The Note, 12/15/08: Blago’s Beguilement

What are the political and liabilities for listening to a pay to play pitch and then not reporting it?

If Obama a uniter where are the Southerners. We have just as many smarter than all the folks from Harvard, Chicago, or Washington. For Education, Inez Tenenbaum. A great reformer, experienced , smart, politically savy, but no she is not from Harvard. Where is change ????

Worst came secnario for Obama is that Rahm Emmanuel knew of a pay to play scheme, refused to play, but did not report it. Taht would be extremely foolish on the part of Rahm, but it is hardly a scandal for the Obama team. Rahm will have to fall on the sword and they’ll move on. But as an Obama supporter, i am deeply disappointed that they haven’t handled this issue as judiciously as i expected. I have a feeling that Obama is trying to send a message to the press. There is hardly anything that man does that isn’t intentional. He is dragging this issue out for a reason. Perhaps to let the press know that they cannot push him around with their MANUFACTURED hysteria. Now is as good a time as ever to draw a line in the sand. Clinton allowed the press to step all over his administration. he was too sensitive to their childish needs and that hurt his effectiveness.

Can someone please tell me how barry is supposed to be a brilliant person when he apparently can’t tell a crook from his own arse? He has been hanging out with crooks for years, and the only way he has maintained his perfect image is with the help of a bias media.

KHQA News reported on 11/5/2008 that Obama was meeting with Blagojevich to discuss who should replace Obama. How is that “stops well short of Obama’s doorstep”??? Rahm has been recorded on multiple conversations discussing who was acceptable to Obama. This stinks and his LYING about it stinks even more. I thought he was to represent change.. I didn’t know the change was going to be from BAD TO WORSE.

You bet money talks!!! He got these campaign funds some way and not all from “average” donors!

“KHQA News reported on 11/5/2008 that Obama was meeting with Blagojevich to discuss who should replace Obama. How is that “stops well short of Obama’s doorstep”???”
He didn’t meet with him and there is no evidence of a meeting taking place. That kind of thing happens all the time with people who are busy. Schedules change…other people get sent to meetings as proxies. Simply because a news station says something is going to happen doesn’t mean that it ends up happening.
And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with, nor has there been any accusation of wrong-doing on his part by the FBI, Emmanuel offering a list of prefered replacements. That’s what anybody would have done.

“KHQA News reported on 11/5/2008 that Obama was meeting with Blagojevich to discuss who should replace Obama. How is that “stops well short of Obama’s doorstep”???”
He didn’t meet with him and there is no evidence of a meeting taking place. That kind of thing happens all the time with people who are busy. Schedules change…other people get sent to meetings as proxies. Simply because a news station says something is going to happen doesn’t mean that it ends up happening.
And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with, nor has there been any accusation of wrong-doing on his part by the FBI, Emmanuel offering a list of prefered replacements. That’s what anybody would have done.

Actually, bobthenailer — Votes talk. I know the right wing wants to add “he bought the election” to their tired old attacks of “he’s a socialist Muslim” and “he’s a Chicago crook.” But as with the other nonsense, it won’t wash. Obama won a big victory, and his financial support came from 4 million Americans. The biggest donor categories were students and retirees. Keep trying to deny reality, though. It’s entertaining.

John McCain would have been a better choice for President. Looks like we are in for four years of corrupt politicians from Chicago.

“Exactly! Like Wright and Ayers.”
So, what? Got any evidence of wrong-doing? That is so much ado about nothing, yet it’s all you have so you just keep jumping up and down on it. McCain tried that and found out the hard way that people don’t feel like there is any issue there.

The mainstream media guys spent most of the election cycle puffing up the “hope” message, and as soon as Obama got elected, they started furiously backpedaling to lower the expectations they’d raised. Now, the RNC’s directing of scrutiny the political sewer from which Obama came, in light of new revelations of profound corruption there, is characterized as “overplaying its hand,” and these words almost placed in McCain’s mouth. McCain, who has a long record of bipartisanship, could be expected to call for cooperation, especially as a recently defeated Presidential candidate who has been more than gracious since his loss.
a couple of years ago it seemed that most media types at least went through the motions of denying their bias, but many seemed to be falling all over one another this past year to support their favorite, shamelessly abandoning even a tissue of objectivity. Here we have another attempt to characterize scrutiny directed at Obama in negative terms and as hostile gestures with no substance, in the same way Obama’s ties with Rezko and Wright were sanitized. When the ‘respectable” media exploit their control of the flow of information to advocate rather than inform, and when an election is won more because of charisma than qualifications, democracy is in trouble. It has become the norm, apparently, for manipulation to triumph over informed reason. A postmodernist self-fulfilling prophecy prevails. God help us. (Charisma, to connect the dots, is one form of the power to emotionally manipulate others, for those who have forgotten that Rasputin, Jim Jones, and Hitler were charismatic, just as much as FDR, JFK, MLK, and Churchill.)

