Today I had some extra time at work and so I decided to go volunteer for the McCain campaign. My super-important duties consisted of doing phone surveys. Yep... I think I pretty much won McCain the presidency single-handedly.
Even though my work wasn't important, I knew that simply getting involved was important. It doesn't matter whether we support Obama or McCain. It doesn't matter if we live in a battle-ground state or not. We should do what we can to participate in our governance. The Constitution, the most fundamental principles of our nation begins.... We the People....
This is what makes this nation great. Not our politicians or our money. The people. We are a nation of nobility and peasant living side by side. The great melting pot of the world. For any American to name their exact heritage is difficult. We're British, German, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Pacific Islander, African, etc.
If we are apathetic and don't do our part, then the sacrifices of our forefathers was for not. Get out and do something for your neighbor, community or country.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, September 29, 2008
Quote
Via HotAir
"When the government fails to pass a socialism bill and the market goes south, let it go south."
-Rush Limbaugh
Did the economy take a hit? Yes. Is it gonna be the end of the world? No. We've maintained our standard of living and the economy has managed to make it through rough times. Let's be patient. No need to rush bad legislation to a panicky public.
"When the government fails to pass a socialism bill and the market goes south, let it go south."
-Rush Limbaugh
Did the economy take a hit? Yes. Is it gonna be the end of the world? No. We've maintained our standard of living and the economy has managed to make it through rough times. Let's be patient. No need to rush bad legislation to a panicky public.
Something Different
My wife asked me why I don't post about different current events right now. I really didn't have an answer. I've been caught up in politics because it's something I've studied and enjoy. My other interest is in history. Which is something no one really likes to hear about. Well tough! I'm gonna talk a bit about it anyway.
This weekend we went to Memphis and made a trip out to the Shiloh Battlefield. The Battle of Shiloh was one of the largest battles the US had faced since it was a nation. (It was later eclipsed in this tragic war) Over 2,000 souls were lost and 5 times as many were lost to wounds.
Walking through the cemetery and visiting the battle site was one of the most humbling experiences of my life. I can't fathom the courage it takes to run across a field into the face of muskets, cannons and bayonets to attack your enemy. Every time I think about it it makes me immensely grateful for the brave men and women of our military. They risk it all, so that we can have the freedoms that we enjoy. If you know anyone serving in the military.... thank them for their service. It doesn't matter if they fought in Iraq or were part of the National Guard. They deserve our thanks.
The reason I have the picture at the top of the blog is to remind us that this is the greatest nation on earth and the men in that picture are the reason for that greatness. It's a nation worth fighting for, whether you pick up a rifle or pick up a pen to write you Congressman, fight to protect her.
This weekend we went to Memphis and made a trip out to the Shiloh Battlefield. The Battle of Shiloh was one of the largest battles the US had faced since it was a nation. (It was later eclipsed in this tragic war) Over 2,000 souls were lost and 5 times as many were lost to wounds.
Walking through the cemetery and visiting the battle site was one of the most humbling experiences of my life. I can't fathom the courage it takes to run across a field into the face of muskets, cannons and bayonets to attack your enemy. Every time I think about it it makes me immensely grateful for the brave men and women of our military. They risk it all, so that we can have the freedoms that we enjoy. If you know anyone serving in the military.... thank them for their service. It doesn't matter if they fought in Iraq or were part of the National Guard. They deserve our thanks.
The reason I have the picture at the top of the blog is to remind us that this is the greatest nation on earth and the men in that picture are the reason for that greatness. It's a nation worth fighting for, whether you pick up a rifle or pick up a pen to write you Congressman, fight to protect her.
Financial Crisis
Today Congress failed to reach an agreement on a bailout package. I say, "Good!"
I don't agree with the bailout, even though I think it is now necessary. Why am I happy it failed? This is the single largest acquisition of assets by the Federal Government in the history of our nation. Not only are there acquisitions of debt, but of mortgages, insurance and everyday loans. This is not something that should be shoved down our throats because the media has everybody in panic mode. It's time for rational thought and discussion. If it takes 2 weeks... "Greeeeat!" Just make sure that when it's done... it's done correctly. We're already facing bankruptcy of Medicaid and Social Security because they were poorly thought out and implemented. Let's not saddle ourselves with more problems and no one to bail us out.
P.S. The blame game going on by politicians right now is really pathetic. Everyone is to blame. Both parties. Greedy banks. Greedy people in real estate, construction and home owners with poor credit and no financial intelligence buying McMansions.
