RE: A Tea Party...Democrat?

Not often to I feel the need to respond to my partner in crime here, but today I was moved. The suggestion that the Democrats are not going to have enormous losses at the hands of the Tea party is ill advised at best. It is going to be a bad election year for the Dems.

High unemployment, a ballooning deficit and out of control banking system has most Americans up in arms. The outlook for our country has not looked this bleak in a generation or more. All of these things are fueling a backlash against the establishment of government as a whole. It is also clearly targeted at everyone in Washington, not just those that fall on the left. That is where the Tea Party begins to show it's teeth.

Click on the title for more...

A Tea Party...Democrat!?

The big scary election is two weeks away. Newspapers are prophesying fire and brimstone for the Democratic majorities, and the Tea Party is proving left and right that they do not know jack about the United States. Like a double rainbow, many are wondering what it all means. As for that, I think there is more hype than fact to predictions about Democratic loses; in all actuality the Tea Party will prove about as useful as a knife at a gun fight to the Republicans. Times may be tough, in fact I am fairly sure they are, but the Tea Party is still just a loud minority that has yet to put up a single electable candidate since its inception with Sarah Palin.

Where the loses might come, as may be true here in New York's 13th Congressional District, is from the Democrats themselves. I for one take issue with "Democrat" and incumbent Michael McMahon. He voted against healthcare, he wants to keep all the Bush tax cuts and he opposes future stimulus. What exactly does he hope to accomplish by watering down his platform?

Click on the title for more...

Obama Plans to Force BP’s Hand on Oil Spill Fund (LEAVE BP ALONE!)

Obama Plans to Force BP’s Hand on Oil Spill Fund - NYTimes.com

An interesting article, that should hopefully silence the "Obama hasn't done anything" crowd. Here's what gets me, Obama is making his fourth trip to the area since the disaster began two months ago. How many trips did Bush make to New Orleans for Katrina? I don't know the answer, but I'll look and we can talk about that later.

My favorite part of the artitle was this:

Inside BP, there is a view that President Obama’s unflinching criticism of BP and its chief executive represents an unprecedented example of a chief of state interfering in the affairs of a corporation.

And while some officials inside the company recognize that the president faces severe political pressures, there is also a resentment that the company has become a whipping boy even as it does its best on the clean-up.

dot dot dot

Seriously, I am not one to abuse the ellipsis (my good friend is a copy-editor and would have my head) but I cannot come up with much more than a blank stare for that remark.

When your company is single-handedly responsible for the most catastrophic environmental crisis in a country copiously lax on environmental issues as the United States (I love living here, but let's own up, compared to other industrial nations, our regulations are bit weak), I think you deserve just about all the criticism that comes your way. It's kinda like the beaches along the coast; they are gonna get covered in your mess whether they want to or not, so you need to take the criticism whether you like it or not.

Yes, yes, BP is working hard and spending money money money on the cleanup. But, over two straight months of largely unmitigated oil leakage? I work a manual labor job, if it took me two months to get absolutely nothing done, I would get an earful from my foreman. Just because you are trying does not mean that you are exempt from criticism, this is the real world, not AYSO.

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated - NYTimes.com

A bunch of rich white guys hate a black man...haven't he heard this song before?

'Tanning Tax' in Health Care Reform Law Raises Industry Ire - ABC News

'Tanning Tax' in Health Care Reform Law Raises Industry Ire - ABC News

I have two problems with this story. First, that they are making it seem like NO ONE knew about this tax. I did...and if I can find out with relatively little effort, it can't be that bad, take little goggles off and read the newspaper. Second, people are complaining that revenue is going to go down because of the tax on tanning. Right, just like Phillip Morris is going bankrupt because of taxes on cigarettes. People do not go tanning because it is necessary to survive, they tan because they have heaps of disposable income (and time) to waste on sitting under some Fast Food Grade UV lamps.

I find these sob stories extremely hard to believe. Better luck next time.

Besides, these taxes are just an investment in the melanoma treatment you'll need by the time you get on Medicare. It's like that movie "Pay it Forward."

Shut Up Already!

This is going to be a quick one this morning.

I am t i r e d of hearing about this out of control Prius. So tired of it I am not even going to link to the story about it and just assume that you've all heard of it.

I've seen no fewer than three news stories already this morning (it's seven AM) about how the government "may never know what happened"

I'll tell you what happened, the car went to fast, there is an entire Senate Committee meeting to figure out why Toyota's are "Moving Forward" whether you want them to or not.

The real question is: Why is the government trying to figure out this one Prius incident? I get the committee hearing, but this one car really seems like something Toyota should be doing on its own.

Thoughts, fans?

Apparently It's Cold in Hell Too!

