I know, you're tired of videos of Palin looking dumb. But, she is dumb (and REALLY inexperienced). So let's embrace that.
"Read? What? I like movies. And I'm, like, ready to be vice president because I watched Air Force One. And Harrison Ford is dreamy."
I hope McCain drops her. I'm offended as an American that he thinks she would be a good leader of the country. She insults my very being.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Did You Know...
...the Parliamant of Canada is composed of two houses.
The House of Commons is the dominant branch. Each of its 282 seats is elected from one electoral district (or "riding") by simple plurality vote. Members retain their seats until they resign or Parliament is dissolved for a new election.
The Senate's duties, on the other hand, are largely ceremonial. It is composed entirely of the winners of the most recent NHL All-Star Game and is presided over by the reigning MVP. Members of the 2008 Canadian Senate are:
The House of Commons is the dominant branch. Each of its 282 seats is elected from one electoral district (or "riding") by simple plurality vote. Members retain their seats until they resign or Parliament is dissolved for a new election.
The Senate's duties, on the other hand, are largely ceremonial. It is composed entirely of the winners of the most recent NHL All-Star Game and is presided over by the reigning MVP. Members of the 2008 Canadian Senate are:
Vincent Lecavalier - ForwardFun Fact: Though the Senate rules do not explicitly prohibit it, no woman has ever served in the Canadian Senate.
Daniel Alfredsson - Forward
Scott Gomez - Forward
Evgeni Malkin - Forward
Mar Savard - Forward
Marian Hossa - Forward
Ilya Kovalchuk - Forward
Alex Ovechkin - Forward
Mike Richards - Forward
Jason Spezza - Forward
Eric Staal - Forward (MVP)
Martin St. Louis - Forward
Andrei Markov - Defense
Zdeno Chara - Defense
Brian Campbell - Defense
Sergei Gonchar - Defense
Tomas Kaberle - Defense
Kimmo Timonen - Defense
Tim Thomas - Goaltender
Rick DiPietro - Goaltender
Tomas Vokoun - Goaltender
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sarah Palin Interview Answers
Finally, we can get answers from Sarah Palin. For some reason she seems to dodge interviews and press conferences. I bet her baby gets sick before the debate and she can't go. Oh, was that a sexist comment? Sorry about that.
Anyhow, some brilliant guy wrote a thing to create Palin interview answers from computer analysis of her speeches and statements. "The Markov chain generated answers are surprising close to her actual answers." Whatever that means. But it's great. Just the kind of incoherent babble I'd expect
Q: Why should the US elect Senator McCain?
A: John McCain has a great plan to get caught up in this terror. They need to pursue those and we have to stand for that. I see the United States, and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads us to a position like we are at a point, here, seven years later, on the table. I think that I just gave you. But, again, we've got to remember what the bailout does is help those who are hell bent on destroying our nation.
P.S. I don't like her or her stupidly large anti-choice Republican family.
Anyhow, some brilliant guy wrote a thing to create Palin interview answers from computer analysis of her speeches and statements. "The Markov chain generated answers are surprising close to her actual answers." Whatever that means. But it's great. Just the kind of incoherent babble I'd expect
Q: Why should the US elect Senator McCain?
A: John McCain has a great plan to get caught up in this terror. They need to pursue those and we have to stand for that. I see the United States, and the insurance carrier duties of AIG. But first and shoring up allies and positions and figuring out what sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads us to a position like we are at a point, here, seven years later, on the table. I think that I just gave you. But, again, we've got to remember what the bailout does is help those who are hell bent on destroying our nation.
P.S. I don't like her or her stupidly large anti-choice Republican family.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Campaign Ads after the debate
I'm going to go ahead and say that McCain's post-debate ad is stupid and yet another McCain campaign distortion of the truth.
