Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Election: My predictions.

My “day of” Predictions for the Election. I’ll be liveblogging this.

In 2 hours, approximately, polls close in parts of New Hampshire, lots of Kentucky and lots of Indiana.

Indiana, the crossroads state, the “South of the North” if you will… is sort of a conundrum. I always know when I’ve crossed the border between Michigan and Indiana. Country music infiltrates stores and gas station. Drawls and drawn out syllabic stresses leak out of people’s mouths. And “yee haws” spring up randomly from large enough crowds. Pollsters have Indiana listed as a “swing state”, however it has voted Republican in the last 10 elections. Gary and Indianapolis will definitely go blue, but given our electoral college system, I suspect that Obama won’t be able to take enough from the otherwise massive landmass occupied by the rural poor who, paradoxically, consistently vote for the candidate that is least likely to help them. I’m going to predict that McCain will take the state.

I think recent polling has Kentucky pegged Republican. I think that the 6-7% undecided voters will likely split down the middle. Some polling shows many of these undecided as already setting up camp with McCain.

New Hampshire will go with Obama. The reason I think this is because if we look at their history, they have aligned with the more charismatic candidates in the election. Also, NH voted democrat in 2004, obviously sick of Bush policies. With McCains alignment with the GOP home base, he’s consequently “aligned” with Bush. This will play against him. Cheney’s endorsement of McCain can’t help him, either… honestly I don’t see how Cheney endorsing anything would help…

At 6:00, Obama will have 4 electoral votes and McCain 19.

At 7:00 we’ll find out if I’m right about NH, KY, and IN. Polls start closing at Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia.

I don’t think we’ll see too many surprises. Here’s my prediction:

Georgia will go Republican.

South Carolina showed some promise for Obama in preliminary polling. But more recent polling has shown the gap to close and McCain to take a slight lead. I’m not very confident about my predictions in this state, but seeing as they voted Bush in ’04, I don’t think the southern conservative nature of the state will turn it Red on the election maps after the polls close.

Florida is definitely a swing. Palm Beach, Miami, and most of the southeastern state are typically democrat. However, I’m confident that Obama will take the state despite Florida’s strong conservative constituency in the panhandle and among a large population of elder voters. I think they are going to support Obama’s social policies. Conversely, they could be scared off by comparisons of Obama’s positions to socialism or drawn to the fact that McCain is likely older than they are.
I think today will be the first election in 40 years (the last 10 elections) that Virginia votes Democrat.

So, current count:
Obama has 44 electoral votes, and McCain has 42

A word about “swing states”.
Current polling shows that Obama will win even if he loses the swing states. So some upsets will need to happen for McCain to terrorize my future with fear of his impending death and Palin’s rise to power.

As it stands, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, North Dakota, Montana, and Nevada are “swing” states that I’ve not mentioned yet.

Of these, I think Obama will take Nevada (he won strong in the primaries) and Missouri.

McCain will likely take Montana and North Dakota. These are based on historical best estimates.

That leaves Ohio and North Carolina.

Ohio is a unique state, and fits in a bit of a political crossroad. It has a higher distribution of urban centers than Indiana, which suggests to me that it is more likely to gravitate towards Obama. However, the regions that are Republican are some of the most conservative districts in our country. Ohio voters are aware of their influence and potential to direct elections following 2004. So, there has been a lot of work done by both political parties to gather support in the state. However, even though the gap was closing with recent campaigning by the wildly popular Palin, I think the 1-5% lead by Obama will stick.

Call my optimistic, but I really hope he takes Ohio, that will really suck the life out of McCain’s run.

Virginians haven’t voted Democrat since LBJ… I really feel like the large urban growth and support through local politicians (popular politicians) in the area for Obama will swing it for the Democrats. This would also be a fairly big victory for Obama.

Now, I’m going to take a break until the first results come in and study for Anatomy. Take care, readers!

Update: 7:01 PM.. Looks like the predictions were solid. McCain takes KY and Obama NH. So far, it's almost neck and neck in Indiana, however, Obama is taking some of the rural (and typically Republican) districts. Polling hasn't even closed in the larger population centers.

A final note on the Election:
Obviously I couldn't liveblog as studying comes first for medical students. However, I was pleased to see Obama take a massive victory in this election. I can't help but feel hopeful despite my natural skepticism and cynicism when I hear him speak.

We learned that Virginia can vote Democrat when the man has the degree of character that Obama does.
We learned that young people can go out and vote and actually change the election.
We learned that in Michigan, we support science and research as well as making relatively harmless drugs one step closer to decriminalization.
We learned that there can be a massive voter turnout, overall.
We also learned, importantly, that our country is ready for a man that won not by the "color of his skin but the content of his character."

A happy day for America.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Why I'm voting for Obama.

I've said a lot about why I'm not voting for McCain and Palin. However, I've not suggested any good reason to vote for Obama. Here's a massive start:



Cheers.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Don't Vote

Election topic: Gay Marriage



I'm in an ongoing debate concerning whether or not gay marriage should be made law. I think that it should. I wonder if any of my blog readers have anything on the subject that they'd like to say.

My Case For Changing the Civil and Legal Definition of Marriage to Include Same Gender Couples

First, we’ll begin with definitions:

1. What do we mean by marriage in this context?

2. What are Same Gender Relationships? (this is important in our analogy within the Civil Rights Argument)
a. What is homosexuality?

And the conclusion… this is painless. :-D

3. The Case for Civil rights
a. The importance of Civil Rights.
b. Gay Marriage is a matter of civil rights that is different, but analogous to the change in marriage law to include interracial marriages. I will ultimately argue that the Supreme Court case that recognized Interracial Marriages as a civil right under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has.

1. What do we mean when we say Marriage?

Quote:
My Opponent says,
"We have all talked about marriage in our own terms. My ordering toward procreation, Erik's expression of love, Corvines "human well being", and all of that, these are not the objective definition of marriage. If you are to look at just the objective definition of marriage, without any connotation whatsoever, it is just a word. Marriage means marriage, just like how cheese means cheese, and jump means jump."

The debate that we’re having concerns the civil, legal union of (at the moment) of a man and a woman. For the purposes of this debate, we are only talking about the civil institution of marriage as it is recognized by the government. That is, informal or non-legal union (such as any religious ceremony) is not what we’re talking about.

Because we are talking about the civil institution, it is subject to law, and law is subject to lawmakers. These lawmakers can change the law to reflect the desires of their voting constituencies (the people) while at the same time ensuring as much personal liberty as possible (ideally). So, marriage in this sense, is a social creation. Also, it doesn’t appear that the people of the U.S. want to get rid of marriage and still wish the institution to persist… so I’m not going to concern my arguments with whether or not we should get rid of it.

This also raises another important point: Marriage exists only as how we define it as a civilization. Marriage has not looked the same over time, and responds to the rapid evolution of our social mores and taboos.

-Until the mid 19th Century, women had no legal rights in marriage. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

-As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

-As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

-In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

Quote:
My opponent also says,
”Here is the interesting part: most of the connotations of marriage are derived from the objective definition, and its practice. If you change marriage, you change the connotations that are attached to it.”

This illuminates a fundamental flaw in many arguments concerning same sex marriage: opponents believe that there is some objective definition of marriage.
Examining the historical record shows that this is simply mistaken.

Here are some attributes of a civil and legal marriage and the attached connotations:

1. The people getting married must be of legal age and consenting adults. In most instances this is 18 years old (the time the country recognizes, for the most part, that you are an adult). This completely invalidates any argument for pedophilic marriages (they aren’t adults or legally consenting) or human-animal marriages (they aren’t legally consenting citizens).

2. Marriage typically requires proof of citizenship; however it doesn’t preclude one partner from having citizenship in a different couple from getting a legally-recognized marriage. I just tacked this on there because it further invalidates the human-animal marriage “rebuttal”.

3. You also must be mentally lucid in order to get married. This is important because it (ideally) prevents people from obtaining marriages while intoxicated for obvious reasons (namely that it distorts our judgment and ability to give sound consent). This is just the final nail in the coffin of the human animal marriage argument.

