Identifying Oneself in order to Be Identified

      If people do not have proper photo identifications so they can vote in November, what do they show--or whom do they bring with them--to prove to those who will provide the valid identification that they are who they say they are?  The proof that people are who they say they are can be no more conclusive than is the creditability of the proof they bring with them.  If whatever or whoever is used to confirm a person's identification is considered credible, why can't that basis of proof be sufficient identification at the polls?
     That's all for now.

The Chief Justice's Supreme Wisdom

 The Supreme Court  is the supreme decider on matters of constitutional legality.

When justices come to ideological conclusions after careful deliberation, that is what they are expected to do.  But when they reach conclusion on political basis, the Supreme Court decisions no longer reflect the wisdom but merely the prerogatives of the court.

     How does the "commerce clause" of the Constitution would impact the mandate within the Obamacare legislation? The various interpretations by former Supreme Court justices and legal experts who have offered opinions ever since the Constitution was ratified seem to preclude any certainty about what is permitted by the "commerce clause" other than it can mean whatever some "expert" in Constitutional law perceives it to mean, or what opponents of some legislation affirmed to be constitutional contend it does not mean.  Justice Roberts, realizing that there is no legal consensus nor any substantial precedence about what can or cannot be regulated by the "commerce clause," resolved the dilemma by calling the mandate a tax, which Congress can regulate.

     Justice Roberts also was right in pointing out that the job of the Supreme court was not to determine whether the Affordable Care Act was good policy--or even the moral thing to do--but to determine whether the legislation was legal based on the Constitution.  He substituted the word "tax" for "penalty" in order to remove any controversy about "commerce clause" implications.   By fixing the legislation rather than voting against it suggest that Roberts believed Obamacare was both good policy and good for the American people.  

     Conservatives are falsely claiming that Obamacare taxes will be the largest amount in history.    But William Shakespeare, speaking through Juliet, asks and answers the question:  "What's in a name? that which we call a rose by any other name would smell the same."  A penalty by any other name is still a penalty.  Calling the penalty a tax does not change what it is, which is defined by its purpose.  And the purpose is not to raise revenues.  Furthermore, if everybody who can afford insurance buys it, "penalaxes" will be zero.         

     You'll remember, Republicans objected to Obamacare as part of their strategy to make President Obama a "one-term president."  Making him look like a person who doesn't know what he is doing is part of the plan.  It didn't matter that his ideas were good for the American people--even rich people and those aspiring to become rich.  Most conservatives just want to believe that Barack Obama is the wrong person.  

     Republicans challenged Obamacare, at first, because of claims that their ideas were excluded.  Consequently, individual Republicans were afraid to acknowledge their contributions to Obamacare.  They refused to acknowledge secret compromises they offered in the formation of this still imperfect product.  They refused to acknowledge that the "mandate" was a Republican idea, that Mitt Romney implemented it as governor of  Massachusetts.  Even Romney won't take credit for instituting the successful health-care program.   Republicans also refused to accept the President's invitation to present malpractice options, choosing, instead, to criticize Obamacare later for not addressing their malpractice concerns.

     So they decided to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare.  Presumably it was not only bad policy, it is illegal legislation.  Chief Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court majority conceded that bad policy would not make it is not unconstitutional.  Now Republicans are back to their bad legislation argument.  But a health-care plan was not bad legislation in Massachusetts when Republican governor Romney presented it and and a bipartisan legislature passed it.        

     Despite objections by most Republicans, the Affordable Card Act that passed Congress was a legislative compromise that disappointed both liberals and conservatives.  Conservative claimed it was a bad plan, but they never submitted their own workable plan.  And if they couldn't come up with a plan during the time when health care was being debated, how can they come up with one now.  The fact is they didn't want a plan, certainly not before the November elections.

     Would there be a health-care plan developed under a Mitt Romney presidency.  It's possible.  The problem is not that Obama has been a poor president with a lot of bad ideas.  He has been a good president.  And if Mitt Romney is elected president, he likely would attempt many of the things Obama is being criticized for either having done or wanting to do.  

