Black Friday, Hippies, and a rant

This morning at a Long Island Wal Mart a man was trampled to death and a pregnant woman was thrown to the ground. All this happened while a mob of people were fighting to be the first in the store for Black Friday shopping. Just to review....A MAN WAS TRAMPLED TO DEATH BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED TO SHOP! We live in a country that has the amazing ability to be a nation of great charity and compassion, while at the same time be a nation of unbridled selfishness and greed. Sadly, the holiday season tends to be the time of the year that brings out the best and the worst that our nation has to offer.

The grotesque spectacle at the Wal Mart in Long Island is a sad testament and example of the worst of our nation. In a moment of frenzy, all concern for the safety of others and all respect for other people was disregarded in the name of selfishness and greed. TVs and laptops were ultimately more important than human beings to the members of that mob. Now, clearly if you asked the individuals in that mob if they would kill someone for a discounted piece of electronics, they would say no. (Of course this is in theory) But their actions tell a different tale. Why would a group of people that understand the value of human life in relation to material possessions act in a manner contrary to that knowledge?

Selfishness.

Pure and simple, the people in that mob were only concerned with themselves. It isn't that they didn't value human life, it is just that they were not considering it because they were too involved with their own desires. These people were too consumed with themselves to consider the people around them. These are the same people that cut other people off in traffic because they have no consideration for the cars around them. They are the people that talk in theaters because they don't care about the other movie goers. They are the people that yell at the waitstaff at a restaurant. They are the people that care about nothing more than themselves and their immediate happiness. They are the people that forget the important caveat of American liberties. One man's rights stop where another man's begin.

How have we as a nation gotten to this point? Why are we so self-consumed that we make donations to charity for the tax write-off and community service is a term best known as a punishment for guilt? I personally blame hippies.

The counter-cultural movement of the sixties introduced an entire generation of Americans to a lifestyle of self-gratification. A lifestyle in which one's only concern was in the happiness that one was feeling in each moment. To quote Grateful Dead guitarist, Bob Weir, "It was about exploration, finding new ways of expression, being aware of one's existence." Basically, it was about yourself. The reason this is noteworthy is that it was counter to the culture of the rest of the nation, in which the focus was on the family, or the community, or the nation. The hippie culture taught Americans that it was cool to worry only about your own personal gratification. Drugs were fine because they made you feel good. Having a job was not necessary as long as you were happy in poverty. Now the problem with this movement is not really that a large number of people wasted their lives. These people had children and raised their children in this toxic culture. But the true damage of the counter-culture was that because of the new media of television, an entire nation of youth were exposed to this self centered ideology. This type of ideology appealed to the 18-25 year old demographic. Television and marketing like to target the 18-25 year old demographic. So, the hippie movement became a major national story, thus feeding the movement to young Americans all of the country. An entire generation of frustrated youth, upset about Vietnam, the draft, and searching for an identity of their own, were drawn to this movement of self-indulgence.

This generation is now in charge of this nation. They run our companies. They market our products. They establish our cultural norms because they control our media. They have raised a generation of children in a materialistic and self-centered existence. They have created a secular society in which the only person that matters is yourself. Christmas is about gifts. It is no longer about family and a celebration of faith, it is about increasing retail sales and getting good deals on products we have been sold on.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote that America was only able to have a democracy because it was a religious nation. His point was not that democracy was divinely inspired, it was that in a nation with such tremendous freedom, the only way that civility and order can be maintained is if the citizens had an intrinsic ethical code that self-governed their use of those freedoms as to not harm others.

The problem with having the freedoms that are present in a democracy is that it requires the citizens to be responsible for the proper use of those freedoms. Responsibility accompanies freedom. This is why modern liberals are such fans of larger government. Large government takes the responsibility away from the individuals. This allows individuals to do nothing more than focus on themselves and their own self-gratification. If the government is taking care of the crap that people don't want to do, then people just get to do whatever they want without care. As Homer Simpson so eloquently put it while running for Sanitation Commissioner, "Can't someone else do it?" This line of thinking is the offspring of the hippie movement and its message of self-indulgence. It has permeated our culture and creates days like Black Friday and tragedies like a man getting trampled to death because of a sale.

