From Bigfoot To Big Believing

It got some pretty good media coverage, even if some of the reporting was a little tongue-in-cheek. And it was something that Bigfoot believers and researchers have been waiting for their whole lives: an actual Bigfoot body.

And who knows if they really got it or not. Matthew Whitton and Rick Dyer, both from Georgia, and Tom Biscardi, host of a Bigfoot Internet radio show, presented to the world in California today with photos of an alleged Bigfoot body.

They claim that the body is kept in a secret location until scientists can run detailed tests on it. So far, tests done on three DNA samples from the alleged Bigfoot have revealed to be: One sample was human, the second sample was from an opossum and the third sample could not be conducted because of a technical problem.

However, even Bigfoot researchers don’t believe the claim and Whitton and Dyer have given three different versions of how they came across the supposed body.

The famed hairy giant has been spotted by American Indians for centuries and even early American settlers have reported seeing the beast. And it continues to this day. In fact, every corner of the world has its own variation of an ape-like man.

With so many witnesses’ accounts spanning centuries from different countries, including pictures and video recordings, it does appear that some creature is out there. The majority of unconvinced scientists should not dismiss Bigfoot entirely without doing some proper research.

However, hoaxers who enjoy playing a joke or trying to make a quick buck have certainly hurt the credible claims of witnesses and those who spend tireless hours researching and looking for the elusive beast. And according to serious Bigfoot hunters, Whitton, Dyer and Biscardi are hoaxers, but only time will tell if that is true or not.

If the creature is out there, and many sober, credible witnesses claim that it is, it is only a matter of time before real evidence will be produced.

In the meantime, researchers have a tireless two-front battle on their hands: Finding evidence of Bigfoot and discrediting hoaxers that severely damage their cause.

Clinton’s Name On Nomination List

Former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s name has been placed on the nomination list for the Democratic Convention for symbolic reasons.

Now, it couldn’t be that symbolic if it took both her and presumed Democratic nominee Barack Obama (or their people anyway) weeks to negotiate to have her name on the nomination list in the first place. If it really meant something, it would have taken less than an hour to place her John Hancock on the list if it was really that symbolic.

Sure, it’s a nice thing to do for a political loser. But the reality is it’s like giving a kid who came in second in a bowling contest a small, cheap plastic trophy cup, while the winner gets a solid-gold statue of himself. That’s what it really boils down to: They placed Clinton’s name on the list just to stroke her badly hurt ego.

Because what type of “emblematic” meaning is there behind getting Clinton’s name on the list? Sure, it’s to recognize “the former first lady’s groundbreaking presidential run.”

But it’s not like Clinton is the first woman to run for president. Sure, you can call it “groundbreaking,” but that’s only because Hillary Clinton is easily the most recognizable woman in politics. It’s her celebrity-like recognition and status that allowed her to go so far and not solely because she’s a woman. Don’t believe me? Go ask Caroline P. Killeen or Cynthia McKinney how their campaign for president is going.

However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that symbolism is the only reason why Clinton’s name is on the list. Her name is on there just to make her disgruntled backers happy and hopefully convince them that Obama isn’t such a bad sport and back him for now on. Because a lot of them are still extremely bitter that Obama basically won his party’s nomination.

When Hillary Clinton entered this race, I wrote that it would be a wild ride. She hasn’t let me down yet.

U.S. Denies Israel’s Weapons Request

The U.S. has denied a request by Israel for weapons or military equipment because the U.S. believes it would be used for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, reported the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz.

The story is highly suspect however, because the Haaretz does not offer a source for the alleged request, but other media have reported that Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak does not deny the Haaretz story. So that seems to authenticate what the Haaretz reported.

But what can be gained from such an attack? As history has shown the world, it would prolong Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons development by years. In 1981, Israel attacked Iraq’s nuclear reactor and as recently as 2007, Israel attacked Syria’s clandestine nuclear reactor.

But according to an Institute for Science and International Security report, an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities might not work.

And recently, Iran has stated it would continue its nuclear program despite more sanctions from the U.N. The U.S. and other nations believe that Iran’s nuclear program is not for peaceful energy for its people, as Iran has stated, but for nuclear-grade weapons.

And with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that Israel is dying and has called for its destruction, it would be foolish to assume that Iran does not have sinister intentions for its nuclear facilities. After all, Ahmadinejad claims that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and yet he has stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Let’s suppose that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, what would happen? Besides pushing development of any nuclear weapons back a good number of years, Israel would undoubtedly suffer deadly retaliation from Iran, Syria, Hamas, and other terrorists groups who would like to see the Jewish state die in a smoldering hole.

There are ramifications that Israel would have to face, however it is a country that has a long history of being nearly constantly attacked by its neighbors. A preemptive strike by Israel is not an act of aggression, as some would say, but an act of self-preservation.

Israel has the right to exist regardless of threats and dissociations from Iran and terrorists groups. However, Israel should continue seeking non-combative solutions with Iran until they are exhausted.

But while a preemptive strike to ensure Israel’s existence should not be the first option, it should be an option nonetheless.