Give it up, folks. No one (except for a few deluded right wing nuts) believes that Obama’s “associates” are like Wright and Ayers or are “corrupt Chicago politicians”(guess you missed his Cabinet picks, dimwit). And despite your earnest (albeit stupid) attempts to come up with scandals, the media has pored over and reported on his full record extensively for 2 years. And he won. So just go back under your rocks, please. Thanks, and have a good 4 years!

“We just don’t know, but don’t be so naive to declare it was absolutely clean.”
Don’t be so reckless to make accusations without a shred of evidence.

liberalsaresocialists: “He is a typical limosuine liberal- they are ALWAYS more generous with other people’s $$$.”
Fact: The majority of higher income earners voted for Obama, knowing he was going to increase *their own* taxes.
Fact: The majority of federal handouts from welfare to subsidies go to Republican states (oddly, they tend to have lower education, lower productivity, and low-value industry).
You should try visiting reality sometime, I think it would prove surprising to you.

“When the ‘respectable” media exploit their control of the flow of information to advocate rather than inform, and when an election is won more because of charisma than qualifications, democracy is in trouble.”
I know how shocking it is for some to see a candidate who speaks in complete sentences, can think on their feet and has gravitas, but please don’t mistake a reasonable appreciation for this for simply falling victim to charisma. He had a platform, too, y’know.
I don’t know where some of you Bush voters get the stones to think you are still in a position to tell others what’s up. You are responsible for the mess that Elmer Fudd has made.

“If you sleep with dogs you get fleas! I’ll bet “O” is about to scratch his teflon off and crap is going to start sticking. Some of you are still drinking the kool-aid and wandering around in a haze.”
It’s like a cliche machine exploded. Did you piece this together with bumper sticker fragments?

jhw539
You are completely wrong… Conservative households avg 6% less in income than liberal households, yet they give almost 20% higher to charity. These are not my stats, these are the gov’t stats.
Perfect example would be Joe Biden. He has made $2.59million in the last 10 years and given $3 thousand to charity (.001%) Wasn’t he the guy that said higher taxes=higher patriotism, or something ridiculous like that?
Or how about Al Gore, the $30,000 month utility bill, messiah of Global Warming?
He has mad well over $500 million and given less then 1% to charity.
So once again, to sum it up….typical limousine liberals, always more generous with other people’s $$$.

tmginnova, Obama’s associates aren’t LIKE Ayers, Wright, Rezko or Blagojevich.. they ARE Ayers, Wright, Rezko and Blagojevich. And in another display of your amusing ignorance, several of Obama’s cabinet/advisor picks are from the Chicago political system.

My source is the US gov’t.
Also, let me get this whole “churches don’t count thing” straight. The 12% of income my family has struggled to give our church over the past 25 years does not count? What are you talking about?

“I know how shocking it is for some to see a candidate who speaks in complete sentences, can think on their feet and has gravitas, but please don’t mistake a reasonable appreciation for this for simply falling victim to charisma. He had a platform, too, y’know.”
Yes, and what an impressive platform it was. “CHANGE” “HOPE” “YES WE CAN” “WE’RE THE ONES..” If our problems could all be fixed with empty rhetoric, Obama would have been a great choice. But, in the real world empty promises and campaign slogans mean nothing.

Just so we understand your, for lack of a better word, logic Silky..
If I donate to a food pantry or homeless shelter run by a non-religious entity.. that’s charity.
If I donate to a church which runs a food pantry or homeless shelter.. it’s membership dues, and not charity.
And here’s the real kicker, church based charities ( yes, I’m going to ignore your stupidity on that aspect ) get more bang for the buck than any of the charities you mentioned. They have less overhead to support and are almost always volunteer based.

