Eden Hill Journal

Comments, dreams, stories, and rantings from a middle-aged native of Maine living on a shoestring and a prayer in the woods of Maine. My portion of the family farm is to be known as Eden Hill Farm just because I want to call it that and because that's the closest thing to the truth that I could come up with. If you enjoy what I write, email me or make a comment. If you enjoy Eden Hill, come visit.

My Photo
Location: Maine, United States

Saturday, January 24, 2009

I Swear

The American right, no doubt disappointed that Obama didn't take the Oath of Office on the Quran the way the right-wingers had been claiming he would, now have a problem with the fact that the retake of the oath wasn't done on the Bible. Justice Roberts and Obama engaged in a moment of tension during the inauguration ceremony by stumbling through the Oath of Office so they got together for a retake this week. Pictures of the event show Obama with his right hand raised, his left hand down at his side.
Think Progress covers Glen Beck's misleading coverage of the event complete with the YouTube video of Beck on his new Fox News gig.
I can't help but wonder how this can even be an issue. Has anybody actually read that Bible that Obama was supposed to have his left hand on? If so, how do you deal with this from Matthew 5:33-37, from the Sermon on the Mount:
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Mind you this is Jesus saying this. But what is He saying and why?
I've heard the tired old explanation that Jesus was just telling the people not to casually cuss by aimlessly swearing. I don't buy that, of course. Verse 37 is the key to understanding what Jesus is saying.
Jesus is saying whatever you say, let it be the truth. Don't live in such a way that the only time anybody can trust that you are telling the truth is after you have taken an oath to tell the truth.
I've been trying for a very long time now to express this idea. I rant on and on about how Christianity has no concept of truth other than that the Bible alone is truth. Calvinism even goes so far as to suggest that whatever you choose to say, God already knew what your choice would be and you saying it is God's Will. That's completely absurd, but it seems to serve a lot of people very well.
Here's the thing, and I think our own culture is just like the culture that Jesus was addressing here. In our culture there is a difference between making a promise and swearing an oath. A promise is a commitment to do something. An oath is a promise made in the spirit of truth. It's not that you can't speak a promise truthfully. It's that in our culture we understand that it is acceptable to make a promise that we don't intend to keep. It's not acceptable to make an oath that we don't intend to keep. So we make our oaths to God or to Heaven or to the Bible or to wherever, to a place that our culture recognizes we would have to desecrate if we were to violate our promise.
We have in our culture, and Jesus must have observed the same thing in the culture of his own time, a duality of truth. One truth has no connection to God, to the divine. It's just the truth of the world. One man's truth is another man's lie and the only judge is our own understanding. The other truth is God's truth, divine truth, truth as it is seen by God. When we need to differentiate between those two, we take an oath.
What Jesus is teaching here on the mountain is that this is a fallacy. There are not two truths. There is not a divine truth and a truth of the world. There is only one truth and that is truth as God sees it. To accept the idea that we can use an oath to certify that we are speaking truth in God's eyes is to accept that we are capable of speaking truth that isn't truth in God's eyes. It is to make legitimate the idea that truth has this duality. Oaths make legitimate the lie that there is a duality of truth.
Reflecting back on Matthew 5:37, anything more than for you to simply speak the truth whenever you speak - any need for an oath - is from the evil one. Recognizing the need for oaths legitimizes the lie.
Perhaps Obama understands this. Perhaps his promise is spoken in the spirit of truth. Perhaps this is one of the changes that Obama brings to Washington.

Friday, January 23, 2009

See No Evil

Don't even ask what I'm doing up at this hour of the night, but to be awake at this hour of the night and discover a new word that begins to bring recent history into clearer focus...
Even my spell-checker doesn't recognize this one.
Wikipedia has quite a lot to say about this word.
I ran across it in a post in the blog The Big Picture.
The definition given there:
"Culturally constructed ignorance, purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth."
What better word is there to describe the Bush era... or for that matter, Sarah Palin!