I don't agree with the bailout, even though I think it is now necessary. Why am I happy it failed? This is the single largest acquisition of assets by the Federal Government in the history of our nation. Not only are there acquisitions of debt, but of mortgages, insurance and everyday loans. This is not something that should be shoved down our throats because the media has everybody in panic mode. It's time for rational thought and discussion. If it takes 2 weeks... "Greeeeat!" Just make sure that when it's done... it's done correctly. We're already facing bankruptcy of Medicaid and Social Security because they were poorly thought out and implemented. Let's not saddle ourselves with more problems and no one to bail us out.
P.S. The blame game going on by politicians right now is really pathetic. Everyone is to blame. Both parties. Greedy banks. Greedy people in real estate, construction and home owners with poor credit and no financial intelligence buying McMansions.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Student, car debt quietly added to bailout plan
Unbelievable.
As if this bailout idea wasn't bad enough. The government keeps making it bigger and bigger. Why hasn't this been killed already!?
"The costs of the bailout will be significantly higher than originally considered or acknowledged," said Joshua Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., who charged that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have not been "forthright" about the ultimate cost to the public. The plan gives Treasury the discretion to buy the non-mortgage loans and securities in consultation with the Fed.
This guy is speaking my language:
Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who announced his opposition to the bailout Monday, said he simply doesn't believe Mr. Paulson when he says it will solve the market problems.
"His predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year," he said. "It's a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this administration. ... There are much better ways of dealing with this problem than forcing American taxpayers to pay for every asset some investor doesn't want anymore."
How is it that we are suppose to implicitly trust the same people that got us into this mess in the first place!? If they couldn't predict this meltdown occurring now, then how can they predict what this huge bailout will do to our economy in the future?
As if this bailout idea wasn't bad enough. The government keeps making it bigger and bigger. Why hasn't this been killed already!?
"The costs of the bailout will be significantly higher than originally considered or acknowledged," said Joshua Rosner, managing director of Graham Fisher & Co., who charged that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have not been "forthright" about the ultimate cost to the public. The plan gives Treasury the discretion to buy the non-mortgage loans and securities in consultation with the Fed.
This guy is speaking my language:
Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who announced his opposition to the bailout Monday, said he simply doesn't believe Mr. Paulson when he says it will solve the market problems.
"His predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year," he said. "It's a sad fact, but Americans can no longer trust the economic information they are getting from this administration. ... There are much better ways of dealing with this problem than forcing American taxpayers to pay for every asset some investor doesn't want anymore."
How is it that we are suppose to implicitly trust the same people that got us into this mess in the first place!? If they couldn't predict this meltdown occurring now, then how can they predict what this huge bailout will do to our economy in the future?
Health care in U.K. vs. U.S.
A national health care system vs. a free market health care system.
Read from the above link.
This is something that hits close to home since I'm in the health care industry. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but the last thing that should be done is have our inefficient government take over something so important. They can't keep Medicare and Medicaid out of bankruptcy, let alone Social Security. Why would we trust them to take it over completely!? Regulation.... depends. Take it over... provide health care coverage? NO!
Read from the above link.
This is something that hits close to home since I'm in the health care industry. I'm not saying that nothing should be done, but the last thing that should be done is have our inefficient government take over something so important. They can't keep Medicare and Medicaid out of bankruptcy, let alone Social Security. Why would we trust them to take it over completely!? Regulation.... depends. Take it over... provide health care coverage? NO!
Monday, September 22, 2008
Kids: Argument for having them
I decided to part from politics to talk about my kids. I'm a proud dad of 2 beautiful boys. They are still young and still get excited to see me. When I come home they yell "Daaaaaaddy!!!" The oldest runs to give me a hug and the youngest (very much a mama's boy) walks over to see what the fuss is about.
I never pictured myself as a Dad. I never felt ready for kids. I still don't feel ready for kids after having two of them. Maybe that's the wonderful thing about kids. They give back so much more than they take from us. We can make claims that money, clothes and houses are needed first and then kids, but to do so would rob us of a greater joy than any material possessions. Just hearing my kids call out when I come home is worth more than any house.
I never pictured myself as a Dad. I never felt ready for kids. I still don't feel ready for kids after having two of them. Maybe that's the wonderful thing about kids. They give back so much more than they take from us. We can make claims that money, clothes and houses are needed first and then kids, but to do so would rob us of a greater joy than any material possessions. Just hearing my kids call out when I come home is worth more than any house.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Infanticide
This subject has been popping up. While in Illinois, Obama voted and spoke against a bill that would provide care for fetuses that had been aborted, but survived the abortion to be born alive. At the time the fetuses were simply left to die. His argument against it was that it did not provide a neutrality clause. The measure failed, but a federal bill was brought up while Obama was in the US Senate. Obama's own committee placed a neutrality clause in the federal bill, which Obama then voted against. Luckily the bill passed.