Sorry for the random and extensive post. It is the Rocker's fault for taking me to a metal show.

-The Banker

The election and other thoughts - a time for action.

I have thought long and hard about this election. I have listened to different sides, different viewpoints - Republican, Democrat, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian...you name it. I have held my tongue for a few weeks and tried to formulate my thoughts correctly - as to make sure that I did not rush to any snap judgement.

The time has come to let my voice be heard, my friends.

For starters, I will say that it is historic that a black man was elected President of the United States of America. I don't think anyone will deny that in all cases, it was and is an impressive victory. Let us not also forget that many African Americans have also paved the way for this - such as Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and others.

However in regards to the Obama victory, that is where my praise will end.

This is a call for all Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone else out there with an open mind to listen to these words that I have to say: this fight has just begun.

While I am willing to give Barry O and his administration a chance, I am not for a second about to turn my back on the principles which I embrace, or the ideals which make up who I am. That being said, I will be critical of this administration, just as I am and will be critical of anyone in office - Republican or Democrat. While a portion of America was busy crying "hope" and "change" and any other clever slogan that was thrown at them - I shuddered, because all I could see was an overwhelming majority of idiots elected to congress, and a President that coupled with these people, is here to fringe on the liberty of the modern American. A president who has proposed policies that punish the private sector, and try and put everything closer to government control. I want you to mark my words: it is not the government's job to tell me, you, or any other hardworking American what to do with our money, where it should go, or who to "spread the wealth around" to. Ronald Reagan said it best in his farewell address - "As government expands, liberty contracts."

This is where the Republican party and conservatives failed in the general election. We ran a guy who would not speak up against Obama, and we were so silenced by a completely biased media (just think of Matthews saying he gets a "tingle up his leg" or later saying that it is his job to make sure this administration succeeds - whatever happened to a non biased media?), and we were so silenced by every crazed Obama voter shouting off their mindless crap. My advice to Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians (yes, all of you who voted for Bob Barr or who understood some of the great things that Ron Paul had to say in the primaries), and everyone else out there - DO NOT BE SILENCED. They can try to silence you, but let your voice be heard loud and proud - now is your time to let your voice ring through - so that America can hear what you have to say.

This idea of unity as it is being phrased by so many people these days to me is bullshit. Excuse my language - but there is no eloquent way I can put it. The very idea that Barry O is here to say "hey America, I am here to save you of all your ills and unite everyone" and then it will magically happen is ludicrous to me. I do not honestly think that with a wave of his magic wand, Barack Obama is here to cure society of its ills. I am against National Healthcare. I do not agree with bastardizing any of the work our men and women in the armed forces have done. I do not agree with this idea of punishing those who succeed and basically stealing from hard working americans and redistributing that money to the bottom portion of those who already do not pay any income tax (can you say welfare? if we encourage this behavior, it gives individuals the impression that there is no reason to be motivated, no reason to try and succeed. Why try and go far if the the government will take it away from you as you succeed, or just let you skate by if you are lazy?) I do not agree with the idea of a higher capital gains tax. I think the fairness doctrine is anything but fair, and desecrates one of our basic rights - free political speech. I am against giving more federal aid to failing industry - such as this bailout (for the record, I am angry at Republican and Democrat for passing the bailout. Much like no child left behind, it is a bipartisan failure). I am against the idea that government should take care of everything - that common good for all man can only be achieved through government intervention. In my mind - this is one of the stark differences that I find between liberals and conservatives. Liberals will have a "pay at the voting booth" sort of mentality - as if voting for a government that may allocate your money to where they see fit is a way of "charity," but are typically less likely to give to any sort. The conservative philosophy revolves around helping the individual - not a "just giving at the voting booth" style of philosophy. To clarify - more government intervention means less freedom for the American people. This pseudo-socialist/marxist theory proposed is not what this country was founded upon.

