"TOP NAVY ADMIRAL, TO MIDDLE EAST, RESIGNS"

The top U. S. military commander of the Middle East resigned, amid speculation, of White House problems, magazine articles, and not getting along with other top officials. Admiral William J. Fallon asked for permission to retire, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates obliged him. Fallon, who was the top military person, in charge of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran, has served in the military for over forty years. However, he has been overshadowed by other people, in the fray, like General Petreas (in Iraq), of "the surge strategy."

In a recent Esquire article, Fallon was characterized as a man, who not only disagreed with the strategy (possible armed incursion) in Iran, but also struggled and boiled over with the White House on other issues, as well. President Bush did not give a press conference, rather accepting his resignation and putting out a written press release. Although, Secretary Gates did field questions, and tried to squelch the press' questions, on Fallon's resignation over "White House issues."

When a top Admiral gives an interview with a world wide magazine and is characterized, or characterizes himself, as a maverick (who is against national defense policy, the White House, or the "chain of command"), it is time for him to go. There is a reason why, the military has vertical reasoning, orders (by "chain of command"), and overlapping discretion in the armed forces, and it is to keep order, not have every man/woman in uniform giving personal dialogue about national orders and/or programs, and finally to keep everyone in uniform in check. When in boot camp, to the top of the national defense department (in military uniform), cohesion, a general propulsion forward, and knowing the "chain of command" is in place for the best interest of the United States. However, when men/women in uniform, forget and/or decide to go ahead, letting personal agendas, ideologies, and other things to interfere with national security, or making our countries leaders look incompetent, it is time for them to go. Admiral Fallon made his choice, to resign, long before he put his name on the line. He resigned when his job title, responsibilities, and national security took a back seat, to personal choices and magazine articles.

"DRINKING TAP WATER = A PHARM PARTY?"

Toys from China with lead, forty-six thousand people treated with used blood tubes, and the biggest beef recall in history, all in the same year, is anyone now surprised in parts of the United States drinking water out of the tap, you may be having your own Pharmaceutical party? Well, do not be surprised, because today, the Associated Press released an article and the print/television media has also confirmed there are pharmaceutical drugs in the water Americans are drinking. From Southern California, New Jersey, Kentucky, to Detroit and Louisville, are just some of the cities having registered drugs, in the public water system.

The AP investigation has had reports of 24 out of 28 cities, registering drugs in the water supply. Yet, not all of the cities that participated in the categorical study, have the results of their drinking water, back yet. However, they are reporting that 41 million people are drinking the drug tainted water, or are using it in cooking and other ways. Drugs in the water range from anti-convulsives, psychiatric drugs (like Zoloft, Prozac, other brain enhansor/pre-hibitors, etc.), hormonal drugs (like estrogen and testosterone based, Propecia, and others), and finally some pain medications (over the counter and prescription) are also in the water. How are these drugs getting in there? According to the EPA, the drugs are being flushed down toilets, not broken down by the body and then flushed thru natural means, and then the sewage treatment plants are not breaking down the drugs, which pushes them into the water supply.

EPA Assistant Administrator of Water, Benjamin H. Grumbles (that is his name, not what he was doing), stated, "We realize this is a growing concern, and we're taking it very seriously."

In an age, where teenagers and college age students are raiding parents bathroom cabinets for "the weekend party" (Pharm Parties), there is no wonder how prevalent drugs of this nature are. However, who would have thought, anyone could have a "Pharm Party" going to the sink and pouring a glass of water. Of course, people are not getting "high" and/or partying, with drinking water. The long term effects of Americans drinking "drug water," over the course of years, should be a real concern. There is no joke, in drinking water that may have countless drugs and hormonal concerns in it, over the course of a person's life. When asked about this topic, Tom Curtis (the executive director of "The American Water Works Assoc." who claims, "The public does not know how to interpret the information." Either, the water is drug tainted, or it is not. Either, the water is clean, or the water is not clean. Finally, the EPA and the "American Water Works Association" needs to do their job, and not wonder, worry, or speculate on what the American people can, or cannot, understand.