So the weather around here, as well as many parts of the country, is -- delightfully -- frigid, but apparently Hell is suffering the same Arctic air mass. That's right, according to the New York Times, Democrats and Republicans have finally come together to work on solving some of this nation's problems! Or have they?

More below


Oh wait, no, Republicans did not actually finally agree to work with the Democratic majority; they agreed to talk to them. Well I suppose that's a start.

My icy heart skipped a beat when I saw the headline that the Grand Olde Party had crossed party lines to pass a $15 Billion job creation bill, only to read that all they really happened was a "Cloture Motion [was] Agreed to" according to senate.gov.

Cloture basically means they agreed to vote on the bill. Awesome. We united to vote on whether or not we should vote on a bill, and we agreed...mostly(the noble civil servants from my great state voted Nay and Not Present, go get 'em boys!) The Senate is really moving at breakneck speed to get this slowly recovering economy back on track.

Enough of my cynicism, the bill is really pretty, well, cool. It basically says that any company that hires unemployed workers does not have to file payroll tax on those workers for the rest of the year. Really, I can't see much of an objection to that. I am a fan of taxes paying for useful things like the wonderful interstate highway system (which proudly employees me over the summer) and this great, practically free public college education I get. How is it that I am a fan of this big tax hole? Well the government is not collecting taxes from these workers as is, so it's not a net loss for the government, really its a break even that could jump start things back into motion and hopefully next year when the taxes would have to be collected on these workers the economy will be strong enough from the new employment to keep all these men and women employed. Here's hoping, both that the bill works and that maybe Republicans will finally work with the Democrats on a regular basis to get something done.

The Tea Party Problem

We've all (unfortunately) been hearing about these guys for weeks...months even. They're an enigmatic group to be sure, and they have no real central leadership (unless you count Glenn Beck). But just what exactly are these guys up to? I've been trying to wrap my head around this for days now, simply because something has struck me recently that desperately needs to be answered...where is the progressive response to these loons?

Continued after the jump...



...

The first problem I have with this "grassroots" "movement" is that they are attempting to adhere themselves to the idea from the Revolutionary War of "taxation without representation" and everyone remembers Junior high history and the Boston Tea Party so I do not need to get into that. The thing is, in the colonial days, Americans really did not have any form of representation in Parliament, contrasted to today where quite a few Republicans represent the Tea Party members in the Senate and Congress and even in the Obama Administration.

So given that there is no logical connection to taxation without representation, they need to change their name. But that's the lest of my worries.

They are in love with the abolishment of "entitlement" programs like unemployment, social security, medicare, and medicaid, yet they oppose "Change"ing the nation as they expressed discomfort with Mr. Obama's campaign slogans. Well, most of the programs these people talk about have been in place since the depression, in fact, all of them have, and I'm fairly certain that Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and even ol' Bill O'Reilley were all born AFTER the Great Depression and have personally known someone who benefits from these programs. Like, for example, I don't know, maybe their parents... So they fear change, yet they want to change what helped this nation to survive its greatest financial crisis to date in the midst of yet another financial crisis; brilliant.

So far we can see that these guys are not all there. Unaware of their representation, confused as to the definition of change, but they're hell bent on fixing America's problems though! Right?

Wrong.

My favorite part about the Tea Party is that the do nothing but stand in the doorway to any kind of progress. I have admitted, and will repeatedly admit that I am a liberal, yet I favor the two (or more) party system as it allows us to keep things level. We get too far left and we have Stalin we get too far right and we have Hitler. Both are bad. So the benefit of having Republicans and Democrats, right and left, working to solve the same problems is that we can get all the best and level headed ideas of both groups in a perfect amalgamation that solves all the problems without stepping on anyone's toes. Unfortunately, that utopia requires that the two parties work together in what has often been called a compromise (see The Constitution for further examples of "compromise"). If there is one thing the Tea Party can't stand, it's compromise. The New York Times mentioned this in several articles this week, that many conservatives are facing primary challengers in the upcoming elections by ultra-conservatives for accidentally looking at a democrat without spitting in their direction (okay that's hyperbole, but seriously people are getting mad at their representatives for trying to work with other representatives)

Here you have the "taxation without representation" crew arguing that their representation is not allowed to work with other people's representation to come to some kind of fair agreement on taxation.

Don't worry, my head hurts too.

The real problem with this is not that they're completely ignorant of logic, reason, and high on sensation and delusion so much as that NO ONE IS TRYING TO STOP THEM. What happened to the army of donations and volunteers that poured in to turn Senator Obama into President Obama? Why are we just letting these guys spout this nonsense and not rallying back? We out number them! More people want healthcare, more Democrats exist in congress, and even beyond the left more people want a compromise to solve the nation's problems. So why are these guys the only ones we hear from? If you didn't know any better you would think these folks are the MAJORITY. Well they're not. Let's remind them, our leaders, and ourselves of that. These nuts are a minority and what they stand for is in complete opposition of the betterment of this country. Why is it that you have to disagree with the President to stage rallies? We need to start rallying IN FAVOR of the President, if for nothing else, to be sure that the Tea Party does not go unanswered.

