The Patriarch's Pen: Election 2008, Article 3

This is my third blog post on the candidates for the Presidency in this year’s election. I have already presented my reasons why I will not vote for Senator Barack Obama as well as the various 3rd party candidates. The only candidate I have not discussed is Senator John McCain. He is the subject of this post.

First, let me be upfront on Senator McCain. He was not my choice for the Republican nomination during the primaries. I am not a John McCain fan. There are many reasons why I could vote against him. Here are a few:

1. McCain-Kennedy. This was the infamous “comprehensive” immigration bill which resulted in such a public outcry that it was wiped off the face of the earth. No matter what you call it, the bill was an amnesty bill and a major strike against Senator McCain.

2. McCain-Feingold. Supposedly a campaign reform bill, McCain-Feingold essentially helps incumbents maintain their seats.

3. McCain-Lieberman. The Climate Stewardship Act which would have depressed the economy more than saved the environment.

4. The Gang of 14. Senator McCain was one of the leaders of this informal group of 7 Republican and 7 Democrat Senators who worked together on President Bush’s justice appointments. In my humble opinion, Senator McCain was far TOO bi-partisan with this group, leaning toward the Democratic side way too often.

5. His energy position. Senator McCain has been against off shore drilling and drilling in ANWAR for some time. To his credit, he has changed his position on off shore drilling and now supports it since our nation badly needs this oil. I am hopeful Governor Palin, who supports drilling in ANWAR, will change his mind on that matter as well.

If Hilary Clinton had been the nominee running against John McCain, the above items would probably have driven me to vote for Chuck Baldwin even if that meant giving the Presidency to Clinton (believe me, that aggravates my stomach even to think about it). But Senator Clinton did not win the Democratic nomination, Senator Obama did. If there was another candidate more conservative than John McCain AND who could realistically defeat Barack Obama, I would vote for him. But, there isn’t. So I am left with John McCain.

My remarks should not be interpreted to imply there are no reasons why I would vote for him. He does have several positive stances with which I agree.

1. He is pro-life. As he stated at the Saddleback Forum earlier this year, Senator McCain believes life begins at conception. There have been concerns expressed over some of his views on cloning, but, when contrasted with Senator Obama’s radical view on the life of the unborn, Senator McCain’s position is outstanding.

2. He is pro-military. Senator McCain argued for some time to expand the size of our forces in Iraq and he has been proven correct in that assessment. Foreign leaders know McCain as President is not someone who will back away from a fight. Even more importantly, Senator McCain supports the military and understands the need for strong technology for the defense of our country. Again, his position compared to Senator Obama’s position is like day and night. Obama’s desire is to reduce the military, McCain’s is to strengthen it.

3. He is against pork barrel spending. Although I am disappointed with his vote to approve the most recent bail out package to which the Democrats attached some pork barrel spending, Senator McCain has generally fought against such additions to bills as they came through Congress. He is one of the few Senators who have consistently fought against pork barrel spending and I believe he will continue that commitment as President by vetoing such bills when they arrive on his desk.

4. He is experienced. This is a no brainer. Neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain has executive experience in the political world. But no one can argue that Barack Obama has the experience level of a John McCain. For example, Senator McCain has made numerous trips to the Middle East even in the past few years. Senator Obama has made one and that one was a political photo shoot. John McCain, for better or for worse, understands how Washington works.

5. He will appoint justices who do not legislate from the bench. Given his track record with the “Gang of 14”, I must admit I’m a little concern about his future judicial appointments. He has publicly declared he will appoint only judges who judge and do not legislate from the bench. Again, McCain’s pledge when compared with Obama’s stand on judicial appointments is 180 degrees different.

6. He does work “both sides of the aisle”. For years John McCain has proven he will work with members from both parties in Congress. I believe at times (e.g., “Gang of 14”), he bends too far to the side of the Democrats. But, like it or not, when McCain says he is bi-partisan he means it. Barack Obama claims he will unite everyone and work both sides of the aisle but, honestly, Senator Obama has done nothing of the sort during his time in politics.

7. He chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. Without question, John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice President won my support to the ticket. Given Obama’s far left philosophy, I was slowing warming to Senator McCain as the only hope of defeating Obama. But when he picked Palin that settled it. To me, this choice illustrated McCain’s political savvy and his good judgment.

Unlike the bad press Governor Palin has received, she is a very intelligent woman who has done a remarkable job both as an Alaskan mayor and as the state’s Governor. She has the highest approval rating of any governor in the country and probably one of the highest of any state or national politician. She is strongly pro-life, fiscally conservative, and a reformer by nature. Governor Palin has more executive experience than either Presidential candidate as well as her Vice President opponent, Senator Joe Biden. She has done far more in her state of Alaska for her people, than Senator Obama has done for the people of Illinois either in the state house or the United States Congress.

