Okay, I'm getting a little tired of the all deep thinkers out there who say that the Georgians should get whatever's coming to them. These are the same people who like to remind us of how cruel we've been to American Indians, and use that deplorable term, "Native American," because they're too lazy to find out which of the specific  1000 or so tribal groups they're talking about in any given moment.

Yeah, the White Man stole the lands from the many tribes and continue to treat them as dirt, or museum pieces. But do you really not know the history of the Iroquois, the Navajo, the Apache, the Lenape, The Mi-Wuk... all the rest. It's always been the mighty taking from the weak.

And we have deplored it because it's wrong. Even while we bask in the luxury of being American.

The term "Native American" came from ass-dragging white bureaucrats, who wanted a convenient way to save them reams of paperwork, by grouping all those aforementioned tribal group together. Now the heart-renders among us try to assuage their own sense of White guilt by labeling all the tribes in a... wait for it... politically-conscious way.

So when I hear these same people accusing Georgians of crimes against humanity, it makes me think of the lousy way we treat American Indians, and the lousy way we pretend that we still don't treat them. It makes me think that, man, there’s a bunch of hypocrites in America.

Number one, you can't bemoan the fate of the American Indian on one hand, which includes a large number of warring tribes who simply all got defeated by the superior firepower of the whites - and at the same time tell me that the Georgians deserve it. And number two, the citizenry are not responsible for the crimes of their leaders.

Or have we all forgotten how much we despise George W. Bush? Have we forgotten how the Chinese people flourished in the Olympic Opening Ceremonies when their draconian government finally gave them a chance?

What Putin and Russia did was wrong, plain and simple. Or should I remind us all of another history lesson? This one courtesy of an English chap named Neville Chamberlain.

His attack ad comparing Barack Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears was low. Though he brandishes a very legitimate point about the cult of celebrity surrounding the first-term senator from Illinois, he was way out of line in picking two of the most controversial and derided pop-culture stars of our day. And attacks on Britney Spears are just uncalled for. She's ill; she should not be the fodder for anyone's jokes or pointed barbs. (And admit it: some of you were among the tasteless joke-makers. But I digress).

However, it was Obama who said something along the lines that McCain doesn't trust him because he doesn't look like the other presidents on our paper currency. This wasn't only low - it is patently untrue. And it's not something I expected from Obama.

Oh, I know... Obamaniacs are going to quote McCain's opposition to the national MLK Ho0liday, back in the day. They'll dredge up his "gook" comment from 2000. They'll remind us that he's hired campaign strategists that conducted race-baiting campaigns for people like Dubya.

But McCain atoned for his MLK Day mistake; though his stated reasons for not voting for it when it first came up in his home state of Arizona have been evasive, it's really immaterial. He's never made a public anti-black or Jewish or Latino comment in his life. Many archconservatives have been outraged at McCain precisely because he's never done this.

He was tortured for 5 years by Vietnamese combatants. I understand his anger at them. Hey, you want to argue that he bears a grudge against Vietnamese in general, okay. I won't get into that with you... Except to say that there are an awful lot of Black Americans who bear a grudge against White Americans, and that's often accepted as perfectly understandable in this culture.

But John McCain is not racist toward blacks, or Latinos... he hasn't even made any questionable remarks regarding Arabs or Muslims. In fact, he's gone out of his way to denounce commentary this is race-baiting... like when Fox News repeatedly referred to Obama by his full name, "Barack Hussein Obama."

The people he's hired are there to get him elected, and there have been many reports that he's had his differences with them. He's a man who wants to be president - just like Obama. They've both learned that means choking back a little on previous positions and statements.

Now I know there are those who are going to reply with quotes and such culled from the Internet to point out how wrong I am. I don't have the inclination to spend my time micromanaging third-party quotes, so thanks in advance for the help. But the point of all this is both McCain and Obama have been disappointing since they've sown up their respective party nominations.