This is the ad about how Obama said "John McCain is right" several times during the debate. Way to jump on Obama for the stupidest reason possible. Attacking his competence because of his particular debate style is really disingenuous. Here's a run-down of the quoted statements:
1) "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility." This followed McCain's comments that he would hold those on Wall Street accountable for this problem. Who wouldn't say that is rights? If Obama said "McCain is abolutely wrong," he would not be giving the wrong answer. Obama conceded a good point and moved on to say that his own plan would do the same thing, but more all the time.
I want a president who can look at other's statements and agree that something in what they said was useful. I don't want someone who will always stick to his own guns and never listen. That's led this country into a shithole over the last few years.
2) "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused." Who wouldn't disagree with McCain's statement that earmarks are bad. Obama then went on to criticize McCain's incessant ranting about earmarks when there are clearly bigger problems.
I want a president, again, who will listen. Obama's quoted statement shows that while McCain was speaking, Obama was listening. He took what McCain said and agreed, but then made his own case clear. This is a debate strategy. No reason to fight just to fight. Make your opponent feel good before you slap him down with your argument.
3) "Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right." Of course, the ad doesn't quote the next line, "Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."
The quoted line is actually just the opening part of Obama refuting McCain's claim. Obama was agreeing with the exact fact, not agreeing with McCain's point in the least. If he had disagreed with the exact fact, he would have been wrong.
This ad is more asinine campaigning by the McCain campaign than panders to the lowest common denominator. The ignorant people in America that want to believe will see the ad and say, "Wow, Obama agrees with McCain." But those that watched the debate know that not to be true.
Of course, we all know truth is not really a priority to McCain.
And thanks for the transcript from the International Herald Tribune.
This is the ad about how Obama said "John McCain is right" several times during the debate. Way to jump on Obama for the stupidest reason possible. Attacking his competence because of his particular debate style is really disingenuous. Here's a run-down of the quoted statements:
1) "Well, I think Senator McCain's absolutely right that we need more responsibility." This followed McCain's comments that he would hold those on Wall Street accountable for this problem. Who wouldn't say that is rights? If Obama said "McCain is abolutely wrong," he would not be giving the wrong answer. Obama conceded a good point and moved on to say that his own plan would do the same thing, but more all the time.
I want a president who can look at other's statements and agree that something in what they said was useful. I don't want someone who will always stick to his own guns and never listen. That's led this country into a shithole over the last few years.
2) "Well, Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused." Who wouldn't disagree with McCain's statement that earmarks are bad. Obama then went on to criticize McCain's incessant ranting about earmarks when there are clearly bigger problems.
I want a president, again, who will listen. Obama's quoted statement shows that while McCain was speaking, Obama was listening. He took what McCain said and agreed, but then made his own case clear. This is a debate strategy. No reason to fight just to fight. Make your opponent feel good before you slap him down with your argument.
3) "Now, John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he's absolutely right." Of course, the ad doesn't quote the next line, "Here's the problem: There are so many loopholes that have been written into the tax code, oftentimes with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world."
The quoted line is actually just the opening part of Obama refuting McCain's claim. Obama was agreeing with the exact fact, not agreeing with McCain's point in the least. If he had disagreed with the exact fact, he would have been wrong.
This ad is more asinine campaigning by the McCain campaign than panders to the lowest common denominator. The ignorant people in America that want to believe will see the ad and say, "Wow, Obama agrees with McCain." But those that watched the debate know that not to be true.
Of course, we all know truth is not really a priority to McCain.
And thanks for the transcript from the International Herald Tribune.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Merchant of Death
CNN reports that the U.S. is working on extraditing the "Merchant of Death", Victor Bout.
Assuming the allegations are true, I wonder under what basis the U.S. is claiming jurisdiction over the man. He is charged with supplying weapons to a wide variety of unpleasant people: the Taliban, Charles Taylor (Liberia), the RUF of Siera Leone, and the Colombian FARC. It is this last group that got him in trouble.
The U.S. State Department includes the FARC on its list of terrorist organizations, but most of the crimes they appear to have committed include drug trafficking.
