The Economics and Irresponsibility of Barack Obama’s Scare Tactics

Continuing to say whatever he thinks will get him elected.
Monday, September 15, 2008

This is very simple. To a great extent, the success of our economy depends upon the positive expectations of our entrepreneurs and consumers.

Senator McCain tells us that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Senator Obama responds by telling us that McCain is lost in space, that the fundamentals of our economy are not strong, and that we’re in deep trouble.

Personally, I think Senator McCain is correct, that our fundamentals are strong, that these adjustments are what a troubled, but basically healthy economy does to fix itself. It’s part of a natural process in the context of which our government needs to help those who are adversely affected – short of saving the companies and the government policies which encouraged or allowed the current mess to happen in the first place.

Whether or not Senator McCain is right, the one thing I know for sure is that doomsday talk from Senator Obama has got to have a depressing effect on consumer and entrepreneur confidence. He’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy for which voters should hold him responsible. Does he really think that telling us again and again that we’re in serious trouble won’t have a negative impact on the rate at which large and small businesses invest in growth and create new jobs? Does he think the American consumer will be encouraged by his negativism to buy homes and increase their expenditures for consumer products?

How irresponsible. And Senator Obama has the nerve to say that Senator McCain doesn’t get it.

Senator Obama’s a bright guy who, I think, understands the consequences of his rhetoric. It’s just that he cares more about getting elected, than about the jobs and incomes of the people he keeps promising he’ll protect. And if I’m wrong, and he doesn’t understand, well then he’s an amateur making a rookie mistake, and clearly not ready to manage our government. Either way, whether it’s the ethics of his politics or understanding of the economy that’s the problem, are you willing to elect him President of the United States?


Site Meter

Johnny Obama Come Lately

“Senator Obama keeps telling us he’s going to change everything. So what’s he waiting for?”
Monday, September 15, 2008

So when, exactly, did it occur to Senator Obama that he was going to change the way Washington does business? The simple answer is that it never has. It’s all talk calculated to win the Presidency. How can I be so sure? For those of us who still believe the old adage, that actions speak louder than words, consider the following:

1. What’s he been doing since he was elected to the US Senate to convince us his commitment to change is credible, and to prove that his ability to accomplish change is truly something in which we can believe?

According to Senate voting data published by the Washington Post(1), during the 110th Congress Barack Obama voted with his party 96.0% of the time. Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is an establishment Democrat. “If it walks like a duck…”

His party, not incidentally, was in control of both houses. To what end? Which of the new “agent of change” programs on his website has he attempted to put in place during the time he’s been in office? What, precisely, has he done to change the way our government operates? How hard has he tried? In what specific ways has he succeeded? Where is all the innovative, bipartisan legislation he keeps promising? Was that what he was busy preparing during the 291 votes (45.5% of the total) he missed during the 110th Congress? Too busy running for office, too busy talking about change to make any happen?

2. Why select the consummate Washington insider as his running mate?

For Vice President he selects Joe Biden for his foreign policy experience, a card carrying member of the Washington establishment Senator Obama insists he’s going to turn inside out. If he wanted Senator Biden’s advice, he could have had it from Biden’s vantage point inside the Senate where his power and ability to help a President Obama pass all that new legislation would have worked to his – and our – advantage. He could have made Biden Secretary of State or a foreign affairs or national security advisor. The fact is, he mistakenly thought that adding Joe Biden to the ticket would counter concerns about his (Senator Obama’s) lack of relevant experience, Biden’s “old school,” establishment background and relationships notwithstanding. Change had nothing to do with it. Picking his Vice President was just one more missed chance for Senator Obama to prove the substance of his rhetoric.

3. Why stop asking for earmarks?

In fiscal 2008 alone, Senator Obama requested 112 “earmarks” totaling $330 million, but none for fiscal 2009.(2) Now that’s a change alright, but why wait until now, until the McCain campaign calls him to task, his lead in the polls evaporating? If earmarks were signs of the old Washington establishment he plans to change, why not start by setting an example the first day he arrived in the Senate? In his first three years in office, Senator Obama earmarked funding for 326 special projects costing a total of $860.6 million.(3) That must have been before he had the epiphany that he could change all this squandering.

Senator Obama keeps telling us he’s going to change everything. So what’s he waiting for? The simple and intentionally sarcastic conclusion is that he’s apparently saving that torrent of change he’s been holding back until he’s elected President. It’s the ultimate “trust me” candidacy, but why should we?

References:
(1) Senator Obama’s Voting History Published by the Washington Post
(2) CNN On-Line Article About Earmarks Requested by Senator Obama
(3) Taxpayers for Common Sense Study of Earmarks Requested by Senator Obama


Site Meter

On Behalf of John McCain: “Thank you, Tina Fey.”

Sunday, September 14, 2008

If ever there was a reason to vote for John McCain, it is the prospect of four or more years of watching the brilliant Tina Fey play Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live.

Don’t believe me? Take a look for yourself…

Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton Joint Appearance on SNL

-wf


Site Meter

God: The 800 Pound Gorilla in the Debate on Abortion Rights

“Can there be any greater test of the principle of the separation of church and state other than in the mind of a true believer elected to high office?”

Saturday, September 13, 2008

This posting isn’t about what you or I think about abortion rights. It’s not about whether you believe in a woman’s right to choose or if you are “pro-life.” It’s about why the disagreement is so profound and politically difficult to resolve. And yes, it’s about who we should elect to be President and Vice President – if this were the only issue that mattered, which it’s not.

We all know the debate is inherently intense by virtue of what’s on the line. This isn’t some City Council hearing about the wisdom of alternate street parking. No, this is about nothing less than life itself. We have debates about life all the time, about the war in Iraq, for example, and countless other instances when our involvement, or lack of it, may have caused or prevented the deaths of innocent people. We are a nation which, in some states, still sanctions execution to punish people convicted of certain crimes. We’re used to making these most adult of all decisions, it’s just that abortion – for those who believe that life begins at conception – involves the termination, some would say “murder,” of the most innocent of our species.

Presumably, we all believe that life is precious and must be protected. And so it follows that, if you believe that life begins at conception, and from then on deserves the same rights to life as all born individuals, then the circumstances of conception must be irrelevant. Rape, for example, cannot be an exception to the rule, cannot be an excuse to allow life to be aborted. The potential for birth defects can’t make any difference. Least of all, relatively mundane concerns about the future effects upon the living – “She’s too young to have a baby,” for example. – can’t possibly be a factor. In fact, there can be no exception other than the health of the mother, in which case the pro-life advocate has the most difficult of choices to make.

Because the debate is about life, it has a profound problem with reciprocity. While one side can tolerate its opponent’s point of view, the reverse isn’t true. For a right to choose person to tell a pro-life person, that, “…not having an abortion is your right, but what I do is up to me,” doesn’t work. A pro-life advocate can’t give you the right to terminate a pregnancy any more easily than you could give your neighbor permission to kill someone at his or her discretion.

Unfortunately, if these considerations I’ve just mentioned weren’t serious enough, there’s another factor complicating the abortion rights debate.

For the purposes of this discussion we’re having, I’m going to divide the population of people who have opinions about abortion rights into three categories: Those whose religion takes no position on the issue. (Atheists would fall in this first group.) Those whose religion takes a position which the individual considers advisory, not compulsory. And those whose religions are pro-life, and who are bound by that doctrine. These are the people, in this latter group, who I call “true believers.” It’s a caption that is in no way meant to be critical or demeaning, but only to emphasize that theirs is a faith-based commitment to this particular view. The problem is that, for true believers, this isn’t just an argument between them and advocates of a woman’s right to choose. True believers have God on their side.

After all, if what you believe is the word of your God tells you that life begins at conception and abortion is wrong, well then, to convince you otherwise is tantamount to arguing that your God doesn’t know what it’s talking about, that your faith is in error. That you might tolerate others acting in contradiction to your faith on this most serious of issues is to challenge your relationship with the God in which you believe. Mind you, I’m not trying to be the least bit cute here. Think about it. Consider what the pro-choice advocate is asking of the true believer who is pro-life.

What do you do if you’re, let’s say, President of the United States, contemplating a lifetime appointment, or two, to the Supreme Court? Your God tells you abortion is wrong, while a majority of the citizens who elected you are pro-choice. Sure, appointments to the Supreme Court need to be approved by the Senate, by a simple majority of only 100 men and women representing various personal and electorate points of view, but the nominees come from The Oval Office. Can there be any greater test of the principle of the separation of church and state other than in the mind of a true believer elected to high office?

We are a nation that believes in religious freedom, and in a government that answers to the people. Technically, the religious beliefs of our elected government leaders, whether in the Congress or the White House, shouldn’t make any difference.

This blog is about words, creative, true, and opinionated words, including words like, “And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God…” and “In God we trust.” They’re words I’ve never taken too seriously, but lately I’ve begun to wonder. Will a President McCain or Palin answer to the people in the debate between pro-choice and pro-life points of view, or to a higher authority? It’s a question both sides of that debate have every right to ask. It’s not what the candidates believe that concerns me, it’s who they perceive to be the authority they serve.


Site Meter

Dialogue

Short Fiction for Guests of the WordFeeder
Friday, September 12, 2008
Printable version… Dialogue PDF

“God, I love Sunday mornings. …Richard?”

“What?”

“Could you at least not read the paper until we get there? You can’t walk and unfold the paper at the same time. You’re just smooshing it all up. You know I like it crisp, the way it was when we bought it.”

“Fine, fine. I’ll wait.”

“Com’on. What’s not to enjoy? …Watch it, that guy’s turning. Let’s wait for the light.”

“I’m waiting.”

“Waiting for what?”

“For the light. You just asked me to wait for the light, didn’t you?”

“Could you get back on the curb?”

“But I like the idea of being married to a taller woman. ..Com’on. We have 24 seconds to cross the street.”

“It’s perfect. We sleep late, slop on some clothes, pick up the paper, and take as much time as we want reading it cover to cover over some fresh coffee and a toasted bagel with extra-saturated fat, mmmm, mmm declicious walnut cream cheese. …Life is good.”

“Hm.”

“Richard, you promised.”

“Okay, okay. I’ll put it away, but you’re getting breakfast.”

“Deal. Now hold my hand and pretend like we actually enjoy hanging out together. It’s the one day we both have off. …There, isn’t that better?”

“You just want to remind your friends that we’re the only marriage they know that isn’t on the rocks, and that’s just because, in four years, we’ve only spent one day a week together. What’s that, 108 days, roughly three months? No wonder we’re still happy.”

“208 days. Four times 52 is 208. Seven months.”

“Whatever. Technically, we’re still newlyweds. At this rate our marriage could last forever.”

“But we have great sex, don’t we?”

“Confirming my theory that it’s best if only one of us is awake at a time. …I need to write a paper on that.”

“Hey, any time you want to move to the suburbs, we can both stop working 12 hour days.”

“What, and not eat out every meal?”

“We could save some money. That would be… Brenda!”

“Jesus, stop waiving. She’ll want to join us.”

“Try smiling. She’s got a morning session with her trainer, and please don’t say anything. I already know what you’re thinking.”

“I am trying to smile. This is the best I can do.”

“Alright, kill the smile. You’re beginning to scare people.”

“There, the table on the end. The one by the ficus with the squirrel pooping in the pot.”

“How do you know it’s a ficus?”

“I don’t. It’s the only potted tree name I know. Besides, I like the way it sounds. ‘Ficus.’ If we ever have children, I want to name it ‘Ficus.’”

“It? …Would you mind if we took this chair? …Thanks.”

“Boy. Girl. Who cares? Ficus is one of those names, like ‘Dana,” that works either way. .Have you got money?”

“I do. It’s in my sock. …Don’t ask.”

“I won’t.”

“I’m too young for a fanny pack.”

“Did you notice, I didn’t ask. Just make sure my croissant is perfect. And make sure, actually tell him not to slice it. I like tearing my croissants apart.”

“I’m going.”

“I mean it! Don’t take it if he.. slices it. She can’t hear me. I’m just talking to myself.”

“Hey, Richard.”

“Oh, hey, Brenda. You don’t mind if I don’t get up, do you? Lisa insisted that we walk, and I’m exhausted.”

“Richard, you only live 8 minutes from here.”

“Well, it seemed like 10. Besides, if I stop reading, I’ll forget where I was and have to start over again.”

“Aren’t those the comics?”

“This one has more words than usual.”

“Your chair’s wobbling.”

