Perhaps I should preface that question with what is a name in the first place! A name is merely a label we give someone or something. For example, most people know me as Keith, the name given me by my parents. But I’m also known to some as brother and other’s who I’ve served with in the military know me as “Doc” and there are others who know me as “The Chief.”

We also know things by the name we give them. For example, Kool-Aid is a delicious drink served up to kids on a hot summer’s day. Thanks to the Reverend Jim Jones it’s known as a poison. He made up copious amounts of it, laced it with cyanide and coaxed some of his Jonestown followers to partake of it. Those that wouldn’t drink freely, he forced them to drink it. As a result of Reverend Jones, the name Kool-Aid also became the label for a corrupt, rotten or doomed philosophy.

So we know from a historical context that a name is label or identifier that we give to someone or something. We know that someone or something can be known by several names and we know that sometimes meanings of names can be changed and they can be changed for a host of different reasons. Sometimes the course is natural like the progression of a person from son to husband then father, grandfather and so on. In some cases the name change can be manipulated.

This is especially true in the political arena. Take any of the current political dramas unfolding before our very eyes. It just depends on your orientation or point of view whether a person is a freedom fighter or a terrorist. A look at the current global economic crisis and government’s response to it, is it a stimulus package or pork. Other popular terms that are often bandied about in the political arena include words like partisan, non-partisan bipartisan and post-partisan.

We know that in political terms, a partisan is someone who strictly adheres to a political ideology. They hold to it tenaciously and apply it across the board to a host of issues. We use terms like conservative and liberal to label or name the two ideological camps. Bipartisanship takes the term partisan and gives it an interesting twist. The idea behind this label is that there is some sort of middle ground where the two opposing sides can compromise and work together.

In reality, this never happens. What really happens is members who have identified themselves as being of one particular stripe or another don’t really adhere wholeheartedly to the principles of their particular affiliation. For example, in America during the 1980’s there was a thing once known as a conservative democrat. They belonged by affiliation to one particular stripe but their personal ideology, or lack there of, was in conflict with the party affiliation. They forsook their affiliation and voted along with the Reagan Tax cuts and military build up. They became known as the “Reagan Democrats!”

In more recent times, the opposite has happened. Now in the name of bipartisanship it is the right of the political spectrum that has left its roots. These days we have what is known as the Republican in Name Only or (RINO). What they in fact are is non-ideological republicans who for the sake of that magic word “bipartisanship” have caved in to the other side’s way of thinking. In short, the term bipartisanship, which many believe to mean both sides meeting in the middle, in fact really means that one side, or enough members of one stripe forsaking their ideological or party affiliation.

That leaves us with an interesting term that is all the rage these days, post-partisanship. The current American President describes himself as being a post-partisan politician. But just what does he mean by the word? By dissecting the word, what it should mean is the end of partisanship or that the practice of partisanship is over. So post-partisanship does not mean the same thing as being non-partisan. However, that is the impression that most people have when this word is so loosely and carelessly bandied about. But if the new president meant he was going to be non-partisan, he should have just said so from the get-go, shouldn’t he?

So if post-partisanship is not the same thing as being non-partisan but, in fact means the ending of partisanship. That leaves us with an interesting question. Just how do you end partisanship? Because our education system is so lacking, I feel it important that we first review. Partisan means strict adherence to a set of political principles, non-partisan means no adherence to any or all principles and bipartisan means the capitulation of enough of the members of one affiliation to bring a victory to the opposition. Then naturally post-partisanship must mean that the ideological war is over and one side has defeated the other.

But is the war really over just because one side says so? In the minds of many today, it is! This way of thinking, or lack of it, goes back to the free love philosophy of the 1960’s and manifested itself most clearly in the popular “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came” antiwar slogan of the time. Recently we’ve seen this way of thinking resurface in the “debate is over” argument when it comes to the question of manmade global warming. Now we’re seeing it rear its ugly head again in the manifestation of this new term called post-partisanship. In the latter, it merely means that the liberals have claimed victory over the conservatives.