4. You cannot be too-closely related to your intended spouse. So incest is out.

5. Either partner can have any possible ethnicity without prohibition or penalty. We’ll get to why this later.

Here are some things about marriage that aren’t required.
1. You are not required to be in love. This is because there is no way in a court of law for us to prove one way or another that two people are or aren’t in love. This usually is not an issue because marriage is a contract made by consenting adults, and people that aren’t in love don’t tend to get married. I make this point because any debate about whether or not homosexuals are in love is just as irrelevant.

2. You are not required to have sex, to prove you’ve had sex, or to pledge to have sex. I’m sure this sounds strange when talking about marriage, but bear with me. Shakers can get legally married. Celibate monks can get married. Marriage is not a recognition of a sexual relationship, it is a recognition of a legal relationship. This is also why it is a false distinction to suggest that “sex matters” when homosexuals wish to get married. Recognizing a Same Sex Relationship does not, therefore, require that there be any commentary on the sex life of that relationship—it is a legal non-issue. This also means that, contrary to what my opponent has stated, marriage is not changed so that it connotes their “sexual behavior”. Here’s where I believe the logic of my opponent is mistaken:

Quote:
”If sexual preferences or the act of sex is irrelevant, then a homosexual can enjoy marriage to a member of the opposite gender (another irrelevant point) just as much as a heterosexuals could enjoy this marriage. So, there is no reason to alter the definition of marriage to suit sexual desires, preferences, or orientation because those are irrelevant to the issue and to practice.
If you are saying that sex is such a relevant factor that constitutes change to marriage (the defining factor for homosexuals), then you are tearing down the loving, caring, and compassionate side of marriage to being about sex and sexual acts that are not about procreation. You say things by doing this, like the relationship that a man and a woman have can't be what it is without the sexual desire/act in regards to non-procreative purposes. This, of course, is a slap in the face of these relationships.


You should understand from paragraph 2 why this is an erroneous position.
Even though I say sex is irrelevant, I do not say that the consensual relationship is irrelevant. Quite the opposite, in fact. You bring up procreation… which leads to the next point…

3. You are not required to ever, if the consenting adults choose, make children. As many marriages do tend to result in childbirth, the institution has accommodated this through multiple benefits as well as equally (legally) shared partnership by the couple over the raising of the child. Now, I think that these benefits should be given to all parents, regardless of the marital status and for the most part they are—if only for the sake of the child. The reason I bring this up is because my opponent defines marriage this as such:
Quote:
I have to repeat this point nearly every post it seems: "Ordered Toward" does not mean "Only a Means to". The key difference is that success or failure at an attempt does not change the nature of that attempt at all. Therefore, the infertility of a couple is classified as a "failed attempt" at procreation, instead of being different in nature altogether.
If you have a relationship that is founded on the infertility of one or both of the partners, then this is an abomination that does not deserve the respect of marriage.


You probably know why this statement is also wrong. Marriage is not “founded on fertility” (my quotes, not his, I know what his statement reads). This is not how we define marriage. Marriage makes legal provisions for a couple that decide to have babies, but it is not about babies.

Tangentially, it should also be noted that an infertile couple’s “attempt” at procreation will be as successful as a homosexual couple’s attempt—every time. Neither are “failed attempts”, they are both “futile attempts” (depending on the severity of the infertility, of course). However this makes me wonder… if the last line is to be supported, what about the young married couple that decide they don’t want to procreate? What if the woman gets a hysterectomy? Should we then remove their rights as a married couple because they are willfully abstaining from procreation?

I suspect that you do not think we should.

2. What are Same Gender Relationships?
This one should be easy. Same gender relationships or, if you prefer the Greek, homosexual (meaning of the same sex, or gender) relationships are by all definitions completely similar to their heterosexual counterparts except in two regards:

-The members of the relationship are the same gender!
-Because they are the same gender, any sexual activity that they choose to participate in will not produce offspring!

Other than this, there is no reason to believe that same gender couples cannot carry on the same relationships that heterosexual couples (you know, the folks we let marry each other) do!

But that’s strange! Why would anyone be attracted to the same gender?

