Congratulations on your election as President of the United States of America.  This is quite an achievement for any person and you ran the campaign that got you to the goal.  I will be interested to see how your followers react as you become engulfed in the realities of the office and the restraints that will be placed on you by forces beyond your control.  One advantage you will have is not having the hatred built against you through the media that President Bush has had to endure.  Although I oppose most of your positions on policy, I will not stoop to name calling and accusations that are contrary to the facts presented.  I noticed in your victory speech that the soft shoe backpedaling has begun as you said that we will get there, where ever there may be, but that it may not be in the first year or the first term.  I guess the campaign for 2012 has begun already.  I'll be watching with great anticipation to see how it all shakes out.  I'll also hope for the peace and security of our country and your success in repairing our economy.  Good luck.

I have heard Senator Obama say that the current economic situation is the worst it has been since the great depression.  What I know is the landscape doesn't look like anything from the movie The Grapes Of Wrath nor does it seem to be as my grandfather described in the stories he has told me about those times.  I will allow for a certain amount of hyperbole as all campaigns bend and stretch stats and records to make their point or attempt to fit their claim into a set of circumstances.  However, this over the top claim is curious when compared to his statements that the opposition is using scare tactics.  I would think the proper revision to his statement would be to say we may be in the worst economic situation since the Carter Administration.

I am not an economist, but I have run my household for almost 30 years, managed in business for others and owned a business of my own.  I know what it means to balance a budget, save for a rainy day and save for the future.  Part of the problem is the government attitude that spending is what is important, then tax the people to get what the government needs to cover the bill.  I wish I had such a luxury with my budget.  I went through some government sites and just pulled out some numbers that I put in a table so I could do some comparison.  I didn't seek out categories that I thought would work one way or the other, just familiar numbers we hear in the news.  Inflation, unemployment and the consumer price index are regular staples on the nightly news.  I am sure there are other numbers to look at if we were trying to go in depth into economics, but I was looking for a base to compare against the depression statement.

Let's take a look at some numbers from the past 34 years.

YEAR	PRESIDENT	CONGRESS CONTROL	INFLATION PERCENT	UNEMPLOYMENT AS % OF LABOR FORCE	CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
1974	FORD - R	S-D H-D	11.03	5.6	49.3
1975	FORD - R	S-D H-D	9.20	8.5	53.8
1976	FORD - R	S-D H-D	5.75	7.7	56.9
1977	CARTER - D	S-D H-D	6.50	7.1	60.6
1978	CARTER - D	S-D H-D	7.62	6.1	65.2
1979	CARTER - D	S-D H-D	11.22	5.8	72.6
1980	CARTER - D	S-D H-D	13.58	7.1	82.4
1981	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	10.35	7.6	90.9
1982	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	6.16	9.7	96.5
1983	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	3.22	9.6	99.6
1984	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	4.30	7.5	103.9
1985	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	3.55	7.2	107.6
1986	REAGAN - R	S-R H-D	1.91	7.0	109.6
1987	REAGAN - R	S-D H-D	3.66	6.2	113.6
1988	REAGAN - R	S-D H-D	4.08	5.5	118.3
1989	BUSH - R	S-D H-D	4.83	5.3	124.0
1990	BUSH - R	S-D H-D	5.39	5.6	130.7
1991	BUSH - R	S-D H-D	4.25	6.8	136.2
1992	BUSH - R	S-D H-D	3.03	7.5	140.3
1993	CLINTON - D	S-D H-D	2.96	6.9	144.5
1994	CLINTON - D	S-D H-D	2.61	6.1	148.2
1995	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	2.81	5.6	152.4
1996	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	2.93	5.4	156.9
1997	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	2.44	4.9	160.5
1998	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	1.55	4.5	163.0
1999	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	2.19	4.2	166.6
2000	CLINTON - D	S-R H-R	3.38	4.0	172.2
2001	BUSH - R	S-D H-R	2.83	4.7	177.1
2002	BUSH - R	S-D H-R	1.59	5.8	179.9
2003	BUSH - R	S-R H-R	2.27	6.0	184.0
2004	BUSH - R	S-R H-R	2.68	5.5	188.9
2005	BUSH - R	S-R H-R	3.39	5.1	195.3
2006	BUSH - R	S-R H-R	3.24	4.6	201.6
2007	BUSH - R	S-D H-D	2.85	4.6	207.3

Inflation by Year
http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp

Unemployment as a percent of labor force
Persons 16 years of age and over
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

Consumer Price Index
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt

A Visual Guide: The Balance Of Power Between Congress and The Presidency
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Now what I see above is that the statement is a bit over the top playing on the frustrations of the housing market and the gas prices.  The inflation has been below 4% back to 1991.  The unemployment number seems to be reasonable compared through the 90's.  The consumer price index doesn't appear to be growing any more than other periods in recent history.