To be sure, they did win the election. But did they do it honestly? In places like the uber-liberal enclaves of San Francisco and Boston, the answer is yes but in the conservative rural areas of the Midwest, south and west, the answer is a resounding no. In the latter, the democrats won by outwardly behaving and sounding more conservative than the supposedly conservative republican candidates they ran against.

But back to the, is the war really over because one side says so. Not hardly! Just ask the Japanese and the Germans following WWII, how did the war really end? Did it miraculously conclude merely because the U.S. and their allies declared victory or did it end because the other side was utterly defeated on the field of battle. Now compare that with the never ending war between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Ask yourself why that war never seems to end? It’s certainly not because the Israelis declared victory and walked off the battlefield. It seems to me we’ve tried that tactic several times and we seem doomed to repeat it again.

When I was in college, many of my professors were quick to warn that a correlation is not the same thing as causation. In statistical terminology, a correlation indicates the strength and direction of a linear relationship between two random variables. This is in contrast with the use of the term in colloquial “everyday” speech, where in it often implies a causal relationship. In short, we often use the term to imply that one thing leads to another.

This is especially true in the media. Everyday we’re bombarded with “alleged” new scientific breakthroughs that either imply or say right out that “A” causes “B.” Over time, many of these claims have been disproved and forgotten. For example, there was a time when eating Oat Bran was thought of as being extremely healthy for you. Later it was found out to be not quite so true. There have been a host of such claims throughout my lifetime.

We could go back even further in history and make such wrongheaded claims. For example, it would be easy to say that since they happened around the same time period, there was a correlation between the plague that ravaged Europe and the reformation of the church. Similarly, plagues ravaged Japan several hundred years previously around the same time as Buddhism was being introduced from China. Hence it would be easy for someone to say that there is a correlation between religion and the plague.

More correctly it could be implied that there is a correlation between trade and the plague. Europe’s plagues were in fact introduced by fleas which were brought in through rats that happened to be aboard trading ships coming from Asia. Japan’s plagues were similarly introduced from China. Does this necessarily mean that trade or religion is bad?

Given the power of today’s media, could you imagine just how different the world might be if they had the influence they do today on the world back then? On the negative side, we might still be experiencing plagues to this day. Perhaps our technology might not have advanced to where it is today and we might also still be largely regulated to the Eastern Hemisphere. We might even have a world where religion is outlawed. Depending on your upbringing and world view, that last one might be either a good or bad thing.

It all very much reminds me of the old Woody Allen comedy “Sleeper.” For those of you who never saw the movie, you didn’t miss that much. However, there is a point in one of the opening scenes where a group of scientists are contemplating thawing Mr. Allen out of his cryogenic state. In the scene they wonder aloud in amazement how people from his time (the 1960-70’s) actually thought that eating chocolate and smoking cigarettes were unhealthy for you. You see according to the movie, in the future these things will actually be seen as being good for you!

With that being said, I think it important for people to remember that science doesn’t always get it right the first time. That’s why I think it important not to run lemming like into the premise of “Global Warming!” Is there a correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures? Yes! Is there a correlation between the beginning of the industrial age and the current rise in CO2? Yes! Have CO2 levels rose and fallen in previous times? That too is a definite yes! What?!

What the media and the scientists aren’t saying so loudly, “if at all,” is that last one. So what caused the previous rise in CO2 levels? The truth is, at this point in time, we just don’t know for sure. Presently, there is just so much about our Earth and the weather that we really don’t know enough yet to make such bold claims. This is one way in which the power of the media can be destructive. In much the same way the mistake of equating correlation to causation, by equating opinion to fact, news reporting morphs itself from simply relating the day’s events into propaganda.

We know that there was a definite measured rise in “recorded” temperatures in the 1990’s. But how much of that is due to flawed measurement taking. Can some of that rise in temperatures be attributed to the "heat island effect?" For those of you who may be unaware, (that means anyone who listens to and believes wholeheartedly anything put out by the mainstream media). The heat island effect is due to the urbanization of areas that were previously agricultural. In short ask yourself, does paving everything over cause the temperatures to rise? If so, then let us reconsider the 1930’s? Temperatures back then were the hottest on record until the 90’s. If the heat island effect skewed the data of the 90’s, maybe the 1930’s were indeed warmer as some have proposed.

