“I know that for well over a century, the only time people come to Appalachia is when they want something. They want your coal, your timber and they want your vote. They take what they want and they leave and they don’t come back until they want some more. I’m not going to do that.”

What Rash fails to mention is that they leave their money before they depart. If I lived in a remote, resource-rich region that’s exactly what I would want people to do — come with their money, take what they need and get the hell out of town until they need more. Apparently Rash wants people to come with their money and take nothing in return. He especially wants a socialist like Obama to come back often bearing abundant gifts from the taxpayers.

The only time anyone goes anywhere is when they want something. And they usually don’t stay after they get it. Even on charitable missions people are seeking gratification from helping others in need.

I hardly think that Rash or Parker are spokespersons for Appalachia. Most of the people who live there do so because they enjoy the lifestyle. For them it doesn’t include hordes of Obama’s public service volunteers telling them what they should do and think.

“Your own story and the American story are not separate — they are shared. And they will both be enriched if we stand up together, and answer a new call to service to meet the challenges of our new century … I won’t just ask for your vote as a candidate; I will ask for your service and your active citizenship when I am president of the United States. This will not be a call issued in one speech or program; this will be a cause of my presidency.” (emphasis added)

It sounds to me like he’s serious. And it sounds like a warning we should heed. Guess who plans to decide what cause is served. Do visions of arm-band wearing youths come to mind? Probably not, unless you’re at least my age.

The web site outlines Obama’s plan for “universal voluntary public service.” Now there’s an interesting juxtaposition of words. This public service he envisions is going to be both voluntary and universal. I suppose he plans to use our “voluntary” income tax system as a model. Signing up for public service will be “voluntary” but if you don’t volunteer he will come get you.

Thinking about millions of youths and old farts out doing Obama’s bidding frightens me. What he has in mind is an army of community organizers. His army will be trained to indoctrinate and intimidate. Its purpose will be to convince all that it serves to support the great leader. (If Obama is elected how long do you think his team will wait before the two-term limit on presidents is publicly questioned? I suspect that it has already come up internally.)

A very pertinent issue at this point in time is how Obama plans to pay for his legions of volunteers. The scope of the program he is talking about will cost billions of dollars that we don’t have. Will he raise taxes to pay for it? If so, it will all have to come from 5% of taxpayers because he assures us that 95% will get tax cuts. It’s more likely that he will come up with a “universal voluntary support fund,” to which the “wealthy” are expected to voluntarily contribute. That way it doesn’t count as a tax.

It’s interesting to note that Obama’s college service program proposes that students receive a $4,000 tax credit for 100 hours of public service each year. That’s $40 per hour. Most of these students will be disappointed to learn that they won’t get that pay rate in their first professional job after graduation.

This morning I commented on a column by Judith Warner. After watching my Gators get beaten by Ole Miss I’m back at the keyboard.

Roger Cohen is a little piqued at Sarah Palin for believing that America is exceptional. Apparently he wants America to be just an ordinary run-of-the-mill country like other “developed” countries, especially those in Europe. New Yorkers are obsessed with Europe. I suppose it irritates them that Europeans look down their noses at them when they visit there.

After a discourse on the need for more connectedness with the world, Cohen laments “a huge transfer of resources to the Middle East.” Is trade with other countries not a form of connectedness? Are we not connected with Iraq and Afghanistan? Anyway, I thought the Middle East was transferring a huge amount of its resources to us. We just send money to them in exchange for their oil. If it weren’t a good trade we wouldn’t be doing it.

Cohen says that Obama represents “universalism” while McCain represents “exceptionalism.” That is, hidden in the crowd versus standing above the crowd. I suppose you have to go to Manhattan to find someone who thinks universalism is better than exceptionalism. Apparently the “intellectual elite” are trying to replace the tainted term “socialism” with the less disparaged term “universalism.”

Today the Gators looked more universal than exceptional. Do you suppose that Urban Meyer is imploring them to suppress their exceptional talent in order to be more universally liked?

Frankly, I’ve come to think, post-Kissinger, post-Katie-Couric, that Palin’s nomination isn’t just an insult to the women (and men) of America. It’s an act of cruelty toward her as well.

Poor Sarah. Those mean old men are just using this helpless, pretty, sweet woman.

I don’t know if Warner claims to be a feminist, but if she does she should be drummed out of the corps.

Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, deficits in clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two appear to be tied. What gives?