What isn't in those numbers is the housing starts which is cyclical to some extent.  The current mortgage market meltdown is the result of policies that were enacted back into the Carter era and reinforced through the present time.  Also missing in those numbers is the oil price volatility that has affected each of us at the pumps.  Again, this is the cumulative effect of the policies over the past 20 or more years.  I concede that the President has some effect on the markets based on his policies, his appointees and his leadership.  The purse strings, the laws and the pace at which things do or do not happen are under the control of the legislative branch.  Look at the table above one more time and examine who was in control of the legislative branch at what times.  It appears that Presidents Reagan and Bush Sr were the only two who never had a chance to work with a legislative branch under the same party banner.  So to put everything on the President, from whichever party, is a narrow view of things.

I know times are tough for everyone including myself, my family and my neighbors.  It is simply magnified by the election cycle and the big ticket meltdowns that are affecting the markets.  It does trouble me to see the housing and banking markets being nationalized with the potential of healthcare following suit.  Other than the military, not the wars, just the military, what has the government ever run well?  There is reason for concern in the future.  We already have a mix of socialism and capitalism and, in my opinion, the closer it gets to the socialist end of the spectrum, the more burdensome and poorly run this country's markets will get.

Those are some thoughts in general.  Now I will look at a few items specifically concerning Senator Obama and his proposals.

Under the Obama Plan:

• Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
• Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
• Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.
• 
  
• http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/ 

The vague "middle class" designation is never truly defined by anyone, at least that I know of.  But that aside, the promises of providing tax cuts is nothing new.  I am not in an upper income bracket.  My household income has never been within half of the $250,000 line.  This does not change my objection to raising taxes on the wealthy.  This is a fundamental difference between a conservative and a liberal.  Where a conservative sees the confiscation of one's wealth as exactly that, confiscation, a liberal sees it as an act of fairness to the "less fortunate" as if the wealthy were simply lucky to have it and are obligated to share their wealth with the unlucky.

Look at the line in the final bullet point above, "The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000."  Am I to assume that it is okay to confiscate another person's wealth because the numbers work out in a net cut?  Am I to say it is okay because I will theoretically receive a cut, but it's okay because there is a wealthy person to make it up?  Am I supposed to be inspired to grow my trucking company knowing that I'll be subsidizing others who have no desire to make the same effort?

"Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility."  He will ask?  Can these families say no?  Give back?  Is this voluntary?  A portion of the tax cuts being removed means the taxes are going up whether he says they are being raised or not.  The same is true when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire rather than being made permanent, even if he doesn't do it right away.  Who is the fairness being restored to?  Not the person working hard to generate the wealth.  Not to the person receiving the breaks, though it would easy to buy that pitch.

The wealthy are the ones who make the jobs possible.  The government doesn't create jobs, contrary to popular belief, other than the jobs to run the bureaucracy created to administer yet another program.  Every dollar taken from those who run the businesses is one less dollar with which the business can be run.  When the working capital is restricted, a business has a more difficult time growing, or in some cases even surviving.  This Robin Hood approach is not a sound plan for the business environment.  If a company needs to reduce costs to compete, but the taxes increase, what is the business to do?  Some of the possibilities are reduce costs in overhead, materials or labor.  Move to a state with lower taxes.  Move to a country with a more friendly business environment.  This speaks to corporate tax rates as well.  Corporations don't pay taxes as if they are an external item having no effect on the operation of the business.  Taxes are part of the cost of doing business.  Payroll taxes, social security taxes, real estate taxes and employee benefits all play into the cost of doing business and are reflected in the cost of goods and services to the consumers.

Unless there are corresponding spending cuts, the tax cuts are the equivalent of a spending program that is being billed to the wealthy.  Or in Senator Obama's terms, spreading the wealth around.  Here again is the fundamental difference between conservative and liberal viewpoints.  The wealth is not the property of the government to spread around.  The government does not have the constitutional right to CONFISCATE the wealth of some people to REDISTRIBUTE to other people.

