Please enjoy, How panhandlers use free credit cards.

In March of this year, the publisher, Quirk Classics, released a new edition of the Jane Austen novel, Pride and Prejudice. Big deal right? It’s a book outside of copyright, and gets reprinted all the time. You can even download it for free from Project Gutenberg. Why does another copy matter? Because the title of this new edition is, Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Yes, it is exactly what you think. The classic tale of love and society, now infested with plague-born zombies. Now, not wanting to miss any piece of humor that this gem might deliver, I set out to read the original and research it’s history so that I can be fully aware of every joke. Little did I expect that while reading, I would strangely enjoy the Austen original, though I have to admit, I have no clue why. It is not on a topic I enjoy, in fact it comes off more as a daytime soap opera than an enriching novel. I do not relate to any of the characters, most likely because I am not rich, not a young woman in need of a man, or alive in the 1700s. Somehow, though, despite the out-of-date vernacular, and simple plot progression, I am enthralled with this tale. I originally intended to read a free version of the book from Project Gutenberg on my eBook reader, but I have found myself, more often, listening to the free audio version from LibriVox. Being a classic tale and outside of copyright, there are literally hundreds of formats for this story, and all these readily available forms (including the one infested with zombies), along with my new fascination for the book, made me curious as to what other incarnations there might be.

That is when I came across this: Marvel Comics presents Pride and Prejudice.

I assure you, you read that correctly.

At about the same time Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was released, so was the Marvel comic adaptation. No zombies, no sword fighting, no ninja princesses. The exact story as told in the novel, in comic book form.

Now the comic book is no rare format for adaptations of literature. Countless authors have found their way to the comic world, including the works of Robert E. Howard, William Shakespeare, Edgar Allen Poe, etc… But each of these authors’ stories hold something in common. They often coincide with an already relevant comic genre, i.e. horror, action, fantasy, etc… Jane Austen hardly seems the type of author that could appeal to your general comic book fan. This most likely means, it is in fact meant for the demographic that would read Pride and Prejudice. These would be your classic literature enthusiasts, young women, and the general populace that ten years ago would have shunned a comic book as a childish past time. Can this possibly mean that the comic book is officially becoming a respected medium of fiction, or has Marvel finally gone completely daft?

It has been no unknown fact that the comic book has been reinvented for more mature audiences within the last thirty years, most notably, DC comics’ Vertigo brand, and Marvel’s MAX imprint. Most recently the films Dark Knight and Watchmen have made a mark showing the world what adult-branded comics can provide. However, these are still oriented toward someone who would have read comics in their youth and essentially grown up on them. This still keeps the format within it’s stereotypical bounds. But if honest (non-adventurous) classic literary tales, are now being adapted into comic form, this can take the format to whole new levels of respect. But does it?

In the book, Watchmen and Philosophy: A Rorschach Test, there is a chapter by Aaron Meskin that discusses comics (notably Watchmen) as literature. The eventual conclusion is that while Watchmen can be fit into major theoretical definitions of literature, it is ultimately up to the general appreciation of the work as to if it becomes literature, or just another story with pictures. This, however, only helps us to define a piece of work meant for comic book format as literature. Certainly, having stories meant for comics to be comparable to classic literature is a great achievement. The problem with this mindset, though, is that we really only respect the author/creator for his work, not the medium in which he created his work. Our big question is, “is the comic book format respected enough to be considered a major medium of fiction?”

Alan Moore (writer of Watchmen) believes that the comic book certainly has it’s advantages over other formats. He advises to tread carefully when discussing comic books as literature, because to get the two intermingled, could cause comics to lose all their major advantages against your basic novel. There are certainly methods and aspects that comics have over the purely written language, but it seems more-often-than-not that these aspects tend to get comics dismissed as nothing more than picture books for older kids (and adults). This, however, is an error of the most grievous kind, as many of those “picture books” are drawn by artists (as art), not simple cartoonists or caricaturists. These are bona fide paintbrush-to-canvas type artists. Certainly to dismiss the Mona Lisa as childish because it is visual (just like a three year-old’s crayoned pony) would be a disgrace. As such, is seeing the fact that the comic medium is childish only because it uses graphical displays. One could easily argue that art and comics are very similar formats. They both tell a story using imagery. The difference being that comic books give you a more obvious interpretation with the addition of language. Granted, this does not mean there are not poorly done comics, with awful graphics, and just the same, there is poor artwork.

