The American electorate’s posture has been measured throughout the United States. It is clear that approximately 90% of the electorate wants to have some form of Universal Background check for all purchases of all guns throughout the United States. This in itself is amazing that there is such strong support for this measure.

The support for banning of assault weapons and large ammunition magazines is much more varied.

On Wednesday 17 April 2013 the Manchin-Toomey background checks amendment was defeated on the floor of the US Senate.

So, How did Your Senator Vote on Gun Control Legislation?

All Democrats with the exception of Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted to bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

All Republicans with the exception of Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

I suggest that all voters should consider this information, and take appropriate action. I am proposing that all interested voters in the state in which they are registered begin to gather detailed information about the voting posture and the supporters of their elected Senator and use the power of the Internet to bring out every detail of the Senator’s public posture.

For example, do their votes on any bill of interest agree with the position of their electorate? Are there pressures, such as exerted by the NRA, clear in the public knowledge?

I am not suggesting that lobbyists and organizations should not attempt to influence their elected representatives. This is the way democracies work. But, the reasons Senators are elected is to support their voting constituents; not power groups.

The two Senators from my state of Maryland voted for the amendment. They did what they could. Now, did yours? 

I am watching the events that are taking place in the United States with increasing mystification. I simply don’t understand what is going on.

Let me give you a little background. I am an American: born and bred. I have had multi-faceted life experiences in my education, (formal and informal), unusual and diverse career opportunities, and a very large number of contacts, world-wide, with people of widely varying backgrounds and points of view. It has been a very interesting life. I have observed, and attempted to learn with each experience. I have not lived in an Ivory Tower.

One of my basic pillars of belief is the quality of life in the United States. Being an American citizen, by birth or by naturalization, gives one opportunities to pursue one’s interests, and also allows for an extraordinarily broad spectrum of thought and actions. In essence, the government, regardless of the political party in power, is modestly incompetent, and really only focuses on major issues which need to be addressed. Further, recent data should convince any reasonably perceptive thinker that the US Congress and the Executive Branch have no capability to solve problems of any magnitude, regardless of the area where the problem exists. As you can see, I don’t have much hope. My experienced view of life on this planet has given me substantial data for this perception.

But, what am I talking about? I am going to use the discussion of same-sex marriage as an example; there are many others.

The legal structure of the United States recognizes the legal status of a defined relationship. People who are married (for the moment, consider a man and a woman) have legal rights to act with, and for, their legal mate. They can exercise choices in emergency medical events; they file joint tax returns; they have other opportunities to take advantage of their legal relationship. The list is very long and has historical precedents. But the marital relationship is defined to be a legal relationship.

Now let me shift my focus to the concept of a marriage between a two people of the same sex. To me, the difference in the two concepts is nil. I am focusing on the legal definition of a relationship. But, there are people throughout the United States who are vehemently opposed to “same-sex” marriage. I am mystified by their concerns.

Let me ramble for a moment. I believe that any organization which is emotional in nature can decide if they want to recognize, or deal with same-sex marriage. I agree with any church, of any stripe and belief, that refuses to perform such marriages. I am content with individuals who don’t want anything to do with human beings in a same-sex marriage. That is their choice. It is similar to the reason why they make strawberry ice cream: it is made for the people who don’t like vanilla.

But, the entire concept of the American experience and the generally haphazard operation of the current American political system allows for people to pursue their own lives, incorporate their own biases, and integrate their beliefs into their daily lives. I support that concept. But, why should they care that there are others who think and therefore act differently from them?

As I said in the beginning, I am completely mystified by the current public arguments about the the laws relating to same-sex marriages. Let anyone marry whomever they wish: same sex or not. They all have to follow all the laws that affect marital relationships. What does the fact they are the same-sex or different sex have to do with the entire operation?

I am sure that there are people who may glance at these comments who can explain to me what is going on, and that will ease, if not completely erase my mystification. I await your comments with interest.  