“The real irony here is that this comment comes from one of the mindless, unthinking masses who blindly accepted those catch phrases as something significant.”
Huh? The guy’s not even in office yet. What do you know about what he’s going to do? Get a grip.
And church contributions are membership dues. Buying your way into heaven, to employ the popular parlance of the right these last few weeks.

You bet money talks!!! He got these campaign funds some way and not all from “average” donors!
Posted by: jill Jill it’s not just the amount –The story that the media chose to ignore was not merely the Obama about-face on public financing, or even the enormous amounts of money that he has raised — some of it under dubious circumstances involving foreign donors, prepaid credit cards, and false names. Instead, they were absolutely quiet about a historic end to liberal support for public financing.

I think I speak for a lot of people….I am very tired of hearing about drinking kool-aid. I am sure by drinking untainted kool-aid, which has been around for many decades, is much more preferred than the B$ that we have been forced to choke down by this now lame-duck administration.

Scentsofroses
I am sensing you should change your name to scentsofkoolaid.
Barry is a dirty politician, plain and simple. Birds of a feather…
Since his followers have dubbed him a genius, the argument that he was oblivious to all of this corruption is ridiculous….
His biggest campaign organizer and good friend is now on his way to prison (rezko)
His pastor of 20yrs was an anti- American, racist nut(wright)
His political buddy who introduced him to “chicago politics” is a terrorist (ayers)
Honestly, how many times can we hear…
“That uuuuuhhhh is uuuhhhhh not the uuuhhhhh person that I uuuuhhhhhh knew”.

howwouldiknow–Good point. The same reason that liberal Air America failed miserably. Liberals prefer to get their information in sound bites and slogan-laced form. No original thought required. Same goes with left wing books.

Tell me 1 thing I listed that is B$??
Barry runs with shady guys and he is definately a shady guy.

