VP debate

First, a few notes:
1. Go to http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/
I have often wondered about third parties and why a society that prides itself on extensive freedoms would limit itself to two parties. Also, look at the role of corporate America. Interesting stuff. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I found this enlightening.

2. The bailout bill. This has been touted as democracy at work and working together and I’d add business as usual. This thing is massively expensive and provides no real plan for resolving anything or how to use the money and is loaded with earmarks engineered to bribe certain Congress people to vote yes. McCain had a chance to take a different stand and act on his anti-earmark rhetoric, but I guess his campaign couldn’t risk a possible hit he may have taken for opposing it at all for any reason. So much for standing up when it’s not popular and putting country first. Or is voting yes to the imperfect bill putting country first? I love how this is such an emergency that Congress can’t be bothered with things like addressing the cause of the problem and putting some reigns and instruction on how the money is used, but it’s obviously not so serious that they didn’t have time to put in some nice fat earmarks.

***
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_biden-palin_debate.html
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2008b_p.html

I made some notes during the VP debate, but didn't have time to put them here til now. Here's a few of them. I hope to finish it up before the next Presidential debate- which doesn't give me much time! And again, I'm posting old news!

SNL said it best- “…and the winner is- whoever you already liked!”

Seems like Palin exceeded many people’s expectations. I think she may have pumped the right back up because they were looking for something to be pumped about. There were no awkward silences or glaringly obvious gaffes, as in the interviews, but I didn’t see much to get all excited about. Most of the time when I listened to her answers, I couldn’t remember what the question was because she wasn’t on topic. Sometimes it seemed like she was giving a speech and running down the talking points, instead of responding to questions. Palin went back to tax cuts once and energy several times instead of answering the questions. And then, after going back to energy several times, the next question was about… energy! Unbelievable. And when she said the piece about the fact that she may not answer the question the way you like (trying to give the impression that she‘s taking a stand and doing what‘s right in the face of opposition), etc- wow- I was thinking it would be nice if you’d just answer the question at hand! She probably did better in this format because there really wasn’t time or opportunity for anyone to call her out on not answering questions in most cases, unlike when talking to a pesky gotcha journalist.

Palin managed to fit in every nickname and slogan of the entire campaign into that 90 mintues. Joe six pack, hockey mom, maverick, country first, change is coming, drill baby drill. Convenient and folksy, maybe, but answers they are not. Didn’t hear anything about lipstick… ☺

What was up with the winking? People didn’t like Gore’s sighs in that debate, but the winking was almost as bad. And kissing at the audience—maybe she thought she was at a campaign stop talking to supporters. The shout out to the third grade class was nice, but I thought it was more of a stall tactic or a subtle effort to prove her link to the general public rather than Washington.

Biden reigned himself in pretty well. I don’t think he came off as sexist or too harsh. Was he perceived as connected or passionate enough? I don’t know. Did anyone else giggle when he kept saying “…George Bush’s” a dozen time sin a row? Maybe it’s sleep deprivation or maybe it’s a word sounding funny if you say it enough times…

Palin in her first response referred to the fact that McCain put politics aside and suspended the campaign (can you really say that, even still??) and put country first. I’d downplay that since it seemed kind of overdramatic, not necessary and perhaps the wrong thing to do (why suspend the campaign in a televised statement no less, unless to make it political, rather than just go up to Washington and do your business, if that’s your real intent?). That, among other things, makes him seem a bit erratic and calls into question his judgment.

Biden mentioned McCain and deregulation of health care, then on Wall Street and in both instances Ifill asked Palin if she’d like to respond to the “charges” against McCain and both times Palin said she wanted to talk about taxes. She did add a sentence about McCain pushing for regulations, but that hardly refuted the charges or squared the deregulation champ with his alleged push for regulation.

There was a question about bankruptcy and Palin was asked if she’d support McCain’s position. She said simply “yes, I’d support it”. That’s it. Then, she goes on talking about McCain’s bipartisan cooperation, how he put politics aside and the campaign aside to deal with the mortgage crisis. I’m sorry, but the way he handled the crisis was far from apolitical. I’d like to think he was well-intentioned, but it smacks of politics and Bush’s melodrama.

Biden did answer the debt strapped homeowner question and had a several point plan to discuss. Ifill followed up with Palin by saying John McCain doesn’t support that and asked if that was true. Plain simply answers “that’s not so.” That’s it. Then, she goes on to talk about energy with zero transition from the topic at hand. The bothersome questions were clearly getting in the way of her speech at that point.

There was a question about what is true and false about climate change. Palin dismissed the causes and focused on cleaning up the planet. Biden said what I was thinking when I heard Palin say that. You need to know the causes to think about a relevant solution.

I can’t believe she still defended McCain’s statement about the “fundamentals of the economy are strong” as referring to the workers. Unless you’re communