Spin Spin Spin!

I admit it, and I always have. McCain has more experience than Obama. In this argument McCain wins.

So why would his running mate Palin bash Obama's running mate Biden for his experience? So to McCain experience is a good thing, but for Palin it is not?

McCain and Palin CANNOT be serious, can they? Do they not realize that they are contradicting each other, and in effect belittling their own arguments?

This has just gotten ridiculous.

The First Debate

In case you haven't seen it. I suggest watching it on Hulu, which is an excellent and free website.
The Vice Presidential debate will be on Thursday.

McCain Suspends Campaign

McCain yesterday suspended his campaign, supposedly canceling TV ads, and asking for a rescheduling of the debate on Friday, in order to go to Washington and get his hands in on the bailout bill action. He called for Obama to do the same, and Obama replied that he would do anything asked of him to help push a bill, but he did not see a reason to suspend his campaign. Regarding the possible cancellation of the debate, Obama said that at times like this it is even MORE important to listen to the candidates.

Later in the day yesterday, Bush invited both of the candidates to come to Washington to speak with him. It looked like a political move to reinforce McCain's decision, but as I type this Obama, McCain, Bush, and congressmen are meeting and drafting a new bailout bill.

Last night McCain was supposed to appear on the Late Show, but he called and canceled at the last minute, saying it was urgent that he fly to Washington immediately. David Letterman, while still taping his show (without McCain), soon found out that McCain was not flying to Washington, but at that moment was preparing for an appearance on CBS. Here is the humorous antics from last night's Late Show.

Palin's Pastor

I am not one to discriminate against someone due to religion, and it is definitely not something I base my vote on.

However Obama had a lot of negative coverage because of his pastor, but what is not getting very much media coverage at all is Palin's pastor, a man who got where he is today by chasing a woman out of a town in Africa and accusing her of witchcraft.

Why two different standards? Good question. But here is my attempt to expose the pastor that isn't getting anywhere near as much coverage as Obama's was.

Olbermann, one of the few who is actually covering this story.


Actual footage of Palin being blessed.

Sarah Palin CBS Interview

Just uh....judge for yourself.

Campbell Brown on Sexism, Again

Campbell Brown is kind of contradicting herself from her previous shrill comment, but she went the right direction in my opinion.



Palin didn't really talk much substance with the foreign leaders. The bigger news of the day was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking in front of the UN, taking questions from press, and undergoing an interview with Larry King. More on that later.

Sometimes It Takes A Tragedy

It is sad but true. Pakistan learned the hard way when a car bomb killed 53 and wounded 266. They are now vowing to take action against militants.

Hopefully they will do what I have hoped they would for so long, and share intelligence in order to take out the threat once and for all.

The United States cannot win the "War on Terror" (whatever that may actually be, but that's for another day) alone.

Article at BBC News: Pakistan to target rebel hotspots

Biden's Speech in Wooster, Ohio

I didn't know Biden could spin a good yarn nearly as well as Obama.

Of course this speech doesn't have much specifics, but these days in politics, if it isn't an attack on the opponent, it is worth listening to.

There is a debate on CNN this coming Friday. It's the first real debate between Obama and McCain. Hopefully we can get specifics from both sides then.

What is a Lie?

When I began to really pay attention to politics, I was surprised by how much lying was going back and forth. Or at least they appeared to be lies in my eyes.

However, apparently lies are assessed and treated differently in politics. Is "stretching the truth" a lie? Seemingly not so in politics, such as when Sarah Palin claims she sold a jet on Ebay. It actually never sold while it was on Ebay. Is quoting something out of context a lie? Apparently not.

This isn't even the biggest problem. There are also real, indisputable classic lies out there too. For example, the spam e-mails about Obama being a muslim. This is an absolute lie, yet many people in America still believe it. McCain claims Obama will raise taxes for everybody, and he will reduce them for everybody. These are both lies. Obama "plans" to drop taxes for the middle class, and only raise them among the rich. McCain "plans" to renew and possibly extend the "Bush tax cuts" which only apply to the wealthy.

But how do we respond to these lies? Dedicated sources will often dig up the truth for us, but must we rely on this? And what about those of us who don't research enough to be able to filter through the lies?

It seems in politics, you can lie about nearly anything you want. There are apparently almost no negative reprocussions. While a dedicated news network may debunk your lie, others may support it. If you say the lie in a highly televised way (like a debate or a campaign ad) the odds are good that the lie will reach so many people that there is a very low probability that all of those people will learn that the statement was a lie.