A Journalism 101 assignment: Google Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner
One would hope that with the end of the George W. Bush presidency, the journalism-bordering-on-propaganda that led to mea culpa from the NY Times for its coverage of the lead up to the invasion of Iraq—and that led the major television networks to name their broadcasts, “Operation Iraq Freedom,” “Shock and Awe,” and other clarions right out of the Pentagon—would be over. Yet since the election, whenever the name of Carol M. Browner has shown up in the news, it has been with some glowing praise, as in the Washington Post, that referred to her as “the obvious choice” for Energy and environmental Czar. AP went further and in their bandwagon article about Browner provided the links to John Podesta’s Center for American Progress, and Madelyn Albright’s the Albright Group and Albright Capital Management to bolster the hype for Ms. Browner, going as far as providing a direct link to the Environmental Protection Agency web site that had lots (and lots) of positive things to say about the former Administrator’s glowing record. This is all well and good for those organizations, because they have something at stake in Browner’s selection. The EPA, especially under departing and scandal-ridden Administrator Stephen Johnson, and the record of his predecessor’s compromised position on the toxicity of the Ground Zero air quality, quite understandably might devote considerable energy applying the corrective spin on—if not putting equal energy into—their administrators’ actual performances.
But what is the public to make of the Press’s performance here? You know, the one guaranteed under the First Amendment to the Constitution—the very first one. Presumably, the protections provided the Press therein are to guarantee the benefit of the general welfare—not corporate welfare. The founders knew that power, even power constricted by checks and balances, needs a watchful, skeptical eye trained on it to prevent excesses that would work against the general welfare. 
The McClatchy newspapers—quite unlike nearly every other repository of the 1st Amendment’s guarantees, when presented with specious arguments about weapons of mass destruction and all the other now widely rejected “evidence” the Bush administration trotted out at the Pentagon, State Department, Rose Garden and elsewhere—did what every freshman journalism student is taught to do: it looked at the arguments skeptically, and despatched its reporters—not to the exclusive circle of the press pool inside the government’s controlled PR confines—but the old fashioned way, by putting leather to the pavement and talking to underlings inside those spinning Agencies who had the inside story if not the boss’s authority to disseminate it. Meeting in restaurants with contacts they had developed over years, McClatchy was the only news organization that got the story right: that there were no WMD; that the yellow cake from Niger claim was bogus; that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911. Not the NY Times, not the Washington Post, not the Tribunes. And especially not broadcast media. Their reporters were too impressed with themselves as they looked in the mirror in the morning knowing they were going to be on the inside with all the other privileged “main stream” reporters who worked for legitimate newspapers and networks to ask any but the highest ranking.
Let them tell that to the families of dead or maimed American service people who answered the clarion out of a sense of duty to country. Or to the families of hundreds of thousands of dead and maimed innocent Iraqi civilians.
It turns out the 1st Amendment is first and foremost a whistleblower amendment, giving to the Press, under the full protection of the Constitution, the capacity to follow a story line wherever it might go. So how do we explain, beyond journalistic hubris, professional mediocrity, or just plain laziness, the tendency of the press to sit dutifully in the press rooms while governmental officials spin a story (and service members and innocent civilians) to death? Getting back to the Carol Browner story, we might even allow that a much larger story—911—devoured it. After all, the whistleblower protection law that was a direct outgrowth of Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner—the No FEAR Act—was slated to be voted on in Congress on September 11, 2001 but got bumped along with everything else that day in a very brutal way, when everyone on Capitol Hill went running for their lives. Its subsequent, unanimous approval in both Houses and signing into law by the President was well covered inside the beltway, primarily by the Washington Post. But for the vast majority of Americans, the significance of that law was subsumed by the larger 911 story and the subsequent war on terror coverage. So perhaps, in light of the Press snoozing on this one, a little refresher is in order.
Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner is now mandated study for all Federal employees—required every 2 years in fact—for the abject lesson it teaches in bureaucratic mismanagement, malfeasance, and arrogance. The case exposes the way that government retaliation against whistleblowers, and the way that the government—as exemplified under Carol Browner’s tenure as EPA Administrator—denies employees their civil rights and discriminates against them on the basis of sex and race. It does not paint a pretty picture or make for fun reading, but Congress was so outraged at the findings of the jury in Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner that it made instruction in these areas of the law required for all Federal workers in the hope of changing the culture inside the Federal bureaucracy.
Now, let’s suppose that in 1964 President-elect Lyndon Johnson, in carrying forward John F. Kennedy’s legacy in civil rights, had floated the name of say, Lester Maddox, to lead the charge with the Civil Rights Act. Do you suppose any of the reporters of that age would have noticed? Do you think that his name would have been floated as “the obvious choice” for Civil Rights Czar in any main stream media? Despite the friends Ms. Browner has in the very rarified air of the American political aristocracy who channel abundant resources into the kinds of nicey-nice fluff we see in the stories offered as background for Ms. Browner’s appointment, don’t the media have considerable assets as well? Wouldn’t editors, presumably having paid dues in the trenches as reporters, expect of the journalists under their supervision their due diligence and perform at least a perfunctory search into the background of a nominee—especially in this case, an appointment without the usual Congressional oversight, hearings, and legal clout to stop it—because of its sweeping implications for all Americans? Not to mention the chilling effect Ms. Browner’s appointment would have on whistleblowers who remember the way they were treated under her supervision.
For any reporters who feel a particular sense of guilt or owing to the rest of the American people for the media’s pathetic performance during the lead up to the Iraq tragedy, here’s a simple exercise you might consider as recompense:  Google . Then report what you find.

liberalsaresocialists: “Conservative households avg 6% less in income than liberal households, yet they give almost 20% higher to charity.”
My point was that higher income taxes voted for Obama knowing that he would raise taxes on THEM, not someone else. You agreed with that point.
And your statistic is meaningless – Do you mean liberals give 0% to charity and conservatives give 0% to charity? Or is your big point liberals give 4% to charity and conservatives give a whopping 4.8%? Are you trying to say nothing or are you just parroting a meaningless soundbite you heard somewhere?

jhw539
I was talking about his SENATE campaign. And yes, Rezko was his biggest campaign organizer/fundraiser. They were very good friends, which is why they were in a “sweetheart”, aka shady, housing deal together.
Yes, Rev Racist was a marine, and for that he should be commended. However, that does not give him the right to stand in front of thousands of young, impressionable, black minds and tell them America is trying to murder them with the AIDS virus.
Or that America is the worst terrorist nation in the world.
Or Godd*** America!
Or that America is run by greedy rich white folk.
(Besides, now rev racist lives in a 10,000 sq ft mansion that cost $2,000,000.00 and is surrounded by greedy rich white folk.
Also, rev racist forgot to mention
that 1 man has directed more funds than any other person in history to Africa-George Bush.
Rev racist is nothing more then a theiving community agitator and barry thought he was just a swell guy.
And as for Ayers, he is truly public enemy#1, unless of course, you are a liberal.Then I am sure you excuse his disgusting acts of violence, which he is not sorry for, as a legitimate protest of the war.