Why do I bring this up? Obama is attacking John McCain with this ad:
That despicable liar John McCain... right? Wait.. he didn't even put out the ad!? That's right. A PAC for born alive advocats put out the ad. Not McCain.
And just in case you don't believe me. Here is a recording of Obama arguing against the bill because he thought that bringing in a 2nd doctor to take care of the infant would put too much burden on the person who is having the abortion.
Whose really despicable here?
Why do I bring this up? Obama is attacking John McCain with this ad:
That despicable liar John McCain... right? Wait.. he didn't even put out the ad!? That's right. A PAC for born alive advocats put out the ad. Not McCain.
And just in case you don't believe me. Here is a recording of Obama arguing against the bill because he thought that bringing in a 2nd doctor to take care of the infant would put too much burden on the person who is having the abortion.
Whose really despicable here?
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Who's the better uniter?
This is from the Washington Times. Great Article.
Also click here for Hotair's take on it.
In brief. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. McCain voted along party line 85% of the time. Obama has never sponsored a bill that require bipartisan work. The one he touts is his Ethics reform, but that was so widely popular it passed in a vote 95-0. McCain has worked with both sides on campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform and immigration. Some passed... some didn't.
When you want to truly change Washington you need to learn to work with your opposition. McCain has a proven track record. Just ask the Clinton's about Obama's track record...
Also click here for Hotair's take on it.
In brief. Obama voted along party lines 97% of the time. McCain voted along party line 85% of the time. Obama has never sponsored a bill that require bipartisan work. The one he touts is his Ethics reform, but that was so widely popular it passed in a vote 95-0. McCain has worked with both sides on campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform and immigration. Some passed... some didn't.
When you want to truly change Washington you need to learn to work with your opposition. McCain has a proven track record. Just ask the Clinton's about Obama's track record...
Taxes
Tax cuts for the rich. Give back to middle-class Americans. This is Obama's stump.
This is why I don't believe it.
First: The tax cuts were mostly for corporations. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. That means if you want to run a company it would cost you more to do it here than Ireland, which has a lower corporate tax. If your a global company.... what would you do? You would do what any good company should do and lower your costs of doing business. That means these companies take their jobs overseas to do business cheaper. That means jobs go overseas. Which means a worse economy here.
Obama wants to roll back those tax breaks and give them to middle class. Which means that we would lose even more jobs in the poor economy that we have and that the middle class would actually be worse off. The problem of his argument is that the middle class doesn't really pay much in taxes anyways. So in reality the government would keep more of the taxes while claiming to help out average Americans. This means less money in the economy and poor economic growth.
"Middle class Americans pay lots of taxes!" you say. Ummmm no not really. 42% of Americans pay no taxes at all. In fact the top 5% wage earners pay over 60% of our taxes. The top 20% pay 95% of our taxes.
"Well, they are rich, so they need to be taxed more" you say. Yes and no. They should pay their fair share, but you have to remember that taxes don't create more jobs. Money in the hands of consumers creates more jobs. The more you tax the wealthy the less they spend, which means that again.... economic slow down.
Raising taxes is risky even in a positive economic environment. Doing so in an economic downturn would be a disaster. Remember that while you think about who to vote for...
This is why I don't believe it.
First: The tax cuts were mostly for corporations. The US corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. That means if you want to run a company it would cost you more to do it here than Ireland, which has a lower corporate tax. If your a global company.... what would you do? You would do what any good company should do and lower your costs of doing business. That means these companies take their jobs overseas to do business cheaper. That means jobs go overseas. Which means a worse economy here.
Obama wants to roll back those tax breaks and give them to middle class. Which means that we would lose even more jobs in the poor economy that we have and that the middle class would actually be worse off. The problem of his argument is that the middle class doesn't really pay much in taxes anyways. So in reality the government would keep more of the taxes while claiming to help out average Americans. This means less money in the economy and poor economic growth.
"Middle class Americans pay lots of taxes!" you say. Ummmm no not really. 42% of Americans pay no taxes at all. In fact the top 5% wage earners pay over 60% of our taxes. The top 20% pay 95% of our taxes.
"Well, they are rich, so they need to be taxed more" you say. Yes and no. They should pay their fair share, but you have to remember that taxes don't create more jobs. Money in the hands of consumers creates more jobs. The more you tax the wealthy the less they spend, which means that again.... economic slow down.
Raising taxes is risky even in a positive economic environment. Doing so in an economic downturn would be a disaster. Remember that while you think about who to vote for...
Biden: Higher Taxes is Patriotic
Riiiight.