Now, a few short comments about the state of our country: the USA. I have been listening and watching how the country is doing. It is appalling; if I were not so old, I would really get nervous. But, now I take a more detached look at what is going on and find that I cannot get too upset.

Congress is astonishingly incompetent. My comments are about both parties, and even the few independents. I try to get a feel for what is going on by reading the Pew Reports (weekly) and find them very useful. The Founding Director and Director, Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, Andrew Kohut, appears regularly on TV. He provides measured data, including historical trends. They are always interesting. Recently he gave two pieces of information:

(1) Congress is considered incompetent and dysfunctional by 90% of the voting public, and

(2) Roughly 95% of the incumbents are reelected.

When he gave this information, he just gave a wan smile and shrugged his shoulders.

It seems to me that Congress, State, and Local governing organizations are put in place to solve problems. They aren’t doing it. I think the real problem is that politicians of all stripes, ranging from wild-eyed liberal Democrats to staunch, determined, conservative Republicans are fundamentally and primarily interested in being reelected. They will do anything to achieve that goal.

Recently I had the opportunity to do a little historical research. For reasons and circumstances that are too long to discuss, I read the part of the Jewish literature called The Ethics of the Fathers. Two quotes from this book (roughly 2000 years old and studied with care for the past 1000 years) are intriguing:

(1) Love work, and despise official positions, and do not become too acquainted with the governing power. (1:10)

(2) Be cautious regarding the ruling power. Because they only befriend a person when it serves themselves. They appear as friends when it suits them, but they do not stand by a man in his time of need. (2:3)

Recently, I decided to relax and lose myself in reading some history. I chose Winston Churchill’s six-volume work: The Second World War. To take my mind off the current state of the economy and the operations of Congress, I began to read the first volume: The Gathering Storm, fascinating book that addresses the period from 1919 to 1939.

Churchill is a superb writer; he wanted to make sure that he wrote the operative history, and I think he has made a good case. Most of the material is well known to all of you. Details about events are interesting, but perhaps unnecessary. Read it and judge for yourself.

However, one part of the book I found extremely upsetting. Churchill comments about the incompetence of British government and the European states. They refused to address and solve the problems of the day. Politics were paramount. He made one observation that struck home. He pointed out that in the 1700s the importance of government and its failures and occasional successes was not really important. The world, and humanity in general, would not suffer too much. If wars occurred the casualties were nominal (a few hundred, or perhaps a few thousand). He discussed the state of weaponry in 1935 and pointed out that mankind could be in potentially grave danger of destroying itself.

This information caused me to muse about our refusal or inability to solve real problems in the United States. (I am ignoring the rest of the world). We have determined enemies (terrorists of all stripes) who have the possibility of obtaining weapons that are capable of eradicating the human race. These weapons range from world-wide attacks on the Internet connections to attacks on our infrastructure, to nuclear or biological or chemical attacks. There is no question in my mind that terrorists (who generally do not have state support from a specific country) will obtain such devastating weapons, and will not hesitate to use them, particularly on the United States of America and its citizens. Any group that encourages young women of child-bearing age to volunteer and serve as suicidal attackers cannot be stopped through the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The weapons they obtain and will use may not be efficient, or up to modern capability, but they still work quite well. The danger to us, as citizens of the United States, is staggering.

Now, to make you feel better, I am changing the focus of my remarks. I am pointing out that the sequestration process was allowed to proceed. The financial consequences will be (I believe) staggering. And, as far as I can see, all of this nonsense is for the political forces to try to have their way.

I have lots more that I could say, but I will not do so. I can only say, again, that I am glad that I am old and decrepit. As far as I can see, we must enact solutions to the problems we are facing, regardless of political platform. I don’t see it coming. In more direct terms, I believe that we are going to cut our own throats with our own dull, rusty knives.

