Photo by Glynn Wilson

A large graylag goose shows his stuff in New Orleans' Audubon Park on the Eve of 2007. No comment on 2006, but will 2007 be the year of the victory of the little guy and the renaissance of nature at the core of human interest and experience? My only resolution is to spend more time camping out communing with the birds - and championing the cause of the underdog...

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 09:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

George W. Bush may have felt a thrill of vindication as he went to bed with visions of Saddam Hussein dangling at the end of a rope, but Bush achieved something more important for the Bush Family legacy. He silenced a unique witness who, if given the opportunity, could have testified about the roles of George H.W. Bush and other top U.S. officials in aiding and abetting Hussein's crimes against humanity.

By making sure that Hussein never appeared before an international tribunal, Bush kept those Bush Family secrets safely tucked away.

For the full story of the troublesome testimony that Hussein might have delivered if not sent to the gallows, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

by Glynn Wilson

NEW ORLEANS, La., Dec. 28 - In one of the most novel presidential announcements in American political history, John Edwards stood in a muddy back yard in the Ninth Ward in blue jeans and said he chose the site to formally say he would run for president in 2008 because the neighborhood is a prime example of the two America's he's been talking about for years.

The growing divide between the rich and poor is a theme he's pitched since leaving a lucrative law practice in North Carolina nearly a decade ago to give something back by getting involved in politics.

Photo by Glynn Wilson

John Edwards announces for president as a modern-day populist, in blue jeans...

"New Orleans is a place where you can really see the two America's I've been talking about. You can get out here and see what the problems are and take action to do something about it," he said. "Instead of staying home and complaining, we're asking Americans to help. We want people to take responsibility, to join this campaign to actually take action now, not later, not after the next election."

The former Democratic Party vice presidential nominee and U.S. Senator said his campaign will be a grass roots, ground-up campaign for people "not afraid to get their hands dirty."

The domestic economic issues in his campaign platform will include raising the minimum wage, pushing for universal health care and rolling back President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. And in a nod to labor, which could help swing the Democratic Party's nomination to Edwards next year, he said he has already been involved in and will continue to push for the organization of American workers.

"We need to ask Americans to be patriotic on something besides the war," he said. "We need to get rid of some of the tax cuts for the people at the very top."

He said he will also champion taking action on global warming, including raising taxes on the oil companies and investing in alternative energy sources.

"We need to ask Americans to be patriotic and conserve energy," he said.

He also said America needs to lead by beginning to pull the U. S. military out of the quagmire in Iraq.

"We need to reestablish America's moral leadership in the world. We can't do that without beginning to pull our troops out of Iraq," he said. "This needs to be done now, not after the next election."

He said it would be a major mistake to escalate the U.S. military's involvement in Iraq with more troops, as the president seems to be on the verge of announcing - in part at the urging of Sen. John McCain, who could be the chief competition for Edwards in the run for president if both win their party's respective nominations.

In fact the entire presidential race in 2008 could come down to opposing philosophies on this issue, some experts already think, especially if the war continues to go badly and the conflict still holds center stage as the campaign heats up next year.

"If America doesn't lead, there is no stability in the world. It's just chaos now," Edwards said. "It's our responsibility to lead. The world needs to see our better angels, and they will respond to us differently."

As he has in the past, Edwards admited his vote in support of the resolution Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.

On the controversial issue of national health care, Edwards said he would not shy away from pushing for universal health care unequivocally.

"We need it desperately," he said.

When asked at the press conference about one of his alleged weaknesses, his limited experience in government, especially in foreign affairs, Edwards took his biggest swipe at the Bush administration.

"Rumsfeld and Cheney had a lot of experience, but the war is a disaster," he said. "Experience does not guarantee good government, vision or the ability to adapt to a changing world."

Bush was also criticized in 2000 for his total lack of experience in foreign affairs and was expected to focus on domestic economic issues as president, until 9/11 intervened. Historians now say the outcome of the war in Iraq is likely to define his presidency, and not in an altogether flattering way - unless something changes drastically in the next few months.

Edwards said he has been traveling around the world since the 2004 campaign and has learned a lot that will help him if he is elected president.

On MSNBC's political show "Hardball" a couple of weeks ago, Edwards handled this issue by proving he could name most of the world leaders thrown out by Chris Mathews - unlike Bush in 2000, who got stumped.

When asked what he would do to counter the notion held by the national punditry that Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were the early front runners - even though neither have announced - Edwards refused to go negative. He said America needs good people in government and politics, especially in the presidential campaign in 2008.

But he indicated he has hope that the "ground will begin to shift" after his announcement, set as it was in New Orleans' Ninth Ward, one of the most devistated areas in the country by the nation's worst national disaster ever.

If he had been president at the time, he said, he would have been on the ground finding out what needed to be done and taking action.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

While for some crazy reason the staff of former Democratic vice presidential nominee and North Carolina Sen. John Edwards tried to keep the details secret, the plan went awry on Wednesday when an election Website went live and the place for the announcement in East New Orleans had not been released.

The New Orleans bureau of the Associated Press broke the story anyway, and why shouldn't they, since everyone knew it was coming?

This is no way to start a campaign, although the New Orleans backdrop could prove powerful if the Edwards campaign can gets its act together by in the morning.

The Locust Fork News and Journal staff will be there to cover the event live with photos, so check back about mid-morning Thursday. We are stopping to blog in Tuscaloosa on the way from Birmingham.

John Edwards Joins Presidential Race

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Photo by Glynn Wilson

Now we know why they call it X-mas...

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The United States will never win the "war on terror," in part, because George W. Bush keeps applying elastic definitions to the enemy, most recently expanding the conflict into a war against “radicals and extremists.”

The change makes the struggle so amorphous that Bush theoretically could strike at anyone he doesn't like whether there's a credible link to international terrorism or not. The word shift also portends an endless war between the United States and the world's one billion Muslims.

