Tonight is the eve of Election Day here in the States. Tomorrow, the great civics experiment begins, and we will decide who will be our President for the next four years, along with plenty of local elections to be decided.

Who will I vote for? In the spirit of being truly undecided, I dunno. I have some idea which way I may lean on some of the issues and candidates, but I truly am undecided on others. I have grown tired of being told I’m stupid, irresponsible and voting “the wrong way” no matter which way I would lean. Demeaning the voters seems like a bad strategy, and there are some factions that seem to suggest that voting “their” way is the only way for person of my beliefs, age, and priorities to vote. I’m not so sure that “they” are right — I guess that’s why we have an election!

Unfortunately, I will be working tomorrow night, so I will get to see the election results late, instead of in realtime. In 2000, I watched the election coverage all night, and thoroughly enjoyed watched the battlelines shift, leaders wax and wane, and awoke the next morning to discover that the election had not been decisively won.

I doubt there’s that much fun in the cards for this election, although I do believe that it will be very, very close. I also believe that there will be loads of litigation surrounding any results that are remotely close. Maybe, just maybe, it’ll all be over before Inauguration Day in January.

At least the political commercials will be over after tonight! 😉

Today, KSDK was reporting that Archbishop Raymond Burke has told his flock that voting for any candidate who is on the wrong side of the fence (from Burke’s perspective) commits a grave sin. (Let me say that I am not a Catholic, nor do I play one on TV.)

The five “life issues” are abortion, euthenasia, stem-cell research, cloning and same-sex marriage.

Imagine that, voting can now be a sin! And, I suppose, since he has indicated that you must confess this sin before taking communion, that the voting process, at least for Catholics who are not voting as Burke would have them vote, is no longer a secret ballot.

Burke’s already gotten a lot of press for withholding communion from Catholic public servants who are not on the same page as him with regard to abortion issues. I guess, since he’s the final Catholic authority locally, he figures that he can hold hostage communion with God in an attempt to sway you. Personally, I think it’s God’s role to convict your heart about such things, through prayer, and then judge you, rather than a flock leader to blackmail you into that leader’s beliefs.

What if it was a different issue? Let’s say the Archbishop decided to hold his flock accountable to vote appropriately for other issues, perhaps the war in Iraq, else their life in eternity is in jeopardy. What then? How much power should any church or organization have over the voting process? Should it possible for an organization, especially a church, to tell their members that they must vote a certain way? Perhaps employers should get in this game, and require their employees to vote certain ways, holding promotions or jobs themselves in the balance.

I do wonder who the next group will be that will extort their members to vote a certain way? Maybe the ACLU, NAACP or NASCAR? Those groups can legally push a particular candidate. As I understand it, churches cannot. I guess Burke is skating around that piece of law by telling his flock that they must vote for candidates on the right side of these issues. Since Kerry is not on Burke’s side of those issues, he is essentially endorsing Bush, and telling his church members that they must vote his way, with their eternal life in the balance. If that’s not an endorsement of a candidate, and blackmail for votes, I don’t know what is.

Yeah, I know I probably have stretched my imagination with some of the “what ifs”, but the bottom line is that the local Catholic church is telling their folks how to vote — which many organizations every day also do. The difference is that the Catholic church is now trying to hold your soul for ransom in exchange for your vote. That’s not anyone’s job; that’s God’s job! 🙂

Last night, Bush and Kerry went at it in the first presidential debate of this political season. I missed the first couple of minutes, but watched the next 90 minutes, glued to the set.

To me, it seemed that Kerry had a much more polished message. Infrequently did he harp on the same message, aside from his belief that going into Iraq without a strong coalition was a mistake. He was quick and seemingly thoughtful in his rebuttles of Bush’s comments.

I happen to believe that having a strong coalition is important. Bush stressed the contributions of the UK, Australia and Poland, and belittled Kerry, indicating he was dishonoring the contributions of the nations standing with us. My opinion is, however, that when we are supplying over 90% of the troops on the ground, that’s not a coalition.

OTOH, Bush did hit the same messages over and over — something Ann Richards was quoted as saying Bush was very good at — quoting trite phrases such as “wrong war, wrong time” and “we have a plan to get out of Iraq”. He hit hard on his belief that Kerry is blown by the winds in his opinion on important policy issues, denying Kerry the privilege to re-evaluate issues in the war and change his policy, and retaining that for himself.

There was, in my mind, a significant difference in their views on the internation community. Kerry seems very “international” in his thinking: UN, coalitions, resolutions… basically playing within the letter of law. This is the way my mind works, the way I play, and frequently, I am frustrated over the rewards to and gains by those who don’t play by the rules.