On the other hand, I take great comfort in seeing evidence that supports my increasingly firm belief that the current actions show us the way of the future: the complete, total extinction of the human race. We have developed many ways for this to happen, and there is no question in my mind that our complete, total demise is inevitable. The only two questions are:

(1) How long will it take?

(2) What will the methods be?

I believe that the time for this decimation to occur will be well less than 1,000 years and probably closer to 200 years. The methods will be multiple and varied, and they already exist. 

These speculations are intellectual exercises; I will be dead before it happens, I think. And, I am sorry to say that all of you, including our self-serving politicians, will be in the same boat with me.

In the United States, the First Amendment to the Constitution states that  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As American citizens we recognize that is the law of the land.

I am not contending that we all like the results of the First Amendment. People of all types and beliefs write, speak, create videos, etc., on a very broad spectrum of subjects. Some of this output is listened to with pleasure, and some is considered to be nonsense. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

The key point is that we all agree that all people may exercise their constitutional rights to express their opinions on anything. We as the listeners have the right, which we exercise all the time to listen, agree, tune out, ignore, or any other behavior variants.

Now we turn to the response of part of the Muslim community within over 20 countries in the Middle East and adjoining areas. There were riots and attacks on US and other Western nations’ diplomatic sites. The United States lost four citizens, one of whom was an Ambassador, to mob violence.

It seems to me that the differences in culture and perception of the world in which we all inhabit are so different that I have difficulty in seeing how the issues between us, and the different perceptions we have, can be resolved. Let me be more specific: Let’s talk about the film itself.

I have not seen it. I know it is on You Tube and, presumably, I could find it. I am not a film critic nor an expert on Islam. From what I have heard and read, the film is abominable. It is crude and misleading. In fact, the words I have heard about it indicate that it is nonsense. But in the United States that is not an issue. Idiotic material, as perceived by me of course, is available throughout the entire spectrum. When I run across such material I ignore it. I do not pick up a cudgel and attack the nearest store window because I think the material is, again in my opinion, nonsense.

And yet, that is exactly what large numbers of rioters in roughly 20 countries did: They picked up arms, weapons, rocks and the like, and attacked. Their countries’ governments, in general, did not honor their solemn obligation to protect diplomatic missions from attack and danger.

Approximately 50 years ago the ability of all people to communicate was severely limited in comparison with what is available to them today. If the producers of the movie in question had made the movie 50 years ago, they could have shown it to their families, friends, supporters, like-thinkers, etc. Then, the ability to present the film to others, even 50 miles away, was virtually non-existent. Now, fast forward to the ability to communicate with the world, today. The same producers, using technology which barely existed 10 years ago, made a movie and then uploaded it to You Tube. It was seen by people who broadcast it throughout the world. Literally millions of people saw it throughout the world. In addition, the world’s people do not operate with the law of the First Amendment, nor do they recognize the concept of unconstrained free speech.

OK. Now what? Are most of the Muslims who are upset ― even furious about a film that was physically produced in the United States, but is actually world wide in distribution, bitterly and apparently violently opposed to the United States? I have doubts about that. What I think we are seeing is the existence of at least two radically different cultures which because of ease of communications, travel, and movement, are rubbing against each other. I think most Americans simply do not understand the point of view of the rioters; and equally I think that many, if not most, of the Muslims think it is perfectly reasonable to be offended by the comments of someone who is opposed to their beliefs.

It is not clear to me what needs to be done, or, which is much worse, what can be done. The wonders of world-wide communication are technically feasible and used everywhere in the world. It is not too hard to learn how to use the applications associated with an iPhone. But the spreading of ideas that have never been heard before are going to result in potentially terrible situations that, even given the skill of diplomats, can be controlled and ameliorated. In a few words: The Muslim world apparently is not willing to listen to any views that they consider to be offensive, and the Western world doesn’t even understand that the Muslims are offended.

I fear this is the beginning, and only the first steps in a dangerous and difficult path with potential world-wide consequences.