Mr. Bout attempted to sell weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, to the FARC, which is how he got caught. U.S. DEA agents went undercover and posed as Colombian rebels to get the evidence in this case. They secretly recorded a meeting in Thailand where he offered to sell the weapons. Bout is charged with "conspiring to kill Americans, conspiring to kill U.S. officers or employees, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile."
Isn't this stretching our legal system a little bit?
Looking at the charges, the first two kind of bother me: "conspiring to kill Americans and conspiring to kill U.S. officers and employees." Doesn't that imply some intent? To conspire, shouldn't he have intended that the sale would result in the killing of Americans? The FARC is a revolutionary army in Colombia, trying to change the Colombian scene. Yes, U.S. forces are there with the DEA, finding drugs, and U.S. citizens have been injured, but is that really the purpose for the FARC acquiring weapons? I doubt it. So at best, I would think we could only charge Bout with recklessly endangering American citizens.
How about "conspiring to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile." Negotiating in Thailand the sale of a Russian missile to people in Colombia doesn't sound like it should incur U.S. criminal charges. Are we saying that it is a U.S. crime to use or acquire an AA missile anywhere in the world for any purpose? That seems a little outside our jurisdiction.
And, finally, "conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization." I'll give them that one. If we are going to continue the War on Terror, the U.S. needs to be even handed in crushing terrorist groups everywhere. We can't pick and choose.
So what are the options?
We could detain him as an enemy combatant in Guantanamo. That doesn't seem to fit and imagine the questions that would raise in the international community.
We could do as we are and charge him with a U.S. crime. But nothing he did directly touched the U.S. Traditionally, foreign jurisdiction for crimes has generally rested on the 1) act occurring in the U.S., 2) the accused being a U.S. citizen, or 3) the victim being a U.S. citizen. 1 and 2 are pretty well accepted. 3 is too, especially after the many terrorist attacks on U.S. interests around the world.
I don't see the Bout case fitting any of the above categories. We are now exercising Universal jurisdiction. Any act, anywhere, that we deem a crime, the U.S. now is asserting criminal jurisdiction. That's a bold claim.
I propose that we go back to the 70s in terms of international jurisdiction. Or at least the 70s of the movies. International spies running around doing covert operations against the bad people.
It sounds so much easier that this stretching of the world's collective legal imagination.
Assuming the allegations are true, I wonder under what basis the U.S. is claiming jurisdiction over the man. He is charged with supplying weapons to a wide variety of unpleasant people: the Taliban, Charles Taylor (Liberia), the RUF of Siera Leone, and the Colombian FARC. It is this last group that got him in trouble.
The U.S. State Department includes the FARC on its list of terrorist organizations, but most of the crimes they appear to have committed include drug trafficking.
Mr. Bout attempted to sell weapons, including anti-aircraft missiles, to the FARC, which is how he got caught. U.S. DEA agents went undercover and posed as Colombian rebels to get the evidence in this case. They secretly recorded a meeting in Thailand where he offered to sell the weapons. Bout is charged with "conspiring to kill Americans, conspiring to kill U.S. officers or employees, conspiring to provide material support to terrorists and conspiring to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile."
Isn't this stretching our legal system a little bit?
Looking at the charges, the first two kind of bother me: "conspiring to kill Americans and conspiring to kill U.S. officers and employees." Doesn't that imply some intent? To conspire, shouldn't he have intended that the sale would result in the killing of Americans? The FARC is a revolutionary army in Colombia, trying to change the Colombian scene. Yes, U.S. forces are there with the DEA, finding drugs, and U.S. citizens have been injured, but is that really the purpose for the FARC acquiring weapons? I doubt it. So at best, I would think we could only charge Bout with recklessly endangering American citizens.
How about "conspiring to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile." Negotiating in Thailand the sale of a Russian missile to people in Colombia doesn't sound like it should incur U.S. criminal charges. Are we saying that it is a U.S. crime to use or acquire an AA missile anywhere in the world for any purpose? That seems a little outside our jurisdiction.
And, finally, "conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization." I'll give them that one. If we are going to continue the War on Terror, the U.S. needs to be even handed in crushing terrorist groups everywhere. We can't pick and choose.
