I've told friends and family repeatedly over the course of this election season that I didn't believe America was ready for a black man to be President. I based the majority of that opinion on the conversations and attitudes I experienced first hand during my 18,000 mile trip across this country in 2006. However, after seeing Barak Obama's acceptance speech tonight I am a doubter no more.

Republican or democrat or independent, if you weren't moved at times by Obama's speech tonight you have no heart. You may not agree with the politics; you may not agree with the programs and policies he articulated in this speech, but you had to agree with his call for personal responsibility and change from the old way of doing things. "Change doesn't come from Washington, change comes to Washington," Obama said.

And so it does; so it will. I'm sure McCain's speech will be stirring; I'm also sure it will be straining to hit the same crescendo of Obama's speech tonight.

And now for a small bit of fact checking. I'm getting sick of hearing the McCain camp parroting this bullshit about Obama voting to rasise taxes on people making $42,000... (and earlier in the campaign, McCain claimed that figure was 32,000... but they reached that figure by estimating tax deductions and figuring that the 32,000 was the AFTER TAX figure of someone making 42,000. But McCain's campaign pulled those ads after they were busted by several non-partisan watchdog groups who pointed this fact out them).

So, here's the truth--refute this if you can, but don't blow a gasket trying, because there is no "there, there."

First, Obama's vote was for a non-binding resolution of a Democrat budget plan; that's a ceremonial vote that basically says, "Well, this sounds like a good idea." And the plan was never enacted into law.

The truth:

It's true that a single taxpayer making $42,000 this year would have seen an income tax increase. "So what's your beef, Brock? You just confirmed the McCain claim!" Well, if we're in a court of law and you can only answer "yes" or "no" the the question: would Obama's vote have "raised taxes" the answer would have to be "yes." No way around that. But, but, but, but... that's not half the story and it's ignoring and distorting the full story that pisses me off.

A SINGLE person (and McCain's ad tries to portray the tax increase on FAMILIES making $42,000) would have seen a tax increase in the mind-numbing amount of $15. Yes, 15 measly dollars. And remember, it wasn't an official piece of legislation and it never passed. And it assumes that the taxpayer did not qualify for more than the standard deduction.

A single mom with two children could make as much as $62, 150 in total income in 2008 without being affected by this measure that Obama once favored. It gets better. A family of four, husband, wife and two kids, could make up to $90,000 without seeing any tax increase.

Obama's current proposed tax plan (and it would remain to be seen if it could pass, should he be elected), promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.


And speaking as someone who nearly hit that salary benchmark (one year at least), if you're in that salary range and can't afford to kick in some extra taxes to support this country you're one greedy son-of-a-bitch. When I was making that much money I had MORE than enough to live a hugely comfortable life-style; I joyfully gave money away to people and causes in need and it gave me great pleasure to be able to do that. I had the purchasing power to buy anything I wanted (ok, c'mon, within reason) AFTER putting 10 percent of my income each month into a retirement plan.

The nation is ready for change; I hope we have the courage to embrace that readiness.

BEFORE GOD, country and network TV, the council trotted out a 14-year-old to confess his “sin” of having glimpsed naked ladies on the Internet while at school. But not before the kid’s parents — with two smaller siblings standing by — verbally skewered a school system that allows kids unfiltered Internet access.

Though this family willingly gave their full names, including that of their son, as they stood before a room full of reporters and cameras, I’m going to leave them anonymous.

"My wife and I have prayed that if our children did something they were not supposed to do, they would get caught,” said the father. “Well, the Lord answers prayers and our son was caught,” the father intoned.

The offense: viewing porn on the Net. The self-righteous parents said this was their son’s “first exposure” to pornography and that they were “shocked and appalled” that it occurred at school via the Internet.

While the cameras focused on the parents, the kid stood motionless, each revelation driving another emotional spike into his psyche. As he stared at the ground, I tried to imagine what was going through this kid’s head. I didn’t have to imagine for long.

The father called his son to the podium to make his own statement! And there, like a criminal being made to stand before a judge handing out a sentence, the kid mumbled how wrong he had been and that “I agree with all my Dad said.”

I half expected the kid to just go for it and spill his guts: “All right, I admit it! I also accessed the Democratic National Committee site. My mind filled with liberalism and I gave all my lunch money to a homeless man.” No such luck. The kid just slunk away and took his place in the family lineup.

After this fiasco, I spoke to Vic Sussman, a friend of mine and top-notch cyberspace reporter in his own right. He was just as stunned. We tried to decide how many years it would be before this kid ended up climbing a clock tower with a hunting rifle and picking off unsuspecting citizens while the local TV interviewed horrified neighbors and friends all saying, “But he was always such a quiet and polite boy.”

Oh, I hear some of you yelling at me. “Wait, you trotted out your own son in this very column talking about how he accessed porn on America Online!”

Very true, but very different. You don’t know my son’s name, I didn’t hang him out to dry for the 6 o’clock news and I certainly didn’t berate him or imply that his natural God-given inclination was somehow wrong. I talked to him, honestly and openly.

SECOND OPINION
At first I thought perhaps I was being too harsh on this family for publicizing the boy’s actions, so I sought expert advice. “If this father believes this is a way to correct his son’s behavior, he has a very distorted view of caring and loving parenting,” says Nancy Faulkner, who has a Ph.D in counseling psychology and knows a few things about parenting and caring. Faulkner is an advocate for victims of sexual abuse and her efforts to keep sexual predators off the Net are tireless. She has 15 years of clinical experience, having worked as the director of a mental health outreach facility and program administrator for an adolescent psychiatric in-patient program.

So, what’s the damage here? “This public humiliation is very likely to either induce tremendous rage,” Faulkner said, “and/or dramatically impact his self-esteem and self-concept in a negative direction. Something he will undoubtedly remember for life.”

To get a second opinion I asked another expert: my 14-year-old son. “I’d kill you if you tried that on me,” he said, “or you’d have to kill me to get me in front of that camera.” And then he added, “They probably paid him a ton of money.” Ah, my little skeptic, wonder where he gets that?

So here’s the bottom line. Often under the banner of “protect the children” the kids are the very ones who get ignored or pushed aside, all in the name of grabbing headlines or furthering an agenda.

Perhaps the father in this story should spend more time talking to his son rather than praying he’ll be caught doing something wrong. Or one day he may find his son has a sudden affinity for hunting rifles and high places.

First published by MSNBC News, December 1997