“True, but it’s wobbling less than the other chairs. …Lisa’s inside getting food.”

“No, I’m right here. There was no one in line. Serge actually seemed glad to see me. Hi, honey.”

“I thought I was ‘honey’.”

“No, you’re ‘sweet cheeks’. I’ll make you name tag when I get back. Brenda and I need to chat for a second. I’ll be right back.”

“You really think my cheeks are sweet?”

“ Read the paper.”

“I thought we were going to read the.. paper together. Apparently not.”

“You were right.”

“That was quick. Right about what?”

“About Jeffrey. Hand me the ‘Arts & Leisure’ section.”

“Who’s ‘Jeffrey’? Here.”

“Her trainer. I think he’s 12, but Brenda says he has the maturity of a 15 year old. …Oh my God! I can’t believe you dog eared one of the pages. Have you learned nothing living with me??”

“Just read the review of Bob’s play. You can thank me later.”

“Richard, there’s a pigeon on the table.”

“None of my friends are pigeons. It must be one of yours.”

“Do I have poppy seeds in my teeth?’

“No.”

“Richard, put the paper down and tell me if I have poppy seeds in my teeth.”

“No, but your teeth seem unusually large today.”

“By the way, I meant to tell you…”

“Tell me what?”

“Hey, will you try not to dip the corner of the paper in my cream cheese the next time you turn the page. It has the perfect number of walnuts.”

“That’s what you wanted to tell me?”

“No. …I’m expecting.”

“Hm.”

“I said, ‘I’m expecting…”

“Expecting what?”

“…a ficus.”

“We’ll put it on the balcony. It’ll be fine. …Did you take the financial section?”

“Richard?”

“Hm.”

“Richard?!!”

“What?!”

“We don’t have a balcony.”

-wf

What to read more? Just click here and pick a title you like.

Copyright as of the title date or earlier, by me.
(I write the WordFeeder blog.)  All rights reserved.
Email WordFeeder@verizon.net for additional information.

Banning Books: The Hypocrisy of Criticizing Sarah Palin

Thursday, September 11, 2008

There is a famous story attributed to the late playwright, George Bernard Shaw. The gist of the tale is that Shaw approaches a woman at a party and offers her 10,000 pounds sterling – Shaw was Irish. – if she’ll sleep with him. She thinks about it and agrees, to which Shaw, sensing he may have overpaid, asks the question again, but this time for a price of only 10 pounds. Insulted, the woman rejects this second offer outright, saying something to the effect, “What do you take me for?” to which Shaw responds, “We’ve already established what you are, ma’am. Now we’re just haggling over the price.” With luck, you’ll understand the relevance of this story to the point I’m about to make.

Among the criticisms of Governor Palin is the assertion that she once asked a local librarian in the small town where she (Governor Palin) was Mayor how one might go about banning books that library had in its collection. No books were ever banned, nor did then Mayor Palin make any such request, but the question about procedure – according to an article in the September 15 edition of Time magazine and factcheck.org on September 8 – was asked. The question I have is whether we have the right to attack Governor Palin for asking it. Is it wrong to want to ban books from a public or school library?

If someone walks up to me and asks the unqualified question, “Are you in favor of banning books,” my response is a resounding, “Of course not.” (That’s my response, not necessarily yours.) As a matter of general principle, I might explain indignantly, “Are you kidding? I find all forms censorship to be abhorrent, an affront to the core concepts of a free society on which our democracy is based!” But then, I don’t really mean that. That’s just the college boy liberal in me talking.

Sure, I’m adamantly opposed to government or other censorship of our access to information. I believe emphatically in the essential importance of a free press, broadly defined to include other sources of information, including libraries and the Internet. But am I or are we, collectively, really opposed to all forms of censorship? Of course not. Censorship, whether self-imposed or by law, is everywhere in our lives.

We censor television, relegating more explicit, more adult materials to the later hours, allowing limited access cable television to be less inhibited in its choice of subject matter and presentation than the broadcast networks.

We provide ratings for movies to help parents censor what their children see.

We use software to block what our children can watch on TV and discover on the Internet.

In fact, protecting our children is one of the most profound and extensive uses of censorship in our society – unless, of course, you only meant the definition of “censorship” to pertain to adults, to our citizens who are old enough to vote.