I don't see any of the "change" Obama keeps talking about. He drew first blood when it came to racial politics. McCain drew first blood when it came to the politics of the insipid. All I can say right now is that McCain has more of a proven track record; Obama does not. But that doesn't give any indication of my vote this November.

Wow. what a choice.

Oh? That title I wrote way up there? Why, we are talking about baiting, aren't we??

The death of another officer. Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski.

Next week, in Washington, D.C., during a candlelight vigil, the names of 385 fallen officers from around the country will be dedicated on a new memorial. While Harrisburg, PA, just held a memorial service for slain Pennsylvanian police. There wasn’t enough time to add Liczbinski’s name to these lists. I think that’s called irony in some circles.

Liczbinski was shot five times with a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle. Who needs a SKS assault rifle here in Philly? Apparently, a lot of people. Like the guy who shot Liczbinski (yes, I know his name, and no, he doesn’t deserve to have me write it.) The NRA has argued strenuously, persistently, that this rifle and many others like it are a God-given right to the citizenry. That it’s part and parcel of being American.

Michael Nutter, recently elected as Mayor in the City of the Brotherly Shove, won in part because of his plan to have police conduct random stop-and-searches. He’s right. Critics have weighed in – strenuously, persistently – that this is a violation of civil rights, and that doing so would be no better than Bush and Cheny taking over America with their draconian vision of security.

But Bush and Cheny are acting on perceived threats. There’s nothing “perceived” about the Homicide capital of the World: Philadelphia has had more than 300 homicides each year since 2000. There were 392 homicides and 1,734 shootings in 2007, and we’re already averaging more than 1 per day this year. But wait! There’s good news! There were 406 in 2006, so we’re getting more peaceful (there, don’t you feel better?)

Obama and Clinton have both come out in support of banning assault weapons, while McCain is opposed. Neither Clinton nor Obama decried the culture of gun violence on Philadelphia streets when they are asked about in the recent Philly debate, and instead acted on their political instincts to appease gun owners. And the NRA has seized on the issue as an opportunity for political grandstanding – loudly arguing the merits of assault rifles while another funeral plays out. Governor Ed Rendell is Democrat, and the PA legislature is split. And Mayor Nutter is taking them all on.

Stephen Liczbinski left behind a wife and three kids, and would have turned 40 this week. I am a teacher, and I used to teach at a GED school in North Philly. Classes were crowded, and over 80% of students once admitted to carrying weapons and knifes to class. Some of them were peace-loving by nature, yet afraid of what others may do to them. This is a very real problem that calls for very real, drastic measures. I’m telling you… you walk into a McDonald’s here, people are packing.

The time for politics and statements. and appeasing the politically and culturally sensitive is long gone. The only appeasing to be done should be to the people who are left behind, and all those people on the streets who fear for their safety because they, too, could be murdered. The only appeasing to be done is to all of us, so we can stop this culture of violence. That takes action on everybody’s part. Politicians love to talk…

But it’s time to act.

     SO I was thinking about my brother, and how he recently sent me an article that spoke despairingly of the effects of anti-illegal-immigration policies in these Untied States. How businesses in nearby Riverside, NJ, that once did well and some even that thrived, are now struggling for air. Riverside enacted sweeping legislation against illegal immigrants, with the result that many of the Brazilians who had lived in the area, fled. My brother taught me a few lessons about North Koreans and Chinese as well - that their vast populations are overwhelmingly poor people just trying to get by - and are ignorant of the machinations of their governments. Or helpless. Mostly both. My brother also loves Australia.... he's spent more time Down Under these past 12 months pursuing business, than he has at home.

    But my brother knows nothing of the Aborigines. He seemed a tad annoyed that I even asked, as if finding out anything about them would entail going out of his way when he had so many other things he wanted to do. I can't think of a single time I've ever seen him hanging out with anyone of a darker hue then us. Never saw him in domestic photos like this, either. And though he also spends a lot of time in China and South Korea pursuing business, he doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of their languages. He's also one of only two people in my entire life who's called me "racist."

    And this makes me think more generally of Americans. Like how everywhere we turn these days, we are overwhelmed with exhortations to "go green." Go-Green Internet span is served southern-fried on the skillet; Go-Green highway billboards tower over us, covering us in shadow, threatening to whack us if we disobey; Go-Green television ads blare the Go-Green exhortations of celebrity and government officials alike. We can almost smell the sweet-n-sour Go-Green taxes just around the corner.

    And this, naturally, brings me back 'round again to my brother… What are their motivations? What are our motivations? Don’t get me wrong, this planet is in trouble and lots of poor, scared people all around the world, America included, and lots of scared middle-class people all around the world, America included, are in trouble. But why do we care? Why now?

   I mean, God bless Al Gore. God bless my bro for thinking about the poor guy down the stre.... I mean, a few miles away. But American guilt is easy to play upon, isn't it? American speech and thoughts and wallets are easily manipulated. And it's way easy for us to get a little paternalistic in our attitudes toward others.

    So I end this essay with a question (or two): How long will our concern for the problem of the moment last? Until the end of the moment?  

But let’s look at the whole picture here, shall we? Obama lost the Keystone State because there’s at least one demographic of people he doesn’t understand: rural Americans. That he understands and ably sympathesizes with the global poor is unimpeachable. But here this connection is most keenly needed.

My immediate Philadelphia neighbors understand the thirst for the familiarity the Clintons bring, both in name brand and the fact that Hillary is really just one of the boys. Only with breasts. She’s a liar, a shameless manipulator, and is willing to do anything, say anything, and be anyone to get elected. And she appeals to all the people that Obama doesn’t.

This puts into stark relief the inescapable futility of a singular Executive Office. If the president can’t reasonably represent all the people – and he or she can’t – what’s the point? Somebody’s going to have to get screwed… a whole mess of somebodies actually. A friend of mine recently opined that flawed as his is, Obama still represent the face of America.

But he doesn’t. No one candidate does. Can Obama learn more, strive to be more? Yes, but only with a little humility. Filmmaker Michael Moore wrote that Obama the movement and Obama the man are two separate things – and Obama the movement is certainly worthy of election, of forging the way toward a new America.

I agree with him on this point (yes, I know he says Obama the man is, too). But more work must be done. Obama can’t just represent college-educated urbanites and suburbanites and claim to truly understand America. That will leave a whole lot of people out of the mix. And he can’t claim that this educated throng (you know, represented by all of you) really think that contributions from oil companies is a good thing or that Jimmy Carter having from all accounts a fruitful meeting with Hamas leaders in Ramallah is a bad thing. Obama is playing politics, getting better at it as he goes along. Sigh…. How refreshing it would be to see a politician who only told the truth, without spin.

Obama the movement is still my choice for presidency. But how long will it last? Can it last? Wouldn’t it be great to see a Obama/Gravel/McCain and yes, even Clinton (and Carter) team running the country? This would be the true system of checks and balances. In the meantime, we continue to settle for the leavings of the American Dream.

Here's the thing:  I no longer feel comfortable or sure about the whole election. I'd like to see Mike Gravel or Ron Paul have a real shot at it, but they have their shortcomings too. Barack, I am starting to see, really isn't ready for this. There are whole demographics he's more than a little clueless about. Hillary is a liar and a thief. McCain would keep us mired in wars and preparations for wars for centuries, if he could.

Sigh................ 

Anyway – I’ve already heard several reactionary comments on the debate, both sides putting their spins on their boy’s or girl’s performance. (Sorry – should I have said “girl’s or boy’s?” Oh God : I must have a hidden agenda!!) I must say, I was surprised that the audience was so sedate. I’ve heard more chatter at public concertos – though the swarm on any given day at the Alamo would make these debate-spectator critters look like your average pub crowd.

Am I wasting your time talking about trivialities? Don’t you recognize a metaphor when you see one? Look, Obama made a huge mistake when he categorized and sectionalized a enormous slice of the American populace. I’m glad it was brought up as the first question. But didn’t the media hammer go beyond the boundaries of a reasonable arc when it dragged that and every other piece of garbage out there for almost half of the debate?