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

One Day After

I watched the inauguration live yesterday on Public Television. I could feel the teeth chattering cold out there on the Washington Mall! But I didn't find the occasion as emotionally stirring as I had imagined it might be. Obama himself seemed reserved, although perfectly in character to what he ran for president as, a man of principle disgusted by the direction America had taken under George W. Bush's presidency.
I was stirred by the musical interlude at noon just prior to Obama's swearing in. It nearly brought me to tears although I can't say why. I don't normally get emotional listening to classical music.
Obama's inaugural speech seemed dry to me, as though the wind has been taken from his sails since election day. He was polite to his predecessor, but he did get in a few good jabs. I wouldn't have wanted to be Bush sitting there taking it from Obama, although as an Obama supporter, it certainly felt good to know that someone bigger than George W. Bush was delivering punches with the truth about how devastating the Bush presidency was for America.
Now it is one day into the new America. Obama is already beginning to live up to his campaign promises. Republicans are stalling the confirmation of Obama's choice for Secretary of State, but the pow-wows that Obama promised us all while on the campaign trail have already begun. Obama is meeting with Defense Department heads to discuss the withdrawal from Iraq. He has requested a suspension in the war crimes trials of Guantanamo detainees. And he has suspended all changes in federal regulations until his staff has reviewed them. He has finally put the brakes on the Bush machine.
I think the one thing that struck me the most about inauguration day was that the departure of Bush and Cheney was a cause for great celebration. There was no regret at all in seeing them go. No, I can't say that is true. That is what I wanted it to feel like. That is what I celebrated. But a layer down from there in my thinking was this feeling of uncertainty. It was exactly the feeling that the codependents of an abusive husband feel when the husband is dragged away in hand cuffs. Once we resign ourselves to the abuse, we become dependent on the power of the abuser to protect us. That is what George W. Bush was to us. He was the man in control of the abuse. I tend to think Obama doesn't have that same effect on us and we are going to have to adapt to not living under an abuser.
Yesterday was liberating for a large portion of the world's population. But none of us know what today will bring. That's how I feel one day after.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

The Future Arrived Yesterday

Well "yesterday" metaphorically speaking...
Actually it was 1973 when this article concerning the arrival of the future appeared in the Maine Times, republished in Mother Earth News.
I was in my twenties back then. I was aware of the Maine Times and Mother Earth News and Country Journal. I never took the time nor challenged my intellect to comprehend this talk of a post industrial age having arrived in Maine. It was a new concept and seemed based on selected and somewhat editorialized facts (see the list of "items" in this article). But Maine has since developed somewhat of a split personality relating to this post industrial notion.
Clearly the largest industries of Maine have all gone the way of Detroit automobile manufacturing. The textile industries have struggled and died for many decades now. Shoe manufacturing was a large component in Maine's economy, now almost completely gone. And Maine's paper industry has been on the decline for a decade or more, although it was still going strong in 1973 when this article was published in the Maine Times.
But industry didn't follow the dire warnings of this article. A new kind of industrialization found strength in Maine and the state is now dotted with hundreds, even thousands of small industrial producers. Maine's economic future rests in part on the success of these new small industries. Not only that, but a remnant of traditional large industry remains strong in Maine. And as if to thumb its nose at this article, Maine has continued to develop recreation and tourism based on high energy consumption and inexpensive gasoline. It is a bit difficult to embrace the idea of post industrial enterprise while industry remains this strong. Until very recently, it looked as though the post industrial age would never arrive.
But starting about the time of this Maine Times article there developed a counterculture in Maine, a new side of Maine's personality that is clearly described presciently in this 1973 article. Maine has developed and is continuing to grow a strong sustainable living culture based on organic farming and gardening, renewable energy and energy conservation, healthy living, and progressive politics. Nowhere is this trend more apparent than in the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, MOFGA, and its annual autumn country fair, the Common Ground Fair.
This whole progressive movement was in its infancy here in Maine in 1973. Thank God someone had the foresight to welcome these new people and their new ideas to Maine back then. Much of the pioneering work for the nation's post industrial transition is already being done here in Maine. Perhaps now with the collapse of America's industrial strength and the realization that we are fighting wars now to secure our future oil demands, our whole nation will begin to see the sense in post industrial living.