So what are the options?
We could detain him as an enemy combatant in Guantanamo. That doesn't seem to fit and imagine the questions that would raise in the international community.
We could do as we are and charge him with a U.S. crime. But nothing he did directly touched the U.S. Traditionally, foreign jurisdiction for crimes has generally rested on the 1) act occurring in the U.S., 2) the accused being a U.S. citizen, or 3) the victim being a U.S. citizen. 1 and 2 are pretty well accepted. 3 is too, especially after the many terrorist attacks on U.S. interests around the world.
I don't see the Bout case fitting any of the above categories. We are now exercising Universal jurisdiction. Any act, anywhere, that we deem a crime, the U.S. now is asserting criminal jurisdiction. That's a bold claim.
I propose that we go back to the 70s in terms of international jurisdiction. Or at least the 70s of the movies. International spies running around doing covert operations against the bad people.
It sounds so much easier that this stretching of the world's collective legal imagination.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Diagnosis
According to the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder:
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can occur after you have been through a traumatic event. A traumatic event is something horrible and scary that you see or that happens to you. During this type of event, you think that your life or others' lives are in danger. You may feel afraid or feel that you have no control over what is happening.The United States has had PTSD for 7 years now. It's time we sought some help for it.Anyone who has gone through a life-threatening event can develop PTSD. These events can include:
- Combat or military exposure
- Child sexual or physical abuse
- Terrorist attacks
- Sexual or physical assault
- Serious accidents, such as a car wreck.
- Natural disasters, such as a fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, or earthquake.
After the event, you may feel scared, confused, or angry. If these feelings don't go away or they get worse, you may have PTSD. These symptoms may disrupt your life, making it hard to continue with your daily activities.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Procreation? What for?
So, I was helping a friend out with some high school science homework at the bar last night when in the midst of the module about asexual and sexual reproduction I encountered a surprisingly deep question. It was:
You see, there is no purpose for reproduction.
To see why, take a moment to follow me down the garden path.... Suppose there is a table in front of you with a bunch of objects on it. These objects do lots of things for no particular reason. Think of them as little robots. Some make noise. Some have flashing lights. Some bounce up and down. Some construct sculptures. And some make more objects like themselves.
Next, suppose that the table, though rather large, has a finite area and a very definite edge. Occasionally some of the little objects, particularly the ones that move around a lot, fall off the edge, and from time to time objects get accidentally bumped off by other objects.
In this hypothetical scenario with dumb little robots, what happens over time? Well, if you wait long enough, there is a day in the future when none of the robots you started with will be on the table. In the long run, if there is a finite risk that any particular robot will fall over the edge, then eventually any robot will fall off the edge.
So does this mean that there won’t be any robots left on the table? Not necessarily. Remember that some of those first robots made more robots. Maybe some of those newer robots will still be on the table on the day that the last of the original robots falls off.
Of course, even the little robots that were made by other little robots are subject to the cold math of the Edge, but that doesn’t imply that the table will be empty if you wait even longer. Rather, if any one of these little robots makes more robots, as long as some of those make more robots, and as long as the robots make more robots faster than they fall off the table, you may never run out of robots.
In fact, the table is bound to fill up with robots and overflow onto the floor even faster. These robots still might do all sorts of things (blink, beep, jump, etc.), but one thing is for sure, they are all descendants of robot making robots, and many of them (perhaps most or all) will be robot making robots themselves. In fact, over time, the average ability of the robots to make more robots, and the sophistication of strategies of avoiding the edge will increase exponentially.
So, what does this have to do with the purpose of reproduction? Well, which of these robots had a purpose to its actions? None - these robots are machines. They just do what they do. Is a robot that blinks any better than a robot that bounces? Is one happier? No – they don’t even know what they’re doing.
The only thing that is special about reproduction is that systems of populations tend toward populations that reproduce. This is true regardless of whether the elements of the population are capable of even intending to reproduce. Plants, animals, viruses, genes, memes, business plans all create or inspire copies of themselves without really meaning to.