Given the choice of a far left wing candidate who supports killing the unborn (and, in some cases, even those already born!), espouses socialism, is weak militarily, and has no experience or a moderate candidate who supports life, is strong militarily, espouses capitalism, has a running mate who is even more traditional and conservative, and can defeat the socialist candidate, I must vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin and I will do so proudly and gladly.

I encourage everyone to exercise their right and vote. But I do encourage those who are seriously considering Barack Obama take a time out, forget the national news media, and check out the Senator’s extremely liberal positions. Are those positions what you really want for our country?

An e-mail from my Congressman

Today I received a response to an e-mail I wrote to my Congressman, the Honorable Todd Akin, during the time of the economic bailout discussions in Washington. My e-mail encouraged Congressman Akin to vote against the bailout plan of Secretary Paulson which he did. I thought you may be interested in the Congressman’s response to my original correspondence.

Dear Reverend Walker:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on Secretary Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout plan. My office has received more correspondence on this question then on any issue in the past 8 years.

For this reason, and because of the technical nature of the issue, I have prepared a more lengthy response than I would for most issues. The bottom line is that I voted "NO" on the proposal. A more detailed explanation follows.

In mid-September, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came to Congress with an unprecedented demand. He told us that the American economy was on the brink of catastrophe. Our only hope was to give him $700 billion, immediately, with no strings attached. Seven hundred billion dollars amounts to an indirect tax of $7,551 per taxpayer. It is the cost of the war in Iraq for five-plus years, and it is close to what America spends on foreign oil in a year. Paulson's plan was to use the money to buy "toxic assets" from banks and other financial institutions. These assets were considered "toxic" because their value was so uncertain that there was no market for them.

Paulson's demand placed Congress on the horns of a dilemma. One was financial Armageddon. The other was a $700 billion indirect tax on American taxpayers. Common sense dictates that when two bad alternatives are proposed, one should look for a better alternative. Unfortunately, Secretary Paulson was not interested in discussing any alternatives.

Over the next few days, Congressmen of all political stripes scrutinized the nature of the problem and possible solutions. Conservatives were concerned about the massive increase in deficit spending and what precedent would be set if the Federal Government purchased bundles of private loans. Many Members of Congress were skeptical that the government could be trusted to come up with a satisfactory pricing mechanism for the toxic securities because there was no way to establish a value. Some Democratic Members of Congress also had serious concerns regarding the Wall Street bailout.

There is no doubt that we need to insure the soundness of the American dual banking system and our markets with:

1)The least amount of bad government regulation, - Fannie & Freddie along with suspension of the Mark-to-Market rule when no market exists.

2)The most amount of disclosure, - no naked short selling without the "up-tick rule."

3)More accountability for bad actors - if they make bad loans, poor investments or borrow what they cannot repay - then they should pay the price.

4)Rewards for those who behaved responsibly and penalties for those who didn't - no golden parachutes.

Early in the last decade, Congress mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase the number of purchases of mortgages made to lower-income borrowers. Under President Clinton, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie even higher numeric goals for low-income borrowers. At the same time, banks were also forced to implement loan quotas for lower income households through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Additionally, early in 2001, as the economy headed into recession, the Federal Reserve began a series of interest rate cuts, bringing the interest rate down to 1% and holding it there for a year. These actions drastically expanded lending; particularly in the real estate market. However, because housing prices were rising, the defaults stayed relatively low. In the meantime, mortgages and loans were being made, sold, and bundled without regard to the likelihood that the borrowers would be able to repay. The bundled securities, called "mortgage backed securities," were incorrectly given AAA ratings and sold all over the world.

In 2003, an article in the New York Times reported, "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Unfortunately, many Democrats argued that there was no impended crisis. In fact, at the time, the current Democratic Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank ,stated, "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

By 2004 and 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress saw the danger and passed legislation to tighten regulation of Freddie and Fannie. I voted in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats blocked any effort to improve the law.

Over the past year, increasingly more homes came onto the market than buyers and the homebuilding industry began to show signs of stress. Home values started to drop and builders could not find buyers for their new homes. Before long, the value of homes was dropping below the cost of loans. As a result, some consumers who were overextended on their credit started defaulting on their mortgages. Investors began to lose confidence in Freddie and Fannie, causing their stock prices to tumble (down about 80%) over last year. Because so many banks and financial institutions were invested so heavily in these securities, it resulted in the need to bailout Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, these same banks and investment firms that had bet on mortgage backed securities began to be in serious trouble - and so were their customers. Banks that were rumored to be in trouble began to see an increase in withdrawals by their customers - triggering fears of bank runs. With so much money tied up in bad investments, even healthier banks were reluctant to make new loans.