Friday, January 16, 2009

Over the Moon

I have been patiently waiting for the public appearance of Tripp Johnston, grandson of Sarah Palin. So far I haven't seen his appearance anywhere other than in words, which doesn't somehow seem adequate considering the significance placed on him by the McCain campaign last fall. It was, after all, his existence that disproved rumors about Sarah Palin faking her pregnancy last spring. Yes I've heard about the need for privacy but isn't this taking it to the extreme? It's been nearly three weeks now.
So far, this from the governor's website is all I have found from the governor to indicate Tripp's presence in the world:
Governor Sarah Palin Welcomes Her First Grandchild
December 31, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin has welcomed her first grandchild, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, born to Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston on December 27.
So I pose a question to my readers. Has anyone heard or seen Governor Palin say or seen her quoted as saying the name "Tripp" in public? If so, could you let me know? I'm afraid if something doesn't come up soon, someone will have to file a missing persons report up there in Alaska.
Sarah Palin may be "over the moon" about this new arrival but I'm beginning to wonder if that's where this baby is hiding out. Is "hiding out" a good term to use in this context?

Thursday, January 15, 2009


Atheism seems to be one of those complex words that defy definition. That seems strange to me too because of my simplistic view of things. I mean shouldn't atheism simply mean the belief that there is no deity? But then you have to define deity. Even if you speak of God, you have to define what God means to the people who use the word. God should be another simple word, but it isn't. In any debate about the existence of God, shouldn't the topic of the definition of God be a basis for the debate?
The thing is, atheism is all about proving the nonexistence of something. Aren't negatives supposed to be difficult or impossible to prove? So why bother? It just makes atheists look like fools, doesn't it?
I mean, isn't it blatantly obvious that there is intelligence in the universe that this intelligence exists independent of the human mind?
Isn't it?
And isn't it blatantly obvious that even in evolution, intelligence guides any change?
Isn't it?
The thing is, it's dumb to make that the focus of the debate. It's just plain numb to argue that there is no intelligence outside of the human (or animal) brain.
Atheists and non-atheists alike know that the debate isn't about intelligence. The debate is about whether there is a living, loving, caring, deity who has defined and dictated to humanity the terms and rules of morality. That is the real claim of religion. Religion claims that morality comes from God. We all know that intelligence plays a guiding role in the development of life. What we differ on is the source of morality, the origin of the rules we all have to live by.
Theists see a living God, a deity, as the source of morality. To theists, morality supercedes human consensus. God tells us how to treat each other.
To humanists, morality is a human consensus. Man decides what is good and what is evil.
It is here, in the debate over the source of morality, where religion fails. Religion insists that morality originates from a good and loving deity. Yet all around us, and throughout the history of the universe and projecting into the future of the universe, we see tragedy and destruction under the same power of intelligence that we see creation. In our own lives and history we see tragedy and disease all around us. Theists concoct elaborate defenses for their deities, but the evidence is that there is no loving deity in control. God doesn't really care about tragedy. He is just as likely to deliver us into it as He is to deliver us from it.
Atheists point to this uncaring God as proof that there is no God. Their real claim is that there is no loving, caring deity in control.
So by that standard, an atheist isn't a person who denies the role of intelligence in creation. An atheist is a person who believes that morality comes from man.
Now doesn't that make more sense? Is it really that difficult to defend the notion that man concocts morality?

Saturday, January 10, 2009

DTV Frequency Allocations in Maine

I have been researching what is currently going on with the Digital TV changeover and have discovered a few things that haven't been in the news. There are four VHF TV stations in the Bangor, Maine area. According to the FCC website which allows searching by state, some of the VHF stations are broadcasting digital on UHF instead. In fact, only one station, Orono's Public Broadcasting station, will remain on VHF.
Technically what this means is that anyone in my area who has been using an outdoor antenna to receive local broadcasting will need to buy a new antenna, one suited for both VHF and UHF.
Furthermore, as you can see below, the digital transition isn't narrowing the bandwidth of each station. Each Digital TV station will still use the conventional 6 MHz bandwidth. It'll just use that bandwidth on another TV channel.
So I just called the digital transition hotline for Maine Public Broadcasting 1-866-418-7678 and was told that I needed to buy an VHF/UHF outdoor antenna. Right. Whatever. The girl I spoke with didn't have access to any of the technical information such as what the broadcasting power would be tomorrow on their Digital TV channel 9 after WMEB-TV channel 12 analog goes off the air. Some hotline.
Anyway, here is the technical information for the Bangor, Maine broadcasting area.
WMEB-TV Orono, Maine
Analog frequency allocation - Channel 12: 204 - 210 MHz
Transmitter Power: 316 kW
Service area map

