an American icon, a man of enormous talent and an astute businessman, to paraphrase him.

All those attributes were true, except that nobody ever thought that The Trump would take up a moderator's job, which would mean that the spotlight would be on someone else, while he was reduced to just asking the questions.

The debate would be a delight to watch, but most people were thinking that it was just going to be a publicity stunt and nothing more, even though some serious questions would be asked on issues like abortion, immigration and border protection.

However, another side should also be put into perspective, as the campaign season would bring a whole lot of pressure to bear on the health of the individual participants representing the parties.

Gingrich was now the front runner in the Republican Party nomination race, and he was being endorsed by some of the party's favorite people, like Dan Quayle, the former Vice-President, and by Herman Cain, who just opted out as a contestant in the race, due to his sexual related problems.

Now, it looked as if a whole lot of eyes were on Gingrich, while Romney, who was Gingrich's closest rival was also getting some important endorsements; yet, the fact remained that none of the two, if any one of them should win the Republican nomination, would match President Barack Obama in several instances.

In that, the president looked younger than both men, and he seemed to be in the pink, as far as great health was concerned. Though, such news did not come from the White House or his doctors, people could see him as being fit and very energetic.

The 2012 presidential election campaign would demand a great deal of energy to be able to cope with all the activities, from going to meetings to traveling extensively across the length and breath on the nation; and it would not be a surprise if the president should take the first prize.

In other words, it was not going to be just a political contest, it was also more likely to be the survival of the fittest, and if it should come to that, Gingrich would stand to lose, as his weight has caused some political pundits to worry.

Romney, on the other hand, has trimmed down or has been able to maintain his stature over the years, but his age was far too much above that of the president; and the battle that the two men would be engaging in would be fast and furious, if not utterly gruesome, to say the least. The question then would be, could he (Romney) handle the pace of the race?

Nobody was drawing a picture that would spell a disaster of any kind; or forecasting any type of doom. Yet, let us hope that all the candidates would be in good health in the coming year, and be able to face the arduous tasks of running a successful campaign, in each case.

For any of them who should win must be physically healthy, to carry out his duties as effectively as possible, for the country's sake.

FAREWELL TO CAIN.

Cain's statement of "I am suspending my presidential campaign" was only a euphemism of saying, "I quit", and that made many people glad, because he was clutching on the smallest straw that came his way in a storm that was unstoppable.

He has decided to weather it, thinking that it would go away, but in politics, a scandal was or tend to be unquenchable, if the subject was resisting the public and the power of the media.

That was exactly what he was doing, and that would not send inquisitive people away; it would rather attract more of them.

Cain was not only challenging the women that have accused him of sexual harassment and moral misconduct, but he took on reporters and interviewers, who were extricating information they needed to condemn him.

He has misjudged them to be mere acquaintances, but they were neutral and they would use anything he said against him in the court of public opinion; and he should have known, as any seasoned politician would tell him, that fighting off reporters or trying to frighten them by showing anger was not the right thing to do.

He was out, and the Republican Party was breathing a sigh of relief for what was nothing more than a distraction from the real issues that the rest of the field of its presidential candidates, who were vying to win the party's nomination, wanted to discuss to motivate their supporters.

Cain was just feeling sorry for himself, with his assertion that, "It's not a calamity to die with dreams unfulfilled, but it is a calamity to have no dreams."; and many were wondering if he never heard of an impossible dream, which his "journey to the White House" seemed to be.

He could only count himself to be very lucky to have a vibrant family to give him the support he received, to enable him to last the length of time, when the bad news begun to break and now.

Much credit should go to the loyal backing of his wife, who had taken a stand to be with him through thick and thin. She has been phenomenal in demonstrating that some women understood what real marriage was; they took their vows seriously, for better or for worse.

She should be congratulated for being able to withstand the many interrogations by the media, and not bending under the enormous pressure they exerted on her.

What was left for Cain was for him to sit down and do some more soul searching, and to contemplate his plan "B", as his political dreams were just for a fleeting moment in the world of politics.

Many Americans were sympathetic for his new organization, TheCainSolutions.com, and were hoping that it would survive the test of time.

Farewell, Mr. Herman Cain.

POLITICAL STAKES.

Cain is in trouble, Romney is unelectable, and Gingrich is putting on weight and his being healthy fit has become a question that the media pundits are, or about to explore.

Which brings one to the point that the Republican Party is having a difficult time focusing on who will be its challenger against President Barack Obama in the 2012 general election.

The pool of candidates has some very qualified people, among whom are Santorum, who is young and being a quintessential conservative, Huntsman, who stands out as being a well versed diplomat in Far Eastern affairs, and Bachmann, who can be a magnet for women to throw their support behind the party, in terms of votes.

However, the general membership and most leaders of the party are not even taking a serious look at them. The poll numbers of these candidates keep going down, and the attendance at their meetings on the campaign trail is dwindling day by day and getting smaller and smaller on each occasion.

Yet, that is American politics for you, that if a candidate has no substantial media backing, with editors and reporters writing good reviews about him or her, he or she is of no real value, when the consideration for making him or her a selected choice to carry the banner of the party, is being made.

In any serious political confrontational situation, the media has a vital role to play, but much of their efforts will depend on whether they have a clear cut preference or not; and right at this stage, they are not leaning toward either parties or candidates. There has been no sign of that yet, anyway.