Unfortunately, as to our ultimate question of the respect of the comic book format, I do not believe we will have an answer anytime soon. Should it be as respected as the general written or art mediums? I would certainly argue as such, but that does not mean it is. I believe it will invariably fall into the same situation that Watchmen as literature did in Meskin’s piece, in that it will depend on the appreciation of the general populace. Obviously, someone at Marvel respects the medium as a viable format, or they would not have printed Pride and Prejudice, but I would not hold my breath waiting on comic adaptations of Sense and Sensibility, or Little Women.

At least that what my mom always told me.

It’s been a while since I posted, but I can not begin to explain how hectic things have been for the last couple of months. I am going to try just to recap this weekend. Maybe that will give adequate example.

This past week (actually week before I believe), I fell into another Wii-fad. My wife and I purchased EA’s Active for Wii. I’ve actually sat around and gotten over the Wii Balance Board weight limit, so I needed a workout that did not use it. It also comes with this nifty rubber band for resistance.

Anyway, the good news of the matter, I seem to be building muscle and loosing weight at an amazing pace. Five pounds in about a week, and obvious increase in endurance for my legs. Actually, I had a difference after my FIRST workout. The first exercise it gave me was squats, and it killed me to do just one. By the end of the session, it gave me squats again, and I was flying through them with ease!

Regardless, anytime I start to exercise, this seems to loosen something in my bad shoulder, and sure enough, I woke up Friday morning and my shoulder popped out of socket. The pain was actually so bad it made me sick to my stomach.

Bad luck: Oh gawd the pain!

Good luck: I’m getting pretty fit!

Well, I was expecting that, so it’s not so bad. OK, it is that bad, but I knew it was coming. What I didn’t expect, was that some dude would decide it was a good day to rear-end my wife’s car. She’s fine, but the little Saturn is officially totaled, completely broke the frame on the rear driver side.

The good news? The dude’s insurance should now give us the financial boost we needed for a new car. We’ve been looking for a while for Libbi a new car, but just enough money kept it from happening.

Bad luck: Wife got into a wreck. Come on, that always sucks when it happens to someone you love. You can’t help but worry, even about a fender bender.

Good luck: New car! Hell yeah!

I swear, listen to your mother, she is always right! If it wasn’t for bad luck, I wouldn’t have any luck at all!

Some people wouldn’t know to laugh or cry, but I can’t help but laugh. The whole situation is just so screwed up. Anyway, things will turn out OK, they always do. I’m not worried, I just had to post it because it is so ridiculous. And this is only a fraction of everything that has happened lately!

This is a review I had written about the Watchmen supplemental DVD, Tales of the Black Freighter. I won’t go into details on what exactly that means, if you are a Watchmen fan, then you know. The reason I am so proud of this review, is that like my Watchmen film review, this one sat on the front page of ComicBookMovie.com as well. It’s not on the front anymore, but you can still read the original HERE. I do apologize if  you notice grammatical errors, I did write it in an excited rush.

Enjoy.

Just ran out and bought the DVD and wow, just wow.

Let me start off with Tales of the Black Freighter. I am sad to say, I don’t think it lives up the the hype, and shouldn’t be the main attraction on this DVD. However, it is still very visually tantalizing, and a thrill to watch. Gerard Butler does a very good job at inflecting his voice in such a manner that his “hope” still sounds so hopeless. Job well done Mr. Butler. The animation is gorgeous. Think, up-to-date Heavy Metal. It has that feel of the old 70′s animation. And the use of colors is very surreal. While still using the same types of secondary colors, they do a good job not to overwhelm your eyes.