     But that was more likely before the Supreme Court made its decision.  The question still remains: Will most Americans trust effective health-care legislation, job creation, a quality education focus and chances for a robust economic recovery to the leadership of President Obama or a President Romney?         I have often referred to the words of former New York governor, Mario Cuomo, who when asked, after the 1988 election of George H. W. Bush, if he would seek the presidency in1992, responded, "I'm not sure.  I'll be pulling for President Bush to succeed."  This was Cuomo, hoping that the American people has made the right choice.  But Republicans don't want Obama for America even if he is the better choice.

     But Republicans are a poor choice for other reasons including their constant disparagement of Europe with words like not wanting "European-style health care" and "European-style Socialism" (and almost anything European).  These suggest that a Republican-led government would be increasingly anti-European, even if it means bringing the European economy down and the U.S. economy down with it.    They're now even trying to make one of their own champions, Chief Justice Roberts, down by trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.  

     I have seen deranged individuals before but never a deranged political party.  

Republicans are saying that the Supreme Court decision was a blessing in disguise.  Why, then, didn't they realize that before legally challenging Obamacare.  The logic of the Republican position suggests that, contrary to the impression they gave, they really were pulling for the Supreme Court to rule against them.  They are saying effectively that Roberts has given them reason to do what they have said they would do anyway.  "Repeal and replace"?  When have Washington Republicans ever attempted to pass health-care legislation to cover all Americans?  They wouldn't this time, either.

     They are becoming confused by their own nonsense, and are hoping confusion helps them with the American voters in November.

Rational Majorities Are Always Right

  In all effective democratic processes, the majority must be considered right--even when they may be wrong.   This is because, where the people on both sides of an issue make rational proposals and act reasonably in pursuit of the best options. even a united pursuit of the "wrong" position will yield better results when the status quo is not an option.

      But when smart and ethical people disagree on opposite sides in pursuit of the best options, there are several possibilities:  (1) Each option or position has the potential to be successful if proponents and opponents decide to cooperate to make the choice of the majority succeed.  (2) Both option can fail if those on the losing side commit to making the prevailing option fail.  But (3) it is also possible that neither option has the potential to succeed.  The solution may rest outside the box of perceived or permitted options.  In the most successful practices of democratic processes, the people in the group like each other.  (Otherwise, they likely would not be--or remain--part of the group.)  All join in to make the selected option succeed, with the same enthusiasm as had their preference prevailed.  The group acts as one body, much as single individuals do when having to choose from among several options, and must weigh the roads to success and the consequences of both success and failure.  Once all the options have been carefully considered and decisions made, individuals don't continually argue within themselves about the choice made.  The only debate is about how to best make the choice happen.  Therefore, when people within a group seek to sabotage the will of the majority, it is as if some aspect of an individual psyche is seeking to make the option, chosen after careful consideration, fail in order to direct attention to other rejected options.  This has been referred to as a house divided against itself, and It's bad if it happens in either individuals and groups.

    All groups and institutions work better together when members recognize and acknowledge good ideas that can contribute to the successful achievements of shared goals.  Most group goals have more than one route to success.  And most times success depends on the resources, skills, and knowledge of those who must lead the pursuit of those goals.  Unfortunately, too often, the debate is centered more on the process than on the desired outcomes.  Processes are easy to debate and criticize because there is nothing tangible to evaluate. Processes can only be evaluated based on whether or not the pursued goals have been achieved.

     What we need, therefore, is a vision for America which enables us to set goals for our economy and expectations of our politics that produce desired outcomes for the American people, outcome that are not beg achieved as increasing shares of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a fewer and fewer families.  More and more people, as a consequence, are having to live with less than they need.   

     According to objective experts, the income and wealth gap began in the 1980's during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.   Many attribute his attacks on unions as the beginning of the decline of union strength and influence.   But even before then union money and union member votes often went in opposite directions.  

     It was certainly a time when the American people's attitudes about helping the "least among us" began to change from attitudes born with the elections of John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson two decades earlier.  It became all right During the Reagan years to be selfish.