For example if I said that Obama was actually Indian, not African American during a campaign commercial, I may get 10 million viewers who see that. Now lets assume half of them are already dedicated Obama supporters and know better, but I still told a lie that 5 million people had no reason to doubt. The next day the ad is a main topic on CNN and MSNBC, and they both debunk the lie. However, not everyone in the US who watches primetime standard channels (where an ad is likely) also watch 24 hour news networks. Lets be generous and say 3 million people who would have believed the lie see it debunked. That still leaves 2 million people who believe a lie.

But what can we do about it? I think alot of people just check it off as one of those annoying things about politics, and if both sides do it then who really cares? The reason it is important is because we tend to hold our elected officials up to a higher moral standard than usual. Just ask Bill Clinton about that. If we allow them to use dirty and immoral tricks to get elected, and just pass that off as a "political standard," what does that say about us?

If we truely believed that lies were a regular part of politics, why would we ever believe anything that came out of a candidate's mouth? That is why it is so important that candidates are truthful, but just as important that we research for ourselves everything they say.

Nukes Part 8

The UN nuclear watchdog has said that there are "no credible assurances" that Iran is only using it's nuclear program for civilian purposes.

I have in the past been reluctant to criticize Iran. In my eyes they simply wanted civilian nuclear power like the rest of us, and from my experience treating someone like an enemy can do nothing but create that enemy. However as I have said before, I don't think Iran would be hurting itself at all by allowing full disclosure, especially if this is indeed just a civilian operation.

The US is considering tightening sanctions.

UN nuclear agency criticizes Iran

Today In Foreign Policy 9/15

NATO has reiterated it's efforts to allow Georgia to become a member. It recently sent all of its representatives to Georgia as a form of support. Russia remember, is highly opposed, and may see it as a threat to it's security, especially considering the planned defense system, and the oil pipeline running through Georgia.

Article at BBC "Nato restates backing for Georgia"

It has become common knowledge that "terrorists" fighting in Afghanistan are hiding out just across the border in Pakistan. The US accuses Pakistan of not doing enough to track them down, and US troops are beginning to follow the "terrorists" across the border, with no permission from Pakistan. Recently Pakistani troops fired into the air as a warning to US troops to respect Pakistan's border.

Article at BBC "Pakistan soldiers 'confront US'"

So to sum it up, we are taking Georgia's side in the Georgia-Russia conflict, despite the fact that evidence is mounting that Georgia did indeed start the conflict (but Russia did over-react, "just like the US did after 9/11"). Not only that but we are seeking to piss off Russia more by bringing Georgia into NATO (though admittedly this was planned even before the conflict).

AND we are not respecting the territorial integrity of yet another Middle Eastern country.

Does Pakistan really need step it up though? If they can fire into the air at US troops, maybe they can try firing elsewhere, right? But that is what terrorist warfare is about. They are easily concealed because they don't wear uniforms or move in big groups. And if we define a terrorist simply as someone with a weapon, then I would keep an eye on your neighbor.

The US troops know who the enemy is because they are being shot at. The Pakistani troops are not. There has to be a collaboration among the US and Pakistani troops. A sharing of intelligence. Simply barging into Pakistan territory, or assuming that the Pakistani military knows exactly what is happening across the border in Afghanistan is poor judgment.

Credits

I like to give credit where it is due. The opinions are my own but the information comes from all over the place.

Google (of course)
BBC News
CNN
Friends (you know who you are)
Youtube

It is easy to comment and criticize, it is another thing to find and report the information itself.

Russia Out of Georgia

There is an undeniable bias in the US media regarding the Russia-Georgia conflict. A good example of this was when Fox News cut a little girl from South Ossetia short after she claimed they were bombed by Georgian troops, not Russian.


The international community is still unsure about who truly started the conflict, and I think most of us can agree that Russia went over the line by invading into uncontested Georgia. However, Russian has since called Georgia's actions "Our September 11th" and points at the US actions after 9/11 (Afghanistan and Iraq) as a similar act.

Russia is pulling out of Georgia, and that is the difference here. The US still occupies Afghanistan and Iraq and has done so for years and years.

Imagine, if you will, that part of Mexico contained a lot of US citizens, so much so that this part of Mexico wants to succeed from Mexico, and possibly even join the US. Now imagine that the Mexican government tried to quell these beliefs, and perhaps began to treat people in there areas a little unfairly. Suppose the US responds by sending "Peace Keepers" to this part of Mexico, but soon violence breaks out. This is analogous to the Russia-Georgia conflict.

Russia Pulls out of Georgia Port.