I feel like this is turning into an angry rant, and I do not mean it to be. My point is that I am not going to sit here and act like everything is going to be fine. It's not. I understand that you cannot win all the time - and in this case, I was on the losing side of the battle. I feel like many people - McCain was not my first choice, but once Barry opened his mouth with such theories, or such associations came to light (Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, etc) - then I had no choice but to support McCain and hope he would prevail over Barry.

Now, this isn't to say I don't think there should be some restructuring going on. The Republicans increased the size of government. That was bad. The war in Iraq was certainly mishandled in some respects. This is certainly unfortunate. The stock market has definitely seen better days. There needs to be certain things in the system fixed. But - I do not think turning our back on capitalism, free market, and the very basic principles awarded to us in this constitution are the answer. Taxing the corporations more and more and more is certainly not a good way to "jump start" the economy. It's biting the hand that feeds, and is only going to have a negative effect on the American public.

I do not want to see this country fail. I would much rather eat every one of these words, and say "well, I was wrong" and have this country turn the path in the right direction. I love America and wish her well every single moment of every single day. So - in some ways, I would like to see people come together. But there has to be a normal system of checks and balances, and I feel that is the job of any of those with an open mind to speak out when warranted. Do not let the marxists take over your country. Do not let more government intervention be seen as the way of the future (see my blog on the de-privitization of 401k plans for an example). Listen to what others on the other side have to say - you will not be right 100 percent of the time - but on that token, either will they.

The Republican party needs to restructure. They need to get some of the old blood out there, and get some new, exciting, young blood in. While we cannot do anything in a presidential fashion for four years, let's concentrate on getting the right people in office in 2010, and showing Reid and Pelosi that they do not run this country. This is a country for we the people, and it is our job to tell government what to do - not the other way around.

-The Rocker-

Uniting the States of America

The election is over. Barack Obama is our President-elect. Congratulations to Obama and all of his supports for a fantastic campaign, and for helping to make American history. America having its first African-American president is a source of pride as well as a testament to the progress we have made as a nation. In forty years, we have gone from African-Americans being unable to eat at certain restaurants to having an African-American as the leader of the free world. Not enough can be said about the millions of men and women that have helped pave the way for the progress that has been made and I can not begin to understand the joy being felt by African-Americans.

For the millions of Americans that did not vote for Obama, it is now time to respect the democratic process that we love and cherish as Americans. It is time to support our new president and do everything in our power to help him be the best president that he can be. That does not mean blindly following him, but it does mean giving him the respect owed to the president. No one should oppose Obama because he is a democrat. No one should hope that Obama fails for political or personal reasons. All Americans need to be united around our leader and support him in making our nation a better place.

However, that does not mean that Obama is above criticism. If an American disagrees with the decisions or the policies of Obama, then it is that person's right to voice the opposition. As long as the opposition is done with respect. For example, I am opposed to the idea of another stimulus package, so I will oppose Obama in instituting another stimulus package. I am not opposing Obama, I am opposing his policy and decision.

(On a side note, people need to stop being so disrespectful to President Bush. You can disagree with someone without being disrespectful. History will be the judge of his presidency, there is no need to heap insults on the man that has served our nation for the last eight years. The American people have voted in new leadership. Piling disdain on the Bush administration is in no way constructive for our country and makes those insulting him look like children ganging up to pick on the unpopular kid.)

As far as unity is concerned, our country would be better off if our political parties could work together. Unfortunately, neither party is willing to make the first step with any conviction. Speeches are words, and words can lie. Actions are different. One of the parties needs to act in a bipartisan manner instead of just criticize the other party for not being bipartisan. A huge step in the right direction would be for Americans to stop saying idiotic things like "I hate Nancy Pelosi" or "Sarah Palin is stupid". Until Americans get over making politics about people instead of making politics about ideas, then we aren't going to get any unity.

At this point, it would make the most sense for Republicans to make this gesture. The GOP is out of power and needs to make changes in order to change that. The GOP needs to spend the next two years working with Democrats to solve problems. The GOP needs to spend the next two years making its message about the issues and not the individuals in the Democratic party. The GOP needs to work with Democrats on fixing the economy, reforming the tax code, securing energy independence, and defeating terrorists. Bipartisan solutions that have the public in mind are the solutions that stand the test of time. Partisan solutions that are put in place in spite of the other party die as soon as power changes. We need our representatives to put common support behind the solutions for our nation. Americans are entitled to a government that is solution driven, not power driven.

People can rally around a common cause or a vision, as long as they don't hate each other.

-The Banker-

Harry Reid trying to oust Joe Lieberman from his post is not an example of bipartisanship.

So I know many of you are awaiting my thoughts on the election, and just give it another day or so...I am taking my time to formulate my thoughts as to how I feel about the election, and what I think vs. what I would like to see happen over the next four years.

However right now, there's something that I would like to discuss. I have been seeing a lot of people say things like "now is the time of unity" and "we must all come together in a spirit of bipartisanship." Now, obviously for many of these people these statements are just talking points, and things they are recycling heard from speeches by Barack Obama - as a colleague of mine who is saying such things has done nothing but complain about the Republican party since 2000. He's no supporter of bipartisanship, he is just posing as an advocate of such in order to save face in the end. This way he can create an illuson that allows him to mask who he really is. Truth be told, these democrats that are screaming "unity" and "bipartisan" will be the first people to throw the other party under the bus the minute something goes wrong as to avoid any blame for their or their party's own actions. The democrat's senate reaction to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is a clear cut example of this. Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and others did not desire or need any help from the Republican party. Then, once the bailout was on the table, suddenly they wanted help from the Republicans to fit their own agenda, all of the time just pointing blame squarely on the Republican party - whom they were asking to vote on the bailout. Yeah, that doesn't make any sense to me either.

That being said, let's look at what's going on right now. Harry Reid (I shudder every time I say his name) is now trying to remove Senator Lieberman of his post as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee as a direct result of Lieberman's breaking party ranks and siding with Senator John McCain during McCain's 2008 Presidential bid. Now, call me crazy, but I fail to see how calling for the removal of someone who was once the Vice Presidential candidate for your own party because he made a decision you don't like is helping. This is no call for unity - it is a slap in the face to a man for doing something that Harry Reid did not deem acceptable. Now correct me if I am wrong, but Lieberman was once a democrat, and then is now an Independent who caucuses with the Democratic party. Thus, such a decision pushed by Harry Reid is anything but bipartisan - it is "I don't like what you've done, how dare you speak out against me...you are out of here, pal."

No final decision has yet been made, but I would not be surprised if we see this style of thuggery in the coming months.

The article I reference can be seen here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D949NQPG3&show_article=1

-The Rocker-

Retirement accounts such as 401k plans are meant to help people save money for retirement. So why do democrats want to do away with them?

Teresa Ghilarducci.

Does this name sound familiar to you?

She is a Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City.

She is also out of her damn mind.

Why do I make such a claim? Because Teresa Ghilarducci has been speaking at committee hearings held by House Democrats regarding her views to de-privatize 401k retirement plans, and make them government programs. Let that just sink in for a second: she wants to do away with 401k plans geared towards Americans saving their income away for retirement and make them Government sponsored entities.

Sounds logical enough, right? Barney Frank did such a great job with Fannie and Freddie, he's exactly the type of person I want in charge with my retirement. Let me say this right off the bat - the federal government is the last group of people I want touching my retirement accounts.