The current state of nuclear weapons in the Middle East is reaching a very dangerous level. I have no special inside information, but I have a particular observation that I have not heard from any group.

A little background is important. The Iranians are enriching Uranium, which is the principal and critical component of a nuclear device―or in simpler, less diplomatic terms, a nuclear bomb. They have been working on it for years, and are close to success. Specifically, they are going to have, probably within the next six months, sufficient enriched Uranium to actually build a nuclear bomb. This is information which has been released publicly from several sources. In an attempt to be fair, the Iranians state they have no interest in creating a nuclear bomb, but only want to develop a process for generating electrical power. I leave this to the professionals to analyze.

In the past few days the Prime Minister of Israel,Benjamin Netanyahu, has discussed the concept of a “red line.” Such a mental image is useful for discussing what he means: He wants the United States, and other European nations to tell Iran that if they continue beyond some point (I cannot tell you what they wish) then there will be substantial responses, also not defined. Netanyahu has stated publicly that the United States, and in particular, President Obama has always said that Israel may follow what ever steps they feel are appropriate to protect and defend the State of Israel.

In the discussions about the position of Israel and its own Red Lines, Netanyahu stated that (in American football jargon) Iran is in a Red Zone (more diffuse than a Red Line), and will not be allowed to cross the goal line (meaning have the material to actually build a nuclear bomb). The United States position seems to be that things can be discussed from one day to the next, but there is no urgency for action. There are even some people who feel that if the Iranians manufacture and have possession of a nuclear bomb, then there will be peace in the Middle East. This is similar to the political and technical effects which caused both the United States and the Soviet Union to recognize the existence of the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Both sides recognized that a nuclear exchange would essentially destroy both countries. They marched to the brink, several times, but then, withdrew and continued to talk. But Iran has a different mind set than the Russians. The concept of suicide bombers, consisting of both young men and young women, is used vigorously with moderate success, although the success is open to debate.

There are two major points which I think merit some consideration. First, the mind-set of the Jews of the world, and in particular the Israelis. Second, the size of the State of Israel.

In 1935 the number of Jews throughout the world, but mainly in Eastern Europe, was approximately 15 million. In 1945 the number of Jews was reduced to 9 million. 40% of the Jews of the world were killed. This amazing statistic has caused the Jews who were left alive at the end of WWII, and who immigrated to Palestine, eventually forming the Jewish State of Israel in 1948, to vow, “Never Again.” Israel and its citizens took steps to protect their new life. The Israeli army is considered the strongest in the Middle East.

The second point to be made is the size of the State of Israel. Roughly speaking, it is the size of New Jersey. Ignoring the details, the concept of the Soviet Union launching a coordinated attack against the United States and destroying this country is conceptually feasible, but only barely. The difficulties are enormous, partly because of the size of the United States and of the geographical distribution of the United States forces on land, at sea, and in the air. But, Israel is different.

Two or three nuclear bombs could essentially eliminate the entire State of Israel. Israel cannot retaliate against any attackers who use nuclear bombs, so there would be nothing left to retaliate with. Thus, if Israel is pushed too far, it will be forced to consider the use of preemptive strikes against their enemies. The United States has a long standing approach to such strikes: They are reluctant to do so; instead, they generally think of the use of modern technology. But, I suggest that if Israel attacks Iran preemptively, it may use a small number of weapons (non-nuclear) and may use highly focused biological and other methods to destroy all the enriched Uranium and other pertinent facilities.

This is all logic, and conceptual. I have no idea about how many nuclear weapons Israel has, nor do I have any information about how sophisticated are their delivery systems. The Israel Intelligence Service has no peer; so I fully expect that all of their information will not only be complete but have many options for action.

The key points are that Israel has no option in facing an Iran on the verge of constructing nuclear bombs other than either to receive strong and substantial support from the United States and other nations, or the Israelis will feel it mandatory for them to take decisive and effective action. Losing 40% of your historic population through deliberate murder does wonders to sharpen your vision.