First Palin Interview PART 2

Still waiting on an all-inclusive video. There are even more clips on Nightline's website, and they will air more of it tonight on Nightline, 10 PM ET on ABC.

More clips on Nightline website HERE and HERE.

See First Palin Interview for part one.

Ron Paul

I am just going to say it: I am a Ron Paul fan. He has a perspective that most politicians do not. He can truly step out of the box and see how the actions of the US are seen through the eyes of the rest of the world. He keeps telling the truth, even when nobody will agree, which in politics usually is a no-no. Ron Paul is truly "change I can believe in."

Here some examples for you.

Ron Paul predicting the Russia-Georgia conflict 6 years ago.


Ron Paul at a hearing about the Russia-Georgia conflict.

First Palin Interview

Being as non-bias as I can here, I still want to draw attention to a few things.

She did not answer questions directly, but gave rehearsed talking points. Not something new to politics, but something that should be "changed" about "Washington."

Her statement that most Vice President's had not met with heads of state before running was false, according to CNN.

Palin, and many other people's assertions that the attack on Georgia by Russia was unprovoked is completely and utterly false. Research the subject yourself. American media has been bias on this point. I suggest BBC news. Here is a good Q and A article.

On a related note, here is Matt Damon's opinions of Palin. Almost 600,000 views on that video so far, wow.

Thomas Barnett

Thomas Barnett is a brilliant man who presents the arguement for a new branch of the military who's role is to repair and rebuild. At tonights CNN Forum Obama mentioned similar ideas that reminded me of Barnett's lecture.

Well, I can't present it anywhere near as well as he can, so here is the man himself.

(Warning: long video - 25 minutes)



If you haven't seen these TED videos, I recommend them highly.

RNC 9/11 Video

When I saw this video live at the Republican National Convention, I was speechless. I myself found it to be completely horrible. People like Rudy Giuliani have been using the events of 9/11 as a talking point for years, and while with Giuliani it did get old, I did not hold any real resentment towards his use of it. He was there after all, and I guess he has the right to include that in his list of experiences.

While Giuliani's use of 9/11 might be tasteless to some, it is nothing compared to this video. I was horrified to see 9/11 used in this fashion. It really seemed like the Republicans were trying to scare viewers. I was especially horrified when the narrator said:

We remember buildings burning, bodies falling.

I was so angered by the blatant political use of this sacred day that I did not want to give it a second glance. However, it was recently announced that Keith Olbermann, who you see responding to the video with the similar attitude that I had, has lost his spot as anchor, and most are saying this comment was the main reason.

I myself think Olbermann simply told the truth, and was 100% correct. He even apologized for airing the video! I support you Keith. The rest of you can decide for yourself.

Why Do We Do What We Do?

A visual compilation of human priority.


Nasa's budget this year: 17.318 Billion Dollars.
















More than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the world population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).
















The war in Iraq costs over 12 Million Dollars per HOUR.
Iraqi boys playing "Execution." I am not bullshitting, that is what they call it.

On any given day 800,000 people are homeless in the United States, including 200,000 children in homeless families.















Oil companies made record profits so far this year, each at over 10 Billion Dollars in pure profit.














One and one-half acres of rainforest are lost every second with tragic consequences for both developing and industrial countries.





























Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000
Total number of nuclear missiles built in the US, 1951-present: 67,500
















Richest person in the world, Warren Buffet - 62 Billion Dollars.























Only 45% of Americans are satisfied with their job.














Total spent on the war on drugs in the US so far this year - 34.8 Billion Dollars.

















Estimated price of Mexico-US border fence - 49 Billion Dollars.


















State-Level lobbying annual cost (all states) - 570 Million Dollars (2 Billion Dollars for National Government lobbying).




















Large Hadron Collider to study particles - 9 Billion Dollars.


























People killed by Malaria each year in Africa - 1 to 3 Million (usually young children, 1 death every 30 seconds) Total cases per year - 350-500 Million.

Cost of anti-malarial drugs per person - between $0.25 and $2.40 per dose. (in 2002)

Economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs estimates that malaria can be controlled for US$3 billion in aid per year.

Money currently spent per year on Malaria by the US government - 2.5 Million (to WHO only).

Which McCain?

I know at least one person whom I respect greatly who is leaning McCain. His eyes haven't been glued to all the recent political news, however he is old enough to remember the "maverick" McCain of the past. Whatever you say about the McCain of today, with the exception of the Keating Five scandal (which is a big issue don't get me wrong) McCain really was a maverick in many ways. However, when push came to shove, he would depart from his maverick ways. That's how politics is. When he was a maverick, he would get less support from Republicans, more support from Independents, but still not much support from Democrats. It would add up to less votes, and when your up for re-election a lot, like senators are, they often spend much of their time pandering to voters.