And when I say media I know there were only two men asking the questions, but let’s face it – they represent the whole. So let Obama answer the question about small-town bitterness. Move on. Somewhere along the line ask about Wright. (But maybe not right after the small-town bit.) Then move on. Let Clinton do her bit to talk about her involvement in Bosnia. Then move on. Yes, these were important questions about how the candidates view themselves and their presumed constituencies. But guys… 40 minutes of this prattle? The back-and-forth on the whole “Weather Underground” thing (didn’t they record “It’s Raining Men”? I love that song!) was…. Absolutely Nothing.

At least Hillary had the integrity to apologize for her remarks. Classy. Too many authority figures refuse to apologize for anything. Saying you’re sorry just makes you reachable, accessible. Obama did take ownership of his “mangled” remark, and that was good, but he didn’t apologize for it and instead tried to defend it, and that was bad, Why? Hillary was on the mark here: he is out of touch with a certain segment of the population. At least that’s my impression. Small-town folk have embraced religion and 2^nd Amendment rights through good times and bad. So do a lot of urbanites. It’s got little, if anything, to do with politics. He had the chance here to really connect with rural Americans, and he squandered it.

I could feel his frustration at the constant attacks on his character during this interminable period of the debate. Now he knows how Hillary felt for lo, these many months. (Sorry – I just get a kick out of writing that phrase.)  He comported himself admirably; shoot, as little as three months ago during the same sort of exchange Hillary’s eyes would flare up like lava bubbles and she’d be breathing the requisite fire to boot. I know when it’s me in similar situations I’d be ready to deck somebody. So hats off to Obama, there.

But the fact of the matter is that Hillary won this one. And she won it at a crucial time. She won it in the first half of the debate because she was not only feeling the confidence of her popularity surge, she is now not the one on the defensive. And for a long time she was. She’s learned form that – we hope. Obama could have gained points by not tying to justify his positions, or revealed more about his character by saying why he has made the decisions he has made. (Like the flag pin: sure, trivial. Buy why? McGain’s gonna grill him on that, so don’t you think he should have an answer he can tell the public by now?) Irregardless, ABC was playing lowball here. I think ol’ Georgie and Charlie were trying to give him the chance to say “You know what? My bad. I’m sorry.” Pity Obama didn’t take the bait.

When the debate moved onto weightier topics (And I swore I heard this huge sigh of relief from the audience – this first outburst, to presage their jeering of Charlie Gibson later in the night), Hillary won again. Both candidates were happy to address the actual issues they were running on, but I know Hillary got a kick out of being able to stand back and watch the other guy get beat up for a change – and get to throw a few choice blows herself.

When she spoke of an “affirmative action” for every young person she took the lead in painting a picture of a unified America, something Barack stopped just short of. Still, it was refreshing to hear a black candidate speak of the “poor white child”. Sometimes, though, it’s not just the poor who are disadvantaged. It’s the middle-class folk, as well. Hillary’s response sounded more inclusive.

Troop withdrawal from Iraq? Sure. Both candidates are pretty much the same on that; there’s a slight variance on dates, but nothing big here. Iran? Well, Obama’s willing to try more options than Clinton. But neither one want to give an inch on that oaf running the Iranian country.  Similar strategies again.

Tax relief for the middle class hit a curious note. Why was everyone on the Kimmel-I-had-never-known-it-was-star-shaped-Floor talking about incomes of 250,000 or less? Show me all those people! ‘Cause I know they’re out there and I know a few personally, but they’re not representative of any America I know. Barack mentioned that 7% of Americans make less than 100 grand; I’ve read 15%. But either way, it’s certainly not the “middle” of anything.

Then guns. They both managed to play to both sides on this one. And made very rational explanations why. Which was very interesting, coming from Obama, because it’s the sort of thing he needed to say or at least allude to in during that interminable first half of the debate. They managed to straddle the fence with Israel, too – backing off from inflammatory comments that could have had unfair accusations of anti-Semitism hurled at them. But they didn’t embrace the country and the hardnosed policies of its government, either. Guess that’s proof positive that Obama has learned to play the game.