When banks stopped buying mortgage backed securities because they could no longer determine their real value, this placed the banks that owned these securities at risk.. Federal accounting rules state that a capital asset on a bank's books must be daily "marked to market." However, when there is no market, law requires these assets to be shown as "zero" in value. This causes problems for banks by depressing their capital reserves value. For example, if a bank owns 1 million dollars of mortgages on houses that used to sell for a total of $1 million but now are worth $800,000, then the bank has a manageable problem. However, if under the "mark to market" rule, that value is artificially re-set at zero, the rule can actually cause a bank failure. If a bank's capital gets too low, the bank must be closed or sold as we saw in the case of Wachovia Bank.

Secretary Paulson proposed a $700 billion taxpayer funded "solution" to this problem. I and about one hundred other conservative Members of Congress sought other alternatives. We met former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaacs who was in charge of handling the Savings and Loan crash under President Ronald Reagan. He explained that we did have tools to solve the banking problem without this massive public bailout.

One of Chairman Isaacs' suggestions included changing the current accounting rules (mark-to-market) so that assets owned by the banks could be more reasonably valued. This would help the banks' capital problems, preventing unnecessary tightening of the credit markets. This approach also meant that owners of riskier assets would be responsible for their own financial decisions.

Much to my disappointment, this approach to dealing with the financial crisis was largely ignored. The first high profile bailout vote took place on Monday September 29th. Surprising Republican and Democrat leadership, the bailout package failed, rejected by over two-thirds Republicans and over a hundred Democrats. This vote reflected the tenor of what a majority of Congressional offices were hearing from their constituencies including my own.

Over the next few days, the Senate approved the bailout and added a bunch of tax extenders - authorizing the extension of various tax breaks that were set to expire The House voted to approve this package on Friday, October 3rd, after an unprecedented level of lobbying by financial groups and the White House. Once again, I voted against the bailout.

Our economy is in critical condition, and the price tag on the "bailout" could add nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt. During these tough votes, I try to set politics aside and consider what is best for my constituents and the country. In this case, I asked myself if the legislation would:

 solve the problem it was meant to address? Doubtful

 prevent the types of investment practices that had caused the problem in the first place? No

 solve the problem using the simplest and least expensive solutions first and only spending billions in public money as a last resort? No

 punish those who made financially responsible decisions? Yes

 reward those who made poor financial choices? Yes

 represent a major intrusion by the Federal Government into private markets? Yes

 increase the national debt? Yes

 set a pattern for future public bailouts of private losses? Yes, I believe it would.

Based on these questions, a "NO" vote was the principled position for a conservative. Like other high profile votes I have taken since being in Congress -- including the 2005Medicare Modernization Act - this vote placed me at odds with President Bush and leadership in my own party.

I appreciate the serious nature of our economic situation. However, it is dangerous to abdicate principles under pressure. For that reason, I co-sponsored H.R. 7223 which represents a reasoned response to our economic challenge. H.R. 7223 would have reformed the financial market regulatory system and empowered private investors to fund the financial market's recovery. I believe this plan represented a "workout" rather than a bailout by leveraging limited tax dollars to encourage private investment and stabilize our markets.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding my perspective on this important legislation. Once again, I appreciate the time you took to contact my office.

It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share further thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website.

Sincerely,W. Todd Akin
Member of Congress

The Patriarch's Pen: Election 2008, Article 2

The Presidential election of 1912 was an interesting one. When, in 1908, Theodore Roosevelt honored his 1904 pledge not to seek another term, he threw his support to his Vice President, William Howard Taft. Taft won the election but, in Roosevelt’s eyes, betrayed the progressive program Roosevelt had instituted. Roosevelt sought the 1912 Republican Party nomination but, when the GOP gave it to Taft, Roosevelt and his supporters left the GOP to form the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party).

The Democrats took 46 ballots to select their candidate. The favored Champ Clark of Missouri, current Speaker of the House, could not gain the necessary votes on the first ballot and the battle was on. When influential Democrat William Jennings Bryan threw his support to New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson, the tide began to turn and Wilson was ultimately selected.

President Taft was never very enthused about the Presidency. He aspired to a position on the Supreme Court (which he later received) and did not exert much effort in the 1912 campaign. The fireworks were primarily between Wilson and Roosevelt, both known reformers.

The GOP split resulted in a landslide Electoral College win for Wilson. The final tally for the 1912 race was:

Wilson: 435 electoral votes; 6,293,152 popular votes
Roosevelt: 88 electoral votes; 4,119,207 popular votes
Taft: 8 electoral votes; 3,486,333 popular votes
Debs: 0 electoral votes; 900,369 popular votes (Socialist Party)
Chafin: 0 electoral votes; 207,972 popular votes (Prohibition Party)

Theodore Roosevelt was a 3rd party candidate who beat a major party candidate though failing to win the election.

My point of all this: NONE of the 3rd party candidates running in 2008 is Theodore Roosevelt. They CAN NOT win the election.

One of my son-in-laws has noted that they can win if folks vote for them on Election Day. That is absolutely true assuming they are on the ballot in all 50 states. But this is theory. Most Americans can’t even name one of the 3rd party candidates this year. If we are pragmatic about the matter, we will admit, despite the theory, Senator Obama or Senator McCain will be the President-elect on November 5.

Does this mean voting for a 3rd party candidate is “wasting your vote”? I guess it depends on what you mean by wasting. If you are voting your conscience when you select one of these individuals then your vote is right and not wasted.

There are, at least, four candidates running for the Presidency other than the “big two”. I am listing them with some brief personal remarks based on information I have from their campaigns. For more information, check their web sites.

Charles O. “Chuck” Baldwin: Baptist minister. Solidly pro-life. Eliminate or greatly reduce several government agencies (including education, FEMA). Eliminate all family income taxes (he says they are unconstitutional). Eliminate or greatly reduce other taxes. Strong on crime. Get government out of business. Support traditional energy resources as well as research on alternatives. Gun advocate. No federal government health care. Against illegal immigration. Scale back foreign aid. Withdraw from Iraq. Essentially get out of international military matters. Permit private accounts for Social Security.

Robert L. “Bob” Barr Jr.: Pro-life with minor exceptions (e.g., rape and incest). Reduce funding of some government agencies but greatly increase defense funding. Greatly reduce personal income tax across the board. Decrease or eliminate other taxes. Strong law enforcement. Strong drug enforcement. Parental choice in education. No government health care. Against illegal immigration. Withdraw from the United Nations. Take action if Iraq does not comply. Permit private accounts for Social Security.

Ralph Nader: Says pro-life with minor exceptions (e.g., rape and incest) but also says “supports the principles articulated in Roe v Wade and its progeny). Eliminate funding of national missile defense. Increase alcohol taxes, capital gains taxes, cigarette taxes. Eliminate the death penalty. Decriminize marijuana use. Allow vouchers for education choice. Strengthen regulation and enforcement of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. Strengthen emission controls. Support the Kyoto treaty to limit global warming. Immigration reform but supports illegal immigrants having all the rights and privileges of United States citizens. Government oversight of business especially in terms of pensions and health care.

Cynthia Ann McKinney: Sorry, but after reading her Green Party’s platform, I have no further comment.

I believe it is safe to say Baldwin and Barr are the more conservative while Nader and McKinney are more liberal. Therefore, my opinion is IF YOU COULD ONLY CHOOSE BETWEEN Obama and McCain, those voting for Baldwin or Barr would vote McCain and those voting for McKinney or Nader would choose Obama. So, if you vote for Baldwin or Barr you are, essentially, taking a vote away from McCain. And, if you vote for McKinney or Nader, you are taking a vote away from Obama.

Like it or not, none of these 3rd party candidates are going to win. Personally, I like the positions of Chuck Baldwin even more than I do those of John McCain (more on McCain later). But if I cast a vote for Baldwin (who can not win) then McCain (who can win) loses a vote.

In 1996 President Clinton ran against Senator Bob Dole. I have never been and never will be a Bill Clinton fan. I also didn’t care much for Bob Dole but held my breath and voted for him in hopes of defeating Clinton. Of course, that hope was not realized. While I do not like President Clinton, I would have easily voted my conscience in 1996 by voting for Chuck Baldwin, if he had run. Yes, Baldwin would not win. Yes, I would be taking a vote from Dole. Yes, I would be helping Clinton win. Oh, well…

So, you might ask, why aren’t you going to vote your conscience in 2008 and choose Chuck Baldwin instead of John McCain? I can answer that question in 3 words: Barack Hussein Obama. Obama is far worse than a Bill Clinton. At least Clinton wasn’t an outright socialist.

While I like the policies of Chuck Baldwin, my conscience says I must vote for a candidate who can keep Obama out of the White House. I must do whatever I can, in good conscience, to beat Obama. The only candidate who can do that is John McCain.

The Davy Crockett Bail Out

Several years ago I read this article in my childrens' textbook on government but it had slipped my mind until last night when I stumbled across it again. Take a few moments to read it in light of the recent Congressional actions attempting to correct the financial chaos in our nation.