People understand this, I suppose, but they also make the mistake of assigning purpose to the activity. I do it too. (I used the word “strategies” with some timidity three paragraphs ago.) Along the way, people also think of reproduction as success, even though it isn’t. It isn't failure either. Reproduction just is. It is the activity that, by definition, still is later. If a robot, descendant from a long line of reproducing robots was made so it didn’t reproduce, but did handstands instead, would it have somehow failed? No, because it had no more or less intent to make more robots (or do handstands for that matter) than its parent had to make more robots. They all just do what they do.
You might say, “People are different. We are not robots. We intend to do things. We do things for purposes.” I won’t disagree that we are different, but you must agree that the system is the same. The reason most folks think it is important to have kids is because we are all the product of that impulse, and most folks were built with that impulse. But that doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t mean someone is any better or worse for doing something different (or doing the same, for that matter). They’re just doing what they do.
So, what’s the purpose of reproduction? Beats me. I don't know any better than a robot.
What is the purpose of reproduction?I’m sure whoever wrote the question intended it to be pretty straight forward, but having just looked through the module on anatomical evidence supporting the theory of evolution, I couldn’t see past the mistaken premise of the question.
You see, there is no purpose for reproduction.
To see why, take a moment to follow me down the garden path.... Suppose there is a table in front of you with a bunch of objects on it. These objects do lots of things for no particular reason. Think of them as little robots. Some make noise. Some have flashing lights. Some bounce up and down. Some construct sculptures. And some make more objects like themselves.
Next, suppose that the table, though rather large, has a finite area and a very definite edge. Occasionally some of the little objects, particularly the ones that move around a lot, fall off the edge, and from time to time objects get accidentally bumped off by other objects.
In this hypothetical scenario with dumb little robots, what happens over time? Well, if you wait long enough, there is a day in the future when none of the robots you started with will be on the table. In the long run, if there is a finite risk that any particular robot will fall over the edge, then eventually any robot will fall off the edge.
So does this mean that there won’t be any robots left on the table? Not necessarily. Remember that some of those first robots made more robots. Maybe some of those newer robots will still be on the table on the day that the last of the original robots falls off.
Of course, even the little robots that were made by other little robots are subject to the cold math of the Edge, but that doesn’t imply that the table will be empty if you wait even longer. Rather, if any one of these little robots makes more robots, as long as some of those make more robots, and as long as the robots make more robots faster than they fall off the table, you may never run out of robots.
In fact, the table is bound to fill up with robots and overflow onto the floor even faster. These robots still might do all sorts of things (blink, beep, jump, etc.), but one thing is for sure, they are all descendants of robot making robots, and many of them (perhaps most or all) will be robot making robots themselves. In fact, over time, the average ability of the robots to make more robots, and the sophistication of strategies of avoiding the edge will increase exponentially.
So, what does this have to do with the purpose of reproduction? Well, which of these robots had a purpose to its actions? None - these robots are machines. They just do what they do. Is a robot that blinks any better than a robot that bounces? Is one happier? No – they don’t even know what they’re doing.
The only thing that is special about reproduction is that systems of populations tend toward populations that reproduce. This is true regardless of whether the elements of the population are capable of even intending to reproduce. Plants, animals, viruses, genes, memes, business plans all create or inspire copies of themselves without really meaning to.
People understand this, I suppose, but they also make the mistake of assigning purpose to the activity. I do it too. (I used the word “strategies” with some timidity three paragraphs ago.) Along the way, people also think of reproduction as success, even though it isn’t. It isn't failure either. Reproduction just is. It is the activity that, by definition, still is later. If a robot, descendant from a long line of reproducing robots was made so it didn’t reproduce, but did handstands instead, would it have somehow failed? No, because it had no more or less intent to make more robots (or do handstands for that matter) than its parent had to make more robots. They all just do what they do.