Now some have proposed covering large areas of Greenland with a reflective covering to prevent the glaciers there from melting. Do not clouds do the same thing? What causes clouds to form in the first place? We really do not know for sure. Some have proposed that it is a result of cosmic dust falling into the Earth's atmosphere. As the dust falls, it collects moisture and thus is important factor in cloud formation. More cosmic dust, more clouds, more clouds, more sunlight reflected back into space, more sunlight reflected back into space, means cooler temperatures.

Another point to ponder is that when the astronauts first landed on the moon, some scientists speculated that if cosmic dust falls at a constant rate, and if the moon was in fact hundreds of thousands if not millions of years old, then when the lunar landing vehicle touched down it would subsequently sink into the dust. History proves that just didn’t happen so why not? Some postulated that this was the result of solar flares and solar winds. In periods of high solar activity, i.e. sunspots and solar flares, solar winds sweep away amounts of cosmic dust and prevents it from falling into the atmosphere. Less dust, less cloud cover, less cloud cover, higher temperatures.

As the theory goes, solar activity was high during the 1990's and cloud cover was thus reduced. Currently there is very little solar activity i.e. sunspots and solar flares taking place. The thought is that now we are seeing increased cloud cover which results in a lowering of temperatures which is indeed what many in the scientific community are noting. Is there a correlation there? It sure looks that way! Does that mean our problem is solved? Maybe, maybe not!

The truth of the matter is we just don’t know enough right now! We need more data before we rush lemming like headlong into the unknown. Now is not the time to remake the world into Al Gore’s image. We have other more serious problems to deal with right now.

Well the big day has come and gone and America has a new president elect. Not my favorite choice to be sure. For that matter and as I have posted more than once, the opposition candidate didn’t really grab me either. B Hussein Obama will be America’s 44th President. In reflecting back on the campaign, I feel it safe to say it’s not so much that Obama and the liberals won but rather that McCain and thus the conservatives lost.

I think the cartoon “Mallard Fillmore” said it best when he mused in a recent installment that now McCain can stop pretending to be a conservative and Obama can stop pretending to be a moderate. Clearly after the primaries were over, both candidates moved to the right in order to garner votes. McCain moved right to try and recapture the Republican base and Obama to fool the “Joe Six-pack” conservatives and independents.

More accurately I think McCain lost the election, not just because he was the worst possible choice for his party but because he let the opposition dictate the course of the election. Though the election of the first black to the nation’s highest office is historic and nothing short of monumental. Many people like me who voted against the Junior Senator from Illinois did so not because we’re closet racists but because we disagree with the candidate on the many issues on the basis of principle. McCain failed to distinguish himself and his party from the opposition on issues, instead choosing to become the “Demagogue-Rat Lite” candidate.

No one can deny that the Demagogue-Rats had the unabashed support of the liberal mainstream media. They, having lost the two previous presidential contests were hell bent on reasserting their relevance. I feel it safe to say they did so at the cost of their very souls. They ignored the shortcomings of the liberal candidates wholesale and went all out to destroy the opposition. I think it safe to say that never before in the history of American politics has the media sought out to destroy a private citizen the way they did “Joe the Plumber” simply because he had the guts to question their candidate the way they and the opposition refused to.

Oh, it’s true that McCain picked up on the issue after the fact but the truth of the matter had been known from the outset of the campaign that Obama was a far left radical. The man “CHOSE” to associate with criminals and Marxist radicals the likes of Rezko, Wright, Ayers, etc. Obama’s defense of the associations just doesn’t wash. They are more than just people who live in his neighborhood or happened to have business dealings with.

As Robert Knight noted “When the media chooses to ignore important issues, it is up to the candidate to raise them. But McCain was so busy distancing himself from Bush that his own (change) theme was barely distinguishable from Obama’s.” Furthermore he had numerous issues handed to him on a silver platter that he either ignored or pounced on far too late.