I have been watching the human species for some time: my entire life. I have not lived a quiet, secluded life, separated from the world. I have participated with many organizations: academic, government, and private. Many types of people have crossed my path, and I have generally gotten along with most, but not all of them. 

These human interactions have always been characterized by operations, generally logical, and analytic. But, in all interactions, there are also emotional issues. People like things, and don’t like things. People are emotionally moved by a wide spectrum of events, large and small. In the large sense, I am moved by emotion, too: I am not a mechanical robot. But, I dislike being moved by emotions, and furthermore, I don’t trust any conclusions that I reach based upon heavy doses of emotion. 

What did I to to explore this general area? I I went to the Internet and looked around. An article, entitled Emotion, Rationality and Human Potential by John T. Cacioppo, is of interest. Specifically, he comments “facts and technology alone cannot elevate humanity; emotion is not the antithesis of rationality, and further emotions are an essential ingredient for and an overwhelming obstacle to optimizing human potential.”

All this is very interesting. But it really doesn’t put me at ease. I like to think of myself as a rational human being. I really focus on natural laws, and the understanding that if two plus three is five, it will always be five. It doesn’t matter if the day is bright and sunny; or if the day is cold and rainy. It doesn’t matter if I am happy or sad. But, I can trust that two plus three is always five, and that two bodies with mass always attract one another. (This discussion is based upon the concepts of Newtonian Mechanics, and I don’t want to delve into the more esoteric aspects of nuclear physics: for example, dark matter and related issues). 

People frequently, but not always, think about the experiences of their lives in terms of emotions.  Birthday parties, weddings, anniversaries, special events, are all characterized by how they make the person feel. I don’t quibble with their feelings; I simply don’t understand why they feel the way they do. My birthday, occurs like every one else’s birthday: annually. It is a historical method of marking time. I don’t feel pleasure or irritation about its occurrence; I don’t celebrate it; it just occurs annually. 

Do I feel the same emotions as other people? Do I find pleasure and irritation in events? I certainly do. In fact, the things that irritate me most are the behavior of people who act without thinking, as far as I can determine. Let me be very clear about what annoys me: it is stupidity and sloth; they are different than ignorance and inability to act. If someone says to me that they don’t understand something I make substantial efforts to provide them with information that they request. If they can’t do something because they are physically incapable, or feel themselves incapable, that is understandable. But, when some one knows something and refuses to use use the information, or is sloppy in the application, and knows they are sloppy, and it affects me, then I become angry. 

I have been trying to reconcile my view of humanity with world events, and in a more limited scope, with the political operations during the continuing presidential campaign. Let me make myself crystal clear: I am not arguing about one party or another. I am not discussing the possible validity or point of view of one side or the other: moderate or extreme. Rather, I am concerned about how the American Society is functioning. Consider two examples: the repair and maintenance of our physical infrastructure and our vulnerability to attack from outside or even internally generated foes. 

Our bridges are decaying; our roads are crumbling. What has Congress (in the large, as an institution) done to address this problem? As far as I can see, nothing. Somewhere a bridge will collapse killing a small number of people, but killing them nevertheless, and hysteria will become the ruler of the day. But, all the technical, non-political people who are concerned with the infrastructure have been telling our leaders…..note, our leaders….. and they have done nothing. 

Our entire society operates using electricity, and controls are maintained with computers. These computers are hosts to software which drives and controls our systems. It has been stated, over and over again, that our susceptibility to attack from a few knowledgeable people with skills in the computer world is very high. And, no one, no one at all, has to explode a bomb to attack us. How has Congress reacted to this known threat? Have they passed laws requiring organizations, government and private, to take known steps to protect their software from attack? No, they have not. They went home for a well deserved summer vacation. 

If an attack comes, and I predict that it will come, the results for the American public will be disastrous. Lots of people will die from a variety of causes. Congress will then rend the air with their comments, speeches, and suggested actions. 

