Today I met a real live racist

I had two goals today - to buy an iMac for my children (been saving up forever), and watch tonight's debate between Obama and McCain.

I did all of the usual things - go to the store, point to the machine I wanted, told what warrantees I wanted (and which I didn't). The problem started when I ran my bank card through the machine, and was declined (even though I had more than enough money in my checking account).

Then came - the racism.

Me: I'm hoping to get out of here in time so I can go watch the debates. Especially with all of the nastiness Palin has been spreading around.

Salesguy: Oh, I like her. Besides, Obama kind of scares me.

Me: Really.

Usually when I hear "Obama scares me", I get an earful about "most liberal senator" or some other stuff.

Me: How so?

Salesguy: I've noticed he's been revealing more of his true Muslim nature.

I nearly froze. I had my phone to my ear while my bank tried to figure out why my purchase didn't go through.

Me: Oh, yeah. I mean - heaven forbid. We certainly wouldn't want a Muslim to have any government office. No - wait, that would be a horribly racist thing to say.

Salesguy: Oh, I don't think so - they're dangerous!

At that moment, the bank took me off of hold. Turns out I had to purchase the computer as an "debit" not "credit". Oh. Silly me.

I made my purchase, and the sales guy walked me out with my purchase to the car. And the whole time, I kept thinking - he looks so normal. I would never think the guy was a racist.

I 've never really met racism. I mean, I've heard a racist joke - the old Polish jokes when I was a kid, but I've never met someone who really thought bad things about a person because of their religion or ethnic background.

Actually, that's not entirely true. I remember as a teen being told by others that I didn't believe in Jesus because I was Mormon - even though the name "The Church of Jesus Christ" it put in big metal letters on the side of our buildings. But people never thought that I was a danger should I ever run for office, or that my "family history" should preclude me from ever doing anything in public.

I now regret not saying something more, making how offended I was clear. Or perhaps being more forceful. Or even canceling my purchase. I didn't - I just walked away.

Did the longer primary help Obama after all?

I remember during the Democratic primary, there was hand wringing that the long primary battle against Senator Clinton would cause eventual harm to the Obama campaign. Would Democrats be able to join together and put bitter feelings aside? Would the attacks Senator Clinton leveled against Senator Obama come back to hurt him?

It turns out the answers are Yes and Yes. So far, Democrats have "come home", nearly all of the Clinton supporters backing the Illinois senator. But now we're starting to see the return of some of her attacks - particular the questions about Obama's patriotism regarding his former Reverend Wright and local neighbor William Ayers.

The McCain campaign launched a new attack the boils down to "Who is the real Barack Obama? The charges are to try to paint Obama as an outsider. Do you know he "pals around with terrorists"?

There's just one problem: it won't work.

See, people by now remember the long, protracted primary, and the accusations using Wright and Ayers and Rezko. And in the end, it all came down to nothing. The media investigated, reported, and - not much there if you go by the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times.

The main crux of the attack is that "Obama isn't really patriotic". But for almost 2 years now, the American public has seen him speaking, talking, appearing at debates. To suddenly accept that Obama is "paling with terrorists" is going to be hard for anyone but the most dedicated of the 25-percenters (those who support Bush and the Republicans no matter what).

And all along the way, the Obama campaign team has been prepared to push back, and push back hard, against any attacks on Obama's patriotism and origins. Perhaps if Obama was more like Kerry, and trusted that people would just "know the truth." Perhaps if Obama had been more erratic during the campaign and kept changing his message of "change you can believe in".

Perhaps if the primaries had been short, and now was the first time you've heard about this Obama guy with the funny name. For McCain to try this attack now, with 30 days to go - it's too little, too late. People's opinions of each man's characters has been set, and all that's left now is to either battle on the issues, or try to take the other guy down with you.

Seeing as McCain's negatives are higher than Obama's, in a mud fight, it's McCain who will wind up the pig needing the most lipstick.

Obama's Google versus McCain's Yahoo

The Complaint

Earlier today, the Republican party filed a complaint to the Federal Election Committee (FEC) (warning, PDF link) about the Obama for America campaign.

The complaint goes like this:

1. A Newsmax article (which is like saying "A Fox news story, which means it's totally biased but you should believe it anyway) says that the Obama has gotten donations from some 11,500 foreign nationals.

2. If this is true, there a chance that the nearly 2 million people who have contributed to the Obama campaign might be illegally donating, since nobody's going to check a donation of $199 and below.

3. Therefore, we think that a lot of those those donations for the Obama campaign must be illegally done, since nobody could have almost 2 million people donating to their campaign.

Now, ignoring that the claims seem pretty flimsy so far, there is the basic complaint in the Republican party's complaint that really boils down to this:

Wah! Obama's getting more money than us, and that's impossible - we're richer1 Wah!

Yahoo versus Google

A year or two ago, I remember hearing an interview with the Yahoo CTO, and he was asked the question "How did Google beat you?"

I'm paraphrasing here, but the answer was "We tried to collect $1,000,000 from 10 peole like Ford, Bank of America, and so on. Google figured out it could collect $10 from 1,000,000 - and the were right."

In a lot of ways, this is the heart as to why the Obama campaign has been able to outperform its competitors. Senator Clinton started the primaries with more money - nearly $100 million dollars. Obama had to rely on smaller donations. But his campaign soon learned that 1 million people can give $25 - and do it again month after month.

Obama pulled a Google to Clinton's Yahoo. She had bigger donors - he had more of them.

In many ways, the McCain campaign has seen the same issue. They had richer people, but Obama was able to gather more. It's a model that's changing politics in a big way - and it's not just about the money.

When someone contributes that $25, they're now personally invested. They have a stake in that person winning, so they're more likely to follow the news. More likely to watch the debates and talk about it with friends. More likely to volunteer, even once. When you have 2,000,000 people donate to your campaign, that's one sizable army you can rally to your cause at a moment's notice - all that have a reason for you to win.

Central Control versus Public Control

The other difference between Yahoo and Google wasn't just in how they raised money - Google through smaller, focused ads while Yahoo sought the big commercial investments.

It was also about local control versus user control. In the original Yahoo, the Internet was divided into categories - like "Entertainment", "Business", "Technical", and so on. Then each each category was devided further, so something in Entertainment might be in "Movies", or "Television", or "Games", or "Cinema", and so on.

The problem was that this system required you have "experts" decide what went where. When the Internet was small, this was easy enough. But as the number of web pages grew, this became a nearly impossible task.

On top of that, what if the experts didn't put things where you expected to find them? What made something into "movie" versus "cinema"? What if you were looking for information about the movie "Momento", so you looked under "movies", and never saw the wealth of links about it in "cinema"?

Google took a different approach. It didn't rely on "experts" to assign things - it let people assign their own categories based on what they did. If you put a link to your web page with the word "movies" for Momento, people would find it just as if someone else put in "cinema".

Now, look again at the McCain campaign versus the Obama campaign. Obama is known for his big rallies (leading to the McCain campaign calling him the "biggest celebrity in the world").

But that wasn't the strength of the Obama campaign. It was the legions of local volunteers, organized through the web page. Looking for a local Obama event to make fliers or go door to door looking for voters? Go to the web page, put in your zip code, and there you go. It relied less on paid campaign managers, and more on the people who might only be able to volunteer once a month, or once a week - but add up the numbers, and soon you have a group that vastly outnumbers the paid McCain staff.

The McCain campaign has been more heavy run - rely on TV ads and media communications, while the Obama campaign has been able to use those local volunteers to get out the word quickly, move to action, then be ready for the next need - or, more likely then not, move on their own.

Perhaps that's why the RNC can't understand how Obama got so much money, so they believe it *has* to be through deceit. The alternative is to discover that they don't speak for the American people as they've claimed for the last 30 years - and now the people are funding - and speaking - for themselves.

McCain voted against punishing domestic terrorists

Remember, kids - it's not terrorism if you bomb abortion clinics, or if you're white. Terrorism is only for those dark skinned folks - or so McCain's voting record indicates.

McCain: What Keating 5 scandal?

McCain's latest claim is he never did anything wrong in the Keating 5 scandal.

This after the Arizona Senator admitted that the Keating 5 scandal was his "the most difficult experience in my political life". Now, evidently, it didn't really happen that way.