Olympics Sets The Stage For Tragedy

The Olympics give us a rare opportunity for the world to come together and watch the achievements of athletes who win by pushing themselves beyond their endurance.

However, the Olympics unwillingly place world events on a stage to be speculated and ridiculed. When China was awarded to host the 2008 Olympics, its atrocious human rights record gained more attention than what government officials wanted.

These limitations were further magnified when it was reported that the freedoms that China promised to international journalists were severely tighten and restricted.

Certainly not something that should surprise too many. If a communist country cares little for its own people, why should they care about foreign visitors?

But the most recent event that was calculatingly placed on the Olympic world stage is the current conflict between Georgia and Russia, with South Ossetia sandwiched in the middle.

While the Olympics is one of the few events that can draw many diverse nations and people together to make them cheer together in the glory of winning and share a moment of sorrow in defeat, the Olympics, in a unique way, also brought many together to bear a tearful witness of the tragedy of the loss of people in South Osseria or the loss of a people’s freedoms in China.

Because these two events have, in a horrific fashion, been place on the same stage where people competing for gold metals for impressive achievements of the human body, this murdering of decency forced us all to take notice of them and not be able to turn away.

While these things should not intrude on the Olympics, nonetheless they have and we should not turn a blind eye. This would be a good time for the world to truly unite together to better help our fellow men and women of these injustices. The accomplishment in this would be worth more than a million gold metals.

Can Edwards Recover
From Affair Scandal?

Former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ dreams of being Barack Obama’s vice president are shattered after he admitted to having an affair with 44-year-old novice filmmaker Rielle Hunter, reported ABC News today.

It has been speculated that meetings with Obama and then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a few months back after dropping out of the race that Edwards would be their choice for vice president. That speculation was further fueled when Edwards endorsed Obama this past May.

While Edwards’ experience in the Senate and in politics in general would have made him a very attractive candidate for the VP position, having an affair on his terminally ill wife would turn down even the most morally challenged politician. Granted, Edwards told ABC News that his wife’s cancer was in remission during his affair, but that isn’t how some people are going to see the 2006 fling.

And when the National Enquirer first reported on this recently, it was reported that Edwards fathered a child with Hunter, but Edwards’ former campaign aide, Andrew Young, has stated that he is the baby’s father.

Now, what does this really mean for Edwards’ political career? It will hurt him, but he can recover from it like Bill Clinton. Clinton had numerous alleged affairs, not including the Monica Lewinsky one, and he’s approval ratings were still quite good. America still loved him.

With Edwards background of helping the lower class and the poor, he is basically a media darling in that regard. Whatever political faults he may have, Edwards’ heart is in the right place when it comes to people in need. Many might easily forgive Edwards for his affair and say he was under stress of losing his wife Elizabeth before hand. Some might see that as a “noble” and understanding cause of running into another woman’s arms.

By no means is this an excuse for Edwards to cheat on his wife, but merely how some will see it. Besides, Edwards is no Eliot Spitzer, the former New York Democratic governor who was caught with a call girl earlier this year.

However, there seems to be more to this than meets the eye. Hunter, who was hired in 2006 to film campaign videos for Edwards, had been living under false names while she was pregnant and lived in expensive homes in North Carolina and California, according to ABC News. Her baby girl was born on Feb. 27 of this year.

And Edwards claimed that he has not paid any money to keep Hunter silent about their affair, “but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him,” ABC News reported Edwards as saying, a former North Carolina senator.

(Editor's note: It an updated story, ABC News has reported that Edwards' 2008 national finance chairman Fred Baron stated that he gave "assistance" to Hunter without the former senator's knowledge, according to an e-mail sent by him to the news network late on Friday.)

And Edwards also told ABC News that he did not tell his wife of the famous Beverly Hills Hilton meeting with Hunter last month.

It is only a matter of time before the whole truth comes out. Edwards just has to take his medicine that the media onslaught and his wife will give him before he even considers entering politics again.

McCain’s Sleazy Campaign Ads

Recently, Paris Hilton created her own ad to counterattack presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain’s ad that compared the heiress and celebrity with his political foe.

Yes, McCain has launched some sleazy ads against his Democratic presumed presidential counterpart, Barack Obama. Because of certain things that Obama has said, McCain had campaign ads that linked the Illinois Senator with airhead celebrities or is the next political Messiah.

And yes, these campaign ads are sleazy and tactless. Sadly, they do not begin and end with John McCain. All politicians from both sides of the political aisle enjoy launching their attack ads at their opponents.

But who is it really for? Are these ads for die-hard political supporters with their rose-colored glasses locked on? It’s only these people who usually eat up these ads, but where does it leave the rest of us who are looking beyond these political shenanigans and want real substance from the people who want to be our next president?

People like us would rather have McCain and Obama spend their money more wisely by telling us what their plans are for this country with its crumbling economy and facing a global terror war. But instead, they would rather childishly criticize each other than offer real solutions to the problems we face.

And the real sad part is that Paris Hilton made more sense in her mock campaign ad than either McCain or Obama in their attempts to fix the oil crisis.