How about that, Tom?

"SPITZER JUST ANOTHER, TAKING ADVANTAGE"

The new flavor of the week is......cloak pulled off of the newspaper stand, and the newspaper reads: "ELLIOT SPITZER CAUGHT, IN PROSTITUTE STING!" Anyone who has seen a television set, read a newspaper, or opened up the Internet connection has now seen, Governor Elliot Spitzer was caught in a "high end" (ranging from $1500-$5500 a night) prostitution ring.

"Today I would like to briefly address a private matter. I have acted in a way that violates my obligation to my family, and that violates my, or any sense of right and wrong. I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard of myself. I must now have to dedicate some time, to regain the trust of my family, he spoke feebly at the podium."

Obviously, this is not a "private matter" now, since he has been caught on tape and wires, engaging in a prostitution ring. All jokes, innuendo, and news media casting stones aside, is anyone really surprised about this? Spitzer is from "old money" (his father was a multimillionaire, thru construction and development), lives in one of his father's upper-east side apartment buildings (across from the "Natural History Museum"), and he is a "Wall Street" friendly governor. Although, he was called a crusader against "Wall Street Crime." After graduating from Princeton and Harvard Law, Spitzer has had a paved way, thru the greasing of hands and back room deals, all the way to the gubernatorial race (where he won by a 70% of the vote). This is a man who was striking his pen, making laws, based on his own belief system, assuming "entitlements" (with his New York sanctuary city and illegal aliens getting driver's licenses), although "Time" called him "Crusader of the Year."

A man that assumes entitlements, is born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and is from massive amounts of money at his disposal (throughout his lifetime), there is no surprise, he will assume "entitlements" in the bedroom, take some liberties in his life (personal/professional), or in his personal life and spare time. Is there really any shock to this story? With the Larry Craig fiasco, Bill Clinton ("I did not have sexual relations, with that woman," Monica Luinski), and countless other men throughout history have committed the same "sin." John F. Kennedy, with Joe DiMaggio's wife, Marilynn Monroe, a cheater, but he is considered on of the "crown jewels" of the United States Presidents. If Spitzer lived in Las Vegas, where it is legal for prostitution, would this make the problem easier? Is this a moral problem for the media, or a legal one? Either way, congressman, governors, senators, and countless other men who are elected officials of the people, find themselves in the position to not "serve the people," but to "serve themselves, from the people."

One thing the media will never say, in conclusion, is Spitzer was taking advantage of another woman, for money. Period! Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world for a reason, and it is because of men taking advantage of women. The liberties with that woman, usually, start when they are very young and under abuse (in the girl's house, usually by someone they know). After the early abuse, it is no different from "Pavlov's Dog Theory," because the girl (at an early age) learns that the way to attention, money, gifts, and goals is thru sex. Spitzer is just another, in the longest line in history, taking advantage of women, to get his own rocks off.

"FUNDAMENTALS, ELECTING BRITTANY SPEARS, OR A PRESIDENT?"

In the United States, anyone who played sports, a musical instrument, or were taught in school have all been told one thing, "When you stumble and fall, always go back to the fundamentals." Fundamentals in anything, are the basis of growing, talent, and/or learning. They are also a key component of a persons decisions and who they are internally (possibly externally). Therefore, when looking at the political candidates, for President of the United States, between John McCain (the Republican candidate), or Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (the Democratic nominees), what are their fundamental principals? What do they believe in, both personally and ethically, on certain main topics? Maybe more importantly, where do they stand, on the several key issues, American people are most concerned with?

The fact that Samantha Powers, Barack Obama's adviser on foreign affairs, came out on the BBC against Obama (basically resigning), is not about Obama. What was in her words, in that interview, was just short of "Annis' Bizarre" (saying Obama not having a plan to get out of Iraq, he could not provide the complete withdrawal strategy due to what may/may not happen between now and election time, and she also called Hillary a "Monster"). Then John McCain's coverage on the news, Internet, and print media, was on a "New York Times" reporter, asking McCain whether he was considering having John Kerry as a Vice Presidential candidate. Not letting the topic drop, after McCain completely snuffed the question, she continued to hammer on McCain. Finally, getting the word "angry" into the conversation, which will be printed tomorrow (portraying McCain out to be a hot head, who blow his stack at reporters, for absolutely nothing). Are these things the "fundamental issues and insights into the candidates" that the American people need to know? Not only is there nothing substantive in this, but it is counter productive to the American political system, and is actually what needs to change (no pun intended, since Obama is part of the problem).