Bush seems to enjoy having the world on his side, when he can get that. However, if you’re not with him, you’re against him. He seems to have little respect for the UN, little respect for the leadership position that the US is in — it’s hard to get other countries to play by the rules of law and treaty, when you flagrantly go against them — and he really doesn’t seem to want to have to answer to anyone concerning his actions.

My eyes and ears tell me that Kerry won this debate. Bush looked disinterested, looked as though he thought the debate was a waste of time, and came across as more of a “good ol’ boy” than a commander-in-chief and president, and simply didn’t give very good information as to where he would take us as a country. Kerry came across as a businessman, succinct and with a pretty good handle on the knowledge of the issues needed to lead the US.

Bush didn’t really address the endgame in Iraq, which I think is critical to understanding where we, as a nation, would go for the next four years. Kerry did address this, and pointed to a published plan for getting us out of Iraq.

One thing that I would have loved to hear Bush and Kerry address was the statements by Putin that he would consider going into another country to pre-emptively strike to defend his nation. I still believe that statement probably sends incredible chills down the spines of many folks in Washington.

Biggest faux pas: By Bush, stating that “the enemy attacked us” in trying to defend sending troops into Iraq. Kerry rightly pointed out that it was Bin Laden that attacked, not Saddam Hussein. Bush had to peddle and reassure us that he knew which was which. 🙂

Most humorous comment: By Kerry, quoting,

The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, ‘Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.’

Most intriguing comment: Reponse by Bush, to Jim Lehrer’s question concerning Bush’s quote that there was a “miscalculation, of what the conditions would be in post-war Iraq.” My interpretation is that Bush indicated that we did such a good job in felling Hussein regime, that the rebels didn’t fight at the time, and now they are. In other words, our reward for a job well-done (by Bush’s estimation) is a continuing blood-bath on the network news every night.

In truth, did either of them win? Well, I dunno. I have to admit, though, that I was pretty impressed by Kerry’s polish, and a little put off by Bush’s seeming too flippant.

(Transcript is here.)

Today, Vladimir Putin announced that Russia is preparing for pre-emptive strikes on terrorist sites, some on foreign soil.

The American media makes it sound like this is an alarming turn… but, wait! Aren’t we doing the same thing?

It’s a careful tightrope we walk here, when it’s viewed as “OK” for the US to take those same steps, and then complain when someone else — a nation that we’ve been loosely allied with over the last many years — decides it’s in their best interest to defend their borders aggressively.

Myself, most things that could make the world a safer place sound pretty good to me.

Today is the third anniversary of the attacks upon the United States by a band of terrorists representing Al Qaeda. As expected, there were solemn ceremonies all over the country, remembering the victims and heroes from that day.

I couldn’t bear to watch the reading of the names of the victims — three hours in length. I couldn’t bear to see the clips replayed again.

It really is still a fresh wound, and is still more than our nation’s conscience should have to bear.

Last night, Missouri voters went to the polls for our primaries, along with voting on local issues.

One huge surprise was state auditor Claire McCaskill defeating Governor Holden in the primary. This was an ugly campaign, with enough mud flung to fill many, many pig styes. From what I’m reading this morning, Holden is the first sitting governor to be ousted through the primaries in the US in about ten years, and the first ever in Missouri. That McCaskill was able to oust him in the primaries is astounding to me, as I really didn’t think she had the umph to do it. I suspect folks here are tired of Holden, and what has been represented as fiscal irresponsiblity at times — many times from the very person who ousted him!

On the two proposed amendments to the state constitution, they both went as I expected they would.

Amendment 1, which would allow gambling on the rivers near Branson was defeated, 55% to 45%. I’m not overly surprised at that. The way it read was to open up gambling on the White River for Rockaway Beach, but I’ve heard it said that it would also open up the White River for other gambling venues. We have a dozen casinos in Missouri, all of which must be on the Missouri or Mississippi River by state law, and I guess folks thought that was enough. This, even as St. Louis contemplates additional casinos downtown and south of the city. An interesting juxtaposition in opinion, it would seem.

Amendment 2, which would constitutionally define marriage as solely between one man and one woman passed, 70% to 30%. Again, I’m not surprised at the outcome here. Were there not so much furor, inconsistency and downright confusion over other unions in the news right now, the outcome might’ve been different, probably through indifference as much as anything. Then again, I may be giving short shrift to the moral framework of the folks here in Missouri — they might’ve voted this way no matter what the backdrop was.