To see the full story about how Bush has expanded the "war on terror," go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 06:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

John Edwards, the former North Carolina Senator and the Democratic Party's nominee for president in 2004, has the inside track for organized labor's support in the run for president in 2008, inside sources confirm.

Edwards will announce his candidacy for president in New Orleans next Thursday, December 28, sources say - after spending some quality volunteer time in the Ninth Ward on Wednesday.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak broke the story on Edwards' likely labor support in the Washington Post today under the headline: Labor's Man In '08: John Edwards.

Excerpts:

While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama soak up media attention, John Edwards has pushed for organized labor's support. No decisions have been made, but the former senator from North Carolina and 2004 vice presidential nominee is the front-runner for winning over the big, dynamic unions that left the AFL-CIO almost 18 months ago.

Edwards is a leading prospect for backing from Andrew Stern's Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and James P. Hoffa's International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the unions that led the breakaway, forming the Change to Win coalition.... Their interest in him reflects largely unspoken discontent in Democratic ranks over a choice limited to Clinton and Obama.

Withdrawal from presidential consideration of former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana prompted the analysis that Clinton and Obama consume all the political oxygen, leaving nothing for another candidate. But many labor leaders question Clinton's electability and worry about Obama's inexperience....

While some of these unions fret about Edwards's closest political associates, he personally is a big hit with labor leaders who left the AFL-CIO unhappy about a lack of fervor in recruiting new members. With the same eloquence and careful preparation that made him a multimillionaire trial lawyer, Edwards boosts trade restrictions and other elements of organized labor's agenda.

Edwards's game plan begins with the caucuses in Iowa, the state where he burst out of the pack in 2004 by finishing second. A Des Moines Register poll this summer showed him ahead of Clinton there, and an October survey conducted for an environmental group gave Edwards a 20-point lead. An Iowa win in 2008 could propel him into the New Hampshire primary with momentum, leading next to South Carolina - the only state where he won a 2004 primary.

Edwards has (also) been making points with two other Change to Win unions: Unite Here (apparel and hotel and restaurant workers) and Laborers' International. He is also popular with AFL-CIO unions, especially the United Steelworkers, Iron Workers and Communications Workers. He won the AFL-CIO's Wellstone Award for backing labor initiatives in 2006.

The day is long past when Big Labor moved in lockstep. Stern, saying he was following SEIU's rank and file, backed Howard Dean in 2004. Hoffa supported his old law school classmate, Richard Gephardt. Both endorsed John Kerry as soon as he clinched the nomination, but they were not happy with him. Nobody is about to move toward an endorsement before next summer, and labor sources say Stern will wait until September.

Edwards's unusual step of selecting former representative David Bonior of Michigan as his national campaign manager has been described as enlisting a laborite politician to woo labor. But Teamsters officials regard Bonior as less their friend than a friend of the United Auto Workers. Some believe Edwards would have been better advised to stick with his former campaign manager, Nick Baldick, an experienced political operative who has been given the task of advising Edwards on the early tests in Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire. Baldick is renowned for saving Al Gore from oblivion in the 2000 New Hampshire primary.

The labor operatives pondering their '08 decisions also confess they are less than comfortable with a prominent role in the campaign for Edwards's wife, Elizabeth, who never has been a political spouse who stays in the shadows. It is not good news for Edwards if some Teamsters are put off by the triumvirate of John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards and Dave Bonior.

But Edwards's sunny aura and commanding presence can transcend the negative impact of anybody at his side. When Bayh dropped out last Saturday, there was speculation that Edwards would be the next to go. On the contrary, Edwards is where he wants to be, hoping for a big shove forward from labor.

In Alabama, the Over the Mountain Democrats have already indicated support for Edwards, especially his anti-poverty program. And Edwards will certainly generate support from the trial lawyers here and around the country.

Watch the announcement in New Orleans next week and see how the momentum begins to shift in the race for president in 2008. It's way early in the race and the public is not engaged yet, but . . .

We're still betting the Yuenglings on Edwards. Any takers?

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 07:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A test of the air over north Birmingham shows that Jefferson and Shelby counties are in violation of a new air pollution standard on the first day it was being enforced, according to the Associated Press.

A meteorologist for the Jefferson County Health Department, Sam Bell, says a monitor in north Birmingham captured more than 45 micrograms of particles of air pollution, 35 micrograms allowed by new Environmental Protection Agency new rules.

Jefferson County officials have predicted that the area will fail unless cleanup measures are taken.

What the AP is not reporting in this context is that the chief sources of air pollution in the Birmingham area are Alabama Power's coal-fired power plants.

Alabama Power is asking the Public Service Commission to allow a 5.3 percent hike in electicity rates to cover the cost of new emissions control equipment to address some of the company's pollution issues, typically passing on the cost of cleaner power to the consumer, according to this earlier story.

Perhaps the quasi-public company with a virtual monopoly should consider a reduction in the executive pay level of Charles D. McCrary, President Chief Executive Officer and Director of Alabama Power, who takes home at least $1,858,385 a year, according to Salary.Com.

And, with their monopoly, we are wondering why Alabama Power and the other Southern Company affiliates spend so much money on "green washing" advertising? Have you seen the stupid blue bird campaign?

Instead of raising rates, we suggest they may want to eliminate the company's advertising division.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Political pressures on George W. Bush make the first few months of 2007 a very dangerous time for an escalation of war in the Middle East.

Intelligence sources say Bush - along with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair - are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran, with the United States providing logistical back-up.

In this view, the proposed "surge" of U.S. troops to Iraq and the dispatch of a second aircraft carrier task force to Iranian waters are part of the plan.

For the full story on these troubling developments, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The appointment of Robert Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary was widely viewed as a sign that George W. Bush was prepared to accept more realism on the Iraq War and possibly agree to a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

That wishful thinking led Democrats to treat Gates as a closet ally and to support his nomination unanimously. But the new Defense Secretary now is signaling that he's onboard with Bush's determination to press ahead in Iraq until "victory."