To get into it, let's cover the basics: a 401k is a retirement account, typically sponsored by an employer. It is what is called a defined contributions account, meaning that the participant in the plan makes contributions to the plan from his/her paycheck before taxes. It is up to the participant how much money they want to contribute, and in most cases, the employer will match a certain amount. Employers may differ in what they match or when an employee is vested - in other words, they are eligible to receive a certain amount of that money from the employer upon withdrawal. For example, if an employer matches 100% of the first 6% an employee contributes on what is called a tiered vesting schedule of 5 years, that means that while the employee is contributing, they are eligible for a percentage of that money from the employer each year until they are fully vested at the end of 5 years. This means that withdrawal after 1 year would leave the participant eligible for their contributions, their earnings, and 20% of the employer's contributions. After 2 years it would be the same, only 40% of employer contributions, and so on...until after five years, when the employee would be fully vested.

It is up to an individual how aggressive they want their 401k portfolio to be - they can invest in high risk mutual funds such as those centered around stocks, or low risk funds, such as those that invest in a money market or bonds. The idea is that the account grows over time, and rises and falls with the reflective changes in the market. A typical mutual fund in a money market will have a rate of return on 6-9% on someone's investments. This is the value of the market. The account grows over time, and when the participant is ready to take their money out, they can pay any taxes up front on their earnings (since the money is deducted out of the pay check pre-tax) and then have the money for retirement. It should be noted that some plans do allow money to be taken out after taxes on a paycheck, but the traditional 401k plan has money taken out pre-tax.

There, now you have your history. Remember the original point of this blog? That's right, it was to call out Teresa Ghilarducci.

Once again, let's look at what this woman wants to do. I cannot stress this enough, because it needs to be beaten into people's heads until they understand. Teresa Ghilarducci wants to eliminate 401k plans under the private investment sector (all of you who work for mutual fund companies can kiss your jobs goodbye if this happens), and make them a government entity. She wants to take the money set aside by hard working Americans and trust it to the Federal Government - The same federal government that was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - which just had to undergo a 700 billion dollar bailout.

According to an interview with Ms. Ghilarducci, the rich are contributing 20 thousand dollars to their 401k plans a year, and this is unfair, because not everyone can contribute such an amount. The first problem with this statement is that it is quite simply wrong. There is a thing called the 402g limit. The 402g limit is a maximum amount that someone can contribute to his or her 401k plan. The 402g limit in 2008 is the same as it was in 2007 - $15,500 dollars. Therefore, Dr. Ghilarducci - no one can contribute 20k to a plan - it's illegal. No investment firm will allow you contribute over the 402g limit. They get fined, and the plans are set up to contribute over time, or to just simply stop once the limit is reached.

Second fallacy - according to Theresa Ghilarducci, the "middle class" is getting screwed since they can't contribute as much. Wrong. There are plenty of people who make let's say 70,000 a year (yes, this is part of the middle class) who give the maximum contribution pre-tax. I can honestly say this because I have worked in the industry and the average person contributing to a plan does not make loads of money. Many people just believe in the power of a free market or desire better retirement and contribute all they can.

Ironically, those making large 6 figure salaries are typically deemed ineligible for investing in 401k plans. They must open up an IRA or a brokerage account. You heard me right, they cannot even have a 401k. That means the vast majority of these people who are investing in 401k accounts are not millionaires, they are not the uber-rich, they are not the top 1% of the country, they are middle class Americans.

Why are these idiots so quick to try and place blame on people who have succeeded and made money for themselves?

Theresa Ghilarducci, your idiocricy continues to just baffle me.

The logic just gets more twisted. Under her proposal, the maximum contribution per participant would be 5,000 dollars. This is 10,500 dollars less than the maximum contribution per year under the current 402g limit. However, it's okay according to Dr. Ghilarducci, because those contributing that much "don't need it" anyway.

Really? Who is Theresa Ghilarducci to decide what Americans should do with their money? Who the hell is she to decide how much money someone does or doesn't need? Isn't this money that people are putting away for their retirement?

So let me get this straight - if you are making too much money, you don't need to contribute because you make too much or have saved too much anyway. Let's make it a government sponsored entity, and restrict the amount of money you can put in your 401k plan.