It appears, however, that the issue of non-heterosexual marriages appears to have been taken up as a human rights cause, and I’m sure that will bring no end of lawsuits and challenges once the amendment is in place. Stay tuned on this one!

$1.699

Tomorrow, Missouri has a primary election, the ballot for which contains two highly contentious constitutional issues: Amendment 1 and Amendment 2.

As I understand it, Amendment 1 would open the door for “riverboat” casino expansion into the Branson area, starting first with a small community called Rockaway Beach.

Amendment 2 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

My politics aside, I don’t see how any citizen of Missouri could be comfortable with their vote. However, what I’ve learned is:

• You’re an idiot if you vote against Amendment 1, because you’ve stifled growth of an industry that some in that part of Missouri seem to want.
• You’re an idiot if you vote for Amendment 1, because you’ve encouraged the expansion of gambling, and all the ills that some believe come along with it.
• You’re an idiot if you vote against Amendment 2, because you’ve opened the door to sanctifying relationships that some believe are against God’s word.
• You’re an idiot if you vote for Amendment 2, because you are promoting homophobic hatred.

And those are just the loudest statements being thrown around about these two issues. There’s also a million little swirls that raise the noise level associated with these two proposed amendments into a deafening, mind-numbing cacophony.

My opinion? Well, that’s between me and the ballot box, but you can count on me voting my conscience, and doing what I think is right.

Today, I sat down to do the bills, and along with the bill from the gas company was an insert touting the benefits of budget billing. No biggie — I’m a fan of that.

However, as I read further on the insert, I discovered that it was not-so-quietly advocating exploitation of domestic gas fields: “Congress has been unwilling to allow adequate access to explore for new domestic sources so that these supplies can be brought to market. … The way to lower wholesale prices is for Congress to allow producers access to additional areas of supply.”

So, blame Congress if your gas bill is high? So now, there is another voice telling me how to vote. I guess if spending gobs of money on lobbyists in Washington won’t get you what you want, you blame the system, and imply that you have no fault.

We’ve become a “no fault” society — “It’s not my fault!”

In yesterday’s mail, I also got a flyer from a candidate for state office who trumpted his virtues, and was kind enough to tell me how I should vote on state initiatives that will be on the ballot. Whether he’s right or not, I find it pompous and a little too invasive for someone to be that presumptuous with my ballot.

I’ll vote, but I’ll vote my mind and my values, and let those who would sway my vote — by claiming “It’s not our fault” or “Here’s the way your ballot should look” — fall where they may.

So, what if the US were attacked around election time?

Apparently, some folks have thought about it, and are thinking that postponing the elections would be the right answer. Of course, the government doesn’t currently have that power, but there are proposals on the table that that power be granted.

Let’s walk through a little exercise.

Let’s say an attack takes place somewhere in the US. Something big.

Bush is ahead in the polls. Maybe we have the election and try to capitalize on the numbers.

Bush is behind in the polls. Maybe we “postpone” the election until things are safer. Given that we are involved in a war with no clear and definable endgame, that postponement could last indefinitely. How about Bush for four more years? Or eight? Or twelve?

It’s a slippery slope, to me, for our government to even be considering changes to the underpinnings of our very country. The founders made it pretty clear that we weren’t to have a president with an unlimited term. That was codified later by amendment to the Constitution.

Do we really want Bush (or any president) to have the power to set his own term limits, based on the maniacal actions of others? I don’t — and it wouldn’t matter who was in office. If this sort of change occurs, then the terrorists have won, and the president — whomever that is — is simply taking advantage of the opportunity.

Decide for yourself — the full story’s at:
Yahoo! News – U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

Tonight was the sunset service for President Reagan at the site of his library in Simi Valley.

It’s a picturesque view that provided the backdrop for a close to one of the most amazing weeks I can remember in our country in a very long time. For a week, we’ve watched as the Reagan family coped with the loss of their patriarch, and our nation grieved over the passing of a beloved leader. We saw the strength of Nancy Reagan, as she gently stroked the flag adorning her husband’s casket, quietly whispering to her husband within. I can’t remember a time when, as a nation, we seemed to be so one of spirit over one life.

Tonight, though, she broke down, and released her grief over her loss. And after having to be strong for a nation all week, it’s only fair that she should be able to let that go.

I simply cannot imagine holding back, and then airing out, my grief in the public spotlight like that.

What was very haunting to me was the look of…. bewilderment… on her face during most of this week. Half of a whole. One part of two. I’ve seen that look before, and was hoping I would never see it again.

It was on Mom’s face during Dad’s funeral.