Digital frequency allocation - Channel 9 - 186 - 192 MHz
Transmitter power: 15 kW
Service area map
WABI-TV Bangor, Maine
Analog frequency allocation - Channel 5: 76 - 82 MHz
Transmitter Power: 39.8 kW
Service area map

Digital frequency allocation - Channel 19: 500 - 506 MHz
Transmitter Power: 363 kW
Service area map
WLBZ-TV Bangor, Maine
Analog frequency allocation - Channel 2: 54 - 60 MHz
Transmitter Power: 51.3 kW
Service area map

Digital frequency allocation - Channel 25: 536 - 542 MHz
Transmitter Power: 250 kW
Service area map
Analog frequency allocation - Channel 7 174 - 180 MHz
Transmitter Power: 316 kW
Service area map

Digital frequency allocation - Channel 14: 470 - 476 MHz
Transmitter Power: 79 kW
Service area map

Digital Minority

Finally I am in a minority! I am a member of the digital minority. What's that? Well here is my story.
As we all have been told by now, the US Federal Government has in its great wisdom finally decided that on-air free reception broadcast Television is taking up too much bandwidth, too much airspace in the electromagnetic spectrum. Each TV channel takes up six megahertz of bandwidth. Channels 2 through 13 operate in the VHF frequency spectrum, useful because it isn't quite as dependent on "line of sight" alignment between the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna. VHF signals carry better than higher frequency signals so they carry farther into the rural areas from television stations that serve metropolitan areas.
Somebody pointed out to the Federal Government that it is now technologically possible to carry digital television signals using the same VHF spectrum but using a narrower channel width than the 6 megahertz analog channel width. God only knows how it's done but the decision to make this transition was made by Congress and the transition was planned for final implementation this month and next. Maine Public Television has been running infomercials about this transition and has been touting the benefits of purchasing either new television equipment with digital tuners or digital television adapter boxes that allowed older analog television equipment to receive a signal from digital transmitters.
To promote the transition, the Federal Government has been offering coupons worth $40.00 towards the purchase of digital converter boxes, two coupon per household. This program was intended to boost sales of digital TV tuner equipment in order to hasten production and bring down the purchase price of the equipment. The program succeeded and now the government is saying they have far more requests for coupons than they have coupons to give. It's almost like getting a moose permit in Maine. More people want to shoot moose than there are moose to be shot.
So anyway, being the lazy ass that I am, I didn't apply for a coupon. But yesterday I went out and bought a DTV converter box, a Zenith DTT 901. When I got home from Bangor I hooked it up. Channel 12 was playing at the time and the signal was good enough to watch. We are 80 miles or more from the transmitter and slightly behind the hill so it is challenging at times to get good reception, but last night the old analog signal reception was quite decent.
So I hooked everything up and had it so I could see the new tuner's menu system on the TV screen and I sent it into scan mode to find all the wonderful new digital TV signals in my area. Zero! Not a one! It's not that Bangor stations aren't broadcasting in digital either. They are and have been for quite awhile. It's that this glorious new rig needs a strong signal or else ZILCH! Nothing! No TV at all!!
This is the dirty little secret of the Digital TV revolution. It's not like nobody could foresee this happening. I used to be in the TV repair business and even had my own TV antenna sales and installation thing going for awhile. It's not like I didn't see this coming. In fact, I would have been pleasantly shocked had the new tuner actually worked!
But the thing is, to have made this transition work right, the government should have required that remote areas that have been served for decades by analog VHF broadcast television should be served by digital TV after the transition. The way to do it would either be for the government to supply satellite TV or for the new owners of this freed-up and auctioned off airspace to have been required to establish low-power repeater transmitters.
Instead of doing this, the Federal Government in its usual display of arrogance and indifference, chose to fail to inform the public of the problem and instead spread propaganda touting the wonderful benefits of digital TV. And everybody, including the "This Old House" professionals, went along with it. This problem of mine isn't a problem at all for the majority of broadcast television recipients. Or at least I would hope it isn't. Maybe it is. But it certainly is a problem for a minority of us who live in rural areas. We are the Digital Minority!
Looks like I'll be going without Public Television now unless I'm finally ready to shell out $30.00 or more each month for cable or satellite. Such a deal!
By the way, there is a movement underway now to delay the cutoff date for analog broadcast of high-power television signals. Some are becoming aware of the problems that have until now been swept under the rug. But I'll be very surprised if even the Democrats now in power have the resolve to fix these problems. Americans shouldn't be forced to spend, spend, and spend some more only to discover that you can't get there from here. Those who serve to profit from this change should be the ones making sure that nobody is left out in the dark.
And one more thing. Free broadcast television and radio has been a mainstay in American life for the best part of a century now. This idea that it should now become a source of profit for cable and satellite delivery companies is a Republican idea that should be resisted. There are millions of Americans who simply cannot afford subscription rates for cable and satellite TV. These are the Digital Minority that should not be given the cold shoulder by government.