A few random thoughts. 1. I think that as soon as Obama heard about this he should have requested investigators to meet with his staff members as soon as possible, preferably that afternoon to demostrate they have nothing to hide. 2. I have not heard any big desire of the federal investigators wanting to talk to the Obama team members. Maybe they need their investigators on more important tasks. 3. I wonder if the federal investigators do not want Obama or anyone else making statements of involvement in order to keep Blagojevich in the dark about how much they know or don’t know. As careless as Blagojevich was with his deal making, he probably doesn’t remember the exactly what he said to who. So keep him confused.

jhw539
Really, fighting terrorism was a waste?
Taking out a brutal, genocidal, maniac who used chemical weapons on his people and refused to comply with weapon’s inspectors was a waste?
Should we have done the traditional liberal thing and invited Saddam to speak at one of our colleges? ?

coupeditor— how about posting the reader’s digest version of that rambling bunch of non-sense

liberalsaresocialists: “Should we have done the traditional liberal thing and invited Saddam to speak at one of our colleges? ?”
The “liberal” thing was to attempt to kill him with bombs and guided missiles. And at the time, the “conservative” thing was to take to the floor of Congress and condemn such attempts as “Monica Missiles,” choosing to place partisan points above the safety of America. The documented reality is that liberals were fighting terrorism as vigorously as Republicans.
“Taking out a brutal, genocidal, maniac who used chemical weapons on his people and refused to comply with weapon’s inspectors was a waste?”
The way it was done, with manifest incompetence and cronyism, yes, yes it was. Iraq was not a threat and did not deserve the thousands of American lives lost over there.

jhw539 – I agree with the importance of the wire taps. But Blagojevich (and anyone else that was on the wire taps) does not have access to the details on them. Therefore, it is difficult for him or anyone else to come up with the next set of lies if they don’t know the extent of what the feds have on him and the feds don’t want him to know what they know about the main crime or any other deals that may have been referred to.

jhw539
No matter how it was done, liberals would have protested. They don’t have the stomach for war. They would rather invite brutal dictators to Columbia college to speak or hang out with chavez for a weekend.
When you say it was done completely wrong, I beg to differ. I always hear that America has lost the Iraq war (someone better tell Saddam). Has there been mistakes, absolutely. Has the media focused solely on the bad and completely ignored the good, absolutley.
The media has wanted bush to fail from the beginning, which apparently, you have picke up on.
Liberals have screwed up nearly every war America has been in for the last 50 years.

dave: “No matter how it was done, liberals would have protested. They don’t have the stomach for war.”
I guess Bill Clinton then is just not a liberal – from his trying to assassinate Bin Laden with his ‘monica missiles’ to accidentally bombing the Chinese embassy in while leveling Bosnia, he clearly had no stomach for war. Just successful, minimal American lives lost, application of force I suppose.

roscoe02: “But you may want to consider how the following list of Obama advisors, contributors, mentors, teachers, associates, confidants and benefactors may have significant influence on Obama’s personal and political views. ”
I think you left off his mechanic, the guy he shared a cab with in ’79, and his high-school nurse. While I’m sure you are very confident about your guilt-by-(vague)association methods of divining Obama’s goals, I’m pretty happy with the approach I took – looking at his almost decade long experience in government. The laws he wrote and how he worked them into law in IL before he garnered the spotlight were particularly impressive (I really like the recording of interrogations and confessions in serious cases – turns out it has been both good for civil rights and good for prosecutors).

jhw539 : “Just successful, minimal American lives lost, application of force I suppose”
Were you awake during the 90s? his “successful” operations against Bin Laden amounted to telling generals to wait, and wait and wait on air strikes until Obama had moved. It involved him waiting, and waiting and waiting and waiting while the Balkans ripped themselves apart.. then doing as little as possible. It involved him waiting and waiting and waiting to address the Somoli problem.. then refusing to give the troops the hardware they wanted because heavy armored vehicles would send the wrong message. Bill Clinton is the poster child for “not having the stomach.”

jhw539 : Yeah, his “spiritual mentor” for twenty years.. just a vague association. The guy who held his first political rally.. just a vague association. A governor who he actively and closely campaigned for.. just a vague association. His first and most important fund raiser.. just a vague association. Do you realize how idiotic you sound?