For the full story on the worsening Iraq debacle, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 08:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

"Saving the world is only a hobby. Most of the time I do nothing."
- Edward Abbey

Connecting the Dots
by Glynn Wilson

Sen. Barack Obama's candidacy for the Democratic Party's nomination for president is doomed before it ever has a real chance of getting started.

Here's why.

Two New York Times columnists made the rounds of television news shows Sunday morning and both pushed Obama's candidacy. That's like the kiss of death these days.

On NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert, Thomas Friedman and David Brooks both said Obama is the "exciting" new candidate who can really, really rally the country in a bipartisan way.

Friedman has been wrong about so many things I quit reading him three years ago well before I quit reading the rest of the New York Times, so he's not even worth listening to at all.

I've never thought David Brooks was qualified to be a New York Times columnist anyway, so why is anyone on TV listening to him?

The Times had a chance to get it right before the Iraq war, as I've written in the past, because I tried to get them the information about the secret think tank dream plan on the Democratization of Iraq and the Middle East, the play book Rumsfeld and Cheney were working on well before 9/11.

But they didn't listen to me. They listened to Judith Miller, who reported over and over again in acquiescence to the Bush administration that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction and plans to aim them at New York.

Putting all that aside, however, there are two other things neither Freidman nor Brooks know anything about. One is the American South, where Obama couldn't carry a single state simply because of his race. Sorry to say it is still true in the year 2006, but...

And let's say that's not even in play.

Apparently they forgot to read the Washington Post today, which carried this story showing Obama's past dealings with Mafioso Antoin "Tony" Rezko in land deals reminiscent of White Water, which is another reason people in the South won't vote for Hillary either.

Obama On Defensive Over Land Deal

I will bet anyone from the New York Times right now a 12-pack of Yuengling that Obama will not be the next president of the United States. I will bet a six pack he won't be the Democratic Party's nominee. And I'll bet one beer that when all is said and done, he won't even run this time.

That will destroy the entire punditry's argument that Obama and Hillary are the two front runners.

When Edwards makes his announcement in New Orleans and goes onto win the Iowa caucus, remember you heard it here first and that the Locust Fork Journal got it right when all the TV pundits - and the New York Times' highly paid columnists - got it wrong.

Edwards to Announce Run in New Orleans

Then maybe you will understand why Time magazine named us, collectively, the person of the year for 2006. The New York Times didn't know this was coming either, apparently. The Washington Post did have a story about it Saturday night.

Time Magazine Person of the Year? We Who Create Online!

The "Great Man" theory of history is usually attributed to the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle, who wrote that "the history of the world is but the biography of great men." He believed that it is the few, the powerful and the famous who shape our collective destiny as a species.

"That theory took a serious beating this year," according to Time.

The big story of 2006 was about community and collaboration on a scale "never seen before."

"It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes."

The tool that makes this possible is the World Wide Web.

"It's a tool for bringing together the small contributions of millions of people and making them matter . . . it's really a revolution."

"This is an opportunity to build a new kind of international understanding, not politician to politician, great man to great man, but citizen to citizen, person to person. It's a chance for people to look at a computer screen and really, genuinely wonder who's out there looking back at them."

Thank you Time magazine for finally being the first big media outlet to recognize this. You are forgiven for stealing my Bush AWOL story.

Now will you listen to me when I try to tell you that the Cumberland Mountains are not part of Appalachia?

Will the New York Times begin to listen? Will the Newhouse newspapers, which control most of the media in Alabama?

Don't hold your breath. Just keep reading the Locust Fork News and Journal.

If you missed the first column on the subject, here's the permalink . . . dot dot dot.

Krystal Ball: Who Looks Presidential For 2008? Presidential Tip Sheet: Early Bet on Edwards

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Outgoing Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was honored with a standing ovation and marching bands as if he were leaving office a hero today, not a disgrace.

Rumsfeld Honored at Pentagon Ceremony

At least President George W. Bush didn't award him the Medal of Freedom as he did former CIA Director George Tenet.

Bush Gives Medal of Freedom to 10 People

But the key question ahead is: What will Bush "the decider" do about Iraq?

The speculation in Washington is that he will stay the course, but not call it "staying the course," and he will propose sending more troops to Iraq and throw more money into the quagmire - only delaying the inevitable end to the debacle into the 2008 presidential election season and beyond.

Bush Weighing Options for Iraq

Anyone who still thinks Bush is some kind of a Christian needs to re-read the Book of Revelations. Remember, "he who has an ear let him hear?"

Bush can't hear anything but the voices echoing in his head that make him say, over and over, that he "believes" this and he "believes" that. He "believes" we can "win" in Iraq. He "believes" he is doing the right thing.

What he didn't learn in school while he was cheating his way through was that what he "believes" is not what matters. What matters is what the EVIDENCE shows.

That's the difference between the "reality-based" community and the "faith-based" community.

Either this is a nation of laws where justice rules based on the facts, or it is not. The evidence leads me to believe and have hope and faith that the American people believe that "justice" should be done and that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deserve to be punished for their crimes against nature and humanity - not awarded medals and cheered with marching bands.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 02:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Photo by Glynn Wilson

Finally, I got close enough to get a decent ID shot of one of the backyard's "usual suspects," one of two downy woodpeckers (picoides pubescens) hanging out every day year 'round. This is the male. You can just barely see the red patch on the back of his head. The female looks very similar, but with no red.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 04:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Presidential Tip Sheet: Early Bet on Edwards

Looking under the hood of the muscle car in the Krystal parking lot, it looks like John Edwards could be the next president of the United States.

Here's why.

In this early week in the race for president in 2008, rendered important due to new Democratic Party rock star Barack Obama's early hints he may run and the resulting flurry of activity in Hillary Clinton's campaign schedule, Edwards also stepped up in the public eye. Edwards, the highly successful trial lawyer and vice presidential candidate, and his smart yet southern wife Elizabeth, out hardballed Chris Mathews of MSNBC on Tuesday.