Paris Hilton For President - Wait What?!!

But no, that does not appear to be what these candidates are after. As one reader told me in the last presidential election while I was an editor of a newspaper, “It seems as if the candidates spend more time telling us how bad the other guy is.”

And that’s exactly right. Last week we had Obama falsely accusing McCain and President Bush of planning on using racial scare tactics and offered no real proof of them doing it. And McCain has been telling us that a star-struck Obama would not make a good president.

If candidates are unwilling to give voters more informative campaign ads that tell us how they are going to make their plans work for Americans, than at the very least, stop with the tasteless attack ads. By doing so, these candidates insult our intelligence.

Take Down the Bird Feeder

I don't normally do this, but a good friend of mine and a devoted reader of The Times Observer forwarded me this in an e-mail and I thought it would make a nice little addition here. It's funny and it makes a lot of sense for the most part. Feel free to pass it along.

The analogy is absolutely right on . .

Maxine tells it like it is!!!!

I bought a bird feeder. I hung
it on my back porch and filled
it with seed. What a beauty of
a bird feeder it is, as I filled it
lovingly with seed. Within a
week we had hundreds of birds
taking advantage of the
continuous flow of free and
easily accessible food.

But then the birds started
building nests in the boards
of the patio, above the table,
and next to the barbecue.
Then came the poop. It was
everywhere: on the patio tile,
the chairs, the table ....
everywhere!

Then some of the birds
turned mean. They would
dive bomb me and try to
peck me even though I had
fed them out of my own
pocket.

And others birds were
boisterous and loud. The
sat on the feeder and
squawked and screamed at
all hours of the day and night
and demanded that I fill it
when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even
sit on my own back porch
anymore. So I took down the
bird feeder and in three days
the birds were gone. I cleaned
up their mess and took down
the many nests they had built
all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like
it used to be...... quiet, serene
and no one demanding their
rights to a free meal.

Now let's see.
Our government gives out
free food, subsidized housing,
free medical care, and free
education and allows anyone
born here to be an automatic
citizen.

Then the illegals came by the
tens of thousands. Suddenly
our taxes went up to pay for
free services; small apartments
are housing 5 families; you
have to wait 6 hours to be seen
by an emergency room doctor;
your child's 2nd grade class is
behind other schools because
over half the class doesn't speak
English.

Corn Flakes now come in a
bilingual box; I have to
'press one' to hear my bank
talk to me in English, and
people waving flags other
than 'Old Glory' are
squawking and screaming
in the streets, demanding
more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe
it's time for the government
to take down the bird feeder.
If you agree, pass it on; if not,
continue cleaning up the poop!

NY Times Attacks McCain
For Defending Himself

I want to say this burns my bacon, but to be honest, it explodes it.

The New York Times’ editorial board wrote an opinion piece about Barack Obama accusing John McCain and President Bush of using or planning on using racial scare tactics. But while many would think that they would go after Obama, they instead attack John McCain for firing back at Obama’s false accusations.

First, they claim that McCain’s attack ad of comparing Obama with drunken celebrity Britney Spears was a “racially tinged attack” on the Illinois senator. How they make this great leap of illogic, The New York Times makes a weak case for it.

While there has been no real evidence that McCain has or will use race against Obama, The New York Times decides to paint him guilty of racial attacks anyway by associating the Arizona senator with a few dirty Republicans who allegedly used a racial attack on black Senator candidate Harold Ford in Tennessee in 2006. The ads against Ford “juxtaposed” him with white women, according to The New York Times.

However, the only ad that I could find that’s against Ford isn’t a racial attack at all and it’s still a weak comparison with McCain’s ad, because if you’re going to sleazily compare a presidential candidate with an airhead celebrity, who better than Britney Spears? It seems like a good case of The New York Times seeing things that aren’t there.

Is John McCain's political ad a racial attack against Obama? The New York Times seems to think so.

And instead of attacking Obama for his obvious and false racial assault on not only McCain but President Bush, The New York Times goes after McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis when he defensively said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.”

Now, it’s interesting that The New York Times doesn’t have a problem with, “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills,” but they’re having kittens over what Davis said.

Because according to The New York Times, Davis’ statement conjures up a “loaded racial image” of Robert Shapiro during the famous O.J. Simpson murder case when he said, “Not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck.”

But isn’t that what Obama did? He blatantly played that card and it was from the bottom of the deck because it was a low thing to do to accuse our nation’s president and another politician of using racial scare tactics and don’t offer any solid proof.

The New York Times not only kicked John McCain when he was down after being falsely accused of being a racist by his political opponent, but they stomped on him for trying to defend himself from Obama’s baseless attacks.

It’s bad enough that they turn a blind eye against Obama’s despicable statements, but they also made a feeble argument that McCain will use racial attacks simply because he is guilty by association because of what fellow Republicans allegedly did in Tennessee.

This sadly certainly gives credence to what many McCain supporters have been saying about Obama: He’s a Teflon candidate that the media simply loves too much to be objective with.

But more importantly, The New York Times just destroyed its own credibility when they attacked the victim and not the attacker.