Chief among these is the current financial mess. The left with the assistance of their propaganda arm “the liberal mainstream media” pounced on corporate greed and McCain wanting to be a populist followed suit. But the real culprits in the mess are members of the Demagogue-Rat party who refused to investigate the looming messes at Fannie May and Freddie Mack. McCain never seemed to understand that the media was undermining him at every turn and his choice on how to handle the crisis is proof alone that he was not the right man for the job.

So now B. Hussein Obama will be our next president. What will the results of an Obama presidency be? There is little doubt that he is a shrewd politician and just as he ruthlessly cleared the competition out of the way during the campaign, he’s more than likely to use the same tactics to deal with any problems he’ll face on the horizon. First of all, he’ll silence his critics. Just as he muzzled Hillary and silenced McCain, he’ll make it impossible for anyone to question his decisions or motives.

President Obama is an unabashed Socialist, if not an outright Marxist in his political orientation who will likely use the same bait and switch tactics to lay the blame for all the nation’s woes at the feet of his predecessor and the Capitalist system. He ran his campaign not so much against McCain as he did against his predecessor. As such, he will blame the outgoing administration for as much as he possibly can and for as long as he can. He should be able to get a few good years worth of press out of his allies in the media. As long as they are on his side, expect fawning press coverage no matter how much farther south the economy goes! I expect that will last at least through the mid-term elections if not beyond.

Those tax cuts he promised all through his campaign, forget about them. That was all smoke and mirrors. You can’t promise all the spending programs he has and not have a way to pay for it. As “Slick Willie” Clinton did only sixteen years before, expect an announcement sometime after the New Year that no tax break is coming! He’ll have the luxury of being able to blame it all on the Bush Administration. Add to that the “Bush Tax Cuts” expire in 2010. Don’t expect a renewal! All of our taxes are going to go up and sharply. The President Elect has a lot of people to pay off and it’s going to cost all of us plenty!

As taxes go up, expect productivity and the number of jobs to go down. Expect the stock market funk to continue on its wild ride for the foreseeable future and I expect it to go down more than it will go up. Furthermore, Obama's support for the unionization of businesses across the board without the use of secret ballot will add to the funk. As more and more small and medium sized businesses are forced to unionize, expect more and more of them to either go out of business and or move overseas to more favorable business climates. Prepare yourselves for a “quite probable” second Great Depression and soup kitchen America.

Lastly, the “Gaff Meister” and plagiarist extraordinaire, none other than the future Veep, Joe Biden has predicted that the Obama Administration will be tested by a terrorist attack or similar incident within the first six months of taking over. This prediction came only days after they had been briefed by the Bush administration on the potential threats the country faces. He’s also on the record as saying that they’re not going to be seen as handling it the right way, which probably means they’re going to appease the attackers! Somehow this too will be blamed on the Bush Administration. Perhaps the war stretched our military too thin to respond or something along those lines. His weak response will only embolden our enemies further.

My predictions for America’s immediate future are not based on having gazed into a crystal ball or by having consulted the stars or even a medium. They are based on common sense, a common sense that has for the moment, left the American people. Behold America; dark days are looming on the horizon. And that is not a racist pun! These are dark days with worldwide implications. As the American consumer pulls back out of necessity, so to will the global economic picture darken. Europe has been in an economic funk for a decade. Emerging economies in China and India are not yet ready to take up the slack. To put it simply, “We’re all in for a very bumpy four year ride!” Thanks for nothing John McCain!

I find it amazing sometimes how I start the week writing about one thing and end up posting something altogether different from when I started. This week was no different! I may still post that article later but with the election in the U.S. looming larger on the horizon with each and every passing day, I couldn’t pass on the opportunity to point out the hypocrisy of the left.

In a previous post, I mentioned how it was reported here in the Japanese media that Sarah Palin is a gaffer and hurting the McCain campaign (click here). Of course the Junior Senator from Illinois running mate, noted plagiarist and serial gaffer Joe Biden, has thus far been given a total pass by the media. The recent Japanese media silence on the matter only confirms my beliefs.