But what is the general approach by Congress to the protection of the American populace? They want to make sure that their political party, or point of view, prevails. As the Senior Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell, put it so clearly: the principal goal of the Republican Party is to make sure that President Obama has only one term. I suggest that such a publicly stated point of view is the posture of a LGM (Low Grade Moron…..not average, but Low Grade). And this man, and others, from both sides of the political aisle, is conducting business on behalf of the American populace. 

Think about it. 

You have all been besieged, even overwhelmed, with the discussions about the terrible events that took place in Aurora, Colorado. There were twelve people killed, nine people still in critical condition, and many, many lives of family and friends altered by the actions of the perpetrator, James Holmes. I have no words which haven’t been said over and over. I have no special insight; but, I have some observations about the future. 

Let me talk about statistics. They are a wonderful technique for measuring changes of groups that have common characteristics; they are useless, and potentially misleading, in attempting to describe specific items. Let me be more focused: There are approximately 313 million people in the United States. Whatever you wish to measure: gender, height, weight, IQ, age, etc., can be expressed as a percentage of the group. For example, 13% of the population of the United States is over 65. Does this information say anything at all about my age, or the age of my next door neighbor? It does not. 

The attack on the people in Aurora can be considered to be part of a group. Then what are the statistics associated with attacks using guns on their neighbors? Zero. I don’t mean they don’t exist. They do, and Aurora will join Columbine and other events. But the ability to predict such events based upon statistics doesn’t exist. Mathematically, these are singular events that seldom occur. 

Now there may be some of you who believe that you have finally discovered that I think that the NRA is right: “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” It is a good argument. That infallible source of information, the Internet, says that there are about 80 million gun owners in America with a combining total of 258 million guns. James Holmes purchased four guns, entirely legally. He isn’t (or wasn’t when he bought the guns) a felon. He was the perfect example, as used by the NRA, about people who should be allowed to purchase guns, based upon the Second Amendment. 

Now, return to the Aurora event. How would you stop the possible occurrence of another such event? There is nothing in the background of James Holmes which makes him a potential mass murderer. We could close all movie theaters (Aurora) and high schools (Columbine). That probably wouldn’t work too well. We could ban the sale of all guns and make an attempt to collect 258 million guns in the populace. That seems an impossible task, and we have a very good example about how well prohibition works: Think back to the Prohibition Era. The only thing prohibition really did well was to cause the criminal element to get itself organized. Hmmmm. 

From a statistical point of view, the Aurora event was singular. I personally believe that we should pay attention to people and organizations that appear to be out of the ordinary, and potential threats to the American Populace. But I also believe that there is absolutely nothing that can be done, in practice, to stop such singular events. 

I grieve for all involved, directly and indirectly. I offer my condolences, which will be of little or no solace to those affected. However, which steps could, or should, be implemented to stop such potential future events is entirely beyond my ability to suggest. So, I gently suggest that everything that is suggested by any politicians, news commentators, or similar groups should be listened to with substantial skepticism.

In the distant past photographs were taken as proof positive of an event. In fact there was a phrase—“A picture is worth a thousand words” which settled the matter. If there was a photograph of something, then the something must be true. However, technology has set aside this belief. 

The growth of the Internet itself, computer connections, and better and better software gave birth to a program called Photoshop. It was an amazing program at its introduction in 1990, and has steadily gotten better and better. It performed many tasks but in particular it allowed the altering and editing of photographs. With experience and desire people could learn to alter a photograph so that it appeared to be the original. 

As a young boy I had believed in the truth of all photographs. I knew that there were some specialists who could do wondrous things in darkrooms (there’s a word from a bygone age) and edit and alter photographs, but those were rare and generally obvious. That world is gone. 

My entire perception of photography has been altered. I have gone from being a believer of an event or scene if it was photographed to being a person who doesn’t believe any photograph. This is all because of the wonders of Photoshop. 