I fully admit that I have not done the best I could to fight back against the illogic of the Tea Party, but you know what, you have to start somewhere and I'm starting here.

Troop Surge Episode Two: Afghanistan

Yesterday was President Obama's big speech attempting to sell to the nation his decision to increase the United States' military presence in war-torn Afghanistan by 30,000 troops. Many people on both sides of the aisle disagreed with this decision, largely believing that the war is too costly and insurmountable. Mr. Obama did sway a few hearts on the issue, and even though I generally swing for the liberals, I am among those supporting Obama's decision.


First, let's take a look at an early precedent set by Mr. Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush. When the situation in Iraq was as stagnant as the one currently seen in Afghanistan, Mr. Bush sold the nation on a much contested troop surge, which despite the negative ramifications, achieved its goal and put Iraq on the road (albeit the slow one) to true and lasting recovery.

It comes as no surprise to me that Obama reached this decision (after much deliberation with appropriate cabinet and staff members) considering the damage being to America efforts in the largely Taliban controlled state. I've been reading about this surge in the New York Times for weeks, and was totally prepared for this announcement.

Lots of liberals take issue with the idea of "escalation" as though adding more troops to the conflict automatically means more fighting and more death. Yes, these are unfortunate side effects of any conflict, however I am convinced that the increased presence will lead to more effective operations and hopefully root out weapons stockpiles and enemy stronghold leading to an overall decline in violence.

It is important to remember that this decision was not reached lightly, and is in fact one Mr. Obama has been stewing over since the campaign trail. I am largely a pacifist and oppose war as a rule. So how can I possibly agree with this increased military presence? Simply put, the alternative would be worse. If we, as a nation, attempted to do the job we're compelled to do in Afghanistan with the force we currently have there we would never be able to reverse the trend of violence, Taliban control, and governmental corruption (an obvious symptom of decreased security). The sad truth of the matter is that we got into this mess, and while I largely disagree with that and the handling of it for the most part, we cannot simply walk away. To walk away would not only tarnish our reputation as a benevolent nation by invading another and leaving it war torn, but it would leave massive holes into which extremists would funnel and only further decrease the security of this country as well as Afghanistan.

President Obama is not sending an imperial army to subdue the nation of Afghanistan for American profit. Let's face it, the only real product Afghanistan has that Americans are interested in is opium, and you can't even tax that. The troop surge is meant to help reign in a conflict that has gotten out of control. More American forces there will mean better containment of weapons and extremists and can only help to speed our exit from the country when the time is appropriate. I will gladly say that I wish we had never gotten into this conflict or the one in Iraq, but now that we are, we need to finish it as effectively and peacefully as possible and I believe this surge is a good way to do that.

To wrap this up, allow me to paraphrase (very roughly) a quote I read in the New York Times this morning, "I am glad Obama is increasing troop presence in Iraq, but I'm unhappy because I know he is not doing it because he wants to, he's doing it to appease Republicans." (Remember, that is a ROUGH paraphrase) First of all, I hope Mr. Obama is not sending troops because he wants to. Who honestly wants to put America's finest young men and women in harms way? Could it be that the President is taking this action, begrudgingly, because that is what the situation calls for? Yes, he may be compromising typically Democratic ideals, but there is a job to be done, and it needs to be done well, and this has worked before, so hopefully it can work again. I, like many others, am cautiously optimistic about this course of action.

-titus

Political Discourse in a World of Hecklers

It's all over the blogosphere by now. Twitter is atweet with messages about it. I even saw a website for it. Last night was President Obama's highly anticipated speech before a joint session of Congress. Amongst all the eloquence and rhetoric that our president is known for, two words have apparently stolen the show. "You Lie," shouted by Representative Joe Wilson from South Carolina in response to the President's promise that universal healthcare will not be extended to people who are in this country illegally. Mr. Wilson has formally apologized to Rahm Emanuel who accepted the apology on Mr. Obama's behalf, but the scenario speaks to the times and the division on this issue and has me wondering about political discourse in a world of hecklers.



First things first. I want to make crystal clear that I am not upset at Representative Wilson's choice to exercise his First Amendment Rights, nor his dissent with the President's ideas. I respect and value the fact that we can, and should do these things in a democracy, and in most circumstances I would be the first to applaud the questioning of authority.