Could it be that about half of the voters actually believe that McCain will serve them better as president than Obama? Could it be that about half of the voters aren’t impressed with pure political acumen and tend to look past campaign rhetoric? Could it be that about half of the voters place more weight on what a candidate has shown himself to be than on what he promises to be? Could it be that about half of the voters chafe at the government holding their hand and can’t face the prospect of it holding both their hands? Could it be that about half of the voters place more value on substance than charisma? Could it be that about half of the voters feel that Obama is better suited to playing the president in a movie than actually running the country? Could it be that about half of the voters don’t have a problem voting for a black candidate but don’t want to vote for this black candidate? I could go on and on.

“If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama’s missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks or the concern that he may be too handsome, brilliant and cool to be elected. But let’s be honest: the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He lags with them for a simple reason: the color of his skin.”

It doesn’t matter to Weisberg that in recent history white Democrats have trailed badly among older white voters. He just wants to attribute it this time to the Democrat having dark skin. To me Obama’s appearance suggests gawky more than handsome and I haven’t seen anything from him that I would call brilliant except his ability to sell himself. I’ll accept cool.

Many have discoursed on what an Obama victory could mean for America. We would finally be able to see our legacy of slavery, segregation and racism in the rearview mirror. Our kids would grow up thinking of prejudice as a nonfactor in their lives. The rest of the world would embrace a less fearful and more open post-post-9/11 America. But does it not follow that an Obama defeat would signify the opposite? If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world’s judgment will be severe and inescapable: the United States had its day, but in the end couldn’t put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.

Wow! Weisberg’s absurd view is that this race for president hinges wholly on race. (The race hinges on race.) Not just the race but the world’s judgement. Actually, he desperately wants to make it about race. He wants us to vote for Obama because he’s black and then at his inauguration we can all stand and cheer with pride as he struggles to the podium carrying his great handicap with dignity. And then we can stand back and bask in the glow of bliss, harmony and world approval.

That will last about a week before the approving countries, special interests and victim classes line up at the White House with their demands — and our country hastens its decline into socialism.

Weisberg is wrong in another sense. Electing Obama won’t end racism in America. Racism will always be with us as long as people like him, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Jeremiah Wright are around to keep it stoked.

People seem to forget that Obama is as much white as he is black. It probably won’t make Weisberg feel any better about staving off our “nation’s historical decline” but I’m voting against the white half.

They claim that John McCain selected the worst possible running mate and that Barack Obama made a great selection, yet the country seems much more excited about Sarah Palin than Joe Biden. Palin even appears to be on the verge of achieving rock star status like Obama.

They complain about Palin’s lack of experience although her experience at least matches that of Obama. They seem not to understand that most of the voters probably prefer to have the most experienced candidate at the top of the ticket rather than the bottom.

Obama and his team just can’t comprehend why all those simple people out there in fly-over country don’t believe in the “Change” he is offering. They don’t understand that many of those people are quite happy with the way things are and that many of those who aren’t happy with the status quo aren’t convinced that he will make it better. They don’t understand that most of those people believe that he will make things worse for them in the long-run.

I think the one thing Obama and his team do understand is that a lot of the people out there are suspicious of his motives. They aren’t sure that they know who Obama is and what he wants to do. I’m a bit leery of his motives too but I find plenty of reasons not to vote for him without getting into that.

The Democrats used to say that the Republicans were out of touch with middle America. I think the tables have turned. I hope Obama’s strategists stay in the dark about what makes us tick.

But right after all that she emphatically declared that Barack was the right person to fix America. Huh? What needs fixing? What’s wrong with a country that allows anyone — even one with a funny name — to succeed if he wants it bad enough? What’s wrong with a country that has given a racial minority citizen at least an even chance of becoming its supreme leader?

She did a good job in delivering the speech but its content was a bit muddled. She needs to get another speech writer. No, on second thought, she should keep the one she has; I don’t want Barack to be elected.

I’m still trying to figure out why they felt the need to send a certified letter. Perhaps it’s because I haven’t responded to the hundred or so they sent through regular mail. Perhaps it was just supposed to impress me to the point that I would dig deep and fire off an overnight check back to them.

Whatever their intent they ended up hacking me off. I had to drive to the post office to pick up the letter. I thought it was a summons to jury duty. Those are the only certified letters I’ve gotten — until now.

I’ve complained before about the RNC spending all the money I give them trying to get me to give more.

Notice the qualifying phrase “on those earnings” above. That was necessary because Obama plans to increase taxes on dividends and capital gains which could affect seniors more than any other form of federal tax. He also wants to increase inheritance taxes.

No Barack, we’re old but we’re not stupid. The fact that we’re not stupid is the reason you’re having so much trouble getting our support in the first place. Let’s suppose that you actually do plan to decrease our net taxes. Do you think that would win our votes when we know that you will increase our children’s taxes to compensate for our tax break? No, we’re not selfish either.

Here’s a clue for Obama: The things most seniors find wrong with this country are the things you want more of.