But all that may have changed just recently when the hero of our story stepped on his own privates again in public! Our hero, Senator Biden, admitted at a fund raiser over the weekend that if he and the Junior Senator from Illinois are blessed with a November victory, and America is so cursed, America will very likely be hit by a generated outside threat! Our hero didn’t allude to exactly what kind of threat but noted that there were several possible scenarios.

The mainstream media did it’s best to ignore the story for as long as possible. The media here in Japan is still silent on the issue. If it weren’t for the alternative media, most Americans outside the venue of that speech would have never heard of this threat. If the Junior Senator from Illinois fawning press clippings thus far are to be believed, “the oceans will cease to rise, our planet will be healed and all the countries of the world will love America again!" Such a threat should be outside the realm of even the remotest of possibilities!

If such a possibility is outside the realm of the conceivable, where did our hero get his information? Well, we do happen to know that both campaigns transition teams did, only recently, receive the intelligence briefings from the Bush Administration. This is standard practice. With an election like this, too close to call, it only makes sense that the next administration, whom ever that may be, will have the latest information. But then the question has to be raised, why did he divulge the information?

What we also know about our hero is that he is a blow hard and apparently in addition to being a serial gaffer, he may also be a serial liar! Either that or he is just one of those people who no matter what and for whatever reason just cannot keep a secret. With the hero of our story, more likely than not, its probably all of the above!

After 30 plus years in the U.S. Senate, our hero is the consummate Washington insider. In addition to enriching themselves with multimillion dollar land deals ala Harry Reid and alternative campaign financing ala Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, we know that Senator’s deal in information. For members of the U.S. congress, in addition to sweetheart deals from lobbyists for Fanny May and Freddie Mack, information is the coin of the realm. We also know that Senator's, like Pat "Leaky" Lahey for example, like to leak information to stay in the news. Usually the jucier the better, at least it seems that way in most cases.

The really disturbing thing to me is that our hero, possibly the next Vice President of the United States, having received such intelligence, quite probably sensitive if not “Top Secret” in nature, would divulge or even hint at such a possibility in public, let alone private. Having served in the military and having once had access to such information, I can assure you that if I experienced a similar lapse in judgment while in uniform, I would most likely have been the unhappy recipient of an immediate Courts Martial. In many cases, divulging such information is not simply a lapse in judgement, it could even be considered treasonous! Is this the kind of man we want just one heart beat away from the presidency?

The attempted cover up by the press over his alleged "lapse in judgment" only solidifies the case of bias levied against the mainstream media. It was two full days before most outlets even mentioned the statements. One outlet in particular, NBC, went so far as to only air those parts of his lapse in judgment that sounded positive to our hero’s campaign efforts and totally ignored the damning statements until hounded by the McCain campaign to release the statements in their entirety and provide full disclosure.

I could go on and on with example after example to make my case against the mainstream media. The plain cold hard truth is that the vast majority of mainstream news outlets are in the bag for the junior Senator from Illinois. Why else would such lies about the real cause of recent the financial meltdown (talk about your October Surprise) be disseminated as fact and cover given to the real culprits, leaders of the Demagogue Rat party?

Fortunately there is hope out there. Searching far and wide, we were able to find one honest journalist left in the country. The man is a democrat and former supporter of the junior Senator from Illinois. Don’t take my word for it. I encourage you to read two of his articles posted (here) and (here). There is simply just too much at stake for you to pull that lever this November and be uninformed. This race is going to be a lot closer than what the mainstream media is telling us.

Less than two weeks out and this race is turning on a dime. Actually we should make that two of them. One dime was dropped by the junior Senator from Illinois when he accidentally got honest and revealed his economic plan for the country to a lowly plumber from Ohio whom we all have come to know as simply Joe the plumber. The other dime was dropped by his own running mate, our hero, who quite coincidentally also happens to be named Joe.

If you believe what you see and hear in the mainstream media, the election in the U.S. is over and the junior senator from Illinois has won it. From what I’ve seen on television, the press in Japan is pretty much excited about the prospect. After all, this will mark the moment when the sea levels begin to fall and the planet will miraculously start to heal.