Sometimes, it moves you

Saturday I was going door to door with a list of names to make sure they were registered to vote. The way it was suppose to work is I ask them who they want to vote for. If they say "Obama", I ask them to volunteer. If they say anyone else, I say "Ok - cool - but Obama's cool."

Then I make sure they're registered to vote, that they know about early voting, and they know when election day is. For the most part, everybody was registered. Lots of Obama supporters, a few "I don't know", but more than anything else, houses with people not home.

Probably the funniest house was the guy who came to the door saying "Heeeeeyyyy, man!"

"Hi, I'm John Hummel." I shook his hand - I made a point of shaking everyone's hands, so they knew I wasn't creepy. "I'm an Obama campaign volunteer making sure people in the area are registered."

"Woah. Dude - I am so drunk right now, I'll fill out anything you want me to." He was a very happy, friendly drunk guy as it turned out. I just left the voter registration form with him, and move on.

It was the last house that everything changed. Turns out I had the wrong house - I was looking for one that ended in a 1, and I stopped at the house that ended at 7 by mistake. Turns out that was the best thing.

I knocked on the door, gave my spiel, and was ready to go home when I heard "Oh my God - you're here to register us to vote!"

I had a Palin-caught-in-a-Katie-Couric look in my eyes. "Um - yes."

"Oh, come on in."

It turns out the house had nearly four generations - a little baby, the mother, the grandmother matriarch of the home, and three older people who had been born in the 1920's.

Three people who had waited 75 years of their life to vote in this election for the first time. The family was mainly African American, save for the youngest generation which was mixed. And those older people, who could barely walk, one was nearly blind, were so excited that I had come to register them to vote so they could vote for Senator Obama.

So I did. I filled out the information, and in slow, laborious hands, they signed their name so they could vote for the first time in their lives. And while I was there, the matriarch of the home was on the phone, calling her relatives, making sure they knew they had to get registered before Monday. And what else could they do - they wanted to volunteer because things were getting bad out there, and they wanted to help.

Just when I think that these little efforts don't matter, something like this happens. For you volunteers out there who try to find housing for the homeless, or services to the sick, serving in the PTA, or even just helping people vote - your work matters.

In the End, This is All They Have Left

And So, At the End, This is All They Have Left

We have now entered the last 30 days of the election, and let's see what we're seeing rolled out by the McCain campaign and the Republican party members.

Minority lending caused all of our problems. If the poor, innocent banks hadn't been *forced* to make loans to minorities, we wouldn't be in the situation we're now in.

Of course, this ignores the massive deregulation given to the financial market who were given loans far and above any federal requirement to use the FHA loan program to help the poor and minorities find a house. It ignores that the definition of a "sub-prime loan" is practically "one that Fannie/Freddie Mac wouldn't buy" (until the situation started to turn into a crisis, so they did – and then they fell).

Real estate agents putting up signs saying Osama-Obama not welcome here.

Remember, if you're name is one letter off of someone else's, you must be related somehow. I can understand the problem – whenever I see the word "Bush", I think "Bust", and then I wonder what size bra he must wear.

White supremacist group spreading anti-obama fliers.

The argument is "countries with black leaders have more problems, therefore so will America". Which is like saying "Asian people are more likely to eat rice, so if you start eating rice, you'll become Asian".

Now, you could discount a lot of these as just the racist rantings of individuals. And let's face it - there's a lot of stupid people out there spouting off their mouths (incredibly, some of them get paid by Fox News).

Then we get to the McCain campaign. It started pretty simple - what I'd called "image racism". There's an advertisement from the McCain campaign trying to tie Senator Obama to a man named Frank Raines.



Of all of these, the last one rather insidious. What's the connection to Obama and Raines? Well, Raines worked at Fannie Mae. The Obama campaign had a telephone conversation with him. And what else -

Oh. That's right – they're both black. And they're going to victimize that poor white woman looking sad in the advertisement. Maybe they're going to jump her in the park or something. But other than the color of their skin, there's not a whole heck of a lot that ties the two men together.

But hey - it wasn't directly said by McCain campaign people. Just in the ad. Until Governor Palin said Senator Obama "pals around with terrorists".

Even though, so far every investigation has pretty much concluded "Well, they live in the same neighborhood, once worked at the same charity, and Ayers once raised some money – but that's about it. They never "paled around", Obama has always condemned Ayers actions."

I think Mike Murphy said something this morning that I think is relevant: if Ayers was a runaway CEO on Wall Street, then people might give a care today.

But the point is: this is all the McCain campaign has left. Polls overwhelmingly show Obama is ranked higher on the economy. On domestic issues. McCain and Obama now tie on who would handle Iraq better.

So what's left for McCain to run on? Character. McCain and Palin want to paint Obama as an "unknown" (even though he's been in the public eye for nearly every day for the last 2 years). He's untrustworthy - though it's been McCain and Palin are more known for their negative, lying ads.

But what else can they do? When you can't run on your record as a deregulator, on your record on being wrong about starting the war in Iraq versus finding the terrorists in Afghanistan - all you've got left is racism and smear.

How many times did Palin deflect the question?

One thing I noticed in last night's Palin/Biden was how often Palin deflected the question, or even answered a question that wasn't answered. Let's count:

1: Health care? No - let's talk about tax increases.

IFILL: Governor, please if you want to respond to what he said about Sen. McCain's comments about health care?

PALIN: I would like to respond about the tax increases. We can speak in agreement here that darn right we need tax relief for Americans so that jobs can be created here. Now, Barack Obama and Sen. Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times.

Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.

1.5: I'm might not answer the questions the moderator wants to hear:

IFILL: Would you like to have an opportunity to answer that before we move on?

PALIN: I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again. And I want to let you know what I did as a mayor and as a governor. And I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also. As mayor, every year I was in office I did reduce taxes. I eliminated personal property taxes and eliminated small business inventory taxes and as governor we suspended our state fuel tax. We did all of those things knowing that that is how our economy would be heated up. Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for though. Look at the tobacco industry. Look at campaign finance reform.

2. Let's talk the bailout plan - or energy, I guess:

IFILL: What promises -- given the events of the week, the bailout plan, all of this, what promises have you and your campaigns made to the American people that you're not going to be able to keep?

...

PALIN: Well, the nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group, including his plans that will make this bailout plan, this rescue plan, even better.

I want to go back to the energy plan, though, because this is -- this is an important one that Barack Obama, he voted for in '05.

Sen. Biden, you would remember that, in that energy plan that Obama voted for, that's what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks. Your running mate voted for that.

You know what I had to do in the state of Alaska? I had to take on those oil companies and tell them, "No," you know, any of the greed there that has been kind of instrumental, I guess, in their mode of operation, that wasn't going to happen in my state.

And that's why Tillerson at Exxon and Mulva at ConocoPhillips, bless their hearts, they're doing what they need to do, as corporate CEOs, but they're not my biggest fans, because what I had to do up there in Alaska was to break up a monopoly up there and say, you know, the people are going to come first and we're going to make sure that we have value given to the people of Alaska with those resources.

And those huge tax breaks aren't coming to the big multinational corporations anymore, not when it adversely affects the people who live in a state and, in this case, in a country who should be benefiting at the same time.

So it was Barack Obama who voted for that energy plan that gave those tax breaks to the oil companies that I then had to turn around, as a governor of an energy-producing state, and kind of undo in my own area of expertise, and that's energy.

3. When did Biden talk about energy regarding bankruptcy?

IFILL: Next question, Gov. Palin, still on the economy. Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. This is something that John McCain supported. Would you have?

BIDEN: Well, mortgage-holders didn't pay the price. Only 10 percent of the people who are -- have been affected by this whole switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 -- it gets complicated.

But the point of this -- Barack Obama saw the glass as half- empty. I saw it as half-full. We disagreed on that, and 85 senators voted one way, and 15 voted the other way.

But here's the deal. Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, "You'd better get on the stick here. You'd better look at it."

John McCain said as early as last December, quote -- I'm paraphrasing -- "I'm surprised about this subprime mortgage crisis," number one.

Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.

That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under. But John McCain, as I understand it -- I'm not sure of this, but I believe John McCain and the governor don't support that.