      But what caused this wealth gap to widen over the past thirty years?  Powerful and smarter people have always had the ability to take advantage of the rest of us.  But why in the 1980s? Certainly weakened unions was a factor.  Has it been good for the American economy?  Will the trend end on its own?  If so, what will cause the gap to stop widening

      Smart people have opposing positions about the wealth gap, the economy and about the merits government size.  But I never hear a description of  government that is just right,  Why?  These people who are disagreeing among themselves are smart people whom we expect and hope are giving us their best, unbiased opinions on issues and options.  Of course, if some of these smart experts know that their arguments are flawed but espouse them for political reasons, then voters must make their decisions based on other sources of information.  But what and where will they get it?  Presently,  the people's watch dogs seem to have lost their freedoms of speech and press.

     The principle of the majority's being right usually holds within political parties but, in the present political climate, does not hold for decisions that require agreements between the parties.  Compromise, call it give and take or flipping a coin, is the only way to reach a "right" solution.  After Republicans have defined and described small government and how it best achieves the needs of all Americans and Democrats have done the same for big government, they then should be able to reach middle-ground that is not only "just right' for all Americans.

There is nothing sacred or honorable about economic or social ideologies that they would cause members of Congress to refuse to compromise.  The principles of integrity, truthfulness, trustworthiness, honesty and fairness are principles that should not be--and are not expected by most voters to be--compromised.  But these are not ideologies..

     We must always remember that despite people classifying themselves as liberals, moderates and conservatives or Democrats, Republican and independents, all of us are members of the one nation.  We are one body.  Consequently, most Americans want Republicans and Democrats to compromise, to assume that the majority is "right."  But big money, including those feeding at the upper end of the income gap, says, "NO."   

     In November, voters will determine if that is a winning strategy.

Teaching Students How to "Fish"

     There is a saying that, if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.  (And you'll have to give him a fish everyday the rest of his life.)  But If you teach him to fish, he'll feed himself for the rest of his life.  Few people will argue with the truth of that statement.  Therefore, the implication by Republicans that our welfare system gives fishes to people who should be fishing has merit--if we were really committed to teaching them how to fish.

     Let's not fail to realize that there are Americans who must be given fish every day of their lives.  We know who they are and we should do it.  We have members of our American family who are mentally or physically challenged.  America is able to take care of them.  But we cannot do it adequately when money is being given to able-bodied people who have the capacity to provide for themselves but not the ability.

     The problem is that many able-bodied people also need help.  Able-bodied children who come from a non-inspiring, non-encouraging, non-challenging homes, and without proper role models can "learn to fish" if that child attends schools where teachers know how to teach them to fish.  And if there are teachers who cannot do it, there should be people within school systems who can teach the teachers how to teach students to fish.  If such people are not within the school system, there must be somebody somewhere where of both teachers and their superiors can go to learn how to teach children to fish.

     Unfortunately, there are too many people who believe that if students are given a fishing pole, some hooks and bait, and take them where the fish are that they have been provided opportunities to learn to fish.  Granted, some children may be able to learn to fish by watching other children fish.  But most teachers want student to "fish" independently, and most students are not in classes with the good "fisherman."  There is no doubt that students learn to "fish" much more easily when teachers teach them to fish.  

     Presently, too many colleges and universities are not enabling educational leaders in our school systems to help local educators teach children how to fish. many institutions which have staffs capable of challenging educators don't do so because local educators have options to attend other institutions where standards are lower.   Also, educator-training institutes with such highly qualified staffs likely must charge higher tuitions to pay the salaries of such staffs or lose them to the business.  

     Hence, the need for a government financed Education Academy with high academic standards.  Those who say this is another example of government being too big are wrong.  Government must be as small as it can be but as big as it needs to be, big enough to provide the nation's children with the kind of education both they and the nation need.

     The children themselves are factors in this equation.  And if children don't have the kinds of parents at home that schools think they should have, why aren't schools teaching students how to become better parents than than the ones they have.  Even teach those parents who are willing to learn.  These efforts could generate community-wide awareness, and efforts on the parts of those community institutions and organizations that can support these efforts and impact children lives within that community.  