Edwards already has a head start in the early primary and caucus races in Iowa and New Hampshire, and will emerge from the pack as the electable moderate southerner with the strength of character to pull off being president. When you think about it, he even looks a bit like Tony Blair - but without the penchent for supporting George W. Bush.

Edwards, who served a full six years in the U.S. Senate (unlike Obama who has only been in that position two years) has been traveling the world since focusing on his major populist theme of solving the poverty problem here and abroad, was the recent top choice among likely Iowa caucus-goers. Asked to say who they would support in the 2008 caucuses, 36 percent said Edwards, who has traveled to the state extensively since the 2004 campaign. U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., finished second with 16 percent. Obama got 13 percent.

Edwards has been working on an upgrade to his profile as the son of a mill worker, the story he used to get the Veep nod after strong early primary showings in 2004.

Trust us when we say this will become even more important as the 2008 election approaches and economists officially announce the economic recession. Yes, it will be out of the bag by then.

Edwards has not declared his candidacy yet, so to learn about his recent activities you have to go to his One America Website.

Edwards may also be in a good position from a horse racing point of view. He can refine what his plan is riding loosely in third or fourth and wait for the next turn, while most of the media spotlight shines on the two early leaders on the rail, Hillary Clinton and Obama.

A Cook/ RT Strategies poll looking at the Democratic Party's crowded field of contenders shows Clinton leading public opinion with 34 percent. Obama is a distant second with 20 percent, even though he may not even run.

Former Vice President Gore, who has been testing the track's surface of late while fishing for an Oscar for his Global Warming film, still gets the support of 11 percent of the people, while Edwards gets 9 percent.

Sen. Joseph Biden (Mr. split Iraq) of Delaware and Sen. John (foot-in-his-mouth) Kerry of Massachusetts tied with 4 percent.

Everyone else - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (for legalization of marijuana), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - scored 2 percent or less in the survey of Democratic voters and Democratic-leaning independents.

Taking Gore out of the race, Clinton rises 5 points to 39 percent, Obama gains 1 point to 21, Edwards goes up 2 points to 11 percent. Kerry picks up 2 points to 6 percent.

Without Gore or Obama in the race, Clinton goes up to 51 percent and Edwards grabs second place with 13 percent. Without Gore, Obama and Kerry, Clinton gets 52 percent and Edwards polls 14 percent, for now.

But that is before the race has officially begun and people see Hillary on the stump. Let's just say she ain't no Bill Clinton. And the only major public policy initiative she pushed as First Lady, nationalized health care, was an abysmal failure. She was beaten by the insurance companies. What has she done as a senator other than vote for the war in Iraq?

We still like Al Gore and think he should have won in 2000. He would prove to be a much more loose and effecitve campaigner now, we suspect. So if he runs, he will be a major contender and may even get our votes.

But then, why would he want to go through it all again - when he can have far more fun and potentially be even more effective on the outside?

Gore on the Web

Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, Ohio, who ran as the Ralph Nader of Democrats in 2004 and didn't get very far, made an impasshioned speech for peace this week in making his announcement that he would run again.

His key point: "What kind of credibility will our Party have if we say we are opposed to the war, but continue to fund it?"

He says the Congress has already set aside the $70 billion it would take to get American troops out of Iraq and home, and he is suggesting we face facts and do that - rather than give President Bush another $160 billion supplimental appropriation to continue the war for another year. He's a smart guy and we like him, but still do not believe he is electable, even with his new British wife at his side.

Dennis Kucinish on the Web

Which brings up another reason Edwards could emerge as the front runner during the primary process.

Expect to hear Bush take John McCain's advice, not Jim Baker's. Watch this.

In a month, Bush will go on national television and ask Congress for even more money to send another 40,000 to 50,000 MORE troops to "win" a "victory" - "Over there." He still doesn't get it.

Coupled with the inevitable recession, if this war is still dragging on, that will make it very hard for any Repubican to "win" in 2008.

The obvious leader will be Sen. John McCain of Arizona. A few months ago he looked like the only hope the country had.

But since his foray to see the major-domo of the Christian Right, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and his recommendation for more troops, McCaiin is likely to sink like a horse with a stone embedded in his hoof before this is all over.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will pursue the GOP nomination (ho, hum) and may well be joined by Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (yech!), Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (yawn), Rep. Hunter of California (who?), and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado (give us a break).

The question marks in the Republican race are former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (har, har).

Although national polls of Republican voters often show Giuliani at the front of the GOP's 2008 pack, most observers with a real grasp of the Republican nominating process think Giuliani's support for abortion rights, gay rights and gun control knock him out of any real chance of winning the nomination.

Cook Political Report/RT Strategies polled Republicans and Republican-leaning independents about the 2008 contest. When Giuliani was included in the list of candidates, he ran first with 27 percent, followed by McCain at 25 percent and Gingrich at 10 percent. Romney ran fourth with 9 percent. Everyone else was in the low single digits.

Taking Giuliani out of the mix, McCain's support rose from 25 percent to 34 percent and Gingrich's climbed from 10 percent to 16 percent. Romney edged up to 10 percent. No one else drew more than 5 percent, according to the Cook Political Report.

Then there's today's front runner on both sides, Hillary Clinton. But does anyone really think she can really win the presidency? Her negatives with men are way too high for her to have a chance in the general election, unfortunately.

If the Democrats really choose 2008 to be the year of the woman in American politics, then McCain could very well be the next president.

You will recall that one of the early front runners in the 2004 presidential race, now Democratic Party Chair Howard Dean, said that to win, the Democrats need to appeal to the NASCAR vote.

If John Edwards is listening, here's a tip on how he can win this thing. Get yourself a muscle car, go to Nashville and make some CMT-style music videos. In essence, start hanging out in the Krystal parking lot and talking it up. Get yourself a cowboy hat. Go country.

The liberals in New York, D.C., California and the other cities, can't win this thing without some working class votes in the South. And they will never, not in a million years, vote for Hillary.

Edwards has the union bona fides to talk the talk and walk the walk. He may even be able to carry Alabama in two years - once the economy goes in the tank and the war gets even worse.