David (“Davy”) Crockett, the nearly legendary Tennessee frontiersman, was elected to several terms in the United States House of Representatives in the 1820’s and 30’s. One evening, Congressman Crockett and some of his colleagues were talking on the steps of the Capitol. They saw a bright glow in the distance and realized that the nearby village of Georgetown was burning. The congressmen rushed to the village and helped to put out the blaze. The next morning, Congress set aside all other business and voted to give $20,000 from the government treasury to aid the families whose possessions had been burned in the fire. Davy Crockett voted in favor of the gift.

The following summer, Congressman Crockett was campaigning in his home district when he met a wise farmer named Horatio Bunce, who “… was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible
integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. …” Davy Crockett later reported of Mr. Bunce, “If everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ, would take the world by storm.” Mr. Bunce did not have much formal education, but he had a great deal of common sense. He was well acquainted with the operation of the federal government and was careful to keep up with all the Washington news. He knew that Congressman Crockett had voted in favor of the $20,000 gift. The farmer informed Crockett, “I shall not vote for you again.” Mr. Bunce told the colonel that Congress’s giving $20,000 to those fire victims was an unconstitutional act. Since Colonel Crockett had voted in favor of the gift, he had voted against the Constitution. Mr. Bunce said, “It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle … Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.” He added, “The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of Constitution.”

Colonel Crockett recognized the truth of what Mr. Bunce was saying and promised to mend his voting record. Mr. Bunce pledged to help Crockett in his reelection campaign, and the two became close friends. A much wiser Davy Crockett returned to Washington. From that point on, he tried to keep Congress in the business of Constitutional government and out of the business of unconstitutional charity, which can be handled much more wisely by concerned individuals and groups than by a central government.

Hicks, Laurel, and George T. Thompson, Michael R. Lowman, George C. Cochran. American Government and Economics in Christian Perspective. (Pensacola: A Beka Books, 1984), 137.

President Obama

Based on the latest CBS New York Times poll, those of us who are not supporting Barack Obama might as well stay home on election day. The poll gives Obama a 14 point lead over John McCain in the race for the White House. With three weeks to go, he should be invincible.

Of course, I suspect the poll was conducted among the staff of CBS and the New York Times (with a few outside conservatives thrown in for good measure). Since the other national polls have Obama up only by 5 or so, it is safe to say the CBSNYT poll is dubious at best. So, if you are supporting McCain, forget the polls and make certain you vote.

I still maintain hope that Americans will wake up and realize what they are getting if they elect Obama. Yes, I know, John McCain has his faults (more on this in a future post). But I find it hard to believe that Americans would elect a man like Obama to be the next President. Surely we have more sense than that. Why would you vote for him?

1. In just 4 years (almost 2 of them spent running for President), Obama has earned the title of the most liberal man in the United States Senate. His running mate is number 3 on that list.

2. He has never accomplished anything of importance in his political career either in the Illinois Senate or the United States Senate.

3. He is a committed socialist, a position which has become more apparent in recent days with his remarks about redistributing the wealth.

4. He supports not only abortion but also permitting babies who survive abortions to die (i.e., he opposes protecting infants born alive).

Oh, well, I have listed these elsewhere in this blog so I don't need to go into the entire list again. Suffice it to say, I have hope the American people will wake up and, on election day, NOT elect Obama to the Presidency. I can guarantee you one thing: if Obama is elected, I will be hoarding all the money I have. Forget eating out. Forget sporting events. Forget entertainment venues. Forget traveling. Forget expensive gifts. An Obama Presidency is going to cost each of us a lot of money despite his talking points ("if you make less than $250,000").

Here are just a few web sites which provide some comparisons of the candidates and the party platforms.

• Family Research Council
• Project Vote Smart
• American Family Association
• Platform Comparisons
• Huntley Brown "Why I Can't Vote for Obama" (well written article on Jeremy's blog)

May the Lord have mercy and spare us from an Obama Presidency.

Phoenix - Conclusion

Our Arizona adventure has ended safely. The flight landed 20 minutes early last night and we were home by 1:15 a.m. this morning. Jessi and Mike both worked on Monday so the rest of us stayed with the boys. They were very good. Brody colored some pictures for me which I brought home. Bryson fell asleep and, as it turned out, we left while he was still in bed. I picked Jessi up from her dental office, drover her home, and then we left.

As usual, I overestimated how long it would take us to get to the airport, return the car, ride the shuttle, check-in, and get to the gate. So we left fairly early. As it turned out, we could have hung around with Jessi and the boys for about another hour. Next time I will know better.

Our rental car, a Nissan Rogue, drove very nicely. It had great pickup when you hit the accelerator. We couldn't find real air vents so mom and I in the front froze while Beth and Tina in the back burned. But I enjoyed the car.