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Unfortunate Resolve

For years now I have read Americablog every day, sometimes even several times a day. John Aravosis is a fellow Mainer even if he doesn't share my interest in the opposite gender.
No more.
I have decided the time has come to replace Americablog with something less focused on an agenda that just doesn't represent my thoughts and interests. Since the 2008 election, I have been noticing pictures of what appeared to me to be gay men baring inappropriate amounts of male skin as advertising. I'm not usually all that annoyed at attractive females baring their skin but I don't enjoy looking at gay men paired together in skimpy bathing suits or stubble-faced young men kissing. Thanks, John, but no thanks.
Recently Americablog defended its inappropriate advertising by saying they couldn't afford to refuse good money from advertisers.
Fine. So be it. Just count me out.
What finally nailed the coffin shut for me, though, was Americablog's sharp criticism of Barack Obama. Apparently gays are upset that the Obama administration won't be employing enough gays but will be recognizing people who are not acceptable to the gays. It has always been my opinion that Americablog was about revealing the truth about conservative politics. Now I'm not so sure. Maybe revealing that truth was simply Americablog's way of bringing down a political opponent. Maybe the truth isn't all that important to them. Maybe now there is a new opponent, a new entity in power that still doesn't meet the demands of the left-wing homosexuals.
The problem with right-wing politics is that it is reactionary. It uses hot-button issues like abortion and school prayer and gay marriage and fear of foreigners to stimulate reactions from voters. Instead of educating voters and letting them decide objectively, reactionary politics depends on illusions that create emotional responses from voters. Truth has no real meaning in that kind of politics.
My concern is that Americablog seemed to be engaging in that kind of politics, but targeting the reactionary politics at the Left. Thanks, guys, but no thanks.
So the search is on for a good replacement. Any suggestions?