Let’s be honest about it. Are there no books, the contents of which you would prefer were not readily accessible to your children at your public or their school library? Don’t try to think of specific titles. This isn’t a test. Think hypothetically about books with certain explicit sexual, violent, philosophical or other materials and messages you find objectionable and inappropriate for children of a certain age. (For that matter, do you really want adults having unfettered access to instructions for building and deploying bombs or chemical and biological weapons?) Get over your aversion to the general concept of “banning books.” Books are just a form of information, like other media including television, the Internet and movies. If it makes sense to censor one or more of these media, why not the others? Why not books?

When you think about it, we’re all like the woman in Shaw’s story when it comes to censorship. We all do it. The only thing we’re quibbling about is where we draw the line – and in that debate Sarah Palin’s opinion deserves the same respect as yours and mine.


Site Meter

From factcheck.org: Sliming Palin

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Hi. For those of you who have been concerned about various stories flying around the Internet, the Newsweek link below may alleviate some of your concerns about Governor Palin. I suspect that many of the other rumors about the Governor, other than those specifically addressed through this link, are likely just that, grossly exaggerated, misinterpreted or fabricated tidbits intended to attract attention without concern for credibility, which are personally and/or politically motivated.

Also, while the text isn’t on MSNBC yet, a story on this morning’s Today show confirms that Alaska has some of our country’s most liberal laws on abortion, and that Governor Palin has made no attempt to impose her personal beliefs on the citizens of her state, a majority of whom do not agree with her point of view.

My thanks to one of my favorite fans of the WordFeeder for bringing this piece to my attention.

From factcheck.org: Sliming Palin


Site Meter

The Infallibility of Barack Obama

Monday, September 8, 2008

Senator Obama accuses Governor Palin – who he has apparently decided to run against rather than Senator McCain – of “flip flopping” on the issue of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” In fact, she did change her mind. But so what?

The question which Senator Obama should be asking is, “Why?” Was it for political expedience which would be wrong, or for good reason in which case she did the right thing. Changing your mind is not, Senator Obama, an inherently bad thing. Quite to the contrary, it’s an often essential part of every process which demonstrates an open-mindedness, intellectual flexibility and a willingness to learn from experience which we considerable desirable traits, particularly in the President of the United States.

At the same time, Senator Obama has been reluctant to admit that The Surge has succeeded. What praise he has allowed the strategy has been qualified by atypically awkward attempts to define other considerations which have to be taken into account.

So what’s the harm in admitting something so reasonable as that, while you adamantly opposed The Surge when it was first advocated, in retrospect you concede you were incorrect, and move on? We all know you were incorrect, and that Senator McCain was right. To paraphrase your own words today, “Do you think the American people are stupid?” So you were wrong. It happens.

The fact is, I don’t believe in the concept of a President, particularly one with your meager experience, who never makes a mistake. And I certainly don’t want to vote for a candidate who can’t admit it when he does.


Site Meter

A Meaningful Comparison of the Voting Records of Senators Obama and McCain

“…they are clearly nowhere nearly as far apart as the Obama Campaign wants us all to believe.”
Sunday, September 7, 2008

Senator Obama loves to tell us, again and again, how Senator McCain voted with President Bush 90% of the time – and then asks whether or not we want to take only a 10% chance on change. Needless to say, the latter assumption doesn’t follow from the 90% voting record he’s quoting. It’s a joke to suggest that it does, but we’ll cut the Senator a break and chalk it up to what he thinks is clever writing. My problem is with the assumption that he (Senator Obama) must have voted substantially differently than Senator McCain.

And so it occurred to me… Forget about how often Senator McCain voted with President Bush. I’d like to compare the two Senators’ voting records to each other. Of course, Senator Obama hasn’t been in office for all that long, so what I’ve done is compare their voting records during the 110th Congress.

As you’re about to see in the enclosed spreadsheet, I went to a Washington Post website and compared their voting records with respect to 31 votes during the period Februay 10, 2005 through August 3, 2007 – votes which the Washington Post considered the “most important bills, nominations and resolutions that have come before Congress. …based on an analysis of the potential impact of the legislation on policy and politics.”