Since we arrived early, we checked in then went to the Chili's in the airport. The food was great but I ate too much and regretted it for the rest of the evening. Along with the cold I came down with during the trip, I was miserable most of the flight.

Becky and Elise were awake when we arrived home. They had the house looking very well! Mom and the girls sat up for a while and talked but I bailed for bed.

We really had a great time and are so glad we were able to go. It was nice being with Jessi, Mike, and the boys. It was also a lot of fun going to all the places we did during the week.

Thanks to Mike and Jessi for allowing us to crash at their place. Thanks to Becky and Elise for taking care of the house while we were gone. Thanks to Jeremy and Elise for working out the van situation for our return trip. Thanks also to Sonja for taking my class (and for her humerous text messages afterwards). By the way, daughter, without any preparation for the test and without sitting in my class for one minute, you scored an 80 out of 110 (72%)! Since 10 of the points you missed were for a memory verse, you score is quite good. Out of 20 students in my class, your score surpassed 8 of them! Lastly, thanks to Sarah for taking the tests to work so I could pick them up today and grade them!

Phoenix - Part 3

The trip is almost over as I pen this entry. Bethany, Tina, and Brody painted some pottery Friday evening and we just found out it is ready early. That's good because it means we can carry it home with us.

We spent about 2 hours at a local park yesterday morning. The kids had a lot of fun. Mike had to go to work at noon so we dropped him off and went home. Jessi, Debbie, and the girls went shopping in the afternoon while I watched the boys. They were very good for almost 2 1/2 hours. There was a 5 minute span in which Brody and Bryson had a confrontation and, as a result, Brody spent some quiet time in his room. As a result, I was evaluated to be a "mean" babysitter.

Last night we went to McDonald's for grandpa's promised trip to the boys. The boys were more interested in playing in the playroom than eating.

Today we went to the Phoenix Zoo. We were there over 3 hours and had a picnic lunch to boot. The zoo is a nice one and we had a good time. Their giraffe display is very nice and we caught them up close while they were eating. Unfortunately, it costs to get into the zoo. That is one thing I really appreciate about the St. Louis Zoo.

That will essentially cover our trip. Tonight is relaxation and tomorrow will be getting ready to leave. We're uncertain how much time to allow since we also have to return a rental car. We are also uncertain exactly how we are going to get our Missouri van to the St. Louis airport to pick us up since we will be arriving VERY VERY late! But we'll work it all out.

I've managed to pick up a cold while we've been here. Yesterday was really a bad one for my sinus. I seem to have improved since noon. I just don't want my head too plugged up when we get on that plane tomorrow evening!

I'm sure the girls will post several pictures and videos once we get back home.

Phoenix - Part 2

After typing the first entry yesterday, we followed Mike, Jessi, and the boys to Jessi's work. Jessi picked up her pay check and introduced us to those who were working. We also saw her work area.

Next we drove to the bank (a U. S. Bank!) where she deposited her check and I made a ATM withdrawal. Then it was off to the pre-school where Brody and Bryson attend. It's a very nice school. Brody waved at some of his friends who were there that day.

The last "work site" was the Desert Ridge 18 AMC Theater which Mike manages. It's a very nice theater with a huge lobby and concession stand. Mike showed us around including taking us into one of the theaters which almost holds 300. What a large room!

The most important thing we did, though (at least from the boys' perspective), was to stop off at the McCormick-Stillman Railroad Park. Jessi's family had never been there so it was an adventure for each of us. The park is free and is quite large. They have old railroad cars in the park which you can check out. There are several pavilions if you want to do a picnic lunch. The park has a large playground facility which the boys totally loved. It includes an area with a water spray so the kids can cool off (it was 98 while we were there).

They have an old time carousel which only costs a $1 to ride. Jessi sat in a non-movable seat with Brody (he doesn't want on the horses). I put Bryson on a horse in front of Brody and stood by him. He was quite excited until we started going around. Then he did his best to get off. So, I gave him to Jessi and he sat on his lap. Not wanting the horse to feel badly, I jumped on and rode the animal for the remainder of the trip! By the time we completed our journey, the horse was tamed and stopped trying to buck me off. That may be the first time I have been on a "horse" for 20+ years.

Lastly, we rode the miniature train they have. The ride goes throughout the park and includes a couple of railroad/pedestrian crossings, 3 or 4 small trestle bridges, and concludes with a tunnel (in which all the kids on board screamed). The entire trip lasted about 11 minutes which is a nice length. All but Mike rode and I estimated the train could carry about 100 people total.