That ties in to the proposed programs by Senator Obama.  If there is currently a deficit, any additional program will increase the need for taxes to be raised to pay for it.  Again, no matter where the taxes are raised, personal or corporate, wealthy or middle class, the result is the same.  Everyone will be affected by the cost of the program.  It doesn't even matter if the programs are near one trillion dollars or one hundred billion dollars.  The dollars still need to come from somewhere, or more precisely, someone.  List whatever programs he proposes and add up the costs.  For purposes of this discussion it doesn't matter what the total is really, just understand that the money will come from our pockets in some form or fashion.

18October08 6:00pm

Religion has come up in this campaign as an issue in a couple of forms during the past months.  Whereas ethnicity has no direct bearing on my vote, I confess that religious beliefs carry some weight as it goes to the character of a person.  Most of the time it is not even the beliefs of the candidate as much as the consistency of stating them and living them out.  I am not seeking to judge his character for the sake of tearing him down or to degrade him.  I do believe it is important to understand his character as a barometer of how I perceive he will act when in office.

I am a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ as my Lord and my Savior.  I am not perfect and I have no expectations that anyone else is either.  I know what it is to stumble and not be true to the profession being made.  I also know that the call on a Christian is to progress on a path of holiness, changing the life of the believer from sinful habits to being more Christ-like.  When observing the life of someone who makes the claim of being a follower of Christ, their should be a visible progress over the course of time.   In our society it is easy to claim to be a Christian being that we are not in a part of the world where the claim could cost one's life.  In this country the cultural christian believes oneself to be a follower of Christ when it is really a religious claim and not a committed lifestyle adhering as much as possible to the teachings of Christ and the Word of God, the Bible.  God will be the judge of where we each stand in that regard for our eternal reward or punishment.  I need to make a judgment for the sake of discernment in this election.

The following points are of concern to me.

1. There were Senator Obama's own claims of Christianity as his religion.
2. There were attacks on Senator Obama because of his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
3. The position Senator Obama has taken on the issue of abortion.
4. The deception I perceive in his answers about very specific points and how they change over time.

1.  Senator Obama makes a claim similar to many in our country, I am a Christian.  This is a claim that many people will not discuss as it will normally open a can of worms and blow back that most would wish to avoid.  I am not going to declare whether he is or is not an actual Christian.  I will look at his actions and words in comparison to the biblical teachings of the faith.

a) In the Gospel According to John it says, "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.' "  Senator Obama contradicts this core belief of the faith in a statement he made on March 26, 2008, in Greensboro, N.C., when in his address he stated that his mother, by being kind, decent and generous, has her place in heaven even though she was not a believer.  While I cannot state authoritatively whether or not his mother is in heaven, I can state that his reasoning would not be the reason she would be their.  The Bible clearly teaches that salvation is not earned by our works but is a gift given by God based on one's faith and trust in Jesus Christ.  (sound clip)

b) Again in John's Gospel, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God".  According to Senator Obama, good and moral Jews and Muslims are also "children of God" supposedly without ever needing to profess faith in Jesus Christ.  There is no need to dispute the goodness or morality of a person since the determining factor is faith in Jesus Christ as Savior.  Whereas popular belief is that we are all God's children, the true statement is that we are all God's creation which is not the same as being His children.  This would be a theological discussion for another time.  (sound clip)

c) Could a true believer make these comments?  Certainly.  I believe many true followers of Christ are biblically illiterate or are not well versed in the doctrines to which they profess.  The pattern and cumulative effect of examples like these are what raises questions in my mind about the authenticity of his profession.

2. Senator Obama has endured questions about his Pastor, Jeremiah Wright.  Is he responsible for the teachings of another person?  No, certainly not.  Does he have the freedom to sit under this man's preaching and teaching?  Yes, certainly so.  If he makes the choice to do so for a considerable length of time, is it reasonable for him to claim that he was unaware of the radical preaching or that he didn't share the same attitudes?  My answer is no, that is not a reasonable claim.  He was an adult who was able to decide whether or not to attend church, not a child required to be in attendance by a parent. 

a) Jeremiah Wright was separated from the campaign in mid-March, 2008, as videos of his inflammatory preaching hit the airwaves.  In the linked video clip, Senator Obamaworks around answering the question directly as to whose decision it was for the departure.  He claims to have never heard such preaching although he characterizes the style as a social gospel (again, a theological debate for another time).  He defends his Pastor leading to the belief that the examples used are exceptions rather than standard fare.  (video clip)

b) On the ABC News site is a story containing this, "The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for the last 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, has a long history of what even Obama's campaign aides concede is "inflammatory rhetoric," including the assertion that the United States brought on the 9/11 attacks with its own "terrorism." "  The article goes on to say that it isn't an isolated time or two, but, "An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans."  You can read the article for the phrases that have been repeated frequently in other reports.  I don't believe Senator Obama is responsible for the preaching of another man, however, I do question why he would sit under it for 17 years as he stated in the above referenced video clip.