First of all, people keep saying how clueless Palin is???? Really?? And then you see the schmuck out there? They say picking your VP is the most important decision a candidate can make and it shows how different the candidates can be. McCain has energized his conservative base and brought on a huge media storm, which pushed Obama out of the headlines. Obama picked Biden.... who has done nothing but make dumb comments like the one above and has done nothing to energize voters.
First of all, people keep saying how clueless Palin is???? Really?? And then you see the schmuck out there? They say picking your VP is the most important decision a candidate can make and it shows how different the candidates can be. McCain has energized his conservative base and brought on a huge media storm, which pushed Obama out of the headlines. Obama picked Biden.... who has done nothing but make dumb comments like the one above and has done nothing to energize voters.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Obama blocks troop withdrawals
via The New York Post
According the the Iraqi Foreign Minister, while Obama was in Iraq he told the nation's leaders to stop dealing with the President and his Generals and wait till after the election. What's wrong with this you ask? First of all, it almost smacks of treason. He didn't go far enough, but the man was clearly in the wrong. Senators are not authorized to deal with any foreign negotiations. This undermines the chain of command.
Second, if Obama really wants the troops out of Iraq asap, why is he stalling negotiations that will allow them to leave? Answer: He's banking on winning the election and then being able to claim victory in Iraq. He's politicized the war and the troops that are currently in harms way. He doesn't truly believe that pulling the troops out is important... unless it wins him votes.
Did Obama's camp deny this? Nope. They can't because there were witnesses. They essentially confirm it in their press release. via HotAir, plus McCain's response.
According the the Iraqi Foreign Minister, while Obama was in Iraq he told the nation's leaders to stop dealing with the President and his Generals and wait till after the election. What's wrong with this you ask? First of all, it almost smacks of treason. He didn't go far enough, but the man was clearly in the wrong. Senators are not authorized to deal with any foreign negotiations. This undermines the chain of command.
Second, if Obama really wants the troops out of Iraq asap, why is he stalling negotiations that will allow them to leave? Answer: He's banking on winning the election and then being able to claim victory in Iraq. He's politicized the war and the troops that are currently in harms way. He doesn't truly believe that pulling the troops out is important... unless it wins him votes.
Did Obama's camp deny this? Nope. They can't because there were witnesses. They essentially confirm it in their press release. via HotAir, plus McCain's response.
McCain predicted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Bailout??
Brilliant article found on Hotair by Ed Morrissey.
Funny that Obama, who has become Fan and Fred's favorite politician by giving him 4x's more lobbying money in 4 years than it gave McCain in 20+, is claiming that the bailout is a result of the Republicans failed economic policies. Really? Wasn't it Bill Clinton and the Dems that created Fannie and Fred to provide mortgages for lower income families? People, who it turns out, can't afford mortgages and are now in a bigger financial crisis by having to deal with foreclosures? Hasn't Fan and Freddie been led by Jim Johnson who was leading up Obama's VP candidate vetting?
Funny that Obama, who has become Fan and Fred's favorite politician by giving him 4x's more lobbying money in 4 years than it gave McCain in 20+, is claiming that the bailout is a result of the Republicans failed economic policies. Really? Wasn't it Bill Clinton and the Dems that created Fannie and Fred to provide mortgages for lower income families? People, who it turns out, can't afford mortgages and are now in a bigger financial crisis by having to deal with foreclosures? Hasn't Fan and Freddie been led by Jim Johnson who was leading up Obama's VP candidate vetting?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
So much for free speech
I find it funny that the campaign for change is resorting to good old fashion mob mentality.
Who is the villain that they need to silence? David Fredosso. Author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama.
So much for free speech and the opportunity afforded both sides to air their opinions. Even if they disagree with Fredosso (which they would have to be stupid not to disagree with him) they lend credence to his argument since they are so vehemently opposed to him appearing on an AM talk show. Makes you wonder if he might've gotten it right in his book....
Who is the villain that they need to silence? David Fredosso. Author of the book The Case Against Barack Obama.
So much for free speech and the opportunity afforded both sides to air their opinions. Even if they disagree with Fredosso (which they would have to be stupid not to disagree with him) they lend credence to his argument since they are so vehemently opposed to him appearing on an AM talk show. Makes you wonder if he might've gotten it right in his book....
E-mail to Obama: dishonest TV ad, wrong audience
Los Angeles Times, Jonah Goldberg
After running a brilliant and historic primary battle to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign is now in disarray. Why?
Perhaps it's because Barack Obama has never run a competitive race against a Republican. After all, Obama won his U.S. Senate seat in Illinois by running against Alan Keyes, a fire-and-brimstone, right-wing black carpetbagger from Maryland (or perhaps Mars) who had no real ties to Illinois.
Now, facing John McCain's blistering ads, Obama seems unable to fight fire with fire. The Democratic rank and file are furious (while simultaneously denouncing McCain's negativity).