There are ways to help people now. And there -- ways that we're offering are not being supported by -- by the Bush administration nor do I believe by John McCain and Gov. Palin.

IFILL: Gov. Palin, is that so?

PALIN: That is not so, but because that's just a quick answer, I want to talk about, again, my record on energy versus your ticket's energy ticket, also.

I think that this is important to come back to, with that energy policy plan again that was voted for in '05.

When we talk about energy, we have to consider the need to do all that we can to allow this nation to become energy independent.

It's a nonsensical position that we are in when we have domestic supplies of energy all over this great land. And East Coast politicians who don't allow energy-producing states like Alaska to produce these, to tap into them, and instead we're relying on foreign countries to produce for us.

PALIN: We're circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America -- they certainly don't have our best interests at heart -- instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.

Energy independence is the key to this nation's future, to our economic future, and to our national security. So when we talk about energy plans, it's not just about who got a tax break and who didn't. And we're not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it's about a heck of a lot more than that.

Energy independence is the key to America's future.

4. What's you're greatest weakness? Or - we can talk energy policy.

IFILL: Let's talk conventional wisdom for a moment. The conventional wisdom, Gov. Palin with you, is that your Achilles heel is that you lack experience. Your conventional wisdom against you is that your Achilles heel is that you lack discipline, Sen. Biden. What id it really for you, Gov. Palin? What is it really for you, Sen. Biden? Start with you, governor.

PALIN: My experience as an executive will be put to good use as a mayor and business owner and oil and gas regulator and then as governor of a huge state, a huge energy producing state that is accounting for much progress towards getting our nation energy independence and that's extremely important.

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills? About times and Todd and our marriage in our past where we didn't have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care? We've been there also so that connection was important.

But even more important is that world view that I share with John McCain. That world view that says that America is a nation of exceptionalism. And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope and that we are unapologetic here. We are not perfect as a nation. But together, we represent a perfect ideal. And that is democracy and tolerance and freedom and equal rights. Those things that we stand for that can be put to good use as a force for good in this world.

John McCain and I share that. You combine all that with being a team with the only track record of making a really, a difference in where we've been and reforming, that's a good team, it's a good ticket.

I could discuss her horrific response to the "what do you think the Vice President does", but this is how often she pretty much ignored the question and went out into left field so far that I had no idea how she got there.

The Timeline of the McCain economic campaign meltdown

After thinking about the last 2 weeks, I decided to make a timeline of John McCain, Man of Action, regarding the financial crisis.

September 15, 2008

John McCain: The fundamentals of the economy are strong



Stock market drops 500 points

Sept 16, 2008

McCain: We're hurting, and the fundamentals of the economy are - our workers. So if you criticize my comments about the fundamentals of the economy being strong, your insulting the American workers.



Mccain: We shouldn't bail out AIG



September 17, 2008

McCain: Bailing out AIG was a good idea.



September 18, 2008

McCain: I'd fire SEC chief Cox. Turns out the President doesn't have that authority.



September 20, 2008

Secretary of the Treasury Paulson submits his plan. It is 3 pages long, and asks for no oversight into the Treasury for the bailout.

September 22, 2008

Senate Banking hearing with Paulson about the bailout bill.



September 23, 2008

Mccain: I haven't read the Paulson plan.



McCain: We need a better regulatory system.



September 24, 2008

McCain suspends campaign - 8 days after "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" statement, 4 days after Paulson submits his plan.

McCain says he won't campaign until the issue is "resolved".



McCain cancels David Letterman show to "go to Washington and work on the bailout"



But he's meeting with Katie Couric instead. Letterman catches him doing it.



September 25, 2008

Mccain speaks at the Clinton global initiative.



Evening: McCain finally makes it to the white house for the meetings. According to some, he didn't say much.

This is what McCain and the House Republicans submitted - cut capital gains, less regulation of Wall Street market transactions.

September 26, 2008

McCain agrees to go to debate after all. Bailout bill negotiations still going on, unresolved.

September 27, 2008

McCain monitors bailout hearings from his office.

September 28, 2008

While senators and congressmen worked, McCain was at a 4 star restaurant.

Barack Obama scares me

I had a conversation with a friend - he's conservative, but we're good.

He made a comment the other day that "I'm scared of what will happen if Barack Obama becomes president."

At first I replied glibly, saying "Oh, I know - he's a Manchurian Muslim who's going to nuke the country, right?"

"No, I'm serious," my friend said. "I mean, he's so liberal!"

This is when I got serious. "You know, I'm afraid of him becoming President as well."

My friend gave me "the look" - he knew something was coming. "Oh? Why?"

"I'm afraid that he'll ignore reports that terrorists will attack the country, and then we'll lose thousands of people to an attack while he's sitting around, unsure what to do while he reads a book with children. Then, he'll decide to launch an attack on a country who had nothing to do with the original terrorist attack on trumped on charges. Then ignore the country where the terrorists actually live and let the terrorists escape to another state.

"After that, I'm afraid that there will be a huge natural disaster, like a hurricane, and Obama will neglect to do anything about it until days later. All the while, he'll out undercover CIA agents, say he'll fire those responsible, then pardon those responsible. I'm afraid he'll put people in a gulag, torture them, then deny it. I'm afraid that if Obama is elected president, he'll hire one sycophant after another more interested in their colleagues pocket book than protecting the nation from tainted food.

"And while Obama is president, I'm terrified that he'll allow the markets to run amok, ignore evidence of a growing financial crisis, tell us everything is fine, then when the economy explodes ask for almost a trillion dollars with no oversight at all, with the line of 'trust me - I know how to fix it.'"

My friend told me I wasn't being fair. I told him neither had Bush to the rest of the country - and that if was "afraid" of a "liberal Obama president", he should wonder just what he could do worse than Bush had already done.

My take on the bailout bill

If you've been following my Twitter feed, I've spent a little time eyeballing the Bailout bill.

And it's not perfect. I'm still not seeing any hard regulations, but this bill isn't about that. But compared to that piece of crap Paulson brought in a week ago, this is a pretty decent bill. It has provisions to make sure taxpayers get their money back (by laying fines on companies after 5 years if we haven't seen a profit). It cuts out golden parachutes for executives who drive their companies into the ground. It has oversight (and, in an amusing note, I noticed it states very clearly that the Judiciary branch has the ability to review cases about Treasury actions, something Paulson wanted to avoid).

There's still the underlying problem of what went wrong: security credit swaps and a derivatives market that's gotten out of hand. I'm not an economist, and I have just enough knowledge through my own reading and listening to NPR that tells me they are some bad mojo. (Check out the show The Giant Pool of Money for more info.)

This bill is the start. It will help the problem now - but people have to stay angry. We've been hurt bad. By a war that's wasted money and American lives in Iraq. With an administration bound to show that government was the problem - and then used Katrina to prove it. A philosophy that says "Just let the rich do what they want, and they're droppings will make us all happy and wealthy!"

We need a return to the regulation systems that we put in after the Great Depression, that lets business compete, but not get so powerful that we can't control it. We shouldn't lose focus now just because we might avert a crisis - and there's no guarantee that we're out of the woods.

It's going to be a rough 3-4 years, folks. I think we're going to get through it all right - but we have to be ready to make some changes in our market system to restore control while allowing it room to grow and prosper.

Time to take back our government people. Before it happens again.

I just saw the House Republican response to the Bailout Bill

For over two hours, House Republicans were behind closed doors discussing the bailout bill. I just caught the press conference when they came out.

It looks like this is still a hard sell. Maybe its the insurance issue that the House Republicans want - this is basically an FDIC like system for these "bad assets", instead of just buying up the assets in exchange for stock and cutting CEO "golden parachutes".

But more than anything else, I think the #1 question was: what do I tell the people in my districts? When they hear that we spent $700 billion to bail out Wall Street while family farms fail, while Republicans fight S-CHIP and health care, while we told people "cut taxes for the wealthy, and they'll spread it around" - and now people make less than they did 8 years ago, home values are falling, college is harder to afford.

That's the big issue facing House Republicans when they go home. How do I give them a reason to vote for me, after what a Republican Senate, Republican House, Republican President, and conservative Supreme Court gave the nation: a big empty wallet.