Here is one example where McCain turned on his own beliefs to pander to his voters. In 2000, a confederate flag was being hung in South Carolina and it was angering many residents. When asked what the best course of action would be, McCain initially said they should take it down because it is racist. There was an uproar among Republicans, and 3 days later McCain gave a press statement saying "Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage."

Today when asked, he will simply say that it was the states decision, and will not give his own opinion about it. What happened to the old McCain? Now many of us might believe that the maverick McCain is still somewhere inside him, and that if he can only win this election, maybe his maverick side will come back. But is that a gamble we want to take, with the country in the state that it is in now? And even if that is a possibility, do we still respect a man who will lie and pander to get where he wants to be? I cannot guarantee this is fact, though it has been repeated so much by many in the media that I think it must have at least some shread of truth, but McCain supposedly did not want to choose Palin, but wanted Romney or Lieberman instead. Maybe he changed his mind at the last second, or maybe he isn't in control anymore.

Speculation aside, The Daily Show had a piece last night, where they poked fun at McCain's introduction video by making their own, and I think the video has many true examples of what I have been discussing.



More proof of my point from The Daily Show, comparing McCain and Bush's speeches.

How They Handle the Protesters

I, like most of us, like to think that my opinions are the right ones. However, unlike many I know that I can be wrong, and that the opinion of others should have just as much priority as mine.

Being humble, and listening to the opinion of others, is very important to me. So many people close their ears and minds to the other side, because they believe they are right and there is no alternative. To only listen to only one side is to condemn yourself to blissful ignorance. Only someone who hears both sides can truly make a good decision. I was careful to watch both the DNC and the RNC these past 2 weeks. Now these conventions are not a very good way to judge these candidates, because they are mostly showmanship, but even when I am beginning to prefer a candidate, it is important to me to listen to both sides.

Humbleness is something I want in my candidate, and the way protesters are treated during Obama and McCain speeches is a big clue to me as to who is willing to make informed decisions with both sides in mind, and who would rather live in blissful ignorance.


How Obama Handles Protesters
My personal favorite among these clips is this first one, where a group of black men were shouting at Obama during a speech he was giving. He promised them that there would be a Q and A session afterwards, and he would address them and let them voice their opinion then. And he did, as you see here.


How he handled abortion protesters.

Sadly those are the only two I can find. Let me know if you have more videos. Now to McCain.

How McCain Handles Protesters
The most recent example is the two protesters at the RNC during McCain's acceptance speech. The first one is an Iraq war veteran, who is protesting against the war, and against McCain's lack of attention to war veterans.


The second protester was a very important one to me, because of the response from McCain, who says "My dear friends please, please don't be diverted by the ground noise and the static," as the protester is pulled out.

Protesters in Chicago, ignored by McCain (as far as the video can tell us anyway).

Several different protesters during a single speech.

"There you go again."
(ends at 0:30, unless you want to hear an old speech).

This one was actually handled better. It is a little old though.

Another older one that was handled a little better than his current norm. What happened to McCain?

There are a few more McCain ones but I think you get the idea. I very much prefer McCain's last two, however he never addresses the protesters themselves, just the crowd after the protesters are already led out.

RIP Carol Cafferty

Community Organizers

Two nights ago Giuliani and Palin both bashed community organizers in their speeches, which came as a shock to many commentators, and had community organizers (republican and democrat) offended.

The Daily Show touched on this last night, with some more hypocrisy thrown in there.



Also in this episode, people attending the RNC were asked about Palin's qualifications after her speech. The answer to "Tell me about her qualifications" were the following, from several different people.
-"One, she's a beautiful lady."
-"She hunts and fishes, and is not afraid to get her hands dirty."
-"She's only that far (holds up fingers for a distance of a few inches) from Russia, from those eyes of Putin."
-"One of the things that I really respect about Sarah Palin is that she makes Americans feel like anyone can be President."

And when people were asked about the pregnancy controversy, one woman said.
-"Politics should stay out of people's business."
And yet Republicans want to take your choice away.....hypocritical? Yes.

More Hypocrisy UPDATE 2

I have so much respect for Jon Stewart. It is amazing to see a comedy news show delivering us better content than a 24 hour news network.

Last night The Daily Show did a segment on hypocrisy concerning Republican Vice Presidential nominee Palin.

Notice some things are mentioned that I have already discuessed myself in More Hypocrisy and More Hypocrisy UPDATE. Note how it ends with a surprisingly good line from Palin, and how well that correlates with the "shrill" argument I mentioned earlier.