How about Obama for Veep in '08 and president in 2016?

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

U.S. policy in the Middle East is staggering toward the abyss along a path marked in the past few days by the Saudi ambassador's abrupt resignation and George W. Bush's postponement of a major speech on the Iraq War.

It's increasingly apparent that Bush has no intention of changing direction despite prospects for a region-wide conflict. As the crisis worsens, some hidden history is relevant as are thoughts on what a creative path forward might look like.

For the full story about a newly relevant "top secret" memo and some new ideas for addressing the Middle East crisis, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 04:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's been awhile since I took a big dump on the newspaper industry.

But what the heck. I feel a big one coming on due to a load of crap being offered up today by William Bunch, a senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News who also publishes a blog.

His latest misinformed missive was the lead story today on the Poynter Institute's media blog put together by a little guy named Jim Romenesko.

Romenesko: Your daily fix of media industry news, commentary, and memos.

First, here's some of what this nut job had to say:

I'm a fan of some conspiracy theories. And so really, what could be a more compelling conspiracy theory than the plot to destroy the American newspaper, hatched - in our imagination anyway - by a secret cabal of bloggers and Web gurus meeting in a diner off Calle Ocho in Miami, then launching their assault on circulation from a Grassy Knoll somewhere in cyberspace?

Except this is one conspiracy that can be easily debunked. The American newspaper is being assassinated by "a lone nut." And we're going to tell you the name of that lone nut:

Craig Newmark of Craigslist . . . a man whose altruistic vision of running a business to NOT maximize profits is now threatening the livelyhood of thousands of working men and women across this country, your neighbors who work at and publish your local newspaper, jobs that were once supported by the classified ads that have migrated to the most free . . . Craigslist (sic: dot org).

Last week, Newmark's co-conspirator (OK, he's not a totally "lone" nut) - his CEO Jim Buckmaster - told stunned Wall Street analysts how they're happy to forego profits to save you a couple of bucks on a classified ad, and put some of my best friends on the unemployment line in the process. They even leave on the table money in ways that wouldn't come directly from their customers:

If you won't charge customers for ads, and apparently you won't, then at least start accepting those text ads, and funnel those millions of dollars into the newly formed Craig's Foundation. And what will be the main benefactor of this new foundation? A scholarship fund, to pay for the college education of the dozens of displaced journalists across America losing their jobs everyday. . . . And if there's any cash left, how about building a retirement home for any newspaper folks who might somehow see a diminished pension down the road?

The "lone nut" theory of the American newspaper assassination

It's not that much of a mystery to me why newspaper reporters do not understand what's going on here. Most of them got into newspapering in the first place because they could not do math. And from their early days in the business, they shunned any knowledge of the business side of newspapering, believing that to know the facts about business would jeopardize their objectivity.

But anyone who has ever worked as an academic, teaching journalism, should be familiar with the literature on how newspapers make money to pay reporters. And its not from classified ads or the price of a subscription.

Admittedly, a lot of academics don't have those facts at their disposal for a variety of reasons. I once got into a heated argument with a faculty member at a reputable regional university who insisted out of ignorance that the Washington Post was a national newspaper, for example. But anyone who knows the facts here, including the publisher and the circulation manager at the Post, knows this to be true: The Post made a conscious decision not to invest in regional printing plants and daily distribution across the country like USA Today, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. It is a metropolitan newspaper with distribution in D.C., Maryland and Virginia.

They now have an opportunity with the Web Press to reach out to a national and international audience, however, and so far they seem to be capitalizing on it - without charging for access to their Web edition.

So let's be clear. Craigslist.Org is not putting any newspaper reporters out of work because the revenue from classified advertising never, ever went for paying the salaries of reporters in the first place. Nor did the price of a mail subscription or the price of the paper in the newsstand or box on the corner.

The price of the paper itself has always been earmarked primarily for the cost of distributing the newspaper. If anything was left over from that, it went for the cost of printing the newspaper.

Fact: It costs nothing to print or distribute a newspaper on a Web Press. It does cost a little to put it online, but nothing compared to the millions of dollars of paying for and maintaining an offset press, not to mention the rising cost of paper and ink.

Classified ads in newspapers has been a source of revenue for paying staff at newspapers, but mostly for the production and circulation staff. News staffs and most of the employees of newspapers have always been paid from general advertising revenue.

So perhaps Mr. Bunch should redirect his ire at Craigslist toward building a retirement home for newspaper delivery boys and pressmen.

But guess what? There's an antidote to Craigslist and the newspapers have it in their power to overcome the threat from the competition. If they would just stop bashing the online revolution and join it, they are in a powerful position to take advantage of it. If newspapers would just invest in original journalism and put it online for free, thereby putting themselves in a position of generating a massive amount of traffic AND online advertising revenue, they could survive.

They could even start their own free online classifieds to compete with Craigslit. They could sell Google text ads and pocket all the money and brag at the end of the year to their stockholders.

But apparently, newspaper managers (and columnists) are so out of touch with the reality available right in front of them that they will go on bashing the Web until they are out of business.

When that day comes, us former newspaper reporters who understand the Web Press will be right here to take over where they left off - if there is a First Amendment left after Bush's appointments to the federal bench get done with sending it to the trash heap of history.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Gen. Augusto Pinochet’s death on Dec. 10 means the Bush family may be spared another scandal, since criminal proceedings against Chile’s notorious dictator can no longer implicate his longtime friend and protector, former President George H.W. Bush, who shielded Pinochet from justice for the past three decades.

For the full story on how Pinochet's death potentially saves the Bush family from another major scandal, go to the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

With several country music legends set to testify before the Federal Communications Commission during a hearing in Nashville on media ownership rules this week, the agency might feel as if it's in the House of Blues instead of the Grand Ole Opry.

Porter Wagoner, George Jones, Dobie Gray, Naomi Judd and Craig Wiseman are among the singer/songwriters who have tentatively agreed to testify Monday. Instead of singing a conservative country song, however, they will be singing the blues about the impact of the Republican-led FCC's rules allowing big media companies to own more radio and TV stations in markets across America.