Here’s a summary of what I found. The enclosed spreadsheet has a complete list of the 31 votes. Please go to the Washington Post website showing in the spreadsheet for a detailed description of each vote.

Senator Barack Obama…
Voted on 29 of the 31 total votes.
Voted with the Republican (GOP) opinion 27.59% of the time.
Voted with Senator McCain 34.48% of the time.

Senator John “Maverick” McCain…
Voted on 25 of the 31 total votes.
Voted with the Democrat (DEM) opinion 40.00% of the time.
Voted with Senator Obama 40.00% of the time.

No question about, Senators Obama and McCain have differing points of view about legislation and how our government should be run – but they are clearly nowhere nearly as far apart as the Obama Campaign wants us all to believe. Not only that, these voting records data tend to support Senator McCain’s assertion that he is a “maverick” who has consistently demonstrated a willingness to vote his mind, for what he thinks is best for his country regardless of his party’s line. Presumably, the same is true for Senator Obama – except that, for some reason, he’s avoided making that point.

Here the link to the spreadsheet…
Obama and McCain Voting Records


Site Meter

Precocious

Short Fiction for Guests of the WordFeeder
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Printable version… Precocious PDF

“My name is John Stansfield. I’m an agricultural microbiologist for a consulting firm. The name of the company isn’t important. They had nothing to do with what I’m about to describe. Besides, by now whatever personal records I kept at the office have removed or altered to fool any investigation. These people don’t erase any evidence of your existence. That’s way too hard, too suspicious. Better to leave you out there, stripped of your credibility. By now, my life has been tweaked, altered with finesse just enough to make anything I say here seem plausibly unbelievable, at most the ramblings of an over-active imagination. They have taken from me the fraction of my life that made me special. It was hardly anything, but everything that made me unique. It is the proverbial telltale partial fingerprint proving their involvement, that I have become extraordinarily ordinary, of no particular interest to anyone. The records I have, but they don’t know about, are quite probably the last surviving evidence that what I am about to tell you is true. I fear for my life. Even more, I fear that what I have done, however innocent and well meaning, will be left to prove in horrible retrospect that my story was authentic, and the danger all too real.”

“It’s late. If you care, I’m working in the dark, except for the glow of my screen, in the upstairs bedroom of one the kids of an acquaintance who’s on vacation. I overheard him leaving his house key with his secretary to take care of his plants, and made a copy while she went out for lunch. He doesn’t know I’m here, and I borrowed a friend’s car in case they were tracking mine. No one followed me. I should be okay for the next few hours – time enough to write this, get some sleep, and be up and out of here early, before any of the neighbors notice. I’m afraid to use my cell phone, and these people don’t have a land line. It sounds corny, I know, but I’ll give you instructions later for how you can reach me by running a personals add on-line. …I’m talking too much. I’m so tired, but I’ve got to get this out.”

“My particular specialty is protecting agricultural products from exposure to environmental and biological elements which, when those agricultural products are consumed, would cause harm to the public.”

“I’m not much of a writer, but I’ll do my best to explain what’s happened, and then I’m going to go. This will be an e-mail addressed to the Editors-in-Chief of the major television news networks and most prominent newspapers. Hopefully, one of you will take me seriously, investigate on the odd chance that I’m not a crackpot, and do something about it. I can’t, and don’t think I’ll live long enough even if I could. At best, you’ll staff it out, if it even makes it to your desk. At most, you might do your duty and forward it to the local office of the FBI who will give it casual study until it’s too late. At worst, these notes will be one more inconspicuous item for the nice Hispanic lady who empties your trash after you’ve gone home for the day. With luck, you’ll never realize how many lives you could have saved had you only paid attention.”

“Some months ago, I was approached by someone who identified herself – verbally and with written credentials which I verified with her agency – as Rebecca Kloonz, a senior analyst with Homeland Security, an almost too attractive blonde, as stunning as she was friendly, the consummate professional you couldn’t get out of your head no matter how hard you tried. What I did, to be honest, I did for my country, but pleasing her was certainly part of it.”

“When I first met her, she was accompanied by a suit claiming to be a lawyer with the same agency. I’ll attach copies of the business cards they gave me. Although I now know they are imposters, both of them checked out when we first met. I called Homeland Security, and there used to be a handful of citations on Google, and a My Space page, but they’re gone now. Kloontz, the analyst, was to be my contact. The lawyer – the suit that came with her after I agreed to cooperate – was supposedly there to explain a handful of forms and agreements I had to sign related to federal secrecy statutes.”