     Secondly, schools should teach students how to be become better students by teaching them how to learn the subjects teachers teach.  Not all student know how to study and how to learn.  Many don't know when they don't understand or what it means to understand.  Conservatives are right:  People should know "how to fish."  But they are short on expressing the need to "teach them to fish."  Democrats, on the other hand want to feed them until they are taught how to fish, not just given hooks, bait and poles.  

     Conservatives act as if they don' t really want intellectually hungry children to be able to fish.  It's as if they would rather expand the welfare state to reduce the number of children prepared to compete for good jobs.  It's as if they would rather give them a fish every now and then or keep them fishing in shallow waters rather than prepare these children to go into the deep waters of academic achievement where they fish are bountiful and the opportunities for tremendous catches are great. 

      Some of that may have been true. 

      But, essentially, African American are now in control of their own destiny in educating black children.  But Black educational leaders cannot lead young people to levels of excellence in achievement and performance.that they themselves have not achieved.  I was always concerned as a teacher that my ability to challenge my students was limited by my knowledge of what was possible by my students.  I did not assign physics problems that I could not work without first referring to the teacher's manual.  One year, I assigned them and some students solved them.

Teachers of at-risk students have a very difficult task because "at risk" does not mean "can't learn."  And those needing to challenge children at the highest level have an even greater challenge because knowledge of the content to be taught is not the same as knowing how to enable students to learn that content at levels of challenge commensurate with the students abilities. 

     Consequently, schools should provide study halls specifically for science, mathematics, and language arts, where students can enroll as needed.  They would be manned by teachers who are inspiring and trained in remediation.  Some students, as a consequence, would take fewer courses per semester or per year and require one or two years longer to graduate but they would graduate ready to fish. 

     Even though this column has been a "fish" story or sorts, poor education is not the fault of children and parents who don't know what needs to be done to improve the condition.  It's the fault of those who do know what is wrong--or choose not to find out--but still get paid as if most graduates have learned to fish.

         

Many Religions but Only One God

     Through His teachings and example, Jesus attempted to add His own divine knowledge or revelations to the Biblical teachings of Judaism--as had many who spoke on behalf of God before Him.   Although, He was rejected by most Jews, He and his teachings laid foundations for what would become Christianity.

     I believe every holy book contains words that were either spoken or revealed by God.  They were spoken or revealed to people who were either inspired or predisposed to hear, remember and communicate them.   Each holy book is holy to those who believe in it, are inspired by it, and attempt to live their lives according to its teachings.   All of the great religious teachers throughout the ages may have been communicating with specific groups, but their messages had worldwide implications.  The actual messages from God reside in what all such messages, revelations, gospels, and commandments have in common--the Golden Rule being one otfthem.     

     Abraham was the father of the Muslim, Christian, Jewish faith, and likely many other religious faiths.  Different peoples either found or was found by God through  experiences that were unique to them, and through the words of men who claim to have communicated with The Creator.  But God is father--and likely mother--of all people.  How God reveals Himself to us and how our faith assimilates His presence into our lives may be unique to our individual or cultural nature and to our needs and circumstances.  Nevertheless, they are there. 

     When God revealed the Ten Commandments to Moses, He was not sending a message applicable only to Jews, with no thought of people in other parts of the world.  There was only one god, who is God.  So there is no such thing as Jews having their god, and other peoples having theirs. 

      Likewise, when Jesus told His disciples to "teach all nations…to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you."  He likely was not talking about expanding Judaism--or even the religion for which His teachings eventually would become the foundation: He was talking about spreading to all peoples God's formula for living together peacefully, productively and joyfully.   Jesus summed up all commandments up into two commandments:  Love the Lord our God with all our mind, body, soul and strength and love our neighbors as ourselves--love that is often beyond our ability to feel, but always within our ability to demonstrate. 

     Other people through the ages have made images to represent God, giving themselves something tangible to see, and maybe even to touch.  These people did not believe the images were God.  After all, they had made them or seen them made.  Likely, they simply believed (or perhaps hoped) that God would meet them at the images--and we have no way of knowing that He didn't.