If the country music crowd would listen more to the Dixie Chicks than Toby Keith they would have a better chance of influencing American politics and government in a way that would protect their rights.

FCC to Hear Country Stars' Tales of Woe on Media Ownership Rules

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 08:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Photo by Glynn Wilson

With the coldest winter weather blowing in here in years and a low of below 20 degrees for two nights in a row, I worry about what I call the "usual suspects," the birds making their year around home in the back yard. The water in the bird baths was frozen this morning, so I poured hot water in them to make sure these cute little buggers had water to drink in addition to the bird feed in the feeders to eat. This is may be a Carolina chickadee or a white-breasted nuthatch or a white-breasted Siberian tweety bird, for all the experts know, huddling on the sunny side of a tree.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 04:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There is nothing more heartening for a scientifically objective American journalist than to see the results of a public opinion poll that shows the American people waking up to the facts.

According to the latest Associated Press poll and story, Americans are now realizing there will be no such thing as a "clear-cut victory in Iraq," in direct contradiction to the Bush-Rumsfeld propaganda as recently as today and yesterday.

Bush talked about "victory" in Iraq in a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair Thursday, and outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seemed to plead for more time as he delivered his farewell to Pentagon employees Friday.

Rumsfeld Bids Farewell to Pentagon

This quote is not in the AP story, but from watching the event on cable TV, Rumsfeld also said we could "win" in Iraq "if only the American people would give us more time."

But the AP poll shows a growing number of Americans doubt the country will achieve a stable, democratic government in Iraq, no matter how or when the U.S. gets out of this quagmire and civil war.

Dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent, according to the poll, which found that only 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq - down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.

Goodbye, Mr. Rumsfeld, and thank you very much - for blowing our country's standing in the world and leaving the Middle East in chaos.

And good luck Mr. Lame Duck President Bush. Your time is almost up...

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The BellSouth/AT&T merger is on the fast track in the Lame Duck Congress, according to Timothy Karr, Campaign Director for FreePress.Net.

"The FCC is at it again, ignoring the public interest to give handouts to massive corporations," he said. "This time, Chairman Kevin Martin has thrown the FCC's ethics out the window to rush through the mega-merger of AT&T and BellSouth."

Martin is forcing one commissioner, Robert McDowell, to overlook a conflict of interest and rubber stamp the AT&T merger without safeguards for Net Neutrality - the longstanding principle that prevents Internet providers from discriminating between Web sites.

"This move could undermine basic freedoms for all Internet users," Karr said in a press relase.

Chairman Martin is racing to deliver special favors to AT&T before the incoming Congress can provide oversight. Commissioner McDowell rightly "recused" his vote on the merger because he had prior business ties affected by the deal. That left the FCC in a 2-2 tie.

Rather than negotiate with commissioners in good faith, AT&T and Chairman Martin have resorted to strong-arm tactics to force McDowell to violate his ethical standards and vote for the merger, Karr claims.

Congress has begun to respond to Martin's outrageous behavior. Incoming House leaders John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to Martin Tuesday demanding that the merger be handled "without compromising the ethical standards of the independent agency or the individual Commissioners involved."

This objection was echoed in the Senate by incoming Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye.

"I hope you will reconsider your decision to waive the ethical rules presently precluding Commissioner McDowell's participation and return to serious negotiations with your colleagues at the Commission," he said. "These rules and the rules of professional responsibility in general exist for a reason and should not be tossed away lightly."

To stop this unethical abuse of power, the public needs to get involved to make sure other members of Congress know about Martin's action and step up to put a stop to it.

A commercial now running on cable television all over the country, sponsored by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, claims that "Net Neutrality" is nothing more than a conspiracy by the so-called "big tech companies in Silicon Valley" to "make you pay more for THEIR products."

That's absurd. Don't believe it.

What ever happened to truth in advertising? It went out during the reign of Ronald Reagan along with the Fairness Doctrine.

What's amazing is that the large corporate chains that publish most of the newspapers in the U.S. are so anti-Net that they are not getting involved in this fight to protect their own future Web Press rights.

Do they really want to be overtaken as a news source online by AT&T and Charter Communications?

For more information, go to FreePress.Net and SaveTheInternet.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 11:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Why is it no surprise that Bush is speaking after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair and still talking about "victory in Iraq" and how important that is to the U.S., the Middle East and the world?

AP: Bush Says to 'Win' in Iraq, 'Beat' Extremists

President Bush, standing alongside chief Iraq war ally Tony Blair of Britain, asserted Thursday that success in Iraq depends on "victory" over extremists across the "broader Middle East."

Wake up dumbass or step aside. You are in over your head. Go cut some brush in Crawford and let someone else take over. Everything you have ever touched in your life turned into a disaster. Even your daddy's buddies now know this.

So if you are not going to listen, you have to go...

As for Blair's political future and legacy, the only hope he had was to repudiate Bush. Now that opportunity has passed.

As the study group pointed out in interviews yesterday, "events on the ground" could overtake any recommendations or plan or action by the governments of the West. Sorry to say it, but that moment has passed...

The players in Washington will continue to play this bipartisan game through the Christmas holidays, but watch for major fireworks in January, once the Democrats are sworn in and get their new drapes hung in their new offices, to borrow a joke line from Bush.

If Bush doesn't listen, the Democrats will figure out a way to come out firing.

If he doesn't listen then, well, watch for the Carlyle Group to take Bush out themselves. Perhaps the only way for W to have a positive legacy in history is . . . to become a martyr.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

ANALYSIS

by Glynn Wilson

The Iraq study group report, which dominated the news on Wednesday with the alleged revelation that the policies of George W. Bush in the Middle East are not working, just as the day before Robert Gates' Senate confirmation hearings dominated the news with his admission that the U.S. is not winning the war in Iraq, are both part of an orchestrated campaign to provide political cover for one of the most corrupt governments in the history of democracy and to keep public interest and media coverage away from key issues that face the planet.

And once again, the complete lack of understanding of the issues on the part of the U.S. news media is part of the problem, not the solution.

By only scanning the executive summary of the report and focusing on the bipartisan nature of the panel - and the back story that the pragmatists aligned with George H.W. Bush are asserting themselves over the so-called "neo-cons" aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney and ousted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld - the broadcast media totally ignored the dominant force in the report: America's national interest in Iraq's oil resources.

While the report acknowledges that the war is costing $2 billion a month and could ultimately cost $2 trillion, even if the group's recommendations are followed, it also calls for a continuing economic commitment of $5 billion a year even after most of the combat troops are withdrawn by the end of 2008.

And what is most of that economic assistance aimed at? Rebuilding Iraq's oil infrastructure, to be overseen by the oil companies - along with Iraq's Ministry of Oil, which is mentioned only in passing.

In contrast to some proposals already floating around in Iraq to create a nationalized oil company on the model of Venezuela, in recommendation 63 the panel pushed for a "national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" with investment in Iraq's oil sector by "international" energy companies.

And guess who sits on the board of just about every energy company that will be involved? George H.W. Bush, who played only a behind the scenes roll in drafting the report because his son is president, according to the group's co-chairman, James Baker III - in a slip of the tongue on CNN's "Larry King Live."

Baker served as Secretary of State under Bush 41 and also sits on a number of corporate boards himself, including the all important Carlyle Group based in Alexandria, Virginia.

The Nation: James Baker's Double Life

Recommendation 62 focuses on the establishment of the legal framework for investment in Iraq's oil industry, along with security measures to protect it - and the structure of payoffs to local tribes. If the group's recommendations are followed, the report says, Iraq could restore production to 3.5 million barrels a day in three to five years.

If the Bush administration does not follow the group's 79 recommendations, the report indicates, the result will be rising gas prices and a major negative impact on the global economy.

There is nothing in the report about a hot button issue now floating around in Washington, even given lip service by the Bush administration: America's "addiction" to foreign oil and the need to invest in alternative energy sources to combat climate change due to global warming from the burning of fossil fuels.

Nor was this issue mentioned in any broadcast media news coverage on Wednesday, even as the Associated Press carried an interview with Sen. Barbara Boxer on the issue for today's newspapers and the Sierra Club began a major grassroots campaign to get the White House focused on the issue.

Coincidence or conspiracy? You decide.

A number of independent news outlets, including this one, have said for months and years that the war in Iraq is an abysmal failure based on bad intel and ill-conceived policies. We are glad this distinguished, bipartisan panel finally agreed with us - if not the most obvious ways to begin fixing the problem.

Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin may have made the most sense of anyone commenting on the report on television today. Appearing on Keith Oberman's show on MSNBC, the Bloggerman of the Lefty Blosphere, Feingold said the Iraq study group completely missed the key point by focusing on the war in Iraq and not the war on terror and by recommending keeping American troops in Iraq instead of moving them to Afghanistan.

Why would they do that? Afghanistan has no oil, only opium poppies. Wake up America. Get off the oil.

Maybe we need another blue-ribbon, bipartisan panel of experts to come up with recommendations for how to win the war on terror. Here are a couple of solid recommendations for starters.

1. Get U.S. troops and bases out of the Middle East and away from Muslim religious shrines, especially in Saudi Arabia (the home of 19 of the original 9/11 suicide highjackers).

2. Impeach and convict George W. Bush for his many high crimes and misdemeanors, including going to war in Iraq based on known lies, including Niger yellow cake uranium; for his tacit approval of the illegal torture of prisoners; for approving the NSA's illegal spying on innocent American citizens, including environmental groups, peace groups, journalists and blogggers.

3. Then remove him from office. That would show the world that America is a nation of laws, not corrupt oil men.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 10:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

The United States faces a "grave and deteriorating" situation after three years of war in Iraq, a high-level commission warned bluntly on Wednesday, recommending enhanced diplomacy to stabilize the country and hopefully permit the withdrawal of most combat troops by early 2008, according to the Associated Press.

Well, we knew that. Maybe now Bush knows it and will admit he was wrong all along and do something about it.

To read the report, here's the link.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 04:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrat now poised to take over the chief Senate committee overseeing environmental policy promised a "sea change" from six years of GOP inaction on global warming Tuesday in an interview with the Associated Press, and said she expects Congress to send President Bush legislation to start curbing greenhouse gases right away.

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who will lead the Environment and Public Works Committee beginning in January, acknowledged Tuesday she may fall short of her goal: imposing the nation's first mandatory limits on industrial emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

"I have no line in the sand," she said in the interview. "Even a little step will look like a big step."

Boxer also promised to end Bush administration rollbacks on environmental rules if they are not supported by science.

Boxer's interview comes on the same day the Sierra Club began pushing a new grassroots effort to bring major pressure to bear on President George Bush to get serious about global warming.

The powerful environmental group's goal is to convince half a million people to sign petitions and to deliver them to President Bush in the White House before the State of the Union speech in late January.

"While the recent elections have certainly given us a chance to begin work on important issues like global warming, we must come together and turn this opportunity into real action," said Charles Forsyth of Breakthrough Strategies in a press release on behalf of the Sierra Club.

For more information, visit the Sierra Club's Web site explaining global warming.

Global Warming Explained

You can sign the petition online here.

For more information, contact Charles Forsyth of Breakthrough Strategies at btstrategies.com, via e-mail at charles@btstrategies.com or by phone at (541) 461-2292.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 04:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As the Senate takes up the nomination of Robert M. Gates to be Defense Secretary, it remains unclear what the nation can expect from the former CIA director.

Is he a neoconservative ideologue who was a super-hawk on the Soviet Union in the 1980s? Is he a political chameleon who changes colors depending on his environment? Or is he a "secret good guy" who will make the right moves to extricate the United States from the Iraq quagmire?

Gates's curious history suggests a variety of possible answers.

For the full story of Gates and his political geneology, read this analysis piece in the independent ConsortiumNews.Com.