My problem is exactly as I had feared though. There just wasn’t enough source material to make it feel complete. It seems so short that even though you know it’s over, you feel like there is something missing. If the DVD contained only the Black Freighter and still had a price tag of over $15 (I think retail is $20), I would say make it a must rent (or must see), but don’t buy.

The prizing masterpiece on this DVD is the mockumentary Under the Hood. I watched the entire thing with a huge grin on my face. I would ALMOST say (and I’m still on the fence) that they made a huge marketing mistake releasing Under the Hood after the Watchmen premier. Almost everything that I could have felt was missing from the movie (technically speaking, ie backgrounds, origins, explanations, etc), is found in Under the Hood.
The feel of the 80′s news show, flashing back to a 70′s interview is a blast! The actors (especially for Hollis Mason and Wally Weaver) make you believe this is real. It was only when my eyes would move to the edge of my HDTV LCD panel screen that I would realize, “wait, it is 2009, not 1985.”

The only thing that redeems the fact that this was released after the movie premier is the interview with Moloch about Dr. Manhattan. If you have already seen the movie, then that scene in Under the Hood hits you in the face with this amazing “holy sh!t” moment.

Final verdict. At $20, this is a must buy. Yes Tales of the Black Freighter may leave you hanging, but this does not take away from Butler’s convincing performance and the stunning animation. The kicker though, that Under the Hood leaves you with another amazing piece of the Watchmen experience.

The graphic novel was meant to show abilities that the comic medium can only provide, I believe that that Zack Snyder and the Watchmen team have built up the equivalent with the video medium.

Though we were out of town Friday night, I was able to post my user review over on ComicBookMovie.com. Amazingly enough, my review got put on the front page, second headline! It stayed on the front page for about five days, and is still linked as  top news on their sidebar links! This means a lot to me as Watchmen means a lot to me. If you would like to read the original review with comments and all, then just go HERE.

Otherwise, here is the revised review titled “Why Watchmen is a Failure.” Yes it is a confusing title, you will just need to read to find out what I mean.

I’m sure by now that everyone has read the flood of reviews for Watchmen. Or by now, you may have seen it two, or three times. However, there is still something I want to say about this film.

Watchmen is a failure as a movie.*

Just as Watchmen is a failure as a comic book.*

To called Watchmen a movie, is like calling this a review. It is a misnomer. It is really an experience.

If I were to compare Watchmen to a cinemagraphic work, Watchmen falls short. There are no “groundbreaking” shots. I would even go as far as to say much of the camera technique would be boring. But I have never had any movie make me feel the way Watchmen did. It is something different. Unfortunatly, there is no way I can truly make you understand what this film did to me. This best way I can put it, is this:

It is July 8th, 2008. My friend, my wife and I are watching the movie screen grow dark as the trailers begin before the Dark Knight. I sit in awe as I realize what I am seeing is the culmination of a lifetime of fandom. The Watchmen movie is coming, and I think to myself, “The world is not ready for this movie.” The excitment overwhelms me just the same and I look with shock at my wife. She smiles and hugs my arm. She is happy for me, but she does not understand.

It is March 5th, 2009. My wife just finished reading Watchmen for the first time. I probe her mind, her opinions, her philosophies. She half-heartedly smiles and says she liked the book, but it was overall dry for her, and she really doesn’t see the need in reading it again. I explain to her that it is OK, I can’t expect everyone to like it. After all many of the ideals expressed, while being around for centuries, can still be considered revolutionary. She does not understand.

It is March 6th, 2009. My wife and I walk out into the daylight. It is mid day. We just watched the first showing our theatre had of the movie that I so excitedly anticipated since that day in July. Our eyes blink the tears away, but these tears are not from the sudden dark theatre to day’s light. These are the tears of an experience. I look down at my wife’s beautiful face, red from crying. Her eyes irritated from emotion. She smiles. She understands.