Good question. There’s no smoking gun that people are born with their sexual orientation completely sorted out. However, there is good evidence to suggest that there is a genetic component and environmental component to the people they desire to have relationships with.

But there is an important lesson to be learned: asking for the specific reasons that people are homosexual is a valid scientific inquiry, it is actually secondary to an even more important fact. Human beings have no choice in what gender they choose to form meaningful (sometimes intimate) relationships with. It’s also worth mentioning that we don’t consider homosexuality the same as Albinism or Klinefelter Syndrome (my opponent suggests any comparison to genetics demands this analogy) for the obvious reason there is no pathology associated with homosexuality (there’s also intrinsic to Klinefelter or Albinism that would preclude them from getting married).

Now why is this important…?

Let’s examine a bit of history:

3. The Case for Civil Rights

Rewind the clock to April of 1967. The Apollo program has started up recently, the Vietnam War is in full swing, and one year from now (nearly to the day) Martin Luther King Jr. will be assassinated. However, he would live to see some of his dream fulfilled. For 3 years ago, in 1964, congress passed the U.S. Civil Rights act which stated, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin or sex.” This also validated the 14th Amendment, which ensures all people due process and equal protection under our laws.

Anyway, the Supreme Court is hearing a case. A white man, Richard Loving, married a non-white (she was of mixed Native American and African American descent) woman outside of their home state of Virginia. They did this because Virginia had a law known as the “Racial Integrity Marriage” which banned the marriage of any white and non-white couple (this was known as an anti-miscegenation law). Police discovered them in their home (after they had returned to marriage) and attempted to prosecute them for breaking this law….a case which worked its way up to the Supreme Court and this eventful day. The trial lasted from April until June 12th; when the Supreme Court made its, unanimous, decision that the anti-miscegenation laws were indeed unconstitutional and violated the right of the couple to due process and equal protection of the law (including marriage) protected by our 14th Amendment.

So why do I bring up interracial marriage as an analogy?

Because my opponent’s statement…
Quote:
If sexual preferences or the act of sex is irrelevant, then a homosexual can enjoy marriage to a member of the opposite gender (another irrelevant point) just as much as a heterosexuals could enjoy this marriage.
…is no less bigoted than a Virginian suggesting that because interracial marriage is an aberration of “his definition” of marriage, Loving can enjoy a marriage as long as it’s with a white woman.

Some people grow up and find they are attracted to blondes. Others like brunettes. Still others prefer a sense of humor, curly hair, compassion, honesty, small feet, a big nose, green eyes, a laugh, a brilliant smile, dark skin, light skin. Some men like men. And some women like women. None of us have a choice in what general characteristics we like. Hopefully all of us will find someone who finds us as fascinating, unique, beautiful, funny, and profound and choose to spend their lives with us. Usually our country doesn’t care about our preferences. And they shouldn’t.

Because if two consenting adults decide to live the rest of their lives together and have this union recognized by the country, I believe they have a Constitutional Right to do so. And I have yet to hear a good reason that this shouldn’t be so.

I’m proud of my country. It was founded on this idea of freedom. But when it comes to the story of Same Sex Marriage… we still live in a tragic era where we deny the civil liberties based upon a moral objection against a particular relationship preference.

My moral objection shouldn’t impinge upon your freedoms so long as your freedoms don’t limit mine. I’ve got hope that the ideologues will set aside their freedoms and embrace the idea that, “while I might not agree with your choices, I’ll protect to the death your liberty.”


Think about it.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

The last straw...

I admit... I was sitting on the fence for a while. I do really like John McCain. I think his experience and record, for the most part are a huge step up from our current administrators. So, I was carefully considering the pros and cons between he and Obama.

His choice of Palin as a running mate had me concerned and killed a lot of his credibility. However, after Sarah Palin's most recent comments, it is now completely imperative that we do not let this woman anywhere near the white house.


I will be casting my ballot in favor of the Democratic Party this November in my home district (Michigan district 2) that will need as many democratic votes as possible...

(Thanks to AMB for the heads up)

Friday, October 24, 2008

That's no moon that's a... wait.... it is a moon.

Check out these pictures of Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons.