The problem I have is that Mr. Wilson was just making an outburst. There was no argument, no logic and really, no forum for objections. That is what makes it disrespectful. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with the President, the office is one handed over by the voters of the United States and demands respect. The military salutes the President no matter who he or she may be. Not to mention it is just plain rude to interrupt someone who is giving a speech. There is a time and a place for dissent and questioning and I fully support such discourse! The middle of a speech is the wrong time and place.

As I've said, I fully agree with the ideas that we should question and even harbor a healthy sense of doubt over our elected officials, whether or not we agree with them. It keeps us our toes and helps make sure the people we elected to represent us are doing so and have to answer to someone. I am all for forums and debates and town hall discussions to dissect and understand the policies the elected are supporting or opposing. But really, where are these conversations? Lately, we have had nothing but shouting from both sides. What start as attempts to impart information become shouting matches where people leave bitter and more embattled than ever as opposed to open and willing to work. The healthcare issue is a serious one and requires some serious conversation, and we have had little to none on a national level, and probably less on a personal level.

The yelling matches and the heckling have to stop. This issue cannot be solved by the left alone or the right alone; I cannot think of a single political issue that can, or has been. We need an honest an open conversation with each other and with our representatives. Let's stop name calling, fear-mongering and over-simplifying each other. Those on the left are not socialists trying to take away your individual freedoms, and those on the right are not special interest bellboys with dollar signs in their eyes. Both sides want to do something to help resolve this crisis, but we need to talk to each other to fully understand what and how.

Let's have spirited conversations if we have to, let's raise our voices if we have to, but let's do it civilly and over the right channels: blogs, tweets, coffee shops and dinner tables. Not during speeches, not bombastically with nothing but a T.V. camera or a radio mic, and let's try to discuss this without shouting each other down or disrupting the flow of information.

The heckling has already hi-jacked the conversation. I'm blogging about a distraction from the speech not the speech itself; someone made a website making fun of Joe Wilson instead of a website about the finer notes of President Obama's plan. We need to just let the issue of who yelled what die and move on to talking about the issues.

Credit to the New York times for the back story to this blog.

$700,000,000,000

It's been about a week since the news of George Bush's proposed government buy out of a large sum of failed mortgage securities currently in the hands of the now defunct Lehman Brothers and AIG banking and insurance firms, and it's time PooB took a stance on this issue, so without further adieu, I will present our avid readers with my take on this exceedingly grave issue.

Let's start with the basics. Lehman Brothers (a mortgage bank) and AIG (an insurance and investment firm) recently went belly up due to the failure of their most significant investments: sub-prime mortgages. Now for those who are unaware, a sub-prime mortgages are home loans made to people who have less than perfect credit or less than enough income to actually merit a loan in the amount of a house. Most firms make these loans aware of the fact that at least 2% of the mortgages will default, so they charge astronomical variable intrest rates to make up for this fact. Well with an economy going bad due to high oil prices, low wages, rising food costs, and a steadily declining dollar many more than 2% of these loans defaulted, and the banks were unable to make them back because the houses that end up in the banks' control lost their value. Long story short, banks took huge risks with these loans. With huge risks there are huge chances for gains, and equally huge chances of loss, unfortunately for us and them, the latter was the result.

Now here's where my opinion begins. As "socialist" as I tend to be on matters like healthcare, education, and government involvement in the economy by way of energy regulation I am opposed to this buy out because it destroys free market capitalism. The basic tenet of which is, as I said above, big risks lead to either big pay offs or big losses. If we buy out these failed banks, it means that capitalism no longer has the aspect of huge loss and effectively encourages banks and other large companies to make horrendously foolish investments because they would no longer be a risk for losing, just gaining or breaking even. This buy out sends the message that you can invest in whatever you want, however you want, and if you mess up the government, and the tax payers will just assume your losses so you can get on with your life. Quite possibly the most burdensome, and detrimental act a government could impose on it's people. It's one thing to tax people to send people to school or take care of them when they get sick, but to save a handful of companies and their CEOs with tax dollars without much of a benefit to anyone but those being saved is offensive and should be illegal.

Speaking of the CEOs, when this buy out is passed (I do not want it to be, but I know it will) it MUST include pay caps for these "business men." This is America, the land of oppurtunity, not the land of oppurtunism. In this country, you work hard and you get ahead, you work smart and you get a raise. These CEOs clearly made bad choices that have harmed the American people, the American economy, and their companies, how do they possibly merit multi-million dollar incomes? They don't, and I have no problem with the government telling these people that if they want the taxpayers to bail them out they need to contribute by having there salaries slashed, permanently.