For the last 16 hours, we have done nothing but discuss, talk, debate, and share everything we have taken away from the graphic novel and from the film. She wants to read it again, and here I am, after reading dozens of times in nearly the last ten years, and I don’t think I will ever be able to pick it up again. It may be to emotional for me now.

The sad thing is, is that the best we can catorgorize Watchmen as, is a film adaptation. But honestly, it fails as that. It is really, a completion of a journey. An adaptation is meant to bring one work, to a new medium. But what Zack Snyder (and his crew) has done is make the film medium PART OF the Watchmen experience. At this point, to try to compare the film to the graphic novel is like trying to compare two pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Sure one piece may have a prettier color, or have a more appealing shape. But in the end, you need them both to complete the picture.

If the graphic novel was meant to make me think, then the film was meant to make me feel.

Alan Moore has said that he believes all the movie industry does is feed us worms. In the end, he will most likely say this film is just more worms. But they are the best tasting worms I have EVER had, and I cannot wait for a second helping.

If I had to absolutley compare the film to the graphic novel, I believe it would be blasphemous to what it really is. I will say, there is the same irony, the same little “wow” moments, the same cynisism. It is captured beautifully, some scenes may be better than the novel.

As a film, the music is amazing. The placment of the peices range from everything from ironic to romantic. And I know there has been much debate about the song at the credits, but I think it is an excellent statement. When Desolation Row was originally written, it was a poetic statement of the times. It was performed by an artist who could argueably be considered a figurehead that culture. The song was an expression of the irony and abstraction in the world, and here, at the end of this film, we have that same song expressing an alternate time, but the same society. However now it is being performed by a band that reflects our culture now. You do not have to be a fan of My Chemical Romance (lord knows I’m not), Bob Dylan, or Desolation Row, but placing that song at the end is a stamp, a signature. No, not everyone will understand Watchmen as we do, but it is ours, and as much as we would love to see the world take what we take from it, we can still be proud of what it means to us.

* NOTE: I would like to clarify something about what I had said. When I say Watchmen was a failure, I actually meant it. It wasn’t some sort of attention getting irony. My point is, if you take the 1985 concept of comics and tried to apply it to the graphic novel, then the novel is a failure. It doesn’t have an adhesive plot, it’s difficult to pinpoint the “hero” and any sense of a villain is skewed. But that is why we love it. To often failure is considered a bad thing. In this case, it was revolutionary. I think this film is the same. Essentially, we can say that a film adaptation of Watchmen is impossible, but what we got may have been even better, we got an amazing experience.

The whole time we waited for the adaptation for a graphic novel, what we may not have realized (or I didn’t at the time), was that over the years Watchmen has changed from the revolutionary graphic novel to an entire experience. The film added to that, and it was awesome!

This essentially boils down to the question, are we justified in seeing film adaptations against the author’s judgment?

For Watchmen, this is a particually prickly predicamen for me, as I do so respect Alan Moore and his views. He has always had a certain, earthiness, that is usually not found in many of today’s culteral figures (even less so in the comic medium). Much of his (public) opinions on religion, politics, and society in general, just plain make sense to me. This includes a certain distaste for the film industry. The film industry (which I would like to seperate from films in general) tends to take a hardworking individual’s piece, throw insane amounts of money at it(that could be better used for the poor or hungry). Then to ensure the filming company (and other related companies) can continually reap the rewards of marketing, the original author/creator is tossed into a confusing maze born from a myriad of contracts and legaleze. Of which, at the center of this hell is not the infamous Minotaur, but rather another feared monster, the lawsuit, waiting to drain away what life he/she had left that they managed to slip away with from the project.

Very rarely do anyone other than the “stars” or any name leading the charge of the film (director, producer, etc) get the credit. Even then, the credit is somehow grown into this detesteble disfigured form of god-like worship. In the end, I could argue that the deserved praise belongs to the mind that originally birthed the creation. Not because it was his/her work that gave us the film, but because to ensure the corporate machine takes all it can it eat, it makes the creator to suffer and toil in all the legalized filth one can endure.