On a more humorous note:


(Thanks to Brian Range)

In Other News

Here's Sarah Palin set to Avant Garde piano in her finest moment:

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Case Against Sarah Palin, Part 2

I implore you all to copy-paste the link below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89FbCPzAsRA

and watch Joe Biden WIPE THE DEBATE FLOOR with the beauty queen. It's brutal.
Highlights include:

“PALIN: John McCain, in referring to the fundamental of our economy being strong, he was talking to and he was talking about the American workforce. And the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce.”
Sorry, the American dream is admirable, but we are resting on our laurels. Our work ethic pales in comparison to other countries in some respects. Take, for instance, the nearly starving in S.E. Asia and Mid/Central America who are willing to work excessive hours for minimal pay? These people are desparate to feed their families… and likely have a slightly more “driven” ethic than the average middle class American. How about the science and tech sectors in China, India, and Japan? These countries are pumping out hard-working, educated professionals to compete with the lead that the U.S. has normally enjoyed in these departments. Often these professionals leave the country (effectively “brain draining” their native countries, which is especially noticible in India) and compete very well in the U.S. where they have to tackle the additional barriers of language and culture differences!
This comment isn’t to put our country down… but to make the point that we should probably be a bit more humble than Palin implies.

Enjoy this strange doublethink by Palin:
“PALIN: We need to make sure that we demand from the federal government strict oversight of those entities in charge of our investments and our savings and we need also to not get ourselves in debt. “
And
“PALIN: Patriotic is saying, government, you know, you're not always the solution. In fact, too often you're the problem so, government, lessen the tax burden and on our families and get out of the way and let the private sector and our families grow and thrive and prosper.”
WAIT…. so when it comes to the private sector of wall street and bank lending, you want GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT. But when it comes to giving enormous tax breaks to companies, you want the government to stand down and let the private sector “grow and thrive and prosper” (sic)? Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

“PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you. But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. So they're going to be the ones paying higher taxes thus resulting in fewer jobs being created and less productivity… (I edited out the Health care plan she goes on to address for the sake of the point)”
“BIDEN: Gwen, I don't know where to start. We don't call a redistribution in my neighborhood Scranton, Claymont, Wilmington, the places I grew up, to give the fair to say that not giving Exxon Mobil another $4 billion tax cut this year as John calls for and giving it to middle class people to be able to pay to get their kids to college, we don't call that redistribution. We call that fairness, number one. Number two fact, 95 percent of the small businesses in America, their owners make less than $250,000 a year. They would not get one single solitary penny increase in taxes, those small businesses.”
This one had me pause and rewind. I have one word to say here (follow the link)… and that is that Palin has been: http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p84/dotsofcolor/doc2/doc-pics-pwned/pwned-funny2.jpg

“PALIN: … That doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds”
I’ll grant Palin the point. I’m not a big fan of the Feds. However, as a future Physician who is genuinely concerned about patient advocacy, I’m under no illusions that for-profit insurance companies are managing our health care any better. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

“PALIN: We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America -- they certainly don't have our best interests at heart -- instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.
Energy independence is the key to this nation's future, to our economic future, and to our national security. So when we talk about energy plans, it's not just about who got a tax break and who didn't. And we're not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it's about a heck of a lot more than that.
Energy independence is the key to America's future.”
I’ll refer to an earlier note. If America is completely energy independent, and for the purposes of this thought experiement doesn’t have to spend any energy on creating the infrastructure to become energy independent, it would last a little under 4 years under current rates of consumption. Four years. Also, a quick fact check reveals that while Palin said, "We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries" for imported oil this is repeating an outdated figure often used by McCain. At oil prices current as of Sept. 30, imports are running at a rate of about $493 billion per year.
Also note Palin’s comment: “And we're not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it's about a heck of a lot more than that.” This is completely false. McCain wants to cut corporate taxes from 35 percent to 25 percent, indirectly giving companies like Exxon something like $4 billion in tax breaks.