So, what does this have to do with the American Political Scene? The parallels are excellent: I don’t believe any photograph because of Photoshop; and based upon their statements, I have learned in this era not to believe any politician. If politicians could ever be believed (a highly doubtful contention), that is no longer the case. 

Perhaps a little background about me might help. I am an American citizen, born and bred. I believe that it is my duty as a citizen to familiarize myself with all the candidates for all offices ranging from elections to the local school board to elections of our national leaders. I always vote. I listen to the arguments and discussions between the candidates for all offices. 

What has caused me to refer to Photoshop is the quality of presentations made by all political candidates on the current American Scene. As far as I can determine no one tells the truth. Candidates are only concerned with telling the public what is wrong with their opponent. They never make a statement along the line: “Here is the problem as I define it. Here are several possible solutions. If elected, I will attempt to implement solution number XX.”  That statement is never heard, at least by me. 

There are some statements made by politicians and their supporters that are not negative smears of the opponents. But generally, they are only half truths. They are deliberately contrived to offer information whose sole purpose is to get themselves or their candidate  elected. So in essence, we are observing hundreds of campaigns whose sole purpose is to get their candidate elected; if a solution is offered to a particular problem which is being experienced in the US, then that is just fortuitous, and possibly poor planning. 

I have come to the conclusion, similar to my observation, training, and experience with Photoshop, that no statement offered by any candidate can be believed. And, the SuperPacs are special cases which are worse than the candidates themselves; a postulate hard to imagine, much less believe. 

So now we are engaged in a national election campaign. Historically these campaigns begin after Labor Day, but that is no longer the case. We are already weary of listening to the articulate lies and half-truths being spread by organizations in support of different candidates. 

The real issue that bothers me is where will I get my information to make an intelligent, reasoned choice between candidates? Fox News is purely for entertainment; and not much of that. Certainly nothing that appears on Fox News can be believed, including the weather. 

The Daily Show with Jon Stuart and the Colbert Hour with Stephen Colbert are comedic shows. They are astonishingly accurate and perceptive, but are not intended to be news sources. 

The PBS News Hour is spectacular, and dependable. They always offer a balanced viewpoint, with supporters from all sides of the question. The supporters are professionals. Excellent. But, they don’t have the time to discuss State Issues, much less local issues. 

So, I ask you: where can I get information that is dependable and which I can use to make a decision about my position on different political issues, large and small? 

This is a non-trivial question and I am perplexed. I would appreciate guidance. 

The National Genealogy Society (NGS) a large operation. There are approximately 2000 people attending; they are from every corner of the United States. 

“Genealogy is where you confuse the dead, and irritate the living.” (A quote from a number of excited genealogists.)

We are enjoying ourselves at the conference and in Cincinnati. We have eaten Cincinnati Chili at a local landmark: Skyline, which is known for their chili. We have also tasted a local speciality: goetta (a mixture of hamburger meat and kasha. (good). And, we are staying in the Hilton Hotel, in the Netherlands Tower, which is a very interesting old hotel (from the 1920s). We have a room which is three times the size of a room in a modern hotel. Times and architecture have changed. 

Today, 8 May 2012, my spouse (Leslie) and I are driving to Cincinnati from Washington DC for the National Genealogical Society convention. There will be approximately 2000 members. Leslie and I will be telling people about Life ECHOES. We will be there through Friday. 

As we put it so clearly: we publish books. Life Echoes is a Family Legacy Book Publishing Service that helps clients generate a book with stories from their lives merely by speaking into a digital voice recorder. This recorder gets transcribed into a manuscript and is edited by Life Echoes’ professional team of editors. The edited stories, along with the client’s own photos, become a beautiful, heirloom-quality book that will last for generations. 

We are the natural allies of professional genealogists. They do the research of their client’s family tree; we take that data and then add the stories that put the meat on the bones of the tree. 

It is fun to do, and easy. The satisfaction from our clients is delightful to see and hear.