Chicken Little to the rescue

By now, you may have heard that McCain wants to "postpone the debates" because of the "9-11 economic crisis hitting the economy."

Just to give you an idea of how much they're hyping this up, I actually heard on the Chris Matthews show just now a McCain campaign spokesperson explaining something akin to "this is big, because we're talking about people's paychecks not being cut, fire and brimestone from the sky! Run for terror!"

And - introduce the Republican playbook since 9-11: fear. Run for the hills. Unless McCain goes to Washington, the *you won't get paid*. Unless we stop the campaign right now - because heaven knows a President can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, and McCain evidently can't use a phone - then we're all going to plummit into depression.

Allow me to say: bullshit.

Bull-shit.

This is McCain realizing he's down in the polls, and he has to look like he's doing "something". Congress might have a solution on Friday, so he's going to fly in just when its time to vote, take credit, then rush off while we pay $700 billion to Wall Street - and of course we have to HURRY AND RUN OH MY GOD BEFORE IT ALL FALLS APART DON'T LOOK AT THE BILL JUST SIGN IT SIGN IT!

So again - bullshit on you, McCain. You're not President. You're just a Senator right now, and for you to run away from the debate shows you to be a coward as well.

Fast track Treasury plan? Put on the breaks

The mantra of the morning is "put partisan politics aside while the markets are melting. We have to save the economy before it all crashes apart!"

I'm looking at the financial deals, folks - and we need to put the breaks on this, and fast.

"Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein puts forth the idea that there is a sector of the market that waits for emergency situations - like this one. Once the crisis hits, these groups with pre-made plans come in and do the "shock", which is usually:

* Less regulation on markets
* Decreased labor powers
* Government tax dollars used to finance private industry without any payback (ie: private industry getting paid the job that government agencies did, only now without any oversight)

Folks, we're seeing the Shock Doctrine *right fucking now* in place.

This is part of the Treasury bailout plan that's being floated about, and it's got this line:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

What. The. FUCK.

Bernanke and Paulson will be given complete and utter control *without any oversight allowed at all*. What if he wants to buy up some bad debt for $300 million when it's worth $100, then turn around and sell it back from the same people he bought it from for $100, then turn around and buy it again for $300 million?

Nobody could say boo.

And it's clear that the Treasury is planning on buying assets "above current market value". While the real estate market is still falling - and expected to fall another 10-15% over the next two years (something I planned on accepting when I bought my new house) - the Treasury gets to buy these assets *now* before they hit rock bottom.

Unlike the moves in the 1930's, which bought up bad assets at the bottom of the market, this would allow financial institutions to make a 10-15% profit off of their bad decisions. They sell it off now for "above market value", wait 2 years for the final lower value to kick in, then buy it back from the government - boom, instant profit, taxpayers just paid for them to make money after they screwed it all up.

No. No way. This bill needs to have the breaks put off on it. We need a bill that:

1. Enforces regulation on the credit market and financial markets
2. Bail out institutions to ensure the accounts are solvent (checking, savings, CD's).
3. Preferred stock for any institution that is bailed out becomes worthless - this means that the stock board and upper echelons are the losers, while the common stock (which is usually owned by other banks) don't get blown away.
4. Bailed out companies get no dividends - I don't want to see people getting richer off of a bailout.
5. All bailed out companies get canceled golden parachutes - board members don't get millions for being fired. They get their last paycheck, and they're gone.
6. Something that Jim Cramer said that I agree with: let the government buy up "bad" mortgages for $0.20 on the dollar - ie, the ones that are being foreclosed upon right now. This at least gives banks something for their bad loan, it prevents millions from being homeless (should be offered only to those with 1 home - 2nd and up don't get rescued). Hold those mortgages for 2 years, give resident current value mortgage slightly increased rates, if they don't accept, then it's on the market.

I want to talk about #6 the most. This I believe is the best solution to the real estate issue. Instead of millions of homes being on the market without buyers, and millions of people being kicked out of their homes, #6 gives a chance to everyone.

Banks get *some* money. Not much, but they get some pain for their bad loan. People get a home, but this isn't a freebe - government is coming back in 2 years to make them pay, and if they don't, then they lose the house permanently this time. Government actually gets to make a profit - remember, they bought the mortgages at 20% of the value, then sell back at current market value.

Here's the money breakdown:

If a house has a mortgage of $200,000 and is being foreclosed, the government buys it for $40,000. Foreclosure delayed for 2 years. 2 years later, the house may be actually worth $150,000. Original owner is now saddled with a lower debt - they don't get to walk away from it. But at least they get a shot. If they don't take it, they're out, place is sold.

There may need to be other clauses, like "if resident causes harm to residence while living in it the government can take it out of their paycheck or something". But this gives pain to everybody - especially the banks to screwed up in the first place.

Either way, the current Treasury bill can't be allowed to pass in its current form. Its a Shock Doctrine bill - and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.

Kindergarteners, Sex, and Dispelling Stupid

I keep seeing "Obama totally wanted to teach sex ed to 5 and 6 year olds - read the bill yourself and see its true, libtards!"

So I did. The bill can be seen here:

Full Text of SB0099.

Let's look at the bill:

Each class or course in comprehensive sex
14 education offered in any of grades K 6 through 12 shall
15 include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted
16 infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread
17 of HIV AIDS.

Now, let's be very specific - "each class *in comprehensive sex education* shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases".

In other words: "if the class is on comprehensive sex education", then "it shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases."

It's an if-then system. If you teach *comprehensive* sex education in a class, then you must include how to prevent HIV/AIDS. The other sets in the beginning of the bill read the same way: if you teach sex education, then you must say that abstinence is an effective method of preventing the above.

Look at Section 2: "All sex education courses THAT" (emphasis added), then it goes on to say what they will do. And what's under section 2, line 12?

(2) All (1) course material and instruction shall be age and developmentally appropriate.

So now we continue our "if-then" clause. *If* you teach a sex education class, *then* it must be age and developmentally appropriate. *If* the class is decided to teach comprehensive sex education, *then* you will include HIV prevention and other things.

If you decide *not* to do "comprehensive sex education", there are other things that are covered - including teaching students not to exploit each other or how to avoid a predator.

So I'm sorry - but to anyone who makes laws, or is a lawyer, this bill is pretty clear. There are age appropriate things that are up to the districts to decide what that means. If they teach sex ed, then these are the rules they must follow in their teaching.

Your claim that "OMG this bill totally instructs teacher to teach sex to 5 year olds" falls apart. This bill gives a list of things that can be taught to children, including:

* HIV prevention
* sexual harrassment prevention
* abstinence is best
* how to avoid predators
* how to not be a predator

Any teacher would go down the list and go "OK, I'm a 1st grade teacher. Well, I don't need to worry about HIV prevention. Or abstinence. Hm - how to avoid predators, that's *age appropriate*."

Hopefully I've broken this down enough so people won't make that inaccurate claim again.

Now we know why Palin opposed the rape kits

The question has been - why did Palin want to fire Police Chief Monegan. According to the Palin campaign, it wasn't because he wouldn't fire Trooper Wooten - but because of this:

The McCain campaign says it can prove Monegan was fired in July because of insubordination on budget issues
...
The "last straw," the campaign said, was a trip Monegan planned to Washington in July to seek federal money for investigating and prosecuting sexual assault cases.

In a July 7 e-mail, John Katz, the governor's special counsel, noted two problems with the trip: the governor hadn't agreed the money should be sought, and the request "is out of sequence with our other appropriations requests and could put a strain on the evolving relationship between the Governor and Sen. Stevens."

Wait - they fired Monegan because he requested an earmark for rape kits in Alaska? But why would they be so upset about it?

Evidently - because your standard rape kit contains not just swabs, and an STD detection kit but also - emergency contraception.

Remember, Palin opposes "abortion" (which, in the case of emergency contraception, prevents the egg from even being fertilized) - even in the case of rape and incest. Which is why she was willing to oppose the state paying rape kits - all because they contained emergency contraception.

I seriously can't think of anything worse. Here's someone who's been victimized, and you don't want to pay for the rape kit because her egg might not be fertilized. What is wrong with these people?

The details are at Daily Kos.

Is hacking sexist?