“PALIN: …So even in dealing with climate change, it's all the more reason that we have an "all of the above" approach, tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.”
How does offshore drilling and tapping into U.S. oil reserves “conserving” anything?
Earlier she says, “But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?”
To which Biden responds: “Well, I think it is manmade. I think it's clearly manmade. And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden -- Gov. Palin and Joe Biden.
If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That's the cause. That's why the polar icecap is melting.”
Another big point to Biden. Here he is completely in line with the multinational organization of thousands of environmental scientists (source: http://www.ipcc.ch/) .

Now, watch how Palin shoots herself in the foot.
“BIDEN: … We should be creating jobs. John McCain has voted 20 times against funding alternative energy sources and thinks, I guess, the only answer is drill, drill, drill. Drill we must, but it will take 10 years for one drop of oil to come out of any of the wells that are going to begun to be drilled.
In the meantime, we're all going to be in real trouble.
IFILL: Let me clear something up, Sen. McCain has said he supports caps on carbon emissions. Sen. Obama has said he supports clean coal technology, which I don't believe you've always supported.
BIDEN: I have always supported it. That's a fact.
IFILL: Well, clear it up for us, both of you, and start with Gov. Palin.
PALIN: Yes, Sen. McCain does support this. The chant is "drill, baby, drill." And that's what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into.”
Again, Palin clearly demonstrating how her energy plan is out of touch with reality. Later she proudly starts going into the details of the 40 billion pipeline that, as Biden correctly points out, will not pump a drop of oil until 2018.


Also, at this point in the debate I noticed three things:
1. Palin speaks almost entirely in sound bites and regularly repeats the same rhetoric for two different questions (e.g. McCain’s “maverick” status, her energy plan is frequently simply repeated instead of addressing the actual question)
2. Biden likes to verbally outline his responses with “Number one” and “number two”, etc. He shouldn’t do that.
3. While the Biden/Obama administration clearly favors more civil rights for gay couples, neither are willing to “re-define marriage” and “permit” gay marriage. Can’t we get over this “Civil Union but not Marriage” separate-but-equal bullshit and let these people enjoy legal legitimiacy to their relationship?

On Biden’s plan for troop withdrawal: “PALIN: Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure”
Great straw man argument, Palin.
Regardless, Biden nails McCain and the Bush doctrine in a single breath:
“BIDEN: John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again. John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor's son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters.
He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war. He didn't like that. But let's get straight who has been right and wrong. John McCain and Dick Cheney said while I was saying we would not be greeted as liberators, we would not - this war would take a decade and not a day, not a week and not six months, we would not be out of there quickly. John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shias got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years. John McCain said there would be enough oil to pay for this. John McCain has been dead wrong. I love him. As my mother would say, god love him, but he's been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating to the conduct of the war. Barack Obama has been right. There are the facts.”
Point Biden.

“PALIN: And we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.
That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.”
This line just made me chuckle.

“PALIN: The surge principles, not the exact strategy, but the surge principles that have worked in Iraq need to be implemented in Afghanistan, also. And that, perhaps, would be a difference with the Bush administration.
Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
A quick fact check shows that she misquotes Obama. Obama (August 2007): “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”
Also, she reveals that the difference between the McCain/Palin and Bush/Cheney plan is TO COMMIT MORE TROOPS. Now, I see how Obama and McCain make a legitimate case for committing them in Afganistan.. but McCain plans on maintaining current deployment levels in Iraq for … how long?

I also enjoy Palin’s solution to the Darfur crisis is supporting the “No fly zone”…. remind me, how many of the genocidal massacres there are from jets?

“IFILL: Probably the biggest cliche about the vice-presidency is that it's a heartbeat away, everybody's waiting to see what would happen if the worst happened. How would -- you disagree on some things from your principles, you disagree on drilling in Alaska, the National Wildlife Refuge, you disagree on the surveillance law, at least you have in the past. How would a Biden administration be different from an Obama administration if that were to happen.
PALIN: And heaven forbid, yes, that would ever happen, no matter how this ends up, that that would ever happen with either party.
As for disagreeing with John McCain and how our administration would work, what do you expect? A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything. As we discuss ANWR there, at least we can agree to disagree on that one. I will keep pushing him on ANWR. I have so appreciated he has never asked me to check my opinions at the door and he wants a deliberative debate and healthy debate so we can make good policy.”