After that it was homeward bound. The folks wanted Taco Bell so I pulled in through the Drive-Thru and picked up some food. I hate Taco Bell but was hungry so I ordered some burritos. Big mistake later on. We went home, ate, and everyone crashed. Last night was spent watching the Dodgers/Phillies game and the CSI premiere (except by the boys and me).

It's mid-day here and we're taking a relaxing day. Brody and I were up before 7. Mike got up around 8 and went to work. Everyone else slept in. I managed to talk the boys into watching some "Tom and Jerry" cartoons which are so much more entertaining than the cartoon shows they make these days. Jessi, mom, and I hit the grocery store. We just finished lunch and now its quiet time.

All in all we are having a great visit!

Phoenix - Part 1

Just a brief update. Mom, Beth, Tina, and I arrived in Phoenix Tuesday evening. From the time we deplaned, retrieved our luggage, took the shuttle to the rent a car lot (a longer trip than the one at LAX!), picked up our car, and arrived at Jessi's, it took 90 minutes!!! But we made it well.

The flight out was somewhat bumpy for the first 30 minutes due to the St. Louis weather. Mom held my hand the first 10 minutes in such a way that 3 of my fingertips were blood red and the rest of the finger were pale white! Our seating worked out well since the plane wasn't packed. Mom and I had an empty middle seat as did the girls.

I reserved a full size car and they had none left. So they gave us a free upgrade to an SUV (a Rogue?). It does have great pick up and drives fairly well.

Jessi, Mike, and the boys are doing well. The boys are growing up very fast. Actually, Bryson was already asleep so we didn't see him until Wednesday morning. Since we didn't have supper, we ran to the local McDonalds only to find out their 42 oz drink is $2.00! Mom's iced tea turned out to be bad and my 42 oz. Diet Coke ended up being a regular Coke which I could not drink. Oh, well...

Yesterday (Wednesday) the boys went to school, Mike worked, Jessi worked, and the rest of us drove 3 1/2 hours to the Grand Canyon. I saw the Canyon when I was a kid (was it in 1961 or 1964 or both?). For everyone else, this was a first. They were quite impressed as is everyone who sees the Canyon for the first time. The girls took several pictures and video and will likely post them on Facebook after we get home next week. We had a great time and the weather was quite nice.

After a couple of hours, we drove back to Phoenix using a different route. We saw some great scenery but the route added 30 minutes or so to our trip. We finally got back around 6:30 and spent last night chilling out.

Brody is wanting to use the computer to play a game so I am closing this portion of my trip "report". We really have no other siteseeing planned but will certainly take in some sites (probably the zoo).

More later...

Run For Fun??...

Last year Lisa and I decided that we wanted to get into better shape by jogging and decided to work towards running a 5k together. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the mathematics or the event, it's 3.1 miles long and considered an entry level race that people of all ages and athletic abilities can run in with a small amount of training (obviously the amount of training required will be different for each person based upon their overall health and weight). We started jogging on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and our first run was barely one mile continuous followed by a walk home. Over time, we worked up the distance and continuous time running and found ourselves setting a time goal for the event of an average of 10 minutes per mile.

As the event approached we mentioned it to some of the girls in the family and they decided to walk the course, which is entirely acceptable and done by a lot of participants. It was a little chilly the day of the event but by the end of the first mile we had already begun to shed gloves and hats and had worked up a sweat. By the second mile we had kept our 10 minute pace and were headed back to the start/finish line. We both accomplished our goal of finishing the race without walking and felt good about our times. It was the second time that I had run a 5k, but the first in 10 years and my first at a public event (the other race was an intramural event in college). It was the first time Lisa and I had done a race together (she ran cross country and 5ks in highschool and college). It was a great feeling of accomplishment and we knew we had become healthier and stronger throughout the training.

{I hear you saying "Nice story. What's the point?"

Here's the point:
I know some members of the family have either expressed interest in getting into better shape or have begun to do so over the past few months. With that in mind I am throwing out the following possible activity.

Let's do a 5k together!

Yep, you read that right. I am asking you to work towards participating in a 5k event with me. You can walk it or jog it or do a little bit of both, but the main goal here is to use the event as motivation to get moving and get into better shape. Lisa can't do it this time around or she would (having a three week old baby is a good reason not to do it).

So what's your excuse?

Here's the info you need:
Race Website: http://jinglebellrunstl.kintera.org
Date: Sunday, November 23
Time: Registration begins at 7am. The race begins at 8am.
Location: Holiday Inn Airport West (map)
Cost: Preregsitration - $20 for adults $15 ages 14 and under (not sure if this price will change raceday)
Note: There is also a 1 mile Tot Trot for $5

Proceeds benefit the Arthritis Foundation.

Why this race?
It gives you a little over 7 weeks to get ready for it and it is incredibly flat (no hills at all), so it is one of the easiest in the area to do. Plus, it gets us moving before the winter months and helps us get into better shape which is always a good thing.