     But there seems to be a need for some people to believe that everything which is like or associated with themselves must be better or superior to person, things or experiences that characterize others.  That kind of thinking makes it easy for some people to attribute to "radical Islam" terrorism by certain residents of countries where Islam is the dominant religion.  If a similar group of aggrieved or misled people from the United States carried out acts of terror in Europe--or even within the United States, the same people would not label the group as "radical Christianity."   The United States was attacked on 9/11 by Al Queda, not "radical Islam."  Credit or blame should be placed where it is due.  Just as not every person who attends or belongs to a church congregation is a Christian in thought and action, neither is everyone who bows at a mosque to the Muslim faith.  

     Jesus made it clear (regardless of the religion):  He said, "by their fruit you shall know them."  He said that because here are people in most religions who seek out within their holy books, not sources of truth and guidelines for living, but translations, impressions and interpretations that validate their desire to live and act counter to the basic teachings of the religion.   

     I don't know why it is that some people want God to care more about them than His other creations.  They want it so much that, if God doesn't show that He cares more for them, they will take matters into their own hands, and make it appear that He does:  Their accumulation of wealth at expense of others becomes, for them, examples of God's blessings.  They will break commandments and still be able to convince many people that wealth and political power are evidence of their being favored and more blessed by God.

     Religious tolerance is the ability to permit and live peacefully with those who practice religious faiths with which one disagrees.  Tolerance acknowledges the right of Americans to practice religion according to the dictates of their hearts so long as that right does not infringe on the rights of others.  Consequently, people can be tolerant of other religious and yet believe that their religion and holy book are connecting them with The Almighty.  The problem is when they believe on theirs connect with The Almighty.   Can we remain true to our own faiths and be more than just tolerant toward other religious faiths?  

     It seems that those of us in the pews tend to be more liberal in our acceptance of the legitimacy of other religious faiths than are the leaders of the various faiths.   Many of these leaders merely choose not to admit that other religions also may be litigate.  Jesus told his disciples that He had "other sheep who are not of this fold."   Who were these other sheep?  Jesus said these sheep know his voice and did whatsoever He commanded.  One might conclude that sheep anywhere who did as Jesus commanded--regardless of the holy book that contained the teachings--were His.  

     Sometimes people who are not religious leaders have been inspired with truth.   Long before Jesus lived, Confucius stated that we should "do unto others as we would have them do unto us".  And although they were contemporaries, neither did the philosopher Socrates ever meet the prophet Jeremiah--as some religious scholars suggest must have happened--to account for Socrates' profound faith in God and belief in life after death.

     Almighty God is creator and sustainer of both the realized and unrealized.

    

Tell the Truth or Suffer Consequences

     Mitt Romney says he has the intelligence, character, experience and know-how to fix the U.S.  economy and finally make the waters of American wealth lift all classes of boats.  But if he has all of those qualifications, why doesn't he have sense enough to distinguish between is true and what he wishes were true.

     The foundation of Romney's character is partly reflected in his leading, at the age of eighteen, a gang of friends in subduing a fellow student suspected of being gay and cutting his blond hair.  Not approving of gay behavior for religious reasons might be understandable, especially at that time in American history.  But to subdue the person as part of a gang and cut the long blonde hair, which the subdued student apparently liked, reflected something that likely still makes up part of who Mitt Romney really is.  Romney and the gang took something more than hair from the subdued young man.  

     The problem with Romney is that the other members of the gang remembers the incident and felt bad about doing it.  But the leader, Mitt Romney, doesn't even remember the assault, so he cannot feel badly--or express being remorseful--about the incident.  It was either an event of such a trivial nature that it made absolutely no imprint on his conscious, or he does remember and knows that this aspect of his character still exist.  

     The other possibilities: his remembering, being sorry, and having changed his attitudes towards gay people and others with whom he may be different or differ in beliefs--and over whom he can exercise some degree of control--has been rendered all but very unlikely by his failing to either remember or acknowledge remembering.