Evidently, if you're an idiot, it may be.

Oh look - an idiot!

The best post I've seen about what's happened in the economy

Lucid, educated, and spot on:

Commentary: How to prevent the next Wall Street crisis by Joseph Stiglitz

I may have to go get his book while I'm out today.

What should be done with AIG?

If you've been watching the news, you likely know that AIG has been bailed out - the US government now owns 80% of AIG in exchange for a loan for $85 billion.

My coworkers and I were discussing what to do. I originally thought it should be treated like an anti-trust case - break it up, make it smaller (whether by region or performance).

One coworker had an idea: health insurance.

And then it hit me.

Health insurance.

Start selling off all non health insurance divisions. Announce that AIG will now be the official health insurance provider for the United States citizens. No citizen can be turned away from coverage. Rates offered to the majority of the public, or banished if the person can prove they don't meet a minimum income.

You go to the emergency room, you visit the doctor - you're now covered under AIG. Granted, there will have to be changes, commitments of X amount of tax dollars going to pay for it.

But this could be the start of the US universal health care system. Everything's in place - and the American People now own 80% of this company.

Maybe it's time we told it what its new business is - serving *us*.

Did you know that governor's can't veto earmarks?

Evidently, John McCain didn't know either.

Mortgage application bullshit meter rising

I was asked to submit a letter why we decided to rent out the house we're living in while we waited for our mortgage application on the same house to be completed.

I'm thinking about sending this in:

1.My family doesn't like living in a cardboard box while we were waiting for the mortgage approval to be completed. And since camping out in the front lawn chasing away other prospective buyers was ruled out, renting the location until the funds were approved seemed the best option.

Does snark work with mortgage companies stupid questions?

When will Palin Meet the Press?

Probably as late as possible, but I guess it's time for a countdown clock.

ObamaTaxCut.com

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

I'll save $2600 under the Obama Tax plan. Yay!

Sent from my iPhone

Oh Fox News

This is why people shout Fuck Fox News.



Sent from my iPhone

Real conversations with my children

TV: BLARGH! BLARGH! BLARGH!

Kids: Dad! The TV's doing something!

Me: (run up the stairs) Is that the emergency broadcast message?

TV: THIS IS THE WEEKLY TEST OF THE EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM.

Me: Oh, good. They haven't realized that we're really aliens yet and I've replaced your father to take over the world.

Kids: Yeah, whatever. Look - Pikachu!

Me: Nothing? That's all I get?

Real Conversations with my Wife

Me: You know, we're about to miss the special two hour church meeting.

My Lovely Wife (MLW): Hm.

Me: Does this mean we're going to go to Hell?

MLW: I thought that was sitting for two hours in church trying to keep the children quiet for TWO HOURS.

Me: I'm guessing not.

God's Aim is Off

Remember how Focus on the Family was praying for rain to interrupt the Obama speech in Thursday in Denver?

Turns out, they got their wish - but their aim is off. The Fox News booth in the DNC got flooded. Whoops.

Why does Fox News hate Freedom

First, the video:



Second. Why does Fox News hate freedom?

I'm not asking that question to be snarky or petty. But listen to this "reporter". He stands in the middle of a crowd saying "These people say they believe in the freedom of speech - but they refused to speak for me," he stands in the middle of a crowd and says "I guess they don't believe in freedom of speech", "Do you not believe in freedom?"

Here's a group of citizens exercising their freedom of speech, which includes the right not to speak to whomever they want. Freedom of the press doesn't mean that people are forced to answer your questions - sorry, bud.

Fox News has put themselves into this position. They have clearly been a mouthpiece for one political party, fanning their face with a handkerchief and acting "Shocked - shocked!" when people call them out for their pandering attitude towards the Republican party.

Like now. So sorry, but you don't get to stand in a crowded room and shout "Fire", and you don't get to ask questions - then complain about "free speech" when people exercise that right not to talk to you.

The first Matthew 25 ad

Anyone else detecting just a *bit* of snark here?

And this is where the McCain campaign ends

Before it even begins:



John McCain: "My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."

If you had someone who went into the first Gulf War to stop Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, well - that was not a serious international crisis.

The Serbian attacks on ethnic Albanians, the rapes and genocide there - that wasn't a serious international crisis.

Genocide in Sudan - well, that's not really serious, even though there's lots of oil in Sudan, which explains why places like China and Russia haven't been eager to get onto the "let's stop Sudanese government backed militias from killing people" train.

9-11? That wasn't a serious international crisis. 3,000 Americans dead, the launch of the biggest manhunt in the history of the world. If you had a loved one that died in that tragic event - guess what. John McCain doesn't think it was a serious international crisis.

The attack on Iraq to go after Osama bin Laden - well, not a serious international event, folks. All of those soldiers there were in for a lark, not to set a country free from religious radicals and hunt down the people responsible for killing 3,000 American civilians in cold blood.

The invasion of Iraq by the United States to stop weapons of mass destruction remove a dictator kill terrorists (that weren't there until after we invaded) - not a serious international crisis, for all of the "Coalition of the Willing" from nations such as Britain and Poland (don't forget Poland, damn it!).

But Russia responding to Georgia's dumb ass move - well, *that* is a *serious* crisis! Ramp up the bombers! Time to increase the size and power of the CIA again! This is *serious* stuff - ignore Osama bin Laden, forget Iran since it looks like we're not going to "bomb bomb bomb Iran" we have a new enemy to fear! Russia's back, and it'll be like old times again!

Or - we could run this clip on the news. Over and over again. Against our soldiers bravely fighting in Afghanistan. Against 9-11 victims. Against Albanian Muslims thankful that the US took action to save them. Of course, we'd have to be complete and utter dicks to do so.

But damn, it is tempting.

Worst Person in the World

Rush Limbaugh, yesterday:

Ladies and gentleman, my theory that I just explained to you about why -- you know, what could have John Edwards' motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk.

Seriously - why does anyone listen to his show? I've never heard him say anything that was useful. Has he ever said anything that actually helped a human being? Or is it just constant mouth diarrhea like this statement?

That's your comeback?

The McCain response to a new Obama ad that points out McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time:

In the Senate, Barack Obama has voted in lockstep with President George W. Bush nearly half the time, including the Bush-Cheney Energy bill which gave close to 3 billion dollars in new giveaways to Big Oil -- a terrible policy that John McCain opposed. The truth is Barack Obama’s plan is a job killing machine that ignores the struggling economy and raises taxes on family savings, social security and small businesses.

Woah - Obama voted with Bush 50% of the time - so he must be as bad as McCain!

And - Obama's plan is a "job killing machine." Anyone else getting a mental image of the Terminator?

I'm not a fan of Ms. Dowd, but-

This was choice:

“Besides the crashing egos and screeching factions working at cross purposes, Joshua Green writes in the magazine, Hillary’s ‘hesitancy and habit of avoiding hard choices ‘exacted a price that eventually sank her chances at the presidency.’ It would have been better to put this language in the platform: ‘A woman who wildly mismanages and bankrupts a quarter-of-a-billion-dollar campaign operation, and then blames sexism in society, will dampen the dreams of our daughters.’”

Ouch.

A response to why I'm pissed off at the McCain energy plan

As a response to a question someone asked me:

I think the problem is in the hypocrisy that McCain is engaging in.

"I will pursue every idea to save money on energy!" McCain proclaims. Nuclear, oil drilling, wind, solar, alternative. His commercials have pictures of wind farms. Try everything, he reminds us over and over again!

Only - his own record shows the lie. He has spent 26 years voting against alternative energy. He was against offshore drilling until 3 months ago - just before he started getting about $1.1 million in donations from oil company execs. He missed every vote on extending energy credits - even though he keeps telling us that we need to "do everything! Now!"

And his #1 item? Offshore drilling. Something that would make oil companies richer, would not ensure that the energy produced would be sold locally (right now, US produced oil is still sell something like 15-25% of their oil on the world market, while oil companies bemoan they don't have enough), the US government's own report says it will take at least 7 years before an offshore rig is really working (though amazingly, the McCain campaign went from "7 years but this will have psychological benefits on the markets now" to "I hear from oil companies they can have it running in 6 months!".