There are tons of resources online for plans to get you from couch potatoe to 5k runner in 6 to 8 weeks. Like here and here. (just Google "training for a 5k")

Even if you walk the entire course, you will most likely finish it in an hour or less.
(This means that you can participate in the event, go home and shower and be at church by 10:30 or sooner without much difficulty.)

There are all sorts of people in all sorts of physical shape at this race.
Invite your friends to walk with you.
Challenge your friends to try and run it with you.

Let's do this!

Indiana Vacation

With little time and a forgetful memory, I failed to say anything about our Indiana vacation in this month's newsletter. As most of you know, we drove up to Jane's in northeast Indiana (Butler) on the 24th and returned home on Sunday the 28th. It was a very nice, relaxing trip. I'm certain some of the girls will post pictures on Facebook in the near future.

If you didn't stop you could probably make it in about 7 hours but it took us 8 1/2. We arrived at 9:30 pm their time so the first night's visit was brief. It wsa the first time Elise and I saw Jane and Phil's new home and it is very, very nice. If I recall, there are 3 bedrooms upstairs with a hallway bathroom, a master bathroom, and a bathroom shared by the other two bedrooms. There is a small den (or office) in which they keep their computer. The formal dining room and living room (plus lengthy hallway) separate the master bedroom from the other bedrooms. Finally, you have the kitchen and small eating area. I say small but nothing in this house is small. This eating area contains a table with about 8 chairs plus a rocker, reclinder, two person couch, a fireplace, and a mounted flat screen television.

Off the kitchen is access to what I call a 4 season room, a window/screen area which is basically a playroom for the grandkids. One door leads outdoors and the other onto their deck which faces their woods.

The garage is a two car garage plus a small area for their tractor. The yard looks very nice and the home sets well back from the road (350 of my steps; that's almost 3 minutes for me to walk from the garage to their mail box). Of course, they have a lot of farm land plus the restored barn and silo.

The downstairs of the home is also finished. I saw 2 bedrooms there plus another bathroom. There is a large play area on one side of the stairs and a home theater on the other. The theater area has a couch, some chairs and tables, a fireplace, and a large flat screen projection unit. This room has 4 separate remotes and I found it challenging to turn on the television!

I know I have left things out describing the home but maybe you'll see some snapshots elsewhere. Now resuming our vacation...

Thursday morning I met Phil in Butler and went to the school district admin offices where he works. In the building next door, Phil introduced me to some people heading up a new program in the district called "The Crossing". These folks are teaching drop outs who, in some cases, they find on the streets and bring them in. The program is one of President Bush's "faith based initiatives" and heavily uses the Bible. One of the men I met explained he had formerly led the youth in a local church but was now helping in this effort. The school board has given its blessing to this program and to the use of the Bible to help these kids. This IS a public school! I was quite impressed by the entire program. Has anyone heard of this type of program going on in Missouri?

We basically chilled out most of Thursday and just talked. On Friday morning, the schools were off so Phil was home all day. Debbie, the girls, and I went to Sechlers to pick up some pickles. They are as good as ever. Later in the day, Autumn and her four kids dropped in. Brett and Katie also showed up with their three (including the 7 month old twins). Of course, Laura and her two children live with Jane and Phil. It was pretty wild. I grilled burgers, dogs, and brats on their grilling pit. The pit utilizes wood and charcoal and has NO flame/heat adjusting device. I burned virtually everything. At least I don't believe anyone found any pink on the inside.

That afternoon, Phil drove the tractor around his property and his brother's across the street (presently restored to a natural wetlands). He pulled a hay wagon and most of the kids and I rode on the wagon. The weather was great and the tour was quite interesting. Lots of different animals, fowls, plants, etc.

On Saturday morning, Laura went to Autumn's and brought back Sydney and Simon to spend the night. Greg, Kelli, and Ian stopped by for several hours as well. Early in the day, our troop went back to Sechlers to buy MORE pickles then went into Grabill to check out the antique store. We were there for about 45 minutes but made no purchases. We also stopped at the Old Church Shoppes in Spencerville and Elise bought something. Finally, before returning to Jane's, we stopped in at Miller's Service Station in Spencerville to get a drink. Some of you will remember the place. It's where we bought fountain drinks many years ago but couldn't drink them because they tasted like eggs! This time we bought bottled drinks.

That was pretty much our trip. Our intention was to hang around the house and visit and, with few exceptions, that is what we did. It was nice to see my sister again and the area (my first visit in 5 years). Maybe we can make the trip a little more frequently in the future.

Thanks to Phil and Jane for allowing us to stay with them. We really had a great time.