I have already lost track of how many automated political phone calls I have received this past week. You know - the calls where you answer, “Hello?” two or three times before the automated caller begins its message.

Why do they even use this method of political canvassing? Sure, it is quick and easy for the originator. I just have to wonder if there is a way for them to see if anyone has ever made any political decisions based on what their automated message says. I would even ask what percentage of people actually listen to the entire message in the first place.

Then we have all the political mailings. I don’t even want to think of the number of trees that are used to send us an endless stream of political junk mail. Does anyone read those? I sure don’t. I’m glad our local waste management company actively recycles paper products.

I also have to comment on those signs posted on every pole, fence, or billboard you see. Let’s include the people who put signs on their own front lawns as well. Does anyone actually pay attention to these things and form an opinion on how they are going to vote? By the way, why can’t those same signs be taken down just as quickly once the election is over?

What about the bumper stickers? Do they affect anyone’s opinion? I don’t go out of my way to read political bumper stickers while considering which candidate I am going to support. Do these people feel even a little foolish when their “side” loses and they have to drive around with the bumper sticker still attached, proclaiming to the world the error of their beliefs?

Don’t get me wrong - I certainly see the need and validity of informing the voting public about the candidates, propositions and measures they will be voting on. I understand the concept of name recognition. But surely there must be a better way! Here’s my idea. What if we created a website that contains all the information a voter needs in order to make well informed decisions? Perhaps selecting the top 100 issues, and requiring each candidate to publicly declare their position on each issue. For measures and propositions, have the pros and cons described by both sides. In effect, replace the already existing paper form of the voters information pamphlets, and put this information on the Internet.

I know…. wishful thinking, isn’t it?

“Does CNN want America to win this thing?” Asked Republican Duncan Hunter when complaining about CNN’s coverage of the war in Iraq. It seems that Hunter feels CNN stepped over the line by broadcasting film of Iraqi insurgents shooting at U.S. Troops. He even went so far as asking Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to remove CNN reporters from the military embedding program. This is the program that allows journalists to spend time with various units on the battle lines.

Now I have serious concerns that never occurred to me until learning about this. I’m trying to understand how Hunter came to the conclusion that CNN was unpatriotic. What is it that Hunter doesn’t want the public to see or know about? From what I understand, CNN was doing the job they are supposed to be doing — reporting the news. Hunter was even quoted as saying, “In past wars, the press was more pro-American.” Filming the realities of war doesn’t seem unpatriotic to me. Come on - war is two sides shooting at each other, and filming Iraqi insurgents shooting at our troops seems pretty mundane. Almost every memory I have of the Vietnam War is based on seeing dead and wounded soldiers on the television when I was a kid.

This makes me wonder how stringent military censorship actually is. Of course, there are certain things that must be censored. Important information such as troop deployment planning for example. Oh, wait - that is already reported by the media on a regular basis. Scratch that top secret information off the list. So how distorted is the public’s view of the Iraq War? I may be on the lowest rung of journalists at the moment, but I have to ask, what happened to “Freedom of the Press?”

So to CNN and all the other news agencies out there, stand your ground and follow the story. Keep filming and reporting things that are making the politicians nervous.

In the Oct 23, 2006 issue of Time Magazine, part of the article “Putting Limits on Teen Drivers“, describes how a woman’s 16 year old son had been heavily drinking at a party and was driving home when he crashed the car, taking the lives of three of his best friends. He had only been licensed to drive for 63 days prior to the accident.

After the accident, the mother became active in lobbying the state legislature to make the licensing requirements more restrictive for teenage drivers. The mother didn’t apparently accept any responsibility for her role, saying “I’m not making excuses for his choice to drink.” She even went so far as to say that tougher laws would have prevented her son and his friends from being out drinking and driving that night.

Excuse me? This woman is a nurse, so she must have some knowledge about the dangers of teenage drinking and driving. Whatever choice teenage drivers make should be based on the guidance and expectations of their parents. It is the parent that should be making that choice for them through proper parenting. Regardless of the law, why would any parent allow their inexperienced teenager to drive to and from a party, at night, with a car filled with other teenagers?

If the mother felt that tougher laws would have prevented the accident, then why didn’t she take the responsibility as a parent to make her own rules and enforce them? When did it become the norm to legislate what should be a parent’s responsibility?

Some people just have too much money. Sadly, I am not one of them. But here are two stories that really cracked me up.

The first is about a new product for that baseball fanatic in your life. The Major League Baseball franchise has formed a licensing agreement with a company called “Eternal Image.” E.I. is offering a unique service to baseball fans starting next season. You can now put your loved one’s ashes into an official MLB licensed urn. Yes, that’s right - you or your loved one can spend eternity in an urn decorated with your favorite team’s name, colors, and insignia. It even comes with a nice nameplate and a faux-baseball on the top.

Have qualms about being cremated and stuck on a shelf or mantle? Then you can go with the offically licensed casket, decorated in the same manner as the urns. Eternal Image hopes to make licensing deals with all 30 teams.

The second story about the overly wealthy is about Steve Wynn, an art collecting casino mogul in Las Vegas. It seems that Mr. Wynn purchased a Picasso painting entitled “Le Reve” in 1997 for $48.4 million. Representing a huge return on his investment, Mr. Wynn had reached an agreement to sell the painting for a record $139 million to another collector, Steven Cohen. Mr. Wynn was showing off his painting to guests in his office prior to completing the sale. Apparently, Mr. Wynn is one of those animated people who uses his hands while talking. This particular habit cost him dearly, as he accidently punched a large hole in the painting with his right elbow. Mr. Wynn was understandably unhappy about the mishap, letting loose with an unpublished expletive. At least Mr. Wynn has a sense of humor, commenting that he was glad he was responsible for the damage, and not one of his guests.

Of course, the sale to Mr. Cohen has been cancelled. Mr. Wynn says he will have the painting repaired and keep it in his collection. Homer Simpson would have been proud. Doh!

In the city of Santa Rosa, CA, new legislation is being considered. Santa Rosa has had several incidents, like everywhere else, with pitbulls and other “dangerous” dogs. What they have in mind is requiring the owners of dangerous dogs to muzzle their dogs and have the dog wear a bright yellow collar so that people can recognize the dog as a threat. The owners would also be required to have a liability insurance policy. There is already a law that requires owners of pitbulls to have their dog neutered or spayed, with the exception of professional breeders. So far as I can tell, the existing pitbull regulations aren’t being enforced. I still find ads in the newspaper offering pitbull puppies for sale.

I love dogs and have had a dog just about all my life. I currently have a border collie and an Australian shepherd. I’m also a member of the local Humane Society. However - I think pitbulls really do present a risk to the public. I truly believe that dog breeders should reconsider adding even more pitbulls to the unwanted dog population. Have you ever been to an animal shelter? The majority of the dogs given up by their owners are pitbulls or pitbull mixes.

I am also against the idea of the indiscriminate euthanization of all pitbulls. What I would like to see is the eventual discontinuation of the breed. This doesn’t mean that I hate pitbulls in particular. I simply hate seeing so many of them in animal shelters and pounds. It isn’t the dogs’ fault that they have gotten such a bad reputation. The fault lies with those who choose to continue breeding these dogs for profit. A professional dog breeder should at least attempt to use selective breeding in order to weed out the aggressive genes from the pitbull gene pool.