Obama, they may be realizing, doesn't know how to close the deal.
Nonetheless, the Obama campaign has vowed, once again, to take the gloves off and go after McCain hard, linking him to President Bush and highlighting the fact that the Arizona senator is out of touch.
One flaw with this supposed course correction is that it isn't one. McCain-Bush-Economy has been Obama's message for months now. Indeed, ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote on his blog that this is actually the fourth time Team Obama has pledged to engage in a bracing round of fisticuffs.
To prove his newfound determination to go bare knuckle against McCain, Obama unveiled a new TV ad, to air in key states.
It begins with the date "1982," a picture of a disco ball and footage of McCain in clunky glasses from his first year in Washington. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't," explains the announcer. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a World War II-era walkie-talkie.
The tax-cuts and economy barbs are familiar boilerplate. What's new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt to attack McCain as too old for the job -- and that speaks volumes.
First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.
In 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate's savviest technologist." That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates that year, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."
Weisberg, an Obama booster, now disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer."
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and websites, though he says he's getting up to speed.
"It's extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office, according to the archives in his presidential library.
Besides, by this logic, Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime.
And if the Obama campaign did not intend to mock a disabled veteran, what does it say about his supposedly "cybersavvy" campaign that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search to find out these things?
But the most revealing aspect of the ad is who it speaks to. According to Gallup, Obama has a 20- to 30-point advantage over McCain among 18- to 29-year-olds. Indeed, his base (not counting African American voters) is upscale college kids and new-economy young voters. These are the voters most likely to think being able to send an e-mail is, like, totally crucial.
The only other constituency -- other than the press -- that will be jazzed by such an attack are the Web-symbiotes of the left-wing netroots, another demographic Obama has locked up.
Older Americans, working-class Americans, veterans and other voters Obama desperately needs probably won't care and might even take offense at Obama's condescension.
There are two explanations for the ad. One is that Obama released it to reassure his base that he's serious about attacking McCain, not to win over swing voters. That, or the campaign actually thinks it's an effective ad.
Either way, the lesson is the same: Obama doesn't know how to get outside his echo chamber. He talks about being bipartisan to hard-core liberals who like the words, but he hates actual deviation from the liberal line. He talks about new ideas, but he merely repackages old ones.
He is a candidate who has never had to sell himself to voters who weren't already sold. And it shows.
(Emphasis - Me)
After running a brilliant and historic primary battle to defeat Hillary Clinton, the Obama campaign is now in disarray. Why?
Perhaps it's because Barack Obama has never run a competitive race against a Republican. After all, Obama won his U.S. Senate seat in Illinois by running against Alan Keyes, a fire-and-brimstone, right-wing black carpetbagger from Maryland (or perhaps Mars) who had no real ties to Illinois.
Now, facing John McCain's blistering ads, Obama seems unable to fight fire with fire. The Democratic rank and file are furious (while simultaneously denouncing McCain's negativity).
Obama, they may be realizing, doesn't know how to close the deal.
Nonetheless, the Obama campaign has vowed, once again, to take the gloves off and go after McCain hard, linking him to President Bush and highlighting the fact that the Arizona senator is out of touch.
One flaw with this supposed course correction is that it isn't one. McCain-Bush-Economy has been Obama's message for months now. Indeed, ABC News' Jake Tapper wrote on his blog that this is actually the fourth time Team Obama has pledged to engage in a bracing round of fisticuffs.
To prove his newfound determination to go bare knuckle against McCain, Obama unveiled a new TV ad, to air in key states.
It begins with the date "1982," a picture of a disco ball and footage of McCain in clunky glasses from his first year in Washington. "Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't," explains the announcer. "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail, still doesn't understand the economy and favors $200 billion in new tax cuts for corporations, but almost nothing for the middle class." All the while it shows ancient computers and a cordless phone that looks like a World War II-era walkie-talkie.
The tax-cuts and economy barbs are familiar boilerplate. What's new is the charge of computer illiteracy and the blatant attempt to attack McCain as too old for the job -- and that speaks volumes.
First, the ad is dishonest. McCain has been one of the Senate's leading authorities on telecom and the Internet.
In 2000, Forbes magazine called him the "Senate's savviest technologist." That same year, Slate's Jacob Weisberg gushed that McCain was the most "cybersavvy" of all the presidential candidates that year, a crop that included none other than Al Gore. Being chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Weisberg explained, "forced him to learn about the Internet early on, and young Web entrepreneurs such as Jerry Yang and Jeff Bezos fascinate him."
Weisberg, an Obama booster, now disingenuously mocks McCain as "flummoxed by that newfangled doodad, the personal computer."