Finally, the most outrageous aspect of this buy out is the price tag, seven hundred BILLION dollars. Think about that number for a minute, there are about 7 Billion people in this world, so to pay for this, EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD would have to contribute one hundred dollars. Well, we can't tax the world to make up for our mess ups, so let's go just look at America. If we divide the check for this "Rescue Plan" amongst every single one of the over 300 Million Americans it would mean $2,333.33 per person. Do you have that much extra money? I sure don't, and I'm sure 90% of the people you know don't have that much money, and those that do would not be willing to use it to donate to save a few stupid Wall Street Execs. Our government has no where near enough money for this disaster, and we should NOT be spending it. We will be borrowing the money from the likes of China and Europe and even further devauling the dollar. We are already in a era of deficit spending thanks to the grossly incompetant leadership of the current administration and the wars and "national security" programs it has begotten. We simply cannot afford this. The only possible recourse would be if the Fed used the money to buy stock which will one day turn a profit for the tax payers instead of simply buying the bad stuff which will never profit.

...Read more

McCain and the Magic Blackberry

The latest buzz, McCain invented the Blackberry. Now obviously this is a stretch, we all know he didn't. We all know his campaign adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin just meant that McCain, by being on the Commerce committee, had lead to the innovations of cell phones in every hand. My question, did he even manage that feat? No. What he did was vote against the legislation that gave the FCC the authority to auction various used, unused and poorly-used wireless frequency spectrums. Here's the line that gives that specific authority (emphasis added):

The Commission shall, during fiscal years 1994 through 1998, use the competitive bidding process authorized under the amendment made by subsection (b) to grant all radio spectrum licenses for which two or more mutually exclusive applications have been filed, including the 200 megahertz of spectrum made available to the Commission under this subtitle, and including the licenses issued for a personal communications service established pursuant to the proceeding entitled `Amendment to the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services'

The vote for this was 50-50. Obviously it had more in it than just this small piece in it. The 'Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993' was a total budget package that included many things, including various tax increases and reductions. The reason that Republicans voted against it, was because it cut spending and raised taxes. Of course no good politician raises taxes right? Well, this legislation, which Al Gore broke the tie in, is credited by several non-partisan groups for the budget surpluses of the 1990's. It created as much as $141 billion in surplus to offset the projected $360 billion deficit through 1998. It has been argued, that these budget surpluses helped boost the economy in the 1990's.

Not only did John McCain not create the framework for the current cell phone industry, he voted against the bill that created the surpluses that Republicans always dream about, or at least talk about, but never achieve.


...Read more

48 days left

Two months from yesterday, people will file into the polls and elect someone who inherits a massive national deficit, a crumbling economy and an unpopular occupation of Iraq. I don't want that job. Several people do, John McCain and Barack Obama are two of them. There are many so called 3rd party candidates, but I will focus on the two main parties since they are the most likely to win the election. I admire all them for wanting to take on arguably the hardest job in America. I just wouldn't want that burden on me. The economy has gotten particularly rough, with the collapse of several financial institutions that now have to be propped up by the federal government and the US tax payers.

Obama has made several speeches over the last few days to talk about what is going on. One point has been repeated often, this should not have happened. His response to this disaster is to increase the oversight and regulation of these banks, in order to make sure that they are not allowed to paint themselves into a corner. By playing fast and loose with the system over the last few years, things have gotten out of hand on Wall Street. This has been made painfully obvious in the last 18 months.

This started with things like Enron. That was small potatoes compared to this week. Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan said that this was a once in a hundred year event. As regulations have been slowly taken away, mortgage companies are giving over priced loans and convincing people who can't afford them into bigger and bigger homes. Banks all around the country are failing, and some of the biggest are needing federal bailouts to keep our entire financial system from collapsing completely. This could have been prevented, by not ignoring the initial signs, and by holding the CEOs of these companies responsible, instead of letting them go with millions in severance packages.

Obama has some ideas. One, like the depression of the 1920's and 30's that created the SEC, we need a new oversight commission that will watch over these banks, companies and the new market players, like hedge funds. This will prevent them from just doing whatever they want with their money, because they expect a federal handout if things go south. Second, actually holding CEO's of companies responsible when they allow their companies to do things like this.

Ending the predatory lending practices of banks and mortgage companies who coerce families to buy homes they cannot afford and by offering adjustable mortgages that have their payment skyrockets so they are suddenly unable to be paid, will keep the housing market from being a minefield for the average American. Changing bankruptcy laws that allow families to go through the process and keep a roof over their heads, will keep banks from pulling the rug out from underneath families who fall on hard times. Making it possible to renegotiate loans that were improperly sold, will keep banks from amassing hundreds of thousands of homes that they cannot sell from people who just wanted to get a bigger house for their kids.

McCain has a plan as well. He wants to appoint a committee to look into the problem, and then see what he should do from there. He has been part of the group of people who slowly unregulated the industry which allowed these companies to game the system. The problem with his idea is that it is only a band aid for problem that has to be prevented. This isn't a plane crash. We know why this happened and have been seeing the signs for years now. We need something that will keep this from happening again, a safety net that won't save people who choose to mess with the system, but one that will prevent something like this from creating an avalanche that forces people out of their homes and empties their retirement savings.