c) The peculiar theology of black liberation is a story on  black liberation theology.  Again, it is not Senator Obama from the pulpit, but how could he spend 17 years around this without being influenced?  I can't say why he attended this church.  I know I attend the church I attend to hear the Gospel and apply it to my life.  Any other reason for me would be a waste of time.  That is the paradigm I use, a grown man, choosing to attend, learning and applying in the life being lived out.

d) Can any of these things be out of context?  Certainly, they could be blown up.  Is it reasonable for a man to sit under the preaching of another man that he respects for a period of 17 years and not be influenced in some way?  I don't see how that is a reasonable conclusion without involving an emotional agument.

Related Links
Los Angeles Times story on where the realtionship was forged.
Blurb on Wright's departure.  I found the venomous comments of Democrats curious.

*****NOTE*****
I will finish up points 3 and 4 later.  I have a few things to go take care of.

19October08 1:00am

3. The ever volatile abortion issue.  With today's technology it baffles me to understand how anyone could still argue a life being a life and not a blob of tissue.  This is certainly another issue charged with and argued with emotion.  Where the issue is for me these days is when somebody tries to soft sell a position rather than just stating their position on the matter.  I have less sympathy for someone who claims to be a Christian and tries to defend the abortionist position.  Rather than getting into the whole abortion issue I'll just look at a couple of specific items.

a) To campaign on the stance of reducing abortions is a good thing, but it is only a part of the picture.  He is truly a supporter of abortion and from what I have seen, a supporter of abortion at any stage, even after the birth.  Read this excerpt from a speech given to Planned Parenthood in July, 2007.  "We know that a woman's right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when— without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. . . . I have worked on this issue for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught constitutional law. . . So, you know where I stand. . . The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do."
The idea here I suspect, and this is my opinion, is that supporters such as Planned Parenthood want something federally that would forever prevent the issue from going back to the states, which is where I believe it truly belongs.  The video on the same page which I linked for the previous quote shows his round about non-answer to a straight forward question.  This is not the only subject I've heard him do this on and I find it very frustrating.  I don't think I am expecting too much to want a straight forward answer on a subject of this magnitude from anyone who is running for a national office.  He is masterful at turning the question into a comparison with something or someone else which he hopes listeners will decide justifies his position no matter how vague his answer may be.  The vague and indirect answers are inadequate and the comparisons do not justify a position by being able to merely point a finger at someone else.  I understand that in politics some questions are set up to entrap a candidate when the answer really depends on variables in the equation, but this is not such a question.  At what point does a baby get human rights?  "Above my pay grade" is not an adequate response when running for the highest office in the land.  If he is referring to God, He is quite clear on the matter.

b) Partial birth abortion is particularly gruesome and is only exceeded in disgust by allowing a living child who survived a botched abortion to die.  You can read about the actual first hand experience of an Illinois nurse in 1999, here is an excerpt.  "BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to "choose" stopped at her baby's delivery.  The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.  But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left."  She also has a site where she continues to carry the fight and has a section entitled barack obama’s radical positions on abortion.  Of special interest in that section ia his Illinois voting record on the subject and his ten reasons for supporting infanticide.  Here is a link to view the alledged 4 lies by Senator Obama on this subject in the third debate.  You can read them and decide for yourself where the deception lies.  You can learn more for yourself at abortionfacts.com which has many quotes by doctors including:

Perhaps it’s her only choice."There are no medical circumstances in which a partial-birth abortion is the only safe alternative. We take care of pregnant women who are very sick, and babies who are very sick, and we never perform partial-birth abortions. . . . There are plenty of alternatives. . . . This is clearly a procedure no obstetrician needs to do." F. Boehm, Dr. OB, Vanderbilt U. Med. The Washington Times, May 6, 1966, p. A1

c) I cannot help but keep this subject in mind as he talks about other issues including compassion for the poor or helping the guy worse off than me to succeed or our responsiblity to one another or being a citizen of the world or questioning the morals, ethics or behavior of someone else.  Whether he is right or wrong on any of these other issues, is there a consistency when held up against the lack of compassion for a living child that survived an abortion attempt or a practice as gruesome as partial birth abortion?  I have a real struggle in trying to logically mesh the compassion for one cause with the lack of compassion shown in this case.