Yet, even if the “celebrity worship” could be directed at the original creator, it is likely more than what Mr. Moore would want to accept. It tends to border less on a simple “thank you” and more toward a pop-culture junkie asking what opinions he or she should have, next much like a beggar asking for coin.

Even awarding appreciation for such work seems to be corrupted by this disease Hollywood infects with.

So after all the negativity associated with film industry, can I (or we) be justified?

Short answer, yes. It is my money, I worked for it, and I can do what I want with it, period. No matter the opinion of my peers.

Long answer, how can I continue to give to the machine that insists on (to use Mr. Moore’s language) spewing venom on decent reasonability. Namely, abusing the rights of individuals, and spending unheard of amounts of money that could be better used elsewhere.

(It might be good to clarify that the “money” that Hollywood flaunts is often just numbers and not “real” money. Much like what Wall Street uses. This is confusing, I know, but a discussion for another day.)

Assuming I was justified in seeing the film, how can I look at myself in the mirror knowing I am supporting an industry that not only spends an amount, per film, that rivals a third-world country’s GDP, but also for such a superficial reason as making more money. By giving them my hard earned ten bucks, aren’t I just feeding the beast?

Well, I can say I am funding the film, and not the film industry. (Remember when I made the differentiation earlier?) While the monster that is the industry may be the ultimate force in delivering films, a film itself is actually comprised of many more lesser considered individuals. I can believe my cash is actually going to help that poor guy who had to deliver Christian Bale’s donoughts today (who you know you have a soft spot for now). Or the woman who helped build the original replica of a comic book scene. These people work as hard as I do, and deserve as much support as what the face on camera gets. While I have no control over what share of my ten dollars is given to these individuals, it does not change the fact I may like their work, or just want to support them.

And to say that just because we stop giving money to the industry will mean they stop so much of their (arguably) immoral devices, is a misnomer. Even if they received no more money for taking in beauty and delivering bile, this does not guarantee they would start doing things “right.” How do we know they wouldn’t just move to some other industry where their underhanded tactics would be better utilized? Honestly, just saying this industry performs these questionable acts because of society’s promotion, is an insult on free will. It is the equivalent of (to take an example from Watchmen) justifying a rape by saying the victim was dressed like she was “asking for it.” This makes it sound like the attacker had “no choice” in doing what he did. While it can be argued that there may have been mental (or physical) conditions that promoted the idea of rape for him. The fact remains, the rape was of his own accord, and we should not insult his being an agent of free will by saying otherwise.

So to say the industry delivers what we may consider garbage only because we pay it to, is an insult on the free willed individuals behind the helm of the industry. Simply put, they do it because it is their choice.

Well, to that end, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for me (and all other Watchmen/Alan Moore fans) to see this movie, and to enjoy it. After all, I don’t see Mr. Moore losing any sleep over me (one of millions) seeing this film, regardless of his opinion of the film industry. And to take a page from Watchmen, the movie has already been made (Ozymandias’ plan has already been set in motion). Why not just go ahead an enjoy it (just as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre would). I could take the ridged stance of a black and white deontological Rorshach… But we all know what happened to him.

Well out of curiosity, I just HAD to click on one. It happens to be JohnMakesMoney.com (catchy? I like it!).

Apprently for just $1 each (for shipping of course), he will mail you two different guides on how to make money from Google and then the Governement…

I would just like to point out how out of touch this scam really is…

As posted on JohnMakesMoney.com:

“#1 Google How can you go wrong with a company that is publicly traded on the stock market. That fact alone made me and my wife feel at ease when I went ahead and got that program.”

REALLY?! How to you NOT notice anything going on around you with the market today?

And then the second option is to take advantage of Government grants. Like all we need right now is more people taking advantage of tax payer money…

Anyway… Turns out there is a comment section at the bottom of the site (as if it really is a blog). So I decided to try to post a little comment:

“This is awesome! Is there anyway I can thank you for this? A lot of people should do this to ease their financial burden. Con artists are putting up ads like this everywhere, but this is the real deal!”