One reason McCain is not versed in the mechanical details of sending e-mail and typing on a keyboard is that the North Vietnamese broke his fingers and shattered both of his arms. As Forbes, Slate and the Boston Globe reported in 2000, McCain's injuries make using a keyboard painfully laborious. He mostly relies on his wife and staff to show him e-mails and websites, though he says he's getting up to speed.
"It's extraordinary," Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, "that someone who wants to be our president and our commander in chief doesn't know how to send an e-mail." For the record, President Clinton sent exactly two e-mails while in office, according to the archives in his presidential library.
Besides, by this logic, Obama is even less qualified to be commander in chief because, unlike McCain, Obama has never fired a gun, flown a plane or led men during wartime.
And if the Obama campaign did not intend to mock a disabled veteran, what does it say about his supposedly "cybersavvy" campaign that they don't know how to conduct a five-minute Google search to find out these things?
But the most revealing aspect of the ad is who it speaks to. According to Gallup, Obama has a 20- to 30-point advantage over McCain among 18- to 29-year-olds. Indeed, his base (not counting African American voters) is upscale college kids and new-economy young voters. These are the voters most likely to think being able to send an e-mail is, like, totally crucial.
The only other constituency -- other than the press -- that will be jazzed by such an attack are the Web-symbiotes of the left-wing netroots, another demographic Obama has locked up.
Older Americans, working-class Americans, veterans and other voters Obama desperately needs probably won't care and might even take offense at Obama's condescension.
There are two explanations for the ad. One is that Obama released it to reassure his base that he's serious about attacking McCain, not to win over swing voters. That, or the campaign actually thinks it's an effective ad.
Either way, the lesson is the same: Obama doesn't know how to get outside his echo chamber. He talks about being bipartisan to hard-core liberals who like the words, but he hates actual deviation from the liberal line. He talks about new ideas, but he merely repackages old ones.
He is a candidate who has never had to sell himself to voters who weren't already sold. And it shows.
(Emphasis - Me)
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Dividing the Country
Or call it slinging mud, personal attacks or whatever. When it comes to campaigns it is almost second nature for candidates to 'attack' their opponent. Many people complain about the negativity of the campaigns and explain away their antipathy towards voting. The thing I find most interesting about this attitude is that many think its only in American politics. Or that people think that it's been getting worse. Obviously neither is correct.
Politics have been around since man formed tribes. Since the beginning it has been notorious for verbal and physical attacks. Nations have been torn apart by civil war simply because the wrong party won or lost the election.
America has been unique in the fact that elections don't lead to violence. We were one of the first nations to have a democratic process with two political parties and almost no violence. Parties who loss peacefully left office and the new party didn't go out of its way to in avenging themselves upon the losers.
People and voters would love to have an election without negativity. What is negativity in politics? Is defining the difference between your positions negative? Is stating that your policy is better than your opponents better? Is contrasting your experience versus your opponents negative? Is saying that your opponent is old and out of touch negative?
What I'm getting at is what we find negative in politics is what allows the candidates to define themselves. We need to see the contrast. We need to see the differences. If they were the same candidate, we wouldn't care who won. They are different and those differences need to be shown.
This does not divide the country. This does not lead to violence and civil war. So lets stop claiming that one party or the other is causing the country to be divided. That's politics. I heard a saying that politics is like opinions and that opinions are like your ass... everybody has one and it's always divided.
Politics have been around since man formed tribes. Since the beginning it has been notorious for verbal and physical attacks. Nations have been torn apart by civil war simply because the wrong party won or lost the election.
America has been unique in the fact that elections don't lead to violence. We were one of the first nations to have a democratic process with two political parties and almost no violence. Parties who loss peacefully left office and the new party didn't go out of its way to in avenging themselves upon the losers.
People and voters would love to have an election without negativity. What is negativity in politics? Is defining the difference between your positions negative? Is stating that your policy is better than your opponents better? Is contrasting your experience versus your opponents negative? Is saying that your opponent is old and out of touch negative?
What I'm getting at is what we find negative in politics is what allows the candidates to define themselves. We need to see the contrast. We need to see the differences. If they were the same candidate, we wouldn't care who won. They are different and those differences need to be shown.
This does not divide the country. This does not lead to violence and civil war. So lets stop claiming that one party or the other is causing the country to be divided. That's politics. I heard a saying that politics is like opinions and that opinions are like your ass... everybody has one and it's always divided.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Tall = Happy
I normally wouldn't post articles like this, but I have to make a dig at my older, shorter sister. I won't relate her exact height, but I beat her by a good 16 inches. Love ya Breeze! It's not too late to turn from the dark side!