      Apparently if Romney does not remember the incident, then he also does not remember feeling sorry about other such actions, and would not remember expressing sorrow to the victims.  Repression of the incident may erase the actions from Romney's memory but not from the character that dictated it.  Romney's failure to acknowledge memory of such events is an indication that even he recognizes that it reflects a condition of his character that may be unsuited for the presidency.

     Such selective memory puts Romney in the same camp as his former competitor for the Republican presidential nomination, Herman "999" Cain. "The truth is the light."  And here are seldom good reasons to choose the darkness of dishonesty.

In many ways, Mitt Romney's actions--and defective memory--are not examples of behaviors that would bode well for the nation's future.  Also, Romney claims that he believes President Obama is an American citizen; How, then, can heIn many ways, Mitt Romney's actions--and defective memory--are not examples of behaviors that would bode well for the nation's future.  

    Furthermore, Romney claims to believe that President Obama is an American citizen.  How, then, can he consider Trump to be a compatible political advocate, and a sound, reliable source of economic and political wisdom?  

     This November's elections will be about jobs and the nation's economy.  But it also will be about much more than that.  This election will decide whether such value or virtues as truth, trust, integrity, transparency, honesty, justice, compassion, charity, and tolerance will have a place in American politics and in the American economy.

     Not all smart people are choosing to make their money by starting up new businesses like Google, Facebook, Tweeter, Apple, Yahoo, and other produces of modern technology.  And their ambitions are not the creation of more jobs.  They are studying and discovering how to make  money off and within government, in financial ventures and institutions, controlling big corporations and manipulating the nation's political system.  Nowadays, there are fewer geniuses working for the good of America. 

     But there apparently are some.

     I was searching the web to find out more about venture capitalists like Mitt Romney, and I came across another group of investors: angel investors.  These investors invest for profit, but their goal is also to leave companies and workers in better shape than before they intervened.  A successful, growing, more productive company keeps its workers and benefits, provide jobs for future community generations and economically stabilizes communities.  But profits the "angel way" aren't big enough for Mitt Romney.  Also, the "Romney way" can increase the number of jobs created by simply readjusting his memory to whatever the political climate requires.  Republicans talk about the debt we are leaving for our children and grandchildren.  Well, what we are leaving them with something much worse: a culture of greed and dishonesty.  

     When liars are supported--and lies are condoned--by parents, truth and integrity cannot permeate the culture of future generations.  Our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are being groomed today to perpetuate the kind of society they will inherit from this generation, conditioned by the attitudes and ways of their parents and contemporary examples of religious and politician leaders.  

     But they can become enlightened and inspired to pursue a different way of life, a different vision for America and prospects for a different future for themselves, their children and grandchildren.  I'm not sure about the nature and timeliness of enlightenment and inspiration, when or why they happen.  But I am sure about what children learn from the attitudes and ways of their parents.  And I am sure that they have an option.

     Human beings seem to be the only animals with the ability to organize and adjust behavior toward fellow human beings, both good and evil.  But  I've never seen or heard of a gang of dogs attacking another dogs or cat groups attacking other another cat.  I've seen a group of dogs attack or chase another species of animal but never it own kind.  Human beings will attack members of their own race, color, religion, country.  It doesn't matter.  But there are others human beings who are compassionate and magnanimous.  This quality is indicative of a potential for human beings to achieve unimaginably great things, but also the potential to effect species annihilation .   

     Young people must decide whether they prefer the kind of future being shaped for them or the more humane one they can shape for themselves.

     

Questioning at the Fork in the Road

      The world will be in terrible shape if none of the world's political leaders trusted the leadership and counsel of the President of the United States?  And if Mitt Romney is elected president, how could they know which Romney to believe, on which days to believe him or what questions to ask him that will elicit the truth?

     Many years ago, I shared either in a letter or column a question that had occurred to me at a somewhat younger age:  Which is worse not to trust anyone or not to be trusted by anyone?

