Oh please.

JS: I realize you said you weren't directing that at me, but obviously the point you make is why I specifically said that onleyone should spend his time pursuing financial success if that is what he desires.

Actually Jim's statement that McClatchy (“Truth to Power”) is one of the best newspaper chains (the source he goes to, apparently, to fact check wikipedia just in case there MIGHT be a bias there) explains a lot.

It explains that he has realized just how often McClatchy has been right over the past 7 years as opposed to other media sources?

Or are you claiming that McClatchy is biased?

I think the word “success” takes on an entirely different meaning when looking at material acquisition, which is to say, “success” isn't really the appropriate word. Yes, I realize how the popularity of personal gratification has escalated in recent decades, but it didn't used to be nearly so prevailent a dynamic. In fact we used to have this word in the olden days, “greed”, which referred to a disproportianate amount of time and energy being devoted to material self-absorbtion.

To me success has more to do with learning what is important in life, becoming a person of integrity – and knowledge, having friends and family who are worth loving and respecting, developing an awareness of what in life matters, and appreciating the natural world around us – or what is left of it, livng a lifestyle that puts a light footprint on the planet. I realize that in 2008 the idea of using one's brain to learn about something other than how to accumulate personal wealth may seem a little eccentric, but guess what? You can't buy self-esteem, at least not any self-esteem worth having. And you could go through your whole life pursuing the buck and miss a great deal of what the universe has to offer. Then again, this is subjective, so you can't miss what you don't know about right?

Now, wealth and sensibility don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive, and there are many good things that can be done with wealth, but the sad truth from what I've seen is that they often are mutually exclusive. The standard created in our society and pushed endlessly on popular media that money and the amount of crap you can buy should be the number one goal is in fact, is in reality, a dismally low standard. Material excess most assuredly does not equate to a life in balance with what is best for the health of the earth – nor by extension society in general.

Think about this in terms of percentage of resources used per person by the average American (not even the most affluent Americans) as compared to percentage of resources available worldwide. This information is available and it shows an extremely lopsided pattern of use, roughly 1/3 of the world's resources being used by 1/20 of the worlds population. Sure, looking at that big picture isn't very comfortable for lots of folks, so they choose priorities that are more personally (materially) gratifying, and they manage to fool themselves into thinking this is a rational choice… which it isn't. So this stunted, short, in effect greedy goal becomes an actual failure in the long run, and is a failure from it's conception.

OK, I'm almost done. I just felt compelled to set the record straight about personal material wealth acquisition somehow equating to “success”. Matters of the environment are real and hitting us in the face. They aren't a liberal talking, nor is the environment the province of any special interest group, we are ALL that special interest group now. People had better wake up.

OK, as you were…

I don't know what you are getting at. I have learned about ACORN from many sources, including Fox News, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and on the Redstate blog.

Actually Jim's statement that McClatchy (“Truth to Power”) is one of the best newspaper chains (the source he goes to, apparently, to fact check wikipedia just in case there MIGHT be a bias there) explains a lot.

Personally I find that in today's polarized political climate, the only way to come close to objective truth is to read a variety of sources from left, right, and center. Once you've done all three on any given topic, the wheat separates from the chaff pretty readily because whatever the people on the right and left are either ignoring or exaggerating becomes apparent.

No, actually I'm too busy getting a new 409A set-up to thwart obama's tax increase on my wages.

i envy you the income you must make to even be subject to obama's tax increases ($250k and up)!

it must be tough, making that much money. i feel for you.

No, actually I'm too busy getting a new 409A set-up to thwart obama's tax increase on my wages.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_2_acorns_nu…

Likely more significant though, is, I believe the number of states in which ACORN registrations are now under question/investigation is 12.

Not ACORN!!!! Oh noes!

Obama is slated for a landslide according to the polls, are you just getting ready to go nuts when it actually happens and call the election stolen?

Likely more significant though, is, I believe the number of states in which ACORN registrations are now under question/investigation is 12.

The odds are lowering.

This passage is what convinced me that this is a loony outfit:

“This is why Florida and Michigan were allowed to be such a mess for Democrats, and why Donna Brazile and Howard Dean got away with taking delegates away from Hillary Clinton and giving them, unearned, to Obama for Michigan: no federal agency had any ability to step in and ensure a fair resolution of the Michigan and Florida votes. This was 100% in the hands of the Democratic party, which intended to award Obama its nomination since 2004. The party never intended to allow Hillary Clinton to win this thing — they always wanted Obama, and the party thus turned a deaf ear to our constant and repeated complaints of voter fraud, intimidation, and other thuggery by the Obama campaign from January through June.

That means, technically, nothing Obama did during the primaries was illegal…if our understanding of election law is true and political party primaries are not safeguarded under federal law.”

First off, while it may be true that the party sets certain rules, it was Hillary's own people who wrote the rules (or helped write) with regards to FL and MI. And it was also Hillary who choose to disregard those rules and keep her name on the ballot.

Second, I've only heard that Obama ran a well-organized ground campaign. He understood all the nuances of the various primaries and caucuses and used them to full effect (as any smart politician would).

Third, as far as the Democratic establishment wanting Obama to win from the beginning…. that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. Much of the establishment was behind Hillary. She had way more superdelegates behind her than Obama. Obama won the primary because of popular support and many super delegates felt they had to support Obama because their constituents were pro-Obama.

Last, I thought the article was about Obama's misdeeds and illegal behavior…. the article even says that people who were involved in the primary issues were cooperating with the Republicans and law enforcement in the general election….. If no laws were broken during the primary, then why would there be need for cooperation with the Republicans and law enforcement in the general election? If there were laws broken during the primaries, then I can see how reasonable people would have concerns that laws might be broken during the general election…. But a reasonable person would not be inclined to think that a law-abiding person would suddenly start breaking laws…. I've recently commented under another post on TMV that Obama knows each action he takes will be scrutinized and if his opponents can knock him out of the race because of some broken rule or law, then they will. Obama knows to keep his nose clean.

Again, I don't doubt that there are over-zealous supporters in all campaigns… and I think Obama and others should ensure their folks are properly trained. Any laws that are broken can be dealt with individually. But I think the sniff test is whether Obama's campaign has orchestrated illegal behavior and this piece does not offer any evidence that it has.