Now take the first word of each sentence and make a sentence with that… I thought it was funny, not that it will actually get posted.

If anyone really has gotten this guy’s deal, let me know, I would honestly like to know what kind of a rip off this is.

1. My religious beliefs are based on the teachings of the man named Jesus Christ as they are stated in the New Testament of the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible

2. I do not take most church doctrine to heart as the only way most organized religions can succeed is by appealing to a mass market. This not only puts them in the same league as multi-million dollar advertising agencies, or the movie industry, but it can also take away from faith being a very personal institution. (These are not the only reasons, but a good surmise for my purpose here.)

3. I am an old leftie. When the constitution says freedom of religion, and that no law shall be made to promote or deny any religion, it means just that. There are no work arounds in this to promote a Christian agenda. Like it or not, many of the founding fathers were NOT Christian (including big names like Thomas Jefferson).

4. Marriage is a religious institution.

5. I am not gay and am happily married to my lovely wife.

Though the voting is over in California, Proposition 8 is still sending massive waves through the nation. I still regularly check out groups and opinions of people over the subject. On both sides of the gay marriage division. While reading, I came across one such post:

Many criminal & civil laws in the United States are grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs.
You can’t murder, you can’t lie under oath, you can’t steal, etc. To argue that a ban against gay marriage is unconstitutional because of the first amendment sets up a precedent that all laws grounded in religion should be struck down.

You have to look at the first amendment in the context of the time it was written. The framers were trying to avoid setting up a national church like they have in England with the Anglican church. Gay marriage is not just condemned by christianity, it’s condemned by Judaism & Islam as well, and many other world religions, therefore, by banning gay marriage, congress is not making any law that respects any ONE religion.

Comments like these are not uncommon in the opinions of those adverse to gay marriage, but this particular post summarizes everything that I think is wrong with their reasoning.

1. Semantics
I would like to start, with the end of this post. The argument that because it is supported by MANY religions, then the constitution can support it. I’m sorry, but your play on words, does not mean you get to play with my rights. Let’s work this out one step at a time. (a) Is there any religion that denies gay marriage? Yes, there are several. (b) Can you name one of them? Yes. (c) Does this one religion deny gay marriage? Yes.

Guess what? That means denying gay marriage does support the beliefs of any ONE religion.

Besides, there are many religions who also believe in homosexual lifestyles. Funny thing, I think then this person would be spouting out “freedom of religion” if congress passed a law ONLY allowing gay marriage using the same argument that since many religions support it, it makes it OK by the constitution.

2. Context
Do you have any idea how many times I’ve made people who believe in the literal Bible mad by placing scripture in context of when it was written? While I may not know this person’s exact belief in the Bible, I can not help but believe it is a very literal belief as well since to say that the Christian belief is anti-gay means to take scripture at face value.

Long story short, the context at which many of the anti-gay scripture of the Holy Bible was written, was in response to pagan religions that used homosexual prostitution or homosexual orgies as a form of worship. Take the holiday of Saturnalia for example. Google it. At the time of the Old and New Testements, there was no monogamous  homosexual lifestyles as we have today. So how can the Bible condemn that which didn’t exist? Granted, this may not apply to ALL scripture considered anti-gay, but I do have arguments for all of them, and most are contextual.

So then why is it now OK for someone to place a writing in context to argue against a document that the same person refused to place in context?

3. My facts are greater than your facts.

“Many criminal & civil laws in the United States are grounded in Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

What this post leaves out, is that many religious beliefs, including Judeo-Christian, are based on a religiously neutral concept called the Social Contract (once again, google it). The very basic idea behind the Social Contract, is the idea that even without outside impression, you realize that something is good or bad. For example, let’s say you were born and grew up on an island where there has never been a religion or belief structure of any kind. Most likely, you would come to the idea that murdering is wrong. Granted, that without any belief structure to support the idea that murder is wrong, there could be people who do it thinking there will be no repercussions, but keep in mind people do it even though it is ilegal in many places.