You might say, “People are different. We are not robots. We intend to do things. We do things for purposes.” I won’t disagree that we are different, but you must agree that the system is the same. The reason most folks think it is important to have kids is because we are all the product of that impulse, and most folks were built with that impulse. But that doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t mean someone is any better or worse for doing something different (or doing the same, for that matter). They’re just doing what they do.
So, what’s the purpose of reproduction? Beats me. I don't know any better than a robot.
The Dems need to step it up
I'm feeling ranty today. I'm getting really tired of the Democrats and Obama not fighting like they want to actually win. I love Obama. He's exactly what I think this country needs in a president: he's can speak intelligently without looking like a jackass, he is a really intelligent person, he's got international experience and awareness, and he's a great motivator and organizer.
I hate Bush's smirk. Bush's speeches always remind me of Henny Youngman , the King of the One Liners. "Take my wife, please!" *laughter and applause* "Liberals think we're not winning in Iraq!" *smirk and applause* No that was not an exact or real quote, but you get the idea. McCain has the same stupid speaking style. One liners and he's got the stupid smirk. A politician smirking makes me think two things: he's already rigged the election and he's really just pandering for applause. Obama doesn't smirk. When he speaks, he says stuff. This is great.
And it is bad. Obama doesn't create the soundbites. He doesn't have that one-liner style that forces the audience to get up and cheer for him after everything he says. When Obama speaks, you listen to the whole thing and it makes you think. He doesn't get the laughs for the one-liners, he makes you appreciate the whole thing. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans seem to have short attention spans and really can only appreciate "The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip."
And a brief aside on Obama's international experience. Republicans on one hand say Obama has NO foreign policy experience, then they bash him because he lived in Indonesia as a child, saying he is not American enough. You know what? Living abroad as a child helps develop a broad understanding of different cultures and a great mind for cooperation internationally. McCain's experience seems to be based on the fact that he spent a few years in the 60s bombing the shit out of Vietnamese. Then he got to enjoy the inside of a prison. Foreign policy based on blowing up foreigners and seeking revenge for years locked in a box isn't likely to be that great.
Palin has no experience other than living near Russia (that's a bullshit response). Her experience is a lot more like Bush's. Bush governed near Mexico, but had never travelled abroad before becoming president. Palin had to apply for a passport in 2007 to visit troops in Kuwait and Germany. At least Bush governed a state with a diverse population. I would love to have a president who's at least traveled a bit. Obama has done that. He hasn't performed international negotiations or anything else, but at least people around the world like him.
Back to my point.
Ok, so back to my point, if I have one. Obama and the Dems need to step it up. A lot. They've got a great candidate in Obama (and a reliable guy in Biden). They just are not fighting the way they need to. Winning candidates show that they are ready to fight for what they want. McCain's doing that. He's ready to contradict his previous statements and say what people want him to say. McCain didn't have the support of the far right conservatives, so he chose a redneck as his vice presidential candidate. She got the votes.
The latest from the McCain camp is a new ad blasting Obama for his sexist comments about Palin. McCain's campaign is claiming that Obama called Palin a Pig with Lipstick. That's a funny image...
The context of Obama's comment has nothing to do with Palin (directly): "That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." But McCain's campaign wants to suck every bit of sympathy that they can out of Palin. She's a woman so Obama should be nice, and McCain wants to look like he will protect the women. Not that that concept isn't a bit paternalistic and demeaning to women, generally.
On the other hand, McCain used the same stupid pig in lipstick phrase to bash Hillary and has used it many times. But when Obama says it, it's sexist and McCain wants an apology.
Obama, two bits of advice for you. First, NEVER use this phrase. It should only ever be muttered by someone in Appalachia. McCain and Palin are working to corner the redneck market. Good for them. Use reaosnable, less creepy phrases. Second, fight back. Don't get on your speechifying stump and give one of your great speeches. Put together something that shows how sexist McCain is. I know you can find good clips. But fight back. This is the sort of stupid shit that people get worked up over.
I guess I'm just exhausted by this election already. I keep seeing McCain use low-brow campaign tactics and I keep seeing them work. Then Obama is staying above the fray, which I do appreciate, but it makes him look like he isn't fighting for it.