“The gist of what they wanted was to hire me, outside of our company, to participate in what amounted to a game in the war against terrorism. My job was to devise and precisely document three to five means by which terrorists could infect the food supply so as to produce the most widespread, most frightening harm to our people, with devastating effects on the economy. One simple example that she gave me, far less sophisticated and effective than what she knew I could propose, was to introduce Mad Cow’s Disease in multiple herds around the country, destroying the American beef industry and all the various related companies whose products derive from that core ingredient. But MCD was too obvious. What they wanted from me were techniques that would kill as many people as possible, quickly, before the root cause could be determined, and for which there would be no obvious or convenient solution.”

“Other experts, as unknown to me as I would be to them, would then be tasked to devise means of protecting against these threats that I had devised, and recovering from such an attack. In later games, our roles would be reversed. It was the patriotic thing for me to do. It’s unbelievable, but I even met with Ms. Kloonz at her offices in the Homeland Security building in Washington. Why wouldn’t I believe her? While I was there, some senior gentlemen stopped by to thank me for agreeing to work with them on behalf of the American people would never appreciate the value of my efforts and that of other scientists like me. Who knows what he thought I was there to do? Was he in on it, or not? God forgive me, but who wouldn’t have thought this was real?”

“Attached to this e-mail are copies of the three suggestions I made, including detailed formulas, instructions for manufacturing, and plans for distribution. Their insidious effectiveness never disgusted me. Their cleverness made me proud of what I could do for my country, but then they counted on that, didn’t they, that I would be so highly motivated to do the right thing.”

Of the three proposals I made to Kloonz, the one in which she seemed to be most interested wa… Hold on. I think there’s a car pulling up in the driveway. Jesus, it’s after 1 AM and Jack isn’t due home until next week. Hold on… It’s just one man. F**k, he’s working the front door. He’s coming in. I’m going to e-mail this now and send you the attachments later, as soon as I…”

“Hi, honey.” His mother gave her smiling husband a quick kiss on the lips, and turned to shout upstairs to her favorite (and only) son. “Nelson! Com’on. Daddy’s home. I’ve got dinner ready to go. Get your sister and come on down. We’ve still go to pack so we can get an early start tomorrow morning.”

“Nuts,” Nelson thought to himself, interrupting his typing to press on the center of his frames, pushing his glasses up this nose which, sadly, would eventually be large enough to no longer need his assistance.

“He’s not packed yet?” his father asked, putting down his briefcase on top of their cat he hadn’t noticed was sitting in his favorite family room chair.” You’d have thought Jack, the cat, would have screamed, but then he was used to it, and looked forward to their leaving him home for a week of peace and quiet. “What’s he been doing all day?”

“Writing. I don’t know. I haven’t packed either.” And then she laughed, not wanting to make fun of their son, but unable to help herself. “He’s been grumbling that he has less than three weeks to come up with a really cool nickname.”

“It’s summertime. Why isn’t he busy with his dorky friends inventing something?”

“Hey, they’re not that dorky,” his older sister, Samantha, always protective of her younger brother, had just come around the corner into the kitchen. “He’s just a kid – a really, really smart kid with an overly active imagination. He’ll be okay as soon as he starts Middle School after we get back.”

“Nelson!!!” His mother couldn’t stand not serving dinner when it was ready.

The cringe was a reflex he couldn’t suppress. Still upstairs, standing up from his desk, Nelson moved the arrow “Send/Receive” and pressed the left key below his synapse pad. “Maybe it’ll make the news,” he said out loud. “That would be cool.”

“NELSON.” This time it was his father calling him. “Sam, please go get your brother.”

“Nelson Metcalf Rogerson. Jesus, what were they thinking?” he muttered under his breath, closing the lid of his laptop on his way to the door. “I’m never going to get a girl to go out with me. Never, ever.”

-wf

What to read more? Just click here and pick a title you like.

Copyright as of the title date or earlier, by me.
(I write the WordFeeder blog.)  All rights reserved.
Email WordFeeder@verizon.net for additional information.