That is what people like myself are bitching about. If McCain was serious about energy independence and "trying all solutions", he wouldn't have waited until a month ago to start saying "Hey, I love off shore oil drilling and nuclear. Oh, yeah - and wind, while we're at it!" He would have been working with the Republican majority in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 to get Bush to approve offshore drilling (if he really thought it would help), or to fund those nuclear plants, or to do his "magic battery" prize he's been talking up.

He didn't. He spent that time telling people that the war in Iraq was a success, that it would be over in "another 6 months", that he was pleased with Bush's performance so far (until late 2007, when he saw the winds of change and decided to start bashing Bush to get votes). Maybe he thought that Iraq would start supplying oil on the cheap, so we wouldn't have to worry about it. Or he didn't see the upcoming financial collapse or how much money the US would borrow to fund the Iraq war, which lead to a lower value dollar, which lead to oil being more expensive for the US market. Maybe he just didn't care, since he has 8 houses and his wife has hundreds of millions (as he calls his opponent the elitist for working with inner city Chicago people for years) and he has no real idea what it's like to be a single income family with a 60 minute drive and doing everything you can to save money as groceries get more expensive and gas keeps going up.

Like me.

So yeah, I'm pissed at McCain for at the last minute finding "energy independence", while voting against (or ignoring) bills that would actually help to achieve it. I'm pissed at McCain for claiming to be for "all solutions", but 90% of his solutions are "more money to big oil" and "more money to big nuclear" instead of "democratize energy production to give more power to the individual - you know, the stuff that conservatives claim is so important while they support big business." I'm pissed at him lying about the others guy's position while lying about his own record and plan.

And I'm pissed at us, and myself, for a nation for being so incredibly stupid for so long.

Why can't McCain have an honest ad?

McCain is out with a new advertisement, making the same claims: Obama is totally going to raise your taxes. That's all he wants to do. Doesn't matter how much you make, Obama is going to raise your taxes.

It's a claim that's been proven false, and Time has a huge rundown on how false this is. Here's my own take on this back and forth:

Obama: I want to let the Bush Tax cuts lapse -

McCain; So that means that you want to raise taxes on *all* Americans.

Obama: And as I was saying, I want to replace them with a tax cut that favors those making $250,000 or less.

McCain: He admitted that he wants to raise taxes on everyone!

Obama: No, just those making $250,000 or greater.

McCain: If you get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts, you'll be taking more taxes from people who make $41,000!

Obama: And then I'm replacing it with *a tax cut for those same groups*. So only those who make more - *more* than $250,000 pay more taxes. Everybody else should pay less.

McCain: I can't hear you! Tax raiser! Lalalalalalalalala!

It seems that the McCain campaign, in their quest to win, doesn't want to really discuss the issues. They want to discuss what *they* say Obama says, rather than what *Obama* says. So they make up lies - yes, lies, pass them off as Obama quotes or policy, such as "His energy policy is tire inflation", or "Obama won't visit the troops", or "Obama wants to raise everyone's taxes", and no matter what Obama shows, demonstrates, or even proves his positions are - doesn't matter, McCain said what they are and that's it.

What is up with police lately?

It seems that cops - the Serve and Protect guys - are on a bad roll. There's the one who bull charged a guy on a bike - then wrote up a false police report saying the biker was swerving to hit *him*. Turns out the videotape doesn't lie.

There's been videos of beatings and other stuff. But this one is just - stupid.

Police raid a mayor's house, handcuff everyone, start interrogating them, shoot and kill the dogs. Why? Well, there was a shipment of drugs in the mail. That the family hadn't even opened up yet to figure out what was inside.

So if someone *mails* me a package of drugs, police can start busting in and shooting? Man, if I was a drug dealer, I'd start mailing drugs to the chief of police, the fire chief, local journalists - hey, how about the mayor? Wouldn't it be funny if the mayor got roughed up by the police and his dogs killed because the cops thought he had been mailed some weed?

Oh - yeah. Already happened. Right.

Source: The house is home to Berwyn Heights mayor Cheye Calvo and his wife Trinity Tomsic, and their two black Labs (pictured left). Though the package containing more than 30 lbs. of marijuana was addressed to Tomsic, the couple may have had nothing to do with the drugs. In recent months there have been incidents in which large quantities of drugs were shipped to homes in the D.C. area, where they were then supposed to be intercepted by drug dealers — all without the package addressees’ knowledge or involvement. Calvo and Tomsic may have been caught up in just such a scheme.Cato-at-Liberty

Um - I think the sub is leaking

Not only leaking, but evidently leaking radioactive fluid:

A U.S. Navy submarine leaked trace amounts of radioactive water for two years as it made port calls in Japan and other Asian nations, the Navy said Thursday.
The USS Houston arrives in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, for routine maintenance, during which the leak was found.

Last week, Navy officials told Japan that the USS Houston, a Los Angeles-class fast attack submarine, had only made one port call -- March 2008 -- while leaking the contaminated fluid.

Source: CNN

Oh. Well. I'm sure the Japanese will understand.

And this is why Republican's off shore voting is being blocked

A decision by US Senate Republicans on Wednesday to block a bill that
would have extended tax credits for wind, solar and other renewable energy
production, will likely end talks between Senate Democrats and Republicans
aimed at allowing Republicans a vote on increasing US oil and gas production. Source: Platts

Again, you can't block votes for everybody else, then throw a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way. It's called politics. Give something up (opposition to alternative energy funding) if you want to get what you want (offshore drilling). The era of Tom Delay is over - it's time for grownups to sit down, accept other people's ideas, compromise so everybody gets something, and move on.

Cursing the dark rather than lighting a candle

So let me get this straight. House Republicans block voting on every issue for the last week. Alternative energy vote? Blocked. Increase gas mileage? Blocked. Continue alternative energy tax break? Blocked.

But offshore drilling? OMG call the presses - we *need* to have this vote on offshore drilling! *This* is important - even though its going to take 7 years to implement! Even though oil companies have millions of acres of leases - onshore and off - they aren't using now!

Sorry, kids. You don't get to block voting on every other issue, then turn around and squeal because your pet goal is left in the dust. Let the oil companies enjoy their massive, record profits - I guess we'll drive less, tune our engines, inflate our tires, and work to get other sources of energy.

Only black reporter kicked out of McCain event?

Wow - talk about really going for that swing vote:

Tallahassee Democrat senior writer Stephen Price on Friday was singled out and asked to leave a media area at the Panama City rally of presidential candidate Sen. John McCain.

Price was among at least three other reporters, and the only black reporter, surrounding McCain's campaign bus — Gov. Charlie Crist and his fiancee, Carole Rome, were already aboard — when a member of the Arizona senator's security detail asked the reporter to identify himself. Price had shown his media credentials to enter the area.

Price showed his employee identification as well as his credentials for the Friday event.

"I explained I was with the state press, but the Secret Service man said that didn't matter and that I would have to go," Price said.

When another reporter asked why Price was being removed, she too was led out of the area. Other state reporters remained. Source: Florida Capital News

Oh, yeah - this is going to look good.

Did you hear that Obama hates the troops?

Oh, it must be true! This time, we have a Capt. Jeffrey S. Porter of Bagram Airbase who claims that Obama refused to meet with wounded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Dude - that would make Obama a total douche!

Wait? What's that? Capt. Porter now admits that it was a total lie? Dude - that would make Porter the douche for sending it out in the first place! Woah!

Big salute to Capt. Porter of Utah currently stationed in Afghanistan - today's douche bag of the day!

You stupid media reporter bitch

This morning, I didn't feel well, so I decided not to go to church. I turn on MSNBC, and they have people talking about the recent Obama trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, and McCain's whining about it.

Then, I see this:

Stupid blond bitch: You know, now that Senator McCain has said that he supports the US leaving in 16 months as long as ground conditions agree, and Obama saying he supports the US troops leaving as long as ground conditions are good, it's like they're adopting the other's positions.

No, you stupid dye job blond bitch. And yes, she's a bitch. If it had been a guy talking, I'd call him a shithead. Let's go over the last 6 months in politics, hm?

Month 1:
Obama: The war in Iraq was a stupid, stupid mistake. It serves us no purpose. Instead, let's actually go fight the terrorists who reside in Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan.
McCain: We need to stay in Iraq for up to 100 years! We must win! If we leave without winning, then people will see we're not winners!