We need a plan for the future, to protect our interests. Until McCain comes up with something that will keep this from repeating itself, I can't be sure that he has any idea what is going on. He's said that the economy is strong for the last 10 months, and is now saying there are some issues to be concerned about. Who knows how long it will take for him to come up with a comprehensive plan for doing anything on the economy, he's been too focused on repeating the same stuff over and over.

...Read more

The Lying Game

It has become painfully obvious, that John McCain has gone beyond stretching the truth in his ads. Factcheck.org, The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The Associated Press and many more news agencies and independent groups have proven facts that explain where and when he has lied. What's more offensive about this, is that even when confronted with lies, both Palin and McCain refuse to acknowledge them as being lies. They continue to use the same lines. Does the McCain campaign think the American people are stupid?

This leads to the further question, do we really want a team of people whose path to the White House is paved by deceiving the public? If it were just a reasonable stretch of the truth, I could deal with it. I use the example of Obama's claim that John McCain would leave 100 million Americans without a tax cut. The actual number is closer to 90 million depending on your math, and I don't see a big deal with just saying 90 instead of 100. It is still a large number that should effectively get the point across. McCain has been destroying the truth


1. Obama called Palin a pig. No, he used the "lipstick on a pig" phrase as a description of his policies and how they compare to the policies of the last 8 years.

2. Palin runs a state where she controls 20% of the US domestic production of energy, this gives her great insight into everything from global warming to national security. No, her state produces 14% of all the oil wells in the US and and 1.9% of natural gas. Alaska produces 3.5% of all domestic energy production. Not 20% by even a stretch of the imagination.

3. Palin is the anti-earmark Governor, has never taken earmarks as Governor. She's against them now, but she asked for almost $300 per citizen of Alaska in federal earmarks this year, more than any other state per capita. She has reduced Alaska's requests for earmarks, but still has way more than 0. She also hired a lobbyist that allowed her to get $27 million for a 9000 person town that she was mayor of.

4. The Obama campaign is responsible for many of the negative rumors surrounding the GOP's VP pick. Factcheck.org was particularly miffed at this one. McCain used their banner and quoted their article to make this claim. There was a small problem, the article said exactly the opposite. The article stated that Obama had nothing to do with various internet rumors, just as McCain was not responsible for rumors about Obama.

5. Obama wanted to teach 5 yearolds about sex. Nope, not even close. Obama voted in support of a bill that would offer "age appropriate sex education" for various age groups. For the kindergartners this would amount to small discussion on inappropriate touching and being careful of strangers and potential predators. Several of McCain's managers have viciously tried to spread this lie, even while being confronted with the truth. This bill it might be added, never was passed into law.

6. Palin was always against the "bridge to nowhere." Not quite. Sarah Palin said on October 29, 2006; "I support these infrastructure projects. It will build Alaska, and it's cheaper to do it today than it is tomorrow." Once the bridge became more expensive, was highlighted by government spending watchdogs and it became a symbol of federal waste, she came out against it. She did keep the money though, and used it for other projects.

This is just a sampling of what has happened in the last week. Hopefully the next week will bring some honesty so we can look at the real issues, instead of questioning the validity of attack ads. ...Read more

The Moral Debate

One of the great arguments by conservatives, is the morality of the two parties. One supposedly advocates protecting life, the other, death. While it's a nice way to polarize people, by getting them to think that the obvious choice is the life party, there are many more factors to investigate before you assume the morality of a given party.

It's cut and dry right? McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-death. Well if you ignore the fact that McCain has supported embryonic stems cells in the past, the death penalty for a large number of crimes, abortion for rape and incest, and war before diplomacy. It is true that McCain wants to repeal Roe V. Wade, now. He hasn't always wanted to. Combine that with the exceptions he would leave, is there really any doubt that abortion doctors would just claim that all their patients were raped?

I don't like abortion, I think there are better ways to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, but you can't have it both ways. You can't claim that abortion is wrong and that Obama is the pro-death candidate and that McCain is somehow pro-life with his record of double talk on the issue. I've lived in a city with constant battles with the abortion doctor there. They will do whatever it takes to allow the women who enter their clinics to get the procedure they want. Outlawing abortion for most, but leaving in a loophole, will only mean that more women will use the loophole.