The fundamental things that the people, of America, need to demand from the press are not hard to find. The media outlets, have a job, and it is to get the fundamental issues and the ethics/decisions of each candidates out. It is not to dwell on perimeter issues, blood spilled to fill the front page, and definitely not whether a candidate puts a flag on his lapel, whether a former governor (like Ray Mabus of Mississippi, implying that Hillary Clinton is treating "Afro-Americans," as "second class") is blatantly implanting race into a primary, or any of the other countless fringe issues the media keeps hammering into American's brains. The fundamental political issues of the current democratic nomination process, and eventually the general election, are the economy, illegal immigration, where the candidates stand and who they would consider for judges, the life issues (abortion, stem cell research, etc.), foreign policies (Iraq, Iran, and how to deal overseas with China and Russia), and trade (NAFTA, import/export deals, and what is coming into the country). The issues above are just some of the issues, but they are a good start. Every single reporter, blogger, and media person in the world should be demanding answers, to where each candidate stands on these issues, SPECIFICALLY. If they continue to stay in lock step, with the same questions, then the candidates would be forced to answer them outright, or not answer and leave the Americans with a direct action on how to vote.

Finally, in the debates and along the remainder of the campaign trail, the media and moderators need to ask the specific questions in prime time. If they get the same "Talking Points" back, then the question needs to be readdressed to the candidate, until an answer is given. If each major network, paper, and Internet site would follow this way, then it would be an actual step in seeing where every candidate stands on the issues, which is what Americans need to know, in order to cast a correct vote. (Not to get ahead of the whole process, but think if the candidates were treated to only the questions that mattered, maybe it would filter down to congressman, senators, and on down the line and all voters would know where every candidate stood.) Fundamental questions require fundamental actions/answers, the candidates should be representing the people, not special interests and the media elite. The only way the political process is going to change, is if the media does their job. Getting out answers, on the topics effecting Americans today and in the future (not "talking points and talk around the issue points") will expose, or will illuminate the candidate for who they are and what they stand for. In addition, if the media outlets and papers mix in the main points of the candidates past and where they personally stand on issues (of merit and ethics), then the public would be as learned as they care to be.

No matter what way a person views the issues, believes in their hearts things should be, or whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents fundamentals shape their lives. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain are no different, and should be viewed, interviewed, and ultimately elected by the same merits. Voters of America must know the fundamentals that galvanize the candidates, on the issues and in their personal lives (based on decisions made, deals and legislation passed, various other things), or else they will be just voting blind. Maybe worse, Americans will be voting on issues in the media, that carry the weight of an "Entertainment Tonight," or "TMZ.com" article and/or show, rather than the issues needed to elect a President of the United States. Without the fundamentals of the candidates, fully vetted in the media and on the Internet, Americans will be voting on the information and questions used to look at Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton, rather than looking at the issues and fundamental information needed to elect the President.

"BEST ELECTION CYCLE, IN FOUR GENERATIONS OF VOTERS"

The eighteen to forty year old bracket, have not seen politics like this, since the Nixon fiasco ("Watergate"), if ever. Not counting Nixon, people that are under the age of, maybe forty-six, have not had a mad season, like the one the American people are embroiled in now. Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton, all have not only run a beautiful, well spoken, and politically sound campaign (to this point), but they have all made the people of America stand up and come out to vote, in massive numbers. Some may say that it is because of the "first black candidate" (even though he is also half white?) and others will say that it is because of the "first woman candidate," for the President of the United States (even though she has been groomed for this, for 40 years, and her husband was president seven years ago). These two reasons have helped in the numbers, so have talking points like "change and new hope." However, the bottom line is there has been more stories and figures, this political season to get out for, then possibly ever before. Regardless of the reason, the candidates have been spectacular.