Data from a Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index study found taller people were more satisfied with their lives, more likely to report positive emotions like enjoyment and happiness, and less likely to report emotions like anger, sadness, and stress.
NEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Taller people are happier on average than shorter people, with each extra inch in height giving as much satisfaction as a four percent increase in income, according to a U.S. study.
"On average, men who gave their lives the worst possible rating were more than three-quarters of an inch shorter than the average man," the researchers said in a statement.
The Gallup data suggested it would take a 29 percent increase in income to have the same effect on men's life satisfaction as moving from below-average to above-average height.
"Alternatively, each additional inch of height has the same effect on reported life satisfaction as a four percent increase in family income," they calculated.
But the Gallup Poll Daily said there were also other factors that had to be taken into account when relating height to happiness -- not least income and education.
Men who did not graduate from high school are on average more than an inch shorter than average-height men are and are up to two inches shorter than the average college-educated man.
The differences were found to be slightly less for women.
"The main reason why taller people do better is because they have higher incomes, they are better educated, and they work in higher status occupations," said the researchers.
"People with more education have higher income and higher status jobs, and they earn more money. Money, in turn, is a powerful predictor of life satisfaction.
The researchers deferred to other studies which have looked at why taller people are more likely than shorter people to have reached their full cognitive potential which suggested cognitive and physical function developed together.
The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index tracks the well-being of U.S. residents daily with the results of this survey based on interviewing over 1,000 people a day from January 2 to July 7.
What makes people vote Republican??
Great essay by a liberal atheist associate professor. Hard to believe those words just came out of my mouth and onto this page.
"Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview." - Judith Warner, New York Times
"Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview." - Judith Warner, New York Times
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11: Where I was and what has changed.
9/11/01 I was in a studio apartment on top of a concrete house in the middle of Hermosillo Mexico. I got a phone call from a friend freaking out because he thought we were at war. At first I couldn't figure out what he was talking about. Twin towers? Planes? Bombs? What!? It was a bad day because I was moving and the neighbor that was helping me move didn't want me to go out. He was worried about having an American gringo on his hands. There was always an undercurrent of tension as an American in Mexico. So we went over to his house where we watched the towers tumble. Only later in the month did I learn about the Pentagon and Flight 93. Disbelieving the implications I shrugged off suggestions that I should go home. In my mind I was wondering what it meant... War? More attacks? Friends? Family? Were they safe? Was I safe?
What has America learned since 9/11.
The First Lesson: Know thy enemy.
We knew about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We knew about threats against the U.S. The USS Cole had been attacked. The Twin Towers had been bombed in the previous decade. Our embassies overseas had been attacked. What we didn't know was how desperate and fanatical they had become. We couldn't fathom the lengths these young men were willing to take. The disbelief of US Navy Captains felt as Kamikaze pilots dove their planes into our ships during WWII was shared nationwide as we watched the planes of 9/11 smash into the towers. Was this really happening?
The Second Lesson: Never underestimate your enemy
This proved to be the most detrimental factor leading up to the attacks. We assumed we were safe. Those terrorists were overseas, we were safe. Boy, we were wrong.
The Third Lesson: Be prepared
This has been hammered home by the attacks of 9/11. Security which had been minimal jumped into overdrive. People who had never planned ahead, were suddenly gathering food stores and saving their money. The American public realized that globalization had finally reached our shores. We vowed to never be taken by surprise again.
Report card:
9/11 has forever changed the landscape of America. We have become stronger. Everyone must face trials in order to become stronger. The refining fire of 9/11 was our generations trial. The question is: will it be our only trial?
What has America learned since 9/11.
The First Lesson: Know thy enemy.
We knew about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We knew about threats against the U.S. The USS Cole had been attacked. The Twin Towers had been bombed in the previous decade. Our embassies overseas had been attacked. What we didn't know was how desperate and fanatical they had become. We couldn't fathom the lengths these young men were willing to take. The disbelief of US Navy Captains felt as Kamikaze pilots dove their planes into our ships during WWII was shared nationwide as we watched the planes of 9/11 smash into the towers. Was this really happening?
The Second Lesson: Never underestimate your enemy
This proved to be the most detrimental factor leading up to the attacks. We assumed we were safe. Those terrorists were overseas, we were safe. Boy, we were wrong.
The Third Lesson: Be prepared
This has been hammered home by the attacks of 9/11. Security which had been minimal jumped into overdrive. People who had never planned ahead, were suddenly gathering food stores and saving their money. The American public realized that globalization had finally reached our shores. We vowed to never be taken by surprise again.
Report card:
9/11 has forever changed the landscape of America. We have become stronger. Everyone must face trials in order to become stronger. The refining fire of 9/11 was our generations trial. The question is: will it be our only trial?