That goes to show how powerful the media and their editorial boards are; as they can even become king makers and sway opinion, public or private, in favor of anyone they choose.

That is how the present political spectrum looks like for the Republicans, and they are going to need their journalistic friends to help them pull the party out from the edge of defeat, and not finding it (party) plodding into the stillness of the doldrums.

There is a lot of talking going on, but nothing is actually happening; and that is pretty foreboding for any political party.

Cain has gone past the idea, or he is about to, that he would be the nominee, due to the nature of the scandalous accusations surrounding him; Romney has only his experience as a governor of Massachusetts and his portrayal as a business magnate, but his flip-flopping from issue to issue has affected his credibility, and Gingrich has a whole baggage of setbacks in his political career, and to get from under that kind of a load would be a daunting task.

Besides, the Republicans are seen as protecting the rich in the United States Congress, by asking for example, the extension of the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, but denying Obama's payroll tax cut, which will benefit the Middle class and working people; the stakes have, therefore, become very high now.

That will leave the Democratic Party and President Obama no choice, but to take advantage of the opportunity to get a majority in both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives in the next cycle of elections and to clinch a second term in the forthcoming presidential election.

The Republican Party will have only itself to blame. However, it (party) is still in the fight, but it must not wait too long to get a viable nominee, who can withstand the storms ahead.

As for Independents, they are still sitting on the fence looking in, and they will favor the side that they think has the best interest of the nation at heart.

The bad economy is subsiding, and the worrisome unemployment numbers are also receding; and so the country has a better chance of a brighter future now than only a few months ago; and most Americans are hoping that will continue.

CAIN'S BLAMES.

People are asking Cain to step out of the Republican Party nomination race, because he has been dishonest, first and foremost to his wife, and secondly to his family, and thirdly, to his party and the nation.

Many have trusted that he would be a good candidate, and have made monetary contributions to his campaign; however, the scandals that were befalling him were all self inflicted and clearly deliberate, showing that he was not worth a dime of their money, when it came to his choices in life. He was downright dishonest and untrustworthy.

On that alone; and although the nation has been unfortunate to grapple with many unsavory sexual behaviors of many politicians in the past, and Cain was not a "professional" politician as such; yet, his was an example of a predator, who seized on the circumstances of people, particularly women, and used them to his own advantage a hundred fold.

On that score, he must come clean and be the first to call the whole thing off, if he had the slightest bit of conscience left in him. For his wife would suffer; and she should have every rational to do so; his family would suffer, and he himself would suffer shame.

He mentioned several times that he was being tried in the court of public opinion, during his many media interviews; and that one was innocent until proven guilty; however, he had his eyes wide open, when he decided to get into the Republican nomination race, that there would be a background check and a through scrutiny on him; with his personal character, private and public, included.

Anything that came out would be used either in his favor, if he deserved it, or against him, if he was responsible for it in a negative way.

He should know by now how life worked. It took one on its shoulders as far as it could go, but when one became too heavy with wrong doing, it dropped one on one's backside for a lesson well taught. He was supposed to know that he was no exception to that fact.

If he was feeling the pain of the court of public opinion delving into his past and bringing out the skeletal remains in his closet, he should have only himself to blame.

At the present time, he has only two choices; he could stay in the race and face the music or get out of it.

He should stop blaming public opinion and character assassination, because those two elements did not bring him to be under the spotlight; he did it himself.

CAIN & CHARACTER ASSASSINATION.

Herman Cain is in trouble, and he knows it. Character assassination is something that is being fabricated to screw up a person's character, but that is not what Cain is talking about.

What he is saying is that, although so far, three women have accused him of sexual harassment, and a fourth is saying that, she and Cain are having a fling until just last week. Cain, on the other hand, is saying that he is only being friends with the woman, as he is with the others, who are saying that his behavior is always friendly, but it has an ulterior motive. He flatly denies all the accusations.

Regarding the woman, who was asserting that she and Cain's affair has been going on for almost fourteen years, there should be no doubt that she was telling the truth. Her story being so authentic, it went beyond the biting of the finger that fed her; yet, who would do such a stupid thing?

She could have kept quiet and would continue to receive the attention and love from her benefactor and everything would be fine with her.

However, she came out to expose Cain as a liar. A person who was liable to deceive so many people and to work his way up to being the front runner in his party's race could use the same deception to become president.

If that was not scary, then it would mean there should be nothing truthful about any candidate running for office that could disqualify him or her, even if the said attribute could be detrimental to the party that he or she belonged to.

In Cain's case, he was not just an ordinary person wanting to become his party's errand boy; he was aspiring to be the president of the United States. As such, every little detail of his life counted for the public to know who he actually said he was.

The same should go for all the other candidates that were in the Republican Party nomination race; Romney, Bachmann, Paul, etc.; they should all be scrutinized in order for people to ascertain that they were electing someone that they could trust and believe.

As far as the woman from Atlanta was concerned, that could not be a character assassination charge, as Cain himself has admitted that he was just being philanthropic, and that he continued to help her out of a bad situation for fourteen years. Cain has therefore not been honest by his counter accusation that the woman was lying about him.

If he was being urged to drop out of the Republican race, that could be the main reason, that he was not an honest person. The Republican Party would not support him in that wise.

Cain was assessing and reassessing his candidacy; but so long as he paraded before the American people as a genuinely honest person, he was deceiving them. He was even deceiving himself that he would get the Republican nod.