Add to this the fact that the so called "moral" candidate has been making obvious lies about his opponent(this has been documented by numerous news organizations and independent fact checking groups), people should not be deciding who they will vote for on the issue of morality alone. Voting takes a completely informed decision, about all issues. Voting on a single issue is like living with a bag on your head. The people who vote based on one issue, are ignorant, and are wasting the freedom that so many people have fought and died for. I'm not asking you to vote for a particular candidate. I am asking you to vote after informing yourself about a candidate, rather than wasting your vote by ignoring the other issues at stake.
...Read more

Voter Registration

I just filled out the Advance/Absentee Ballot form for my particular State. I am registered to vote in one county but going to school in another. However, I want to have a say in the politics of what I consider my home, and I would really like to replace one of the incumbent congressmen with one that I actually agree with.

This was one of the most complicated experiences of my life. I am no moron, but this form had me stumped. It had only two places that indicated what information it wanted, the rest I had to deduce from words that even I, an English Major, stumbled over.

It was this form and these words that made it clear to me why, statistically speaking, poor and uneducated people have lower voter turnout rates. Things only got worse as I tried to find out how to mail the form in. None of this, of course, would have been possible without the internet. If I did not have an internet connection here in the dorm I have no idea how I would have even found this form. Clearly if you could not afford an internet connection your chances of voting are even slimmer.

This system makes it quite difficult for a certain demographic to vote. Does it come as any surprise that the demographic excluded by this ridiculously complicated system of voting is typically the most under represented?

Our voter registration system needs to change, all people need to have easy access to the right to vote.

And for clarification, I am in no way referring to a particular race, but a level of income and education. People with a college or less education would have a difficult time even understanding these forms, and people of low income probably have more important things to do with their time then hunting these forms down on the internet, if they even have money to spare on the internet.

Appalling.

...Read more

Back from the RW&B

So, I’ve been on a vacation of sorts for the last 12 days. I made a last minute visit to my family. I’m typing up a bunch of stuff while on the plane ride back to Japan, so you’ll see it a few hours after I get back.

The big news, Sarah Palin. A hockey-mom from Alaska, governor for the last 20 months and former mayor of a small town in the same state. She bolsters McCain’s credit with conservatives, but the main goal of the choice was clearly to go after Clinton’s followers. While he will deny it, it has been obvious in both of their speeches, with references to several of Hillary’s statements and/or speeches. The one I found startling, or even amusing, was that Palin claimed that by her being elected VP, with McCain as president, that she would essentially crack the “glass ceiling” that Hillary could not. Last time I check, Hillary wasn’t willing to settle for the number two spot on the ticket. Even if the Republicans win, that ceiling will still be in place.

Right after the RNC, it came out that her 17 year-old daughter was pregnant. Of course this should pose a problem for a conservative pushing for “family values.” Her removal of a police administrator who refused to fire a police officer who divorced her sister has become a hot topic as well. Also, her involvement with the indicted senator Ted Stevens is being questioned, along with her running of his 527 political action group. The last piece I will talk about, is her experience, or more precisely, the lack there of.

She has less experience in all of her years in various government positions that Obama, but they still are saying that he is inexperienced. One reason I heard for this, was that she had experience running a government, being in charge. Well, being in charge of a state for 20 months and spending at least two months of that on maternity leave isn’t a whole lot. I had 3 years of experience managing a team at Starbucks. By the Republican standard, I should have almost as much experience as Palin.

I heard a great excuse to cover her foreign policy shortcomings, she’s close to Russia. Jon Stewart said it best, “by that logic, she’s close to the north pole so she must know Santa Claus.” The idea that she would have foreign policy experience by being close to another country is ludicrous. The idea that they complain about Obama’s experience is even more so. We shall see how they’re attacks change, and how Palin finally handles an interview when Charlie Gibson talks to her on Wednesday. Hopefully ABC will be less biased than the last Democratic primary debate.

...Read more

MSM notices the Vietnam excuse UPDATED

Reading through the news today, I noticed something stunning. Reuters, part of what many would call the "main stream media," posted an article that briefly noted that McCain was using his experience in Vietnam to deflect question about his house problem.

This is stunning not for the fact that someone noticed, bloggers have been noting this more and more often of the last few months. What is surprising is that a large media company is mentioning it. McCain used to joke that the media was part of his constituency. It's becoming more and more obvious that even the media can't keep sugar coating everything he does. It will be interesting to see if this is a one time fluke, or if it will become more common to notice that he rarely answers questions, instead talking about his military experience and Vietnam.

As many people have already said, being a POW is not a requirement for being president. It also shouldn't be a platform to use to get yourself ahead, playing off people sympathies and avoiding the "straight talk" about many issues.

Update:
It seems Jay Leno picked up on it a little during a tonight show appearance by John McCain. The audience seemed to enjoy watching McCain get skewered by Jay on the housing issue.
...Read more

Meet Joe Biden - UPDATED

It is official, Joe Biden will be Obama's running mate. If you've been living under a rock for the last 3 days this is news to you. Not a big star as far as the average citizen is concerned, but he has worked on foreign affairs for many years, and is considered a good mate to have to help with the white working class that everyone seems to think Obama can't get. I suppose we shall see. I personally like Joe, but maybe it's the fact that we share the same name.