In addition, during an interview later in the show (with Newt Gingrich), Jon Stewart said this:

"One serious issue that I do want to address that is sort of close to my heart; the issue of the teen pregnancy. They have said this was Bristol's decision and we should honor that. I have a daughter. The reason why I think it's fair game is; Sarah Palin is on record as saying she would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped. So what she is in essence saying; respect my family's ability to make this decision, and elect me so that I can keep your family from having the same opportunity. That strikes me as hypocrisy."

"She said it was Bristol's decision, that was their press release. It was Bristol's decision. That is another word for choice. I'm just saying, if she was president, that choice would be removed from the family and the government would make it, and that's why I think it's a legitimate issue."

EDIT:Youtube took down the video, but it is available on The Daily Show's website HERE.

Shrill

After watching Palin's speech tonight, I continued watching CNN for the commentary, and heard a message from Senator Reid, who was attacked tonight at the RNC. He said Palin's speech was "shrill" among other things. After hearing this, most of the female commentators on CNN seemed to immediately take offense, claiming that shrill is not a word that would be used to describe a man. They did not go as far as to call it sexist right-out (not initially anyway) but they did make a big deal of the word.

Some women out there are waiting for a woman vice president, or even president. They see it as some kind of step forward. However, how significant is that step if they can't be a woman in the process?

Do we have to treat Palin like a man in order to not be sexist? And if so, what does that really say about women in politics? Do we truely accept them? If we do accept them, what is wrong with describing Palin as "shrill?" I cannot think of a comparable word for a man (gruff perhaps?), but would anyone call it sexist if that comparable word was used on a man? I don't think so. The idea that a woman would find being treated like a woman sexist is simply absurd.

Did women really fight for equal rights in order to be treated just like men in every aspect of their lives? Is that truely what their goal was? Or did they simply want just as much respect as men, while still maintaining their feminism? If I was persecuted for wearing a hat, I would seek to be respected even while wearing that hat, not simply take it off and conform.

If women find being feminin sexist.......I am just lost for words. And I also wonder what the reaction would have been if another woman (Hillary for example) called Palin shrill instead of a man. Sometimes the people who think everything is sexist, are actually the ones who are being sexist.

If treating a woman differently than a man is sexist, I don't know anyone who ISN'T sexist.



The video is just the start of the commentary. As I post this, it only happened about 20-30 minutes ago so I am surprised to see even this video up. If a longer one comes up I will edit it in.

America Does a Good Job! UPDATE

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh, the 24 year old who was thrown in jail and sentenced to murder for downloading an article about woman's rights.

He finally recieved help, and after much pressure, the President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai has finally stepped forward and promised a more fair trial, and started by reducing the original sentence from penalty of death to life in prison (gee thanks Prez).  Now with a lawyer, Pervez is in his second appeal.  Hopefully he will get a trial longer than 4 minutes now (ya correction, it was 4 minutes not 5, sorry.)

Special thanks to over 100,000 people signing a petition for his release (and thats just on one website), David Miliband the British Foreign Secretary, and the long overdue attention of Condoleezza Rice.

There are rumours that Pervez has secretly gotten a passport, enabling him to flee the country if he is ever freed.  

Article from The Independent

More Hypocrisy UPDATE

Campbell Brown of CNN apparently agrees with my claim of flat-out hypocrisy on the McCain side.  

After having an interview with a McCain campaign spokesman, Tucker Bounds, in which she pointed out this hypocrisy and asked about Palin's foreign policy experience (which according to Fox, Palin has, because "Alaska is right next to Russia."  By that arguement, everyone in any border state has foreign policy experience.).  The McCain campaign was so upset by how poorly the interview went, that they asked CNN to pull it off the air. 

Luckily, CNN isn't backing down to the bully, and thanks to Youtube we can all see this interview, pulled off CNN or not.  The fact that this video has had over 200,000 views in just a little over a day gives me much pride in my fellow Americans.  I am glad to see how much many of us care.

America Does a Good Job!

"A 23-year-old student is still on death row in Afghanistan, nine months after being found guilty of blasphemy for downloading an article on women and Islam."
BBC Video
How ridiculous is that? According to the video, he was tortured during an interrogation, and his trial only lasted 5 minutes, with no lawyer.
"He has deviated from his religion, and Islam orders that he must be executed."

So what, if anything, has the U.S. military done in Afghanistan, other than kill and be killed, and unstablize the country?

Well I guess we did get some "Al-qaeda." I suppose the rest doesn't matter hu?