What's the term Barry Obama liked to use? "Spreading the weath?" This sure sounds like a clear cut example of it to me.

If you won't say it, then I will: SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST, SOCIALIST.

Now, stay with me here...when you look at the average of the stock market over the long term, the typical rate of return is (as noted before) 6-9%. To be safe, let's just go with 7%. Under her plan, she would offer an across the board rate of return of 3 percent. Without even having to do the math, let's just think about this...if you have seven thousand dollars growing at a rate of 3 percent a year for 30 years, or seven thousand dollars growing at a rate of 7 percent a year for 30 years, which earns more? Once again, this wouldn't even be possible under her plan, as the max contribution per participant would be 5 thousand dollars.

I fail to see the logic in this plan.

I understand that the market is at a down turn. However, the market has ups and downs. Any investor will tell you this. The point of playing the market is to stay with it, through large highs and lows...because in the end, the average rate of return will still be good enough to put you in the positive.

These huge evil tax breaks for 401k plans that Dr. G speaks of are not huge evil tax breaks at all. There are fees associated with plans, and yes - they do go to the people at the investment firm. But they aren't all rich because of it. Since it is a defined contributions employer sponsored plan and not a brokerage account, there is no commission, no huge benefit for those people.

Not to mention if we make it a government entity, someone still has to manage it, and someone still has to watch the plan. This idea that government knows best over the private sector is absolutely absurd.

There's no such thing as a free lunch, people. Your socialist meal tastes stale and moldy, and I want no part of it.

So let's review: under this idea the investor cannot invest as much, the government has more control over the normal citizen's life (yes, the average middle class American), and people who work for investment firms will be left looking for new jobs (over thousands suffering job loss). Yet, we are one more step to government control and a socialist country. In addition, millions upon millions of dollars that could have been earned by the normal honest investor will never see the light of day, because they have never had a chance to grow in a free market economy. They will be swept up in a whirlwind of government control.

No thank you. My hope is that ordinary Americans will wake up, and realize these theories proposed by people are destroying ordinary Americans, not helping them.

My advice to Teresa Ghilarducci? Leave my country the hell alone. You are a socialist, and I am not surprised you are supporting Barry Obama. You are doing more harm than good. Stop trying to hurt this country, just leave it the hell alone.

Wow - turns out the rocker knows a thing or two. Go figure.

-The Rocker-

A perfect example of people hearing only what they want to hear...

I think sometimes people should think before they type things. I am constantly amused by the absurdity of people who only hear what they want to hear. What I am saying is this: when you have something to say, consider all the facts. Supporters of Barack Obama more than supporters of any other candidate in the history of Presidential elections seem so willing to jump on anything without question.

Before I get into it, a buddy of mine had a usual one sided blog post on the internet today. I also love the cuteness of his language, as he calls the McCain campaign the "McSame" campaign. Clever. I hope he stayed up all night thinking about that. Anyway, here is the post, which I will riff on in a moment:

The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know.

Now let's have a look at the man that McCain picked to be his presidential transition chief. The person charged with planning the McCain administration, William Timmons, lobbied for Saddam Hussein in an effort to get the international community off his back.

http://www. huffingtonpost. com/2008/10/14/mccain-transition-chief-a_n_134595. html

Okay, so let's take a moment to think about what we are reading here. Now, the article states that William Timmons, the Transition Chief of Mr. McCain has worked closely with two lobbyists who helped "ease sanctions against Saddam Hussein's political regime."

Okay, so this is unfortunate, and clearly not something that is favorable. I will be just as critical of John McCain as I will be of Barry Obama.

So, that being said - let's look at this article. This article appears in a completely partisan "news" source - you won't find a single article that ever says Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or any of the lot has done anything negative. So first problem - if you are going to cite a news source, please cite one that is not of questionable character or does not have a partisan bias. Flaw #1.