     I still haven't figured it out.  Can you imagine, because of a lack of your spouse's trust, not being to go anywhere without your spouse being at your side?  And can you imagine, because of a lack of your trust, your spouse not being able to go anywhere unless you were by your spouse's side?  Which would worse? In one sense, the Democratic and Republican parties are a dysfunctional American couple that can't trust each other and increasingly are not trusted by anybody else.

      In that piece on trust, I also may have shared another lying experience.

     One summer while enrolled in a mathematics laboratory course at the University of Minnesota, the lab assistant challenged the class with a problem:  There was a fork a the end of a road, with one of the roads leading to a town where everybody told the truth all the time.  The other road led to a town where all of the people lied all of the time.   A visitor approaches the fork, seeking the town of truth-tellers, but does not know which road to take.  Fortunately, there is a man at the fork from one of the towns.   The problem:  What question can be asked that will cause the man at the fork to give the correct direction?  

     We had overnight to think about the problem.  But nobody had the answer, which was:  Ask him what he would have answered if asked for the directions yesterday.  The liar, having to lie about what he would have said yesterday, tells the truth today.

     Mitt Romney is a man at the fork in the road, except, at one time or other, he has live in both towns.  What question needs to be asked of Mitt Romney depends on where you want to go and where he lives at the time.   Asking him where he lives won't work because that changes from day to day--sometimes even from questioner to questioner.

     In Massachusetts, people thought he was a liberal.  He is considered a conservative in Utah, but likely could not be elected to political office there.  And in this year's presidential election, Republicans (especially Tea Party members) hope he is a conservative at the fork in the road leading the way to a conservative presidency and conservative agenda.  But they still aren't sure where he will live after the election.  Conservative Republicans fear that choosing between Obama and Romney could mount to head Democrats win, tail Republicans lose.

     Another example of distorting the truth are attempts to draw distorted conclusions about unemployment in the U.S.  I realize now that I didn't understand just what it meant by unemployment figures, and why some people are not using other measure of unemployment.

     The present unemployment rate in the U.S.is 8.1%.  When it was 9.6%, President Obama said that he would bring the rate down to 8.4% by the end of his first term.  Republicans did not complain at the time that 8.4% was not low enough.  They seemed to believe that 8.4% would be good, given the state of the economy, and given the fact that they would do all they could to keep that goal from being reached..

     Everytime the unemployment numbers showed the rate significantly above 9.0%, Republican would remind the American people that Obama had promised 8.4%, suggesting Obama had promised success but instead had failed.  But, now, Republicans no longer consider 8.4% at this stage in the recovery to be success.  Even 8.1% is considered failure.  They attribute the low rate to the number of people who are no longer seeking employment.

     But I'm confused about the nature of the unemployed who are no longer looking for work.  I was trying to imagine who these people are.  Certainly, these are not people who are just sitting around somewhere, opting to starve to death. There have always been people who were not looking for work because they were on some kind of government assistance, engaged in the sale of illegal drugs, living with their parents or otherwise being supported by relatives.  Certainly there are many children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren who are being taken care of by wealthy people and children of the wealthy.  Even the middle class people who can afford to provide assistance for them during tough times.  These unemployed spend money just a those with jobs and, hence, do not present the drag of the economy that people who have no means of providing for themselves might.  Even those who are stealing are using the money stolen to contribute to the economy.

    As I have said before, I did not take economic.  It wasn't offered in high school while I was there and I didn't take it in college.  (Students take it if you can, and take it seriously.) As is the case with so many other aspects of our economy. the complete truth is seldom told about both the real nature and the causes of employment, unemployment and wealthy disparity in America.

     In November, rational conservatives can return the U.S.  to political and economic sanity.  Conservative politicians won't take the risk, but voters won't be taking a risk in the secrecy of the voting booth.  This is the time for rational conservatives to send a message to extreme conservative that the times and circumstances demand a return to political respect, common ground, and mutual trust.

     In further pursuit of trust, Mitt Romney or President Obama, despite such endorsements not being required, should ask voters to ignore any political ads supporting them that does not show their endorsement.  Voters should otherwise  conclude that such ads do reflect the beliefs, opinions and ideas of the candidate supported.