Friday, January 02, 2009

Nothing Much to Say

Here it is, wow, the second of January, 2009. 2008 is long gone now although it seemed yesterday that everyone was doing the 2008 in review thing that the news people always do. Were they a day late doing that? Isn't it usually the last day or two of the year that they do that?
Well maybe they're like I am right now, frustrated with all of the nonsense of the 2008 campaign but afraid to say much about the new administration which won't seat itself in Washington for another 18 days. We're all clinging to whatever remnants of hope remain that Bush won't screw up any more of our future before he heads out the White House door for the last time.
I don't know about the rest of all you people out there but I'm beginning to wonder if Obama can pull this thing off. Things are a lot bleaker now than they were a year ago. I mean things couldn't be worse if we were actually trying to make it worse. Things couldn't be worse if the wealthy among us deliberately were trying to make the Obama revolution go away empty handed. That's how bad it is now. It's like if we really wanted to identify and imprison America's enemies, we'd begin by shipping all the wealthy Republicans to jail. That's how bad it is.
But the other side of the coin is that the old boy Democrats are in control of both houses of Congress and they are itching to spend money. I wish it weren't so but it is. Instead of focusing on America's future and the success of the American workforce, instead of focusing on job creation through sustainable energy, food, and industrial production, instead of finding ways to beat back down the absurd price of healthcare services and medicine in this country, instead of enabling unencumbered grass-roots industry among the people, these old-boy Democrats want their socialism. I'm with Sarah Palin on this one. Thanks, but no thanks, guys. Well I'm not sure I'm entirely with her on that. I'm not like give me the money but forget the socialism part. I'm more like hey, we can't afford this! Stop all this ridiculous spending! Plug the dike!
Of course Republicans see this with glee. It tickles them pink that the federal budget is now on a runaway train whose engineer is the Democratic Party. It's especially OK if the money is being dumped with no strings attached into unknown bank accounts all around the world as it probably is. Some people are still getting rich off this screwed up economy. And when the day of reckoning does come as it surely will, Republicans will say it's all because of those old-boy spend-happy Democrats and you know, they'll most likely be close to the truth there.
The only hope is that Obama will have some hat trick that he hasn't shown us yet, that the magic Super-O will deliver us to safe haven before the economy actually collapses and that we will see an economic recovery beginning soon. That's the hope despite the fact that Obama himself is telling us it's probably going to get a lot worse before anything gets better. That is something he and the old-boy Democrats and the obstructionist Republicans surely can deliver. But the hope, the dream, of some sort of sustainable and affordable economic growth, the hope of alternative clean energy delivering us from this absurd need to dominate the planet, it isn't looking like Obama has much of a plan there and if he did, the forces in Congress against him seem overwhelming.
On the other hand, though, the notion on the Left that Obama is a man of peace is beginning to seem a bit strained now. It would appear that Obama's promise to go after al Qaeda taking up where George W. Bush left off back in 2002 seems to be happening now. American troops will soon "surge" into Taliban-held areas in southern Afghanistan. Followers of Islam are enraged by Israel's ruthless attacks in Gaza while at the same time they are bracing themselves on the east from the threat posed by India. Pakistan - long the host of the Taliban and al Qaeda and with strong government ties to international terrorism, the CIA, Mossad etc. that nobody likes to mention - is the hotbed of Islam. It is the only nation in Islam armed with nuclear weapons. Its western border is Iran, an enemy not just of the US but of Israel and of Pakistan itself. On the north lies the mountainous border with Afghanistan soon to be swarming with US troops under the leadership of President Obama who is determined to wage war against terrorism. To the east is India, also nuclear armed and possessing a suppressed minority population of Muslims. Above all this you have the wealth of the Jews who feel threatened by virtually every aspect of Islam and wealthy industrialists and oilmen who want access to the energy resources of that region to further the wealth of the West, to Hell with Islam. If this isn't a recipe for disaster nothing is. Nowhere in the mix is there any strain relief. The Jews aren't going to give up on Israel any time soon. Alternative energy doesn't seem close. Americans are still thirsty for oil and they are being increasingly joined by the Chinese and the Europeans. The Mossad and the CIA have vanished from the radar screen, which can only mean they have penetrated and are messing with everything and the media is cooperating in suppressing the truth about that.
Good luck there, Barack. You say energy independence is the key? I agree but do you actually have a plan that you can get past Congress?
And then there's Social Security and nationalized healthcare insurance. With the National Debt already at $10.5 trillion and climbing at over $3 billion a day - that's $3,000,000,000 a day or in other words $10.00 per day per American citizen (times 365 days that's $3,650.00 per year per each of us in America, men, women, retired people, the unemployed, mothers, and babies, $3,650.00 a year apiece - where will the money come from to pay for Social Security once the worker contributions fail to meet the commitments? I mean, do we just borrow more money to pay off Social Security's claims on the debt? Or do we just type a few strokes on some IBM keyboard somewhere and the money magically appears backed by the full faith and trust of the United States Federal Reserve Bank... which has been very busy recently giving huge sums of money away to wealthy banks.
Good luck Barack. They've got us all by the balls, you included. What's the plan here? How are you going to get us (We the People) to overpower the old-boy Congress and start doing something right? George W. Bush sure wasn't the solution, him and his shoot first look later VP and Tom DeLay and Bohner and Wolfowitz and Pearle and Stevens and all the rest of the big-spending Republicans. Ted Kennedy isn't going to save us from this. Hillary? Are you kidding me?
So I just don't have anything to say about this. It's just too early to say anything. Obama hasn't even taken office yet. Bush is still stirring the overheated pot. I'll just hold my breath for awhile and wait for someone to begin to show signs of leadership. I'll try not to think about retirement. I'll try to forget what nobody ever talks about anymore with respect to deficit spending, namely just how much debt service can the US budget endure. We used to wonder about that back during the Reagan years when we were first getting adjusted to virtually uncontrolled deficit spending. Now it never crosses our minds. So I'll forget about that too. I'll just keep my mouth shut and see what the leaders say next.