Month 2:
Obama: We will be careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. But mark my words: We're leaving Iraq. Oh, and if we had intelligence on where bin Laden is, and Pakistan didn't want to act on it, you bet we'd drop a bomb on him whether Pakistan liked it or not.
McCain: Obama is so naive! Threatening to bomb our allies!
(One week later.)
Bush administration: We bombed a location in Pakistan because we couldn't trust the Pakistan military, since every time we tell them where bin Laden's forces are, those same forces move as if someone told them.

Month 3:
Obama: I spoke out against the war in Iraq from the beginning. I voted to support the troops, but I don't want to give a blank check to Bush. And if I'm elected President, we're going to leave Iraq.
McCain: No way! We're totally staying in Iraq forever! Besides, what if the Iraqi's start making nice with the *real* enemy, Iran!
Iraq: Hey, we love Iran! Big kisses, iraqi leader!

Month 4:
Obama: Yes, as I've said before, I'd meet with leaders of any nation without conditions. That doesn't mean we agree to do anything, doesn't mean we'll accept their position. But we shouldn't be afraid to negotiate.
McCain: How stupid! Can you imagine what would happen if we negotiated with our enemies before they did what we wanted? It would be foolhardy!
North Korea: Hey, we're giving up the nukes. We had great negotiations with the US, and they gave us enough carrots and sticks to make it worthwhile.

Month 5:
Obama: Yes, I would listen to the generals on the ground and refine the plans for withdrawal as needed.
McCain: Flip flopper! Flip flopper! I said I'd always stay until we won! Obama said he'd leave no matter what, but now he's saying he might actually use logic and reason to make it successful! Flip floopppppeeeeerrrr!

Month 6:
Obama: Hey, I'm back in Iraq!
President of Iraq: Hi, Obama. Guess what - I love your plan to get all of the US troops out in 16 months. It's awesome!
McCain: He didn't really say that!
President of Iraq: Yeah I did.
McCain: Well, he's just being a politician. He's overestimated his forces before. He doesn't know what he really wants.
President of Iraq: We want you guys out.
McCain: Well, we'll get out - once we win! So it could be in 16 months, maybe later.

And this stupid, ignorant, blond moron can't tell the difference between them? This is the same shit that happened in 2000:

Media: Duhh, we can't tell the difference between Al Gore and George Bush. They're pretty much the same, right?
Public: Well, OK.
Vote comes down to 300 people in Florida.

What bullshit is this. I don't know if the corporate media needs a horse race in politics for ratings, or if they're really composed of moronic shouting shitheads and stupid bitches too busy with their heads up their asses to come out and smell reality.

I support McCain's bid against genocide

Yesterday, Senator Obama visited Isreal, where he reminded people that "never again" should we allow genocide on such a huge level.

Which sparked the McCain campaign to issue a statement:

"Well, look, if that's the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces," said Obama, "then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now."

The message was fairly explicit: Obama's commitment to stopping future Holocausts is in doubt. Asked for clarification, McCain aide Michael Goldfarb responded:

"Today he says 'never again.' A year ago stopping genocide wasn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces in Iraq. Doesn't that strike you as inconsistent?"

Now, anyone else would say that Goldfarb is being an asshole. After all, Obama was talking about a specific reason people were saying we couldn't leave Iraq for 100 years - the possible genocide. Obama was making a logical argument: if that reasoning is true, then why don't we have troops elsewhere? Proving that the genocide argument is ridiculous.

But I'm standing with the McCain campaign on this one. They obviously understand that we *should* be sending troops into Darfur and the Congo and other areas, like North Korea where mass starvation exists.

In fact, I fully expect Senator McCain, based on his campaign's obvious feelings regarding genocide, that the McCain campaign will announce that they fully support President Clinton's efforts in Bosnia to top the genocide of the Albanians. That, upon taking office in the White House, "President McCain" will order 300,000 troops to the Congo, another 200,000 to Darfur, and another 1,000,000 troops to North Korea in order to stop the killing there.

Obviously, since the McCain campaign believes so strongly in stopping genocide, this is the only logical thing for them to do.

Senator McCain? We're all waiting.

Why does Morning Joe actually air?

I'm about to get dressed and leave for work, but I flipped to Morning Joe for a bit. 30 minutes ago, Scarborough was pounding on "The surge worked! The surge worked! Why can't Obama admit it!"

Now, Senator Obama's position is "extra troops helped, but between the Sunni Awakening (which started a year before the surge), the US paying off militia groups *not* to shoot at US troops, al Sadr's group having a cease fire with US troops (which has proven rather useful, sine al Sadr was able to get rid of terrorist groups in his territory)."

I turned back to Scarborough, and I hear this:

"Whether the Sunni Awakening started before or after the Surge, it's clear that the extra troops helped it happen, so therefore, it was a success."

No, Mr. Scarborough. I don't know why you have a 2 hour show where you get to pound people with your conservative viewpoint. Oh, I know - you profess that you don't have a dog in this race. And Bill O'Reilly claims to be a registered independent.

Then he asks one of the reporters touring with Senator Obama "Hey, what does the press core think of Obama's refusal to admit that the surge has worked?"

What does the press core think? I think the press core's job is to just report on what people say and do, not be commentators. Try it sometime, Mr. Scarborough. Might be useful.

You pounded the hell out of Reverend Wright for weeks, and now you're taking the McCain line and running with it. I flip to CNN - and they're reporting on the subprime lending crisis. You know - news.

Might want to try it some time.

Can I ask a serious question about the news?

I just flipped on MSNBC. They could be talking about the volatile oil market. How McCain changed his position on Afghanistan three times in one day - first we didn't need more troops in Afghanistan, then we need more Nato troops, then we need more of *both* troops - all this after Obama rolled out the same plan he rolled out in three months (take troops from Iraq, which is *not* where Osama bin Laden and the folks that actually killed Americans on 9-11 are, and put them in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden and the folks that killed Americans on 9-11 actually live).

What are they talking about this morning? The White House T-ball game, and how Obama goes to the gym 3 times in one day and "evidently, he never sweats. He must be doing evil at the gym instead of working out - his basketball teammates say he didn't sweat back in college! What's wrong with the man?"

The other day, when I turned on the TV, I saw Joe Scarborough say if his "Morning Joe" show acted like other cable news shows, he'd resign.

Please. Do so. And tell them to put on some fucking reporters on the show. I want to watch the news, I want to have real discussions about issues. Not some floofed up dandy haired assholes jibber jabbering while the country falls apart.

My #1 request for political reporting changes

I'm sick and tired of seeing "Senator Obama said John McCain said X", or "Senator McCain said that Senator Obama said Y".

All media organizations: I don't care what the candidates say what the other candidate said. You know why? Because they make shit up that isn't true! They say things like "Obama said he is going to raise taxes on all Americans" (when he didn't), or "McCain said he wants to eat babies" - when he didn't.

So news folks - no reporting on what the candidates said the other candidate said. You just report what the candidates themselves say and do, and leave the rest to up.

I don't mind that he's not an expert

McCain denies he said he wasn't an expert on the economy - when he did.

You know, I don't mind a candidate who admits "I'm weak on X issue." Nobody expects even the President to be an expert on everything.

After all, that's what you have advisers for. What we elect a President to do is have the wisdom to know - even in general enough terms - what the right and wrong thing are. Lowering taxes during a war? Bad. Raising taxes on essential needs? Bad. Spending money infrastructure? Good!

So with this good general knowledge, a President can work with experts in the field, know when they are being lied to and when they're being told the right things. They can look at history, and even if we don't expect them to memorize the last P/E rations of the top 5 companies, they have to at least know what is important to spend money on or not.

So I don't mind that McCain says "I'm not an expert on economics." I don't expect Obama to claim to be an expert on military tactics.

But I do get annoyed when someone tries to claim to be everything, or denies that they ever said they were weak on something. McCain's blunder here is the "Oh, I didn't say I was bad at that", when he did. We all admit it - and it would be OK if he just cowboyed up to that and said "But I have advisers A, B, and C that *do* know a lot, and here's why you can trust them - and why I do."