McCain is going to anounce his running mate on his birthday in a week, he turnes 72. Some people suspect he will choose Romney, others are saying he has to because of of his own lack of domestic experience. I don't know if Romney would be the best choice, but in this election year you could do worse. A running mate that wasn't a senator or really involved with Bush at all might take the bite out of the "McSame" remarks. I honestly haven't seen any other person being talked about for his VP, most of the early ones got dropped off because them made some stupid remarks that made them look like an idiot, and McCain doesn't want that kind of press. CHarlie Crist has always been a contender, but it remains to be seen if McCain would pick a VP based on trying to win one state as opposed to widen his broader appeal.

Update:
I finally was able to watch the full video of Obama announcing Biden as his running mate. I must say that it seems like a really good match. Obama is a soft toned person when he's in a debate or at a press conference, a big difference from his ability to stir up a crowd when he's at a campaign stop. Biden on the other hand, isn't as good at stirring up the crowd, but he has the attack skills of a lion. His skill with dismantling McCain attacks should be well proved in the coming weeks. I enjoyed the quip about him being the 5th most senior member of the senate, while being the 6th youngest. That just shows how old congress has gotten, because he's only 7 years younger than McCain.

McCain and Biden are supposedly friends, but Biden had some rough words for McCain's policies. I suspect wee will hear a lot more of the difference between a "good soldier" and a "great leader." McCain will still try to discredit his friend's foreign policy experience, as this is his strongest suit. Somehow I doubt this will be a walk through the park for McCain.
...Read more

The Plans: Energy

John McCain Will Commit Our Country To Expanding Domestic Oil Exploration. " Undoubtedly in reference to his support for offshore drilling. Most people are aware, as experts have said, that drilling off the coast of this nation will not produce even a drop of oil for at least ten years. Long after McCain's term has ended. The fact is that oil has to be found to be drilled. Finding oil is hard enough to find WITHOUT millions of gallons of salt water sitting on top of it (this whole energy crisis is proof of that). After this oil is found, a rig must be built and oil extracted, which, again, is hard enough to do sans the many atmospheres of H2O weighing it down. His second bullet is a reworded version of this one so we move on.

Here McCain addresses the "clean" aspect of his energy plan with statements of his support for a zero-emission car tax rebate and funding for a privately developed battery for use in plug in hybrids. He also addresses the need to move away from food-corn based ethanol to cellulostic ethanol which is produced essentially from waste. Here is where things get really hazy because McCain's site only sparsely uses an affirmative vow to action on a given issue. Read for yourself:

"John McCain will issue a Clean Car Challenge to the automakers of America, in the form of a single and substantial tax credit for the consumer based on the reduction of carbon emissions. He will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys a zero carbon emission car"

(It should be noted that $5,000 is no where near enough to offset the cost of a fuel cell vehicle compared to a gasoline one, and that a similar tax credit ALREADY exists.)

"A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."

"John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector. "

"John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices."

He follows this with:

"The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. "

a simple statement on the nature of cellulosic ethanol and no plan for implimenting it, or even a commitment to do so. In fact, no part of his website's Energy Policy includes any form of guaranteed governmental support for renewable energy of any kind. The closest authentically green energy gets to a comitment from John McCain is this: "John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars."

"John McCain Will Effectively Enforce Existing CAFE Standards."

Excellent! He will carry out his Constitutional duty as President to enforce a law Congress has already enacted...

I could take this blog much further addressing the rest of McCain's energy plan, but I'm sure you all will agree this is quite long enough. For the rest of the info I encourage you to go to his website and read about it, then be sure to visit Obama's for the comparison. Having read both policies I have personally drawn the conclusion that McCain's plan is essentially shooting in all directions hoping to hit something, unfortunately instead of having a detailed direction for our nation's energy future he has a series of statements that simplistically outline the nature of the problem. He's not offering real answers, just making statements hoping that people will ignore the fact that he has promised little more than to find more oil, and enforce existing regulations. The true nature of McCain's energy policy is probably best detailed by his accepting $1.3 million dollars from oil execs and lobbyists, and his loyal devotion to Bush's policies. McCain has voted with increasing support (100% this past year) for the President's plans on EVERYTHING.

Again, read McCain's written policy (if you can even get through the various errors in his web page) and tell me what plan or commitment is to be found.

Then go read Obama's, and I can promise it will be clear that he not only has a plan for change, it is the best plan for this nation's energy. Or just wait until next week when I will outline Obama's plan.
...Read more