Now the reason you will come to the conclusion that murder is wrong, is due to the basic belief that because you do not want it to happen to you, you will not do it to someone else. Essentially this source ideal, is the basis for the Social Contract. We have a silent understanding that to keep you from doing something bad to me, I will not do something bad to you. Since the beginning of time, this has been an understood concept, and without religion. As such, many religions like to exemplify the basic rules of the Social Contract, as well they should, as it is a basic structure for social interaction. This is especially helpful for religious believers to interact with the outside world. However, for it to work, it means the outside (non religious believer) world has to also except the Social Contract to interact successfully with the believers. Non-religious people interact with the religious all the time by accepting the Social Contract, and they do not accept the believer’s religious doctrine. This means that it is possible to come up with laws that are not based in religious belief, yet reflect many religious concepts.

Yet in our example post, it seems like the poster does not accept the concept of the Social Contract and only their “fact” of laws come from religious doctrine is true.

Really it just boils down to the fact I am sick and tired of the arguments made by people who say one thing, yet do another.

So what is my stance on Proposition 8?

Simple, like I said before, marriage is a religious institution, and the constitution says that no law will be made to promote or deny any one religion. As far as I’m concerned, I don’ think the government had any right to tell me I must licsence my “normal” marriage.

I think that a religion should be able to marry two people and the government have NOTHING to do with it. If those two same people want to have all the pros and cons the government currently grants married people, they can also enter into a governmental social union. As well, two people who are NOT married may also enter into a social union if they so choose.

I see no reason why government issues have to be tied to marriage, nor should they be.

There seems to be some discussion as to why those of us who voted for him did so, however, I would like to make my stand very clear.

I am proud that I did my part in getting the first man with a close African-American ancestry elected, but I did not do it for that reason. I did not vote for him because he was the Democratic nomination. I did not vote for him because I think he will “fix” everything that Bush “broke.” In all honesty, I was planning on voting for John Edwards because of his rural development plan and how it would help my wife’s grandmother. After she passed away though, I no longer had a solid stance. I sat back and watched as the primaries finished, and then there were two.

I would like to say, I like John McCain. Had he been running eight years ago, I could see myself voting for him. He is a man that has suffered for our freedoms, and I can not express in words how thankful I am for that. However, it seemed to me that Barack Obama understood a different kind of suffering, the suffering of life.

I’m sure you are asking how can I possibly compare Obama’s suffering to McCain’s prisoner of war. Well, there is a difference.

John McCain went into service understanding what hardship he may encounter. Now he may not have expected it, but it was still a chance and he understood that. Barack Obama, however, has endured a completely different kind of suffering. He has had to endure the suffering that one does not agree to, but must accept as a part of life.

As a child Barack Obama watched his mother fight illness and insurance companies, just for the right to live without pain. After meeting his father for the first time, he had to accept it was then the last. Even on the eve of being elected to be the most powerful person in the international world, he had to accept the fact that he no longer had the comfort, or warm embrace of the woman who helped raise him. It seems like even when this man is on top, he has every right to be down, and not once does it seem like it broke his stride. Even when life tries to kick him when he is down, he stands up before the foot is even lifted. When I see the events that surround his life, I can not help but see struggles similar to my own. His personal strength is astounding to me, and when I look at him I can’t help but hope that I can be admired as having even a tenth of his resolve.

My mother always said if it wasn’t for bad luck, I would have no luck at all.

Barack Obama took his bad luck by the throat and demanded it give him what he has earned.

I did not vote for Barack Obama because of his heritage. I did not vote for him because of his party. I did not vote for him because I think he has a magic cure. I voted for him because he understands what it means to suffer, and to wade through the sorrow without letting it drag you down with it. Because he knows what it means to be down, he will create an administration that will prevent us from going out. I believe his experience with life, will (and has) helped him shape policies that political experience and bureaucracy would only be blinded to.

Many people voted for George W. Bush because they thought he was someone they could “have a drink with.” They saw a piece of themselves in him. I voted for Barack Obama for the very same, and I am proud to proclaim him as my President!