Obama vs. Palin: A losing proposition
It seems that the media and even Obama have forgotten that it's McCain running for President, not Sarah Palin. Oh yes, we get the rhetoric of "she's only a heartbeat away from being president" but who knows when someone will die. As of right now he's perfectly healthy and who hasn't heard of someone being declared terminally ill and still living long after anyone expected. The argument is asinine.
Running against Sarah Palin will not win Obama votes. Instead he needs to counter the enthusiasm for her with his own enthusiasm. Give the voters concrete answers and numbers to what your 'change' will be. As they always say... the best defense is a good offense.
Running against Sarah Palin will not win Obama votes. Instead he needs to counter the enthusiasm for her with his own enthusiasm. Give the voters concrete answers and numbers to what your 'change' will be. As they always say... the best defense is a good offense.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Palinmania!
Palinmania is sweeping the country. Whether you love her or hate her, you are talking about her. Many in the news are trying to vilify her while the Republicans vaunt her to the echelons of the Gods.
My opinion. Love her. She represents everything that Obama/Biden and even McCain try to be. A real person who really understands what everyday middle America goes through.
Obama and his Ivy League education and multi-million dollar house doesn't understand us. He claims we cling to our guns and religion to his millionaire friends or mingles with celebrities who pay $30,000 a plate to eat at Jon Bon Jovi's house.
Biden has been in Washington longer than almost anyone. He's been there longer than McCain. If Obama is trying to change Washington, why did he pick a guy that is practically a keystone to Washington and a Congress with a 9% approval rating. He obviously doesn't speak for those of us no entrenched in Washington.
I will even argue that McCain does not get us. He's married to a millionaire and has been in the Senate for 20+ years. He comes from a family with a rich military history. His grandfather and father were both Admirals in the Navy. He's never really been part of middle America.
McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is politically brilliant. He understood that he couldn't connect with the American public. He knew that Obama was connecting with the American public through his speeches, but that we don't know him well enough to trust him. So who does he pick? His buddy Liebermann? That would be as bad as picking Biden. Romney? Yeah right, the American public is not going to connect with the millionaire and many still have problems with his religion. So he picks a little known governor of Alaska. Why?
Sarah Palin is genuine. She is a real, middle American who has been thrust into politics by standing up against entrenched politicans and corruption. She's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the form of a woman. She was in the PTA, became a city council member, mayor and then Governor. She has an approval rating of over 80% in Alaska which is unheard of for any politician. She has a young family with real American family problems. She's tough and she's not the ideal politician, feminist or media darling.
After the pick the media began to rip into her. They questioned her marriage, her family, her baby, her kids and daughter. It was unlike anything I've seen. This was the speech that she gave after 4 days of these attacks.
McCain/Palin '08!!!
My opinion. Love her. She represents everything that Obama/Biden and even McCain try to be. A real person who really understands what everyday middle America goes through.
Obama and his Ivy League education and multi-million dollar house doesn't understand us. He claims we cling to our guns and religion to his millionaire friends or mingles with celebrities who pay $30,000 a plate to eat at Jon Bon Jovi's house.
Biden has been in Washington longer than almost anyone. He's been there longer than McCain. If Obama is trying to change Washington, why did he pick a guy that is practically a keystone to Washington and a Congress with a 9% approval rating. He obviously doesn't speak for those of us no entrenched in Washington.
I will even argue that McCain does not get us. He's married to a millionaire and has been in the Senate for 20+ years. He comes from a family with a rich military history. His grandfather and father were both Admirals in the Navy. He's never really been part of middle America.
McCain's pick of Sarah Palin is politically brilliant. He understood that he couldn't connect with the American public. He knew that Obama was connecting with the American public through his speeches, but that we don't know him well enough to trust him. So who does he pick? His buddy Liebermann? That would be as bad as picking Biden. Romney? Yeah right, the American public is not going to connect with the millionaire and many still have problems with his religion. So he picks a little known governor of Alaska. Why?
Sarah Palin is genuine. She is a real, middle American who has been thrust into politics by standing up against entrenched politicans and corruption. She's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington in the form of a woman. She was in the PTA, became a city council member, mayor and then Governor. She has an approval rating of over 80% in Alaska which is unheard of for any politician. She has a young family with real American family problems. She's tough and she's not the ideal politician, feminist or media darling.
After the pick the media began to rip into her. They questioned her marriage, her family, her baby, her kids and daughter. It was unlike anything I've seen. This was the speech that she gave after 4 days of these attacks.
McCain/Palin '08!!!
I'm baaaack.
I know that there has been anxious anticipation for my blogging. Fortunately circumstances have turned for the better and I have plenty of time to begin rambling about my thoughts on events that are 'above my paygrade.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