4) There appears to be a few subjects that have evolving answers in addition to the deceptive statements already mentioned.  Again, from the viewpoint of his self proclaimed Christianity, this is disturbing.  Vague answers and non-answers are bad signs when one is expecting to hear a truthful statement or an accurate description of ones position.  Points 2 and 3 above have exposed some of these instances of deceit or partial truths and what some would call outright lies.  Point one is a little more sketchy in that if he is lying, that is playing the role of being a Christian to garner needed votes, that is a dishonesty that is very anti-Christian and dispicable at best.  If on the other hand he is merely ignorant of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and the means of salvation, what does that say about the teaching and preaching he sat under for those many years?  It does not appear to me to be a good scenario either way it is answered.  As I continue in other subject areas, I will be pointing to more of these situations that does not promote trustworthiness in the statements he makes when compared to the record of his performance.  One such case is the William Ayers controversey which began as "a guy who lives in my neighborhood", but grew over time as more information was uncovered.  Regardless of the Ayers issue itself, the ever changing answers reveal a lack of candor that is disturbing.  A straight answer right up front would diffuse the situation much quicker as opposed to allowing suspicion to fester as people wondered what he was trying to hide.

18October08 3:00pm

Through a short series of articles I seek to raise questions to challenge the intellectual side of voting for Senator Barrack Obama.  I know the die hards of the political parties are locked into their views by emotionally charged thoughts and feelings, but none the less, I aim to reach to the pure logic of the situation.  I also have no intention of playing the comparison game between the two Senators who wish to win our votes in November.  While neither is conservative enough for my tastes, either socially or economically, I have determined my vote by determining who I cannot vote for in good conscience.  by now you should have determined that I will be voting for Senator John McCain.  Again, it is not because of something that he stands for that draws me in, but rather, I find his positions to be less offensive to my beliefs, principles and desires than I do those of Senator Obama.

I request in responses to these articles that the same attitudes be taken as those I am using to write the blogs.  The attitudes include an effort to be fair in context and respectful in person without resorting to personal attacks that are demeaning or condescending.  Let me state for the record that ethnicity has no issue in my decision although the reference to it will certainly be raised in the context of some issues.  I will be dealing with groupings of items rather than to have one long, drawn out blog.  I also anticipate that I will not complete it today and may in fact return to add information to an individual article.  If I do add anything, I will make a notation that it was added after the initial writing in a way that will be clear to anyone who takes the time to look.

I reiterate that my stance is not to campaign for Senator McCain, but against Senator Obama.  The result, I realize, could be the same outcome, but the nuance is different.  I did not make my decision based on Republican Party talking points or propaganda, just as I did not do so based on those of the Democratic Party.  My decision is based on my belief that the country, my family and myself would be worse off with the presidential office being occupied by Senator Obama.  I have been registered in both parties at various times of my life.  I have no allegience to either party because I do not believe that I can ever be in 100% agreement with either party and I do not believe that either party is innocent of plunging our country into the turmoil in which it exists today.  That said, I do not consider myself to be one of the sheeple that blindly follows the party line.  I do believe, whether we agree or not, that I did my best to intellectually, and in good conscience, make what I believe to be the best choice in this election.

Isn't it just a bit disingenuous for a Senator to look at the financial meltdown and say that Washington hasn't done enough?  A Senator who is part of the legislative body that writes the laws, makes the rules and basically has the control over whether something gets done or not?

In this age where any curious individual can research history, that being statements and records, why are so many things lied about and twisted out of context?  Are politicians so disconnected that they think they won't be found out?  It's like the combatants in a bitter divorce case that poison the children with lies and exaggerations about the former spouse.  Pretty soon either one is believed over the other without question or neither is listened to anymore.  Oh, the frustration.

Has it happened to you yet, it has to me, that your favorite party is hitting a rock solid point about the lies and exaggerations of the opponent, and next thing you know, here it comes right back.  In judgmental thought, I condemn the lies.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  But then, here it comes back.  How could you!  How can I believe or trust you!  Now who to believe?  How do we even discuss the pros and cons of our candidates when they all take the low road?

I guess it finally goes to the record of each candidate for each issue of concern and watch the chips stack on whichever side of the issues we stand on.  And about that opening line, as everything gets blamed on President Bush, research who made the rules, who fought against them, who warned about this potential problem and who shot it down.  Of course, I suppose it depends on who we trust for the information we readily accept as truth.