The real thing here that got to me is how what I had previously viewed as Obama’s greatest asset – his unwillingness to play the political game and his insistence on straight talk and, as he put it, “honest conversation” – played like a liability here. While he was busy talking about how much he wants to talk, Hillary was striking the familiar chords of all her years in the business – and I must admit she really came off as being able to handle any power-mad dictator or dire American crisis. She just sounded more forceful, more unwilling to compromise when perseverance is genuinely called for, and yes, more willing to fight for the entire team.

Of course, Barack’s strength is his willingness to fight with the team. Hillary do that? Not bloody likely. Before the debate, what had been my rock-hard faith in Barack was shaken by what I characterized in the initial paragraphs of my essay as insubstantial,  by his comments on rural Americans and his lack of comments on Reverend Wright.. By how that played into the flag pin and his wife’s former lack of pride in America. The media spent an obscene amount of time hammering away on these questions, given the time constraints of the whole evening. (A few minutes each on Iraq? Iran? Gun control? Superdelagates? 40 minutes on pins and bitterness and pastors? Please.)

I was hoping that Obama would deliver a knockout blow, a rousing invocation to the best in all of us by calling from deep within the best in himself. This was not to be. And thus I am still on the fence.

In the end, one of our loveable hosts called upon some guy who was watching the debate on TV at Independence Hall 650 feet away. Muttered the inanity that this guy had an “interesting vantage point.”

Maybe I’m just old-school, but the host’s use of the word “vantage point” could only have meant that he commanded a smashing view of the outline of the Constitution Center’s roof from Independence Hall’s 2nd story or tower windows. The guy at the Hall certainly didn’t have much to say from his “interesting vantage.” How is it the debate coverage ended on this note?

Though it was a fitting ending, really, since it demonstrates just how unaware all of us can be. How easily distracted we are in our quest for what we perceive as the upper hand. Myself, I’m aware I need some sleep. It’s been a grand evening of fluff and substance, but now it’s time for solely the fluff that dreams are made of. I shouldn’t have any trouble finding solace in my dreams tonight. I wonder how the candidates will fare with that?

Good night.

The point here is that nothing is to be expected. There are tons of sites out there, I suppose, about photography and videography and what is that thing I do called? Oh yeah, creative expression. Most conform to an identifiable industry (or public) standard. But what is creative expression if the creator doesn't, you know, express? And by express I mean Express Creatively? (Like the italics back there? - they come with the program.)

I am an individual. I haven't office space right now because I can't afford it. At the rate of exponentially climbing prices these days, plus all the apocalyptic signs of a coming recession, how can you blame me? Oh, I know I can hock myself into the next millennium to Put on A Brave, Successful, StoreFront. But that's not me. It's not realistic. And it's not me because it's not realistic. I've a wife. A son. And loads and loads of talent. I've been doing these things for 22 years now. I'm good, awfully good. I just never had taken the time to try to develop a business and actually get paid for it before.

Don't get me wrong - plenty of people... former employees, mostly... took advantage of my talents to design, produce, create and distribute for them. When you work in law, teaching and family services, there's always a way to attach the creative eye to what needs expression. And I took advantage of my former employers to let me hone my craft.

The long story short is, You'd be hard-pressed to find someone as creative as I. You're sure to find people with top-of-the-line, crazily expensive equipment (mine is all professional, mind you) but ask: do they have the eye and vision I do?

Look, I've already jabbered on enough.  Just know this for now - I've a lot to say and even more manners in which to say it. Creative expression, right? Nothing is off limits here: Politics. Culture. Fun. Nothing is out-of-bounds. Read. Contribute. That's my hope - to get more people expressing themselves, just as long as its done intelligently, logically, and with dignity. Oh - and without profanity. This is a family site.

And one of these days soon I'll tell you exactly what profanity is. Doggone, that's a blog or two in itself. Until then,

Be well but never Be Still,

Mark