Of course, having Black and Graham as economic policy advisers, especially after Graham's financial screw ups have now lead to the energy and housing credit crisis doesn't inspire confidence. But neither does McCain claiming he's not an expert, then claiming he never said he wasn't, either.

FISA immunity vote tomorrow - call your Representative!

If you want details, you can read them here, but the lowdown is the Democrats are caving to give retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps to the Bush administration and the telecom companies.

As Mr. Greenwald notes, this is crap. OK - he doesn't say it like that, but I will. It's bullshit. I just called up my representative Kathy Castor, and she's against it, so she stays in my Good book. I also called the Obama campaign, so hopefully if enough people word will get to him and he'll speak out against it.

Hopefully.

We're taking our ball and going home, gay boy!

When I lived in Utah, some kids decided to make a "Gay and Lesbian Alliance Club" or something like that. The idea - through my dim memory - was for gay teenagers to have a place to share common experiences, common problems with being a gay teen in a very conservative state. My personal bet is they didn't plan on just having crazy sex orgies all the time.

Based on the way the school distract acted, though, you'd think that was exactly what was going on. The club was banned from the school. The kids took the school to court - and won. Courts basically said "You can't not let these kids have a club just because you don't like the subject matter. As long as they don't violate decency policies - aka, have orgies or go into graphic descriptions of sexual stuff - you really can't stop them from having a club, if you offer students a chance to have their own clubs."

State of Utah's decision? Ban *all* clubs. Chess club, drama club, every single one of them. Gone. Their reasoning was "Well, if we have to offer equal rights to the gay kids, then we'll deny clubs to *all* kids, and then we're being equal!"

Yeah, a pretty childish (pun intended) decision, but that's how it goes. I'm not sure what ever happened - I've since moved, but I'd like to think that someplace, somewhere, some kid can get his buddies together at school to play some fracking chess.

It's funny how this seems to be the default response now to things homosexual by conservatives. Three counties in California, now faced with the knowledge that they have to issue marriage licenses to consenting adults even if they're the same gender, have opted to not offer marriage licenses at all.

Yeah, that'll show you, gay people! We're going to honor marriage by not allowing *anybody* to get married - so people will just have to either live together and have kids and families without getting married, or we'll die as a species because everyone knows if you have sex without getting married your kids turn into mutants - or worse, Democrats!

(Sigh.)

Can anybody explain McCain to me?

I'm still trying to get over the catch-22 nature of McCain's energy and environmental policies - well, over all of his policies, for that matter.

McCain: Global warming bad! I will fight global warming!

Voters: Yay, McCain!

McCain: And we're going to do that by allowing for drilling of more oil, so you have cheaper gas!

Voters: Uh - won't that increase greenhouse gases? And won't it take like 5-10 years before drilling offshore services benefits? And what about the fact that oil companies will usually leave off-shore platforms inert until the price of gas is high enough to warrant pumping the oil from beneath the sea - which doesn't reduce the cost of oil, just gives the oil companies a chance to make great profits later?

McCain: My opponent doesn't want to lower the cost of your gas by reducing the gas tax - but I do! It'll be good for the economy!

Voters: Wait a second. Now you're just talking crazy. If you reduce the gas tax, you have to either cancel infrastructure upgrades, or take out loans to pay for the tax we're not paying. And with levees breaking in Iowa and destroying 16% of the farmland there, that means out cost of food is going to go up. How about we keep paying the gas tax, spend the money on infrastructure that badly needs it so we don't spend more money another several years from the next disaster? You're not making any sense!

McCain: Hey, I'm opposed to torture - but I don't want to enforce the military code of justice on the people doing the torturing! And I support the constitution, but not habeas corpus. I want to stay in Iraq for 100 years once the fighting dies down, but I have no idea when the fighting will ever die down, so we have to stay in Iraq until it does, which may take 100 years. By 2013 there our troops will come home but don't you dare set a timeline!

Voters: Wait a second - are you the reincarnation of Zenos come to give us more paradoxes?

McCain: Most of you don't know who Zenos is - or else you'd be an elitist! And I support education - as long as its private!

Voters: Oi.

President Bush, where are you?

While Katrina drown New Orleans, President Bush was playing guitar with Senator McCain in San Diego.

Now, Iowa is drowning. 16% of the farmland in that state has been lost to the flood. And - where is the President? This is his chance to show people that he's relevant, that he's able to actually act in a crisis and do some good. Where is he?

Eating dinner with the Queen in Britain. Can I ask a real question? I know - I've been harsh on this guy for, well, about 5 years now.

But what the hell is wrong with this man? Why isn't he flying in, gathering up national guard resources and emergency crews from around the nation to save a city? To help with housing? Isn't this why we have presidents - do act in times of national crisis?

(sigh)

Bluewashing: How to keep screwming the people

Right now, the Republican brand is in the toilet. Bush hasn't helped, neither has the war in Iraq, Katrina, the housing crisis, the gas crisis, the fact that he's out in Europe while there's massive flooding in the mid-states (heck of a job, Bushie!).

But how low can you go to switch parties from Republican to Democrat, but keep the same backers of big business just so you can get elected? "Bluewashing" is a new term springing up for Republicans who are running as Democrats, just in the hopes that people will ignore that little fact so it can be business as usual.

Keep an eye out - seems we'll have to keep on our toes even in the local primaries to make sure the person we're voting for is actually working for our needs.

Michelle Obama is a "baby momma"?

First, a definition:

the mother of a man's child when the parents are not married - Source: Urban Dictionary

Then, the story:

An alert reader wrote in just a little while ago to let us know about something he'd spotted on Fox News Wednesday afternoon. During a segment discussing conservative attacks against Michelle Obama, the wife of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama, the network described the former as "Obama's baby mama." - Source: Salon

Just to make sure I have this right: Fox news commentators are saying that Michelle Obama is not actually married to Barack Obama, and that they're children are born out of wedlock. Why on earth would you even think such a thing? Oh, that's right - they're black - isn't that what Fox believes "those people" do?

(sigh) Anyone want to start a betting pool until Fox just lays down the N word and is finally done with it?

I'm really liking Jim Webb for VP

Especially after this interview, and this line:

"John McCain's comment about Barack not having sat down recently with General Petreaus means nothing," Webb said. "If you know who to listen to, if you know how to make judgments, if you know how evaluate information, you can do that. I don't think Franklin Roosevelt was ever at the front in France during WWII in order to help end the war."

Yeah. I like.

And this is the change we've been waiting for

DRIVING THE DAY: On Day 2 as nominee, Senator Obama wants to show that he will change the nation’s politics. As the presumptive DemoObama already eager to show that he will change the nation’s politics, and Clinton plans departure from '08 race.cratic presidential nominee, he WILL ANNOUNCE TODAY that the Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from federal lobbyists or PACs -- consistent with the policy of his campaign. His declaration makes it clear that he will try to make the influence of Washington insiders one of his key arguments against Senator McCain. Source: Politico.com Playbook

If you wanted to understand the change in Senator Obama's candidacy, this is it right here. Away with the special interests, the PACs (Political Action Committees that can represent everything from single mothers to oil rights) that can drive the Democratic party. No more money from telephone companies seeking immunity for breaking the law, or giving out grants to oil companies who just jack up the prices.

From now on, the DNC is going to be funded by the people. This is going to make it hard for the DNC at first. They're going to need help. They're going to need the same $25 donations by millions that brought Senator Obama the money he needed to run against the biggest Democratic establishment machine ever.

The question is - will people response?

I will. I get paid tomorrow, and $25 is going right to the DNC coffers. Anyone else who wants to join me, and make their political party answerable to *us* - not special interests or just those with the money, but *us*, I'd encourage you to do the same.

This is the change we've been waiting for - and it's gutsy, its risky, and it relies on people really wanting control of their political process again. The question is - do you want it too?

DNC web page

Turns out that giving a speech before a green screen is a bad idea

I shouldn't find this funny, but John McCain learns the dangers of talking before a green screen.

It's an appeasement trap!

Evidently Syria wants the US to be a member of the Isreal/Syria peace talks.

Don't do it, Bush administration! Obviously talking to people we don't like is considered appeasement, and we certainly wouldn't want to do that!