In Okinawa, home to a major contingent of U.S. military personnel and a large number of U.S. bases, the interest is also quite high. Many who I’ve engaged with on the internet forums pertaining to the subject are convinced that this means the end of the “alleged” new bases, soon the U.S. military will leave their island paradise and all lands that have been appropriated for U.S. military use will be returned.

Before anyone gets too excited, let me remind you that the world’s economy has been brought to the brink by social engineering in the U.S. Congress. By creating policies and laws that made it virtually unlawful not to loan monies to people who otherwise couldn’t qualify, the Congress of the United States along with the Carter and Clinton Administrations have brought the Capitalist system to the brink of collapse. The recent bailout attempts, in countries around the world (not just in the U.S.) have compounded the problem by putting the very foxes who threatened the chickens in charge of the coop.

Furthermore, Obama and his minions intend to raise taxes in order to pay for more social engineering, not just in America but around the world. Common sense tells you that when people have less of their own money to spend, they will do their best to hold on to what little they’ve got. This means less money circulating in the economy purchasing goods and services. This means lower profits to businesses both large and small and at a minimum, means slower if not a complete halt in job growth.

The socialist solution will be to create make work projects to expand infrastructure. Just like the “New Deal” under FDR, in the “Raw Deal” of an Obama Administration, we’ll see the economy driven more by the government instead of the free market. But government has to have money in order to create such projects. In an economic down turn such as we are on the verge of, that probably means borrowing more money. If so, where will they borrow it from?

If the government prints more, that means inflation, if they borrow more, that means more debt (either foreign, national or both) or they can tax the people even more which means even less money in the domestic economy chasing goods and services than before. If the Obama team chooses the latter, and it’s a very good bet that this option is high on their list since that is what they say they will do, the economy will be further stifled. Can you say Jimmy Carter II? Is there anyone else out there as old as me who can remember the “misery index?” Heaven help us all!

So now you’re probably asking me, what the hell does all this have to do with the situation here on Okinawa? Lots! First of all, Okinawa isn’t even on the presidential radar screen. It’s a speck on the map that is only valuable to world security as a result of its strategic location. From this location, America can quickly respond to regional threats. For the Japanese, it serves as a buffer zone to protect the nation’s southern flank. Sadly, Okinawa is for the most part an afterthought to both the American’s and the Japanese!

So when it comes to changes on Okinawa as a result of an Obama victory, here’s my predictions of the probable outcomes.

-Regarding the reduction of U.S. troops here, no change.

-Regarding the proposed closure of the Marine Air Base at Futenma and the construction of the “alleged” new base at Camp Schwab, no change.

-Any other miscellaneous issue you can think of regarding the presence of U.S. forces in Japan, no change.

In short, for the people of Okinawa, don’t get your hopes up that an Obama presidency means the answer to your prayers. Senator Obama probably doesn’t even know where Okinawa is let alone the problems you face. He will be saddled with a lagging economy caused by the very policies he and his party espouse. With a great deal of luck, he may avoid turning a major market correction from a potential recession into a major economic depression. If you were betting on an Obama presidency as being your hope for salvation, you bet on the wrong horse and you made the mistake of listening to the talking heads in the media.

There’s still hope. The division in the electorate is a whole lot closer than the Democratic Party Propaganda Ministry officials, aka the mainstream media are telling you! The heavily skewed polls being released now are beginning to tighten just as they always do. Both Gore and Kerry were up at this point in past contests.
Even with all he has going for him in this election, the Junior Senator from Illinois hasn’t closed the deal. He fizzled toward the end of the primaries against Hillary and he’s showing signs of fizzling now. This election is going to be a lot closer than the media is telling us.

Lastly, should the undesirable thing happen and enough fraudulent ACORN generated votes put him over the top. We still have the teachings of great economic scholars like Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell to learn from and take that into the 2012 elections. Remember that it took a Carter to give us a Reagan.

Speaking for myself alone, I’m going to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. Admittedly, McCain was not my choice for the party nomination. But like many of you, I’m going to hold my nose and mail in my absentee ballot today. An Obama presidency will be an abomination. Not just for the U.S. but for the world.