Palin, I don’t think there can be two Mavericks… which means that you must be Goose.
“PALIN: Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he's a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.”
Extra credit for watching the boring grown-up debate? Yeah, when I was in third grade I was too busy kicking ass playing Pogs or being the Red Power Ranger… not watching presidential debates. Cute, though.

On experience:
“PALIN: My experience as an executive will be put to good use as a mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as governor of a huge state, a huge energy producing state that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation energy independence and that's extremely important.”
Now the fact that alaska is a “huge state” as an argument. Alaska’s population is approximately 670,053 people. So that means she has the experience of governing a population that numbers slightly less than Charlotte, North Carolina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population).

Final Score:
Number of times Biden organizes his points by saying “Number one” and “Number two”: 9
Number of times Palin says "Maverick": 16
Match: Biden.

The Case Against Sarah Palin, Part 1

I think it was an ABC news anchor who said, poignantly, “If John McCain is elected, then the country is one, seventy-two year old heart beat away from having Sarah Palin as its next President.”

This prospect scares the hell out of me. I like McCain. I like both Obama and McCain for different reasons and I think the country will benefit greatly with either man as its leader. However, McCain’s choice of Palin as his VP has completely dissolved any reservation of endorsement I may have had for him.

Let’s critically examine some of Palin’s candid interviews.. I managed to get my internet hands on some unedited interviews with Gibson and Kouric:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview

http://tv.spreadit.org/sarah-palin-katie-couric-interviewpalin-couric-interview-transcript/
---------------------------------------------------
GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Let’s start, because we are near Russia, let’s start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we’ve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we’re going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain’s running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we’ve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep…
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------
SERIOUSLY? Russia’s actions are unprovoked? This demonstrates Palin’s complete ignorance in really basic foreign affairs. I don’t tend to blame people for ignorance… but Palin is making statements as though she has any grasp of reality. The Russian response to NATO has been a long time coming. The Soviet Union collapsed, but NATO (organized in response to the USSR) has not. Russia, quite understandably, has seen NATO since then as an institutional enemy. Now, to add fuel to the fire, NATO has begun recruiting FORMER SOVIET BLOC countries into its fold. Honestly, what purpose is this serving other than pissing off Russia? Russia has long opposed the expansion of NATO, yet the western world has simply ignored or refused any compromise. I consider myself a patriotic guy. However, how are activities like the expansion of NATO, creation of missle defense in POLAND, and training of former soviet bloc countries (e.g. Georgia) improving our foreign relationship with Russia?!

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7573409.stm
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20080919/twl-russia-nato-provoked-georgia-war-3fd0ae9.html

On to more Palin inanity:
---------------------------------------------------------
Couric: You’ve cited Alaska’s proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Sarah Palin:
That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It’s funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don’t know, you know … reporters.
Couric: Mocked?
Palin:
Yeah, mocked, I guess that’s the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.
Palin:
Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
Palin:
We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Russia as a neighbor makes her an expert on foreign policy? What’s this about Putin “rearing” his ugly mug and invading U.S. airspace?

So being able to “see” a country qualifies your foreign policy. Well then, I’m a foreign policy GOD because I know how to use Google Earth. http://earth.google.com/

Ignore the fact that she seems to be choking on those words about as badly as she regularly chokes on Regan’s cold, hard dick. Seriously, what’s with the credit Ronnie’s been getting lately? Cursory study of the Cold War reveals that he had very little to do with it’s ending. He had less to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall than Hasselhoff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_wall Seriously. Simply wiki “Berlin Wall” and read the real story of why it fell (spoiler: it was a fluke public announcement by a very unprepared minister of propaganda named Schabowski. No joke).
Back to the decline of Western Civ:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT? Look at the link to the transcript. I thought she didn’t want another cold war.
How much more do you need to see to see how doomed we are?
She also regularly mentions that the war is "God's plan"
How would she know what God's plan is?!
-----------------------------
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.
That’s what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It’s an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”
-----------------------------------------------------
I love it when an INTERVIEWER nails his INTERVIEWEE on basic logical consistency.
Is anyone as frightened as I am?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntEE9Zy-qQQ