Now, the association of William Timmons to Saddam Husssein is as I mentioned, not desirable. Should McCain maybe consider someone else for the job as a result? Sure. There is not conclusive evidence to support that Timmons is guilty of anything, but it certainly couldn't hurt McCain to get another Transition Chief. I can admit to that.

Now, let's take another moment to think of the man's job - he is the Transition Chief for John McCain. That is his only job. He is not a foreign policy advisor, he is not an economic advisor, he will be the Transition Chief.

More importantly, the bulletin post I copied links McCain indirectly to Saddam. So, here's the problem - did McCain's Transition Chief possibly work with lobbyists who had a connection to Saddam? Yes. Did John McCain? No. So it is tied to William Timmons, not John McCain.

Now, let's look at the way the first sentence of the bulletin post is phrased, and I quote: "The McSame campagin has accused Obama of palling around with terrorists and therfore questioning his charachter and ability to lead... desperate, I know."

Now, McCain was never my top choice for the ticket. In fact, he was not even the man I voted for in the primary. He does things that I agree with, but does and says some other things that I disagree with - he is certainly not my ideal politician. However, should John McCain question Barack Obama's associations? Absolutely. The problem with the bulletin post is that Barack Obama is directly linked to people such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Directly linked. Yet, somehow these associations are dismissed by people like my friend posting the bulletin. He is not at all critical of his own party - meaning he will do or agree with anything they place on the table. That is not keeping an open mind, that is not being objective, it's absurd. It's absurd to think any particular party will do things that you 100 percent agree with. It's perfectly okay to disagree with your party from time to time.

So let's look at some of these outstanding people - Bill Ayers. The founder and member of the Weather Underground group - who is responsible for bombing the following: The New York City Police Headquarters, The United States Capitol Building, and The Pentagon. This is a man who has served on committees with Barack Obama (The Woods Fund of Chicago) and if you notice - Obama's associations with Ayers have changed over the years. He has gone from just a guy who lived in the neighborhood of Senator Obama to a guy who has served on committees of, etc etc. Why does this keep changing? Is this a person I want a politician directly linked to? A person who shows no remorse and says he did not do enough damage years ago? No. Absolutely not.

Then there's Rev. Jeremiah Wright. The Barry Obama "spiritual advisor" for 20 years. The man who is on camera saying things such as "...not god bless America, God damn America." The man who has plenty of off color remarks from the very halls of the church that Barack Obama has sat.

And that's not even getting into Obama using Saul Alinksy's theories from Rules for Radicals into his every day use, his marxist and socialist overtones, his ties to Tony Rezko, and his relationships with Fannie and Freddie constituents.

So my advice to my buddy is this: question John McCain. Question him to your heart's content. He is a man, and moreover he is a politician. Chances are, there are things you can pin on him that you will not agree with. But, if you are going to do that, you had better question Barack Obama and his associations. Because I promise you in the end, you will find them far more demeaning than anything you have found on John McCain. If you are going to make such a link to McCain but then dismiss any of Barck Obama's questionable associations, you are in the wrong.

-The Rocker-

An interesting conversation at the merch table.

Last night we played a show, and I was hanging out at the merch table after our set. A guy came up to me and was really enthusiastic about the set, which always means the most to me. Anyway, we got to talking and he mentioned how he has served time in Iraq and that he wants to bring some of his Army buddies to a show because he thought they would totally dig the music.

Whenever someone tells me that they have served for this country, especially having the bravery to go overseas, I make it a point to thank them for their service, and to let them know that we appreciate everything our troops in the armed forces do for us.

I did that, and he looked me in the eye and said "it's perfectly okay. You're welcome, and we do it for you."

That absolutely made my night. That man is a patriot, and that is a clear cut example of the American spirit. It means a lot to hear things like that, and to think of the wonderful sacrifices the men and women of the armed forces make for our country every day - and then when I thank them to take such a selfless stance is just amazing. He may of thanked me for the show, but my show is not possible without he and others like him serving this country - so thank you, soldier. Thank you indeed.

-The Rocker-