Posted by Glynn Wilson at 03:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

by Glynn Wilson

It's 25 degrees here tonight and there's nothing worth watching on TV and the news is ho hum, and I've already had two naps today in my attempt to turn into a bear.

It didn't work, so maybe this is a good time to take on a subject I've been thinking about for awhile but have avoided dealing with in writing: The definition of success.

How would you define success?

Having spent most of my life in the camp of those who define success basically as a fun life, you know, the pursuit of happiness from the Declaration of Independence and all that, I don't think it ever occurred to me to consider the deeper meaning of the term until maybe toward the end of my tenure as an Instructor at the University of Alabama in 1995 while pursuing a masters degree in communications research.

I distinctly remember it striking me as odd when I heard professors using the word "success" in an academic sense, which basically meant successfully completing an educational program.

Having started down a professional road in the newspaper business with a BA in journalism back in the early 1980s, the only feel I had for the term meant something in the nature of "a successful career."

Prior to that, since I spent my high school years as a drummer in rock 'n' roll bands, success simply meant a paying job for the night or the week and getting laid on a regular basis.

Since I never had the opportunity to study art, I had no feel at all for the idea that success could mean something else, perhaps something purely in the aesthetic sense.

I did have the occasion to study a lot of philosophy as an undergrad. And I did read a lot of Aristotle, Plato, Socrates and the others. Perhaps it was too long ago, but I don't remember the subject of success coming up in any meaningful way. Perhaps it was couched in terms of happiness, since that would likely capture the imagination of youth.

"Since success is a perfect and self-sufficient objective, it must include the whole of life and all the most important virtues," Aristotle said. "Success in life, the best possible good for man, is therefore living one's whole life in a rational way, under the guidance of the best virtues of the rational soul."

Maybe, but Aristotle's ethical definition seems abstract today. Compared to some of his critics, however, it is quite practical.

But not as practical as a mere dictionary definition, or even the wikipedia online encyclopedia definition.

Success may mean: a level of social status; achievement of an objective/goal; or obviously, the circular definition, the opposite of failure.

But in capitalistic, materialistic America, I don't think that is how most people look at success. I think they define it more like what you will find with a simple Google search for the term, where scam artists and inspirational authors galore will tell you what it takes to be a success.

Like this title that pops up as an ad in Google: I'm Rich. Why Aren't You? Wealth and success are a choice. Create unbelievable wealth at home!

Or this relative street philosopher: "There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way."

That sounds easy. But it doesn't really wash, does it?

On one of his visits to America, someone asked the Dalai Lama. Here is what he said.

"We all have every right to successful life, happy life," he said, emphasizing that money shouldn't be part of the definition of success or happiness. "We should not forget our inner values. By inner value I mean ... human affection, or another word, human compassion."

OK, but what if you are a blogger and want to know how to judge success?

Is simply linking up with the highest number of other blogs and getting a lot of traffic and selling a bunch of blog ads enough to be a success? Or if your goal is political activism, shouldn't you be expected to produce some tangible result at some point, like maybe a change in public policy or swinging an election?

Since I consider blogs to be nothing more than computer software, which makes it easy to publish on the new printing press, the Web Press, it might be useful to consider the historical definition of success in the American news business.

Even in today's climate of declining newspaper readership, news organizations define success in almost an entirely capitalistic way: Circulation, ad sales and profit. If a newspaper is losing readers, ad pages and turns in a profit of less than 20 percent, chances are the publisher will be on his way out like a football coach who cannot win enough games to satisfy the fan base.

Case in point the Los Angeles Times recent turnover in management (and the Alabama Crimson Tide's firing of Mike Shula).

So certainly, one of the measures of a blogger's success is their ranking in Technorati, and the price of a blog ad at BlogAds.Com. But let me suggest another and perhaps more important measure, borrowed to some extent from one of the measures of success in the Pulitzer Prize committee's award in the public service category.

For a purely political, activist blogger to claim to be a success, should not his work have to result in some change in public policy as a result of an investigation of some kind, or perhaps swinging an election as a result of some revelation (like maybe outing yet another gay, religious, Republican hypocrite)?

It would also be interesting to discuss how the media and historians judge the success of politicians and their policies, such as whether George W. Bush will go down in history as the worst American president ever due to his failed war in Iraq. It might also be instructive to see how al Qaeda judges its success in the war against the infidels, or for that matter, how a religion judges success based on the numbers of souls saved - or the amount of money in the collection plate.

Or, one might ask an expert in the art community to define successful art, which might well include the going commercial value of the art, or simply the act of getting one's point across to some kind of an audience, however small.

Many artists are never financially successful in their own time, but go on to be considered greats in history. I don't know much about painting, but I believe many of the artists whose work is most sought after today at the greatest values died penniless (Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh, Picasso).

Certainly Henry David Thoreau was no great success as a writer in his own time, but many literary critics consider his work today to have far more lasing value than his wildly successful friend, Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Someone asked the Transcendentalist author the question about how to define success back in the 1800s. I kind of like what Emerson had to say about it.

"The definition of success: To laugh much; to win respect of intelligent persons and the affections of children; to earn the approbation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to give one's self; to leave the world a little better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to have played and laughed with enthusiasm, and sung with exultation; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived - this is to have succeeded."

By these definitions, it is impossible to know until your life is almost fully lived whether or not you are a success. If you do not think you are a success now, but you are not yet dead, then there is still a chance, isn't there?

And what if you reach some or most of your goals in life but still have much life left to live?

Surely financial independence alone cannot guarantee a person success and happiness. I've known too many miserable rich kids for this to be true. I suspect a person has to accomplish something in life, to have a feeling of accomplishment.

One of the few goals I had the audacity to dream in life many years ago I never expected to accomplish, due to the trajectory of my early career in the news business. I told myself, no one else, that just once, I would like to have my name on a byline story on the front page of the Sunday New York Times.

I accomplished that goal, and it was not just luck or a gift. I've heard luck defined recently as the in