MikeMO1947
Another famous president said a gov’t big enough to give you anything you want is stong enough to take everything you have.
Our founding fathers were conservatives.
-Small,efficient gov’t
-Large military
-Small taxes for everyone (including the wealthiest 10% who currently pay 70% of the tax load)
-Self-reliance for the people
Liberals are the stand for OPPOSITE of everything i just named.
I am sorry to say that you are wrong. Liberals have been wrong on nearly every policy for the last 50-60 years. Whether it be global warming, taxes, military, warfare, drilling. You name it, they have screwed it up. The only reason they still have a lifeline is the biased media is about 95%liberal democrat.

dave – It takes both liberals and conservatives who listen to each other to make the country great. Here are a few examples of liberal founding fathers. The conservatives wanted to stay a part of England and did not want change. The liberals wanted to throw off the yoke of England and form their own country. The conservatives wanted small state militias to protect their own local interests, but the liberals wanted a big military to protect us from England or any other large nation. Conservatives wanted a government like England with GW as king. Liberals wanted to try something that had never been tried before and created a nation of nations and a federal government with three branches, and free elections so we could throw out the leader if we did not like them. Self-reliance has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. You will continue to make the same stupid mistakes if you don’t question your own positions. Humans have always made lots of mistakes and you are no exception, so stop believing your position is always right and people that disagree are always wrong. That is what led to almost all dictatorships and hate groups. Believing in the value of all individuals is part of what made our nation different from others and is still a critical attribute that makes us different than our real enemies.

dave – I assume you agree with what I posted about the founding fathers since you move on to another topic – race relations. I have no interest in chasing you through your list of talking points of why republicans are great and democrats are evil. In my 60 years, I have never voted a straight ticket. Both parties good points and have flaws. Every President has good points and has flaws. I am sorry you refuse to see that.

Dave, you are little more than a “neo-con, hard right-edge agitator!” Be ever so greatful you live in a Country that allows you the Freedom to express “radical, revolutionary, anti-middled class, non-sensical gibberish!” (You even ‘do injustice’ to the very few moderate conservatives.)

“George Wallace? MLK, a republican, continued Lincoln’s great legacy. As a result, blacks were on the rise in comparison to whites in nearly every catergory- home ownership, literacy. And then what happened???”
Dave, what planet have you been living on? I remember George Wallace: Standing in the doorway of Central High School, denying Black children the right to enter. Now, as your hero, how did you see him? “Blacks on the rise?” Any knowledge of “Greenwood”, “Black Wall Street”, “The Tulsa Riots???” Your Massa’ mentality is overwhelming – to the point of sickening!!! Unchallenged LIES (NOT Ignorance) is the reprehensible ‘appetizer’ for racial hatred. You’re a ‘good fit’ for the ‘StormFront.’ And, I KNOW You’re proud of yourse misguided self!

Dave, it’s clear……..You DO NOT Love this Country. In your warped way You Love, what from time-to-time You preceive this Country to be. Meaning; you tend to want to ‘lay out’ the criteria of what YOU THINK this Country ‘ought to’ or should be – by Dave-Rule. Can you envision even THINKING for anyone……..other than yourself?

“Obama, by his profound lack of integrity, his profound lack of honesty and his profound lack of HONOR will most certainly create a Constitutional crisis. Obama is no different than the Kennedy’s, Blagojevich, Spitzer, Clinton and George Bush.” “And our country circles the toilet while our Constitution finds itself being flushed into the sewer.”
Posted by: abc_has_no_credibility -” ALSO addressed to the Pervert or sick lady who “WISHES” to be Michelle Obama.
Where oh where will the ‘sick-o’s’ go, when they run out of these baseless accusations and senseless lies. Since most “thinking adults” understand your motivation, will that ‘elapsed time’ be when You accuse him of complicity in fabricating the story of being born to a caucasian Mother??? I really do feel your pain.