Starting with Mike Huckabee, just because he is now out of the race, as of Tuesday. A former Baptist minister and governor of Arkansas (for ten years), Huckabee was a "third tier" candidate. Republicans like Rudi Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, and Ron Paul (plus several others) were all on display at the first debate. However, each one took a dive, some sooner than others, but Mike Huckabee (and McCain, who will be discussed later). Mitt Romney was the lynch pin, for the talk radio and television talking heads, but all the good press in the world, could not save his flip flopping and (let's face the facts) Mormon record. Rudi Guiliani, some said the heir apparent, to the presidential throne, waited until Florida (outside of debates) to begin running. Wrong move for Rudi, because Florida ended up being the last state for him, before getting the boot. Aside from Ron Paul, who raised $5 million in one day, on the Internet, the rest of the Republicans were all knocked out. All except for a bass guitar playing, Baptist minister, with a great sense of humor, who also had a great sense for getting his message across. Mike Huckabee started out dragging his own suitcase, alone, thru airports and venues to talk to the potential voters in Iowa. His "Huck-a-bus" was all over the state, barnstorming Iowa, and low and behold he wins Iowa. John McCain was left for dead, broke, and fired his whole crew, at this point. However, Huckabee, went thru all of the debates, all of the states, and even outlasted every other Republican (except the nominee). Only in America, can a man who was the first to go to college in his family, a minister, bass guitar playing, governor, with no funding and little name recognition, come in second in a Republican Primary.

John McCain, a war veteran and POW, in the Vietnam War, is the Republican nominee now. However, just seven months ago, he was broke and fired his whole staff, for lack of performance and policy differences. The press said that he was done, and he had very few in his corner at all. All of the radio and news people, for the Republican party, tarnished the man's record and reputation. Anne Coulter, said that she would vote for Hillary Clinton, before John McCain, at one point (she has backed off the rhetoric, of late). Now John McCain has become the biggest come back kid, in the Republican party. Tenacity and pure guys, got John McCain to the end, and across the finish line. Now, he is the only Republican to have a chance at being President in 2008.

Barack Obama, a biracial man, from Illinois, and a freshman senator is one of two democrats left in the election process, on the Democratic side. Obama cannon balled into the mainstream, with his speech, at the 2004 Democrat National Convention. In 2007, Obama was facing a high, double digit lead, behind Hillary Clinton. However, he used his massive intellect, great political speeches on the stump, and the press ate whatever he was dishing out, to become the front runner, by November. To this date, he has not looked back (although Hillary has the wind at her back now), and is the front runner to become the first black President of the United States. I do not know what makes his Afro-American genes more important, than his Caucasian genes, but for some reason the black genes in his body, are worth more to the voters, press, and the democratic party. Which is 100% fine, but somewhere down the line, somebody has to realize that the man has 50% of a Caucasian DNA pool. Barack Obama is still the dominate speaker, front runner of the party, and most of all he has injected more excitement into this campaign than any other person.

Last, but certainly not least (EVER), Hillary Clinton, the first woman to run for President, is on a huge rush, at present. She had wins in Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio, but she is still behind in delegates and the popular vote. However, she is a Clinton, and the Clintons control the Democratic party. Bill Clinton is a rock star and Hillary is far from being out of the nomination. Everyone in America knows about Hillary and her husband (his exploits and good things, too).

Whether voters like the candidates they this year, or not, they cannot complain they do not have any choices. Most of their policies are the same, even McCain has a past of passed bills with the other side of the aisle (McCain/Fiengold, McCain/Lieberman, the Gang of 13 Decision, etc. etc...), with Obama and Hillary varying with very little. However, the American people have their first woman, Afro-American, War Hero/P.O.W. candidates, in history, to choose from in 2008. When November roles around, this could be the single biggest set of election campaigns, in United States history. One thing is for sure, for the last two generations of voters in the United States, it definitely is the biggest election sequence of their lifetime.