I would love to see Obama keep up his goodguy image and not stoop to McCain's level. If you have to give up your ethics to win, sometimes it isn't worth it. But McCain's contradictory tactics are working for him, look at the polls. I hope it backfires, but I don't think it will until Obama comes out swinging. Or maybe some independent Dem should start swiftboating the fuck out of McCain without Obama's approval. But somewhere or another, the Dems need to go on the offensive and stop assumign that Obama's intelligent discussion of the issues is going to win.
As a friend of mine recently said, "The last two elections, and this one incrasingly, have shown that you can bring up all the issues you want to, but that mudslinging works." While I would hate to promote the idea that the ends justify the means, I think some additional means should be used to prevent another Bush term.
I hate Bush's smirk. Bush's speeches always remind me of Henny Youngman , the King of the One Liners. "Take my wife, please!" *laughter and applause* "Liberals think we're not winning in Iraq!" *smirk and applause* No that was not an exact or real quote, but you get the idea. McCain has the same stupid speaking style. One liners and he's got the stupid smirk. A politician smirking makes me think two things: he's already rigged the election and he's really just pandering for applause. Obama doesn't smirk. When he speaks, he says stuff. This is great.
And it is bad. Obama doesn't create the soundbites. He doesn't have that one-liner style that forces the audience to get up and cheer for him after everything he says. When Obama speaks, you listen to the whole thing and it makes you think. He doesn't get the laughs for the one-liners, he makes you appreciate the whole thing. Unfortunately, the majority of Americans seem to have short attention spans and really can only appreciate "The horse I bet on was so slow, the jockey kept a diary of the trip."
And a brief aside on Obama's international experience. Republicans on one hand say Obama has NO foreign policy experience, then they bash him because he lived in Indonesia as a child, saying he is not American enough. You know what? Living abroad as a child helps develop a broad understanding of different cultures and a great mind for cooperation internationally. McCain's experience seems to be based on the fact that he spent a few years in the 60s bombing the shit out of Vietnamese. Then he got to enjoy the inside of a prison. Foreign policy based on blowing up foreigners and seeking revenge for years locked in a box isn't likely to be that great.
Palin has no experience other than living near Russia (that's a bullshit response). Her experience is a lot more like Bush's. Bush governed near Mexico, but had never travelled abroad before becoming president. Palin had to apply for a passport in 2007 to visit troops in Kuwait and Germany. At least Bush governed a state with a diverse population. I would love to have a president who's at least traveled a bit. Obama has done that. He hasn't performed international negotiations or anything else, but at least people around the world like him.
Back to my point.
Ok, so back to my point, if I have one. Obama and the Dems need to step it up. A lot. They've got a great candidate in Obama (and a reliable guy in Biden). They just are not fighting the way they need to. Winning candidates show that they are ready to fight for what they want. McCain's doing that. He's ready to contradict his previous statements and say what people want him to say. McCain didn't have the support of the far right conservatives, so he chose a redneck as his vice presidential candidate. She got the votes.
The latest from the McCain camp is a new ad blasting Obama for his sexist comments about Palin. McCain's campaign is claiming that Obama called Palin a Pig with Lipstick. That's a funny image...
The context of Obama's comment has nothing to do with Palin (directly): "That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." But McCain's campaign wants to suck every bit of sympathy that they can out of Palin. She's a woman so Obama should be nice, and McCain wants to look like he will protect the women. Not that that concept isn't a bit paternalistic and demeaning to women, generally.
On the other hand, McCain used the same stupid pig in lipstick phrase to bash Hillary and has used it many times. But when Obama says it, it's sexist and McCain wants an apology.
Obama, two bits of advice for you. First, NEVER use this phrase. It should only ever be muttered by someone in Appalachia. McCain and Palin are working to corner the redneck market. Good for them. Use reaosnable, less creepy phrases. Second, fight back. Don't get on your speechifying stump and give one of your great speeches. Put together something that shows how sexist McCain is. I know you can find good clips. But fight back. This is the sort of stupid shit that people get worked up over.
I guess I'm just exhausted by this election already. I keep seeing McCain use low-brow campaign tactics and I keep seeing them work. Then Obama is staying above the fray, which I do appreciate, but it makes him look like he isn't fighting for it.
I would love to see Obama keep up his goodguy image and not stoop to McCain's level. If you have to give up your ethics to win, sometimes it isn't worth it. But McCain's contradictory tactics are working for him, look at the polls. I hope it backfires, but I don't think it will until Obama comes out swinging. Or maybe some independent Dem should start swiftboating the fuck out of McCain without Obama's approval. But somewhere or another, the Dems need to go on the offensive and stop assumign that Obama's intelligent discussion of the issues is going to win.
As a friend of mine recently said, "The last two elections, and this one incrasingly, have shown that you can bring up all the issues you want to, but that mudslinging works." While I would hate to promote the idea that the ends justify the means, I think some additional means should be used to prevent another Bush term.
The Bridge to Nowhere
View Larger Map
So, there's all kinds of talk lately about Sarah Palin's support (or opposition) to the Bridge to Nowhere. I imagine most people don't know what or where this bridge was supposed to be and probably don't know how amazingly stupid the idea was. Ketchikan, Alaska is a beautiful little town in Southeast Alaska, a couple hours north of Seattle. The town was once predominantly a fishing community with a cannery or two and a lot of commercial vessels based there. There's still that, but the town has moved to being a tourist town. The salmon and halibut fishing is great in the area, so there's a lot of fishing tours out of Ketchikan. Additionally, many cruise ships either begin there or dock there at some point during their journey to peruse the old town area's charming shops and massive souvenir markets. Probably most important though is Ketchikan is home to an (international) airport that can land larger planes, so it is a great base point to anywhere you might need to travel in Southeast Alaska.
The "problem" with the airport is that it is based on an island seperate from the island Ketchikan is on. The news says the Bridge to Nowhere was going to connect the two, never mentioning how close they are or the infrastructure built up to get people form the airport ot where they need to go. You really have a few options. First, many people (and companies) in Ketchikan have boats and they can dock at the airport island. Second, float planes might pick you up from the island to take you directly to one of the more remote islands. Finally, and most importantly, there is a ferry that runs about every 15 (or 30) minutes from one side to the other.
The ferry costs 5 bucks or so per person and the ride is a whole 5 minutes. Look at the photo to the right there. To the road to the right of the image is the ferry at the airport. On the far shore, at the very left edge of the photo, is the ferry loading zone in Ketchikan. This is not a far distance. This ferry is very convenient, fast, and for many tourists (me) it is a charming entrance to the town.
But people want a bridge because it is easier and faster. When I'm going on vacation to a great fishing town, speed and efficiency are not really MY highest priorities. Maybe I'm just weird though.
Ok, so why would the Bridge to Nowhere be a REALLY stupid thing? And why would it cost so damned much money? Why should anyone with half a brain say it would be more trouble that it is worth? Because that little channel between Ketchikan and the airport island is a heavily traveled channel.
View Larger Map
In that map, do you see the large cruise ships docked at Ketchikan? Do you see the variety of smaller vessels moving about? I think I mentioned float planes at some point. How about the large ferries that run through there on the Alaska Marine Highway connecting other outlying islands? The point is, this is a busy channel that needs to have room for large vessels. A bridge over it would have to either be REALLY tall or a very significant drawbridge. It would hamper vessel traffic. It would be dangerous for the bazillion float planes that use the area. It would be really, really dumb. There is no reason to spend that much money to build a bridge to avoid a 5 minute ferry ride to the airport.
If Sarah Palin ever supported this stupid project then she is either:
a) a complete idiot, and/or
b) a wasteful spender who likes to throw taxpayer's money away on things she knows nothing about.
I hope this was educational in some way. I know a lot of people are talking about the Bridge, but most people don't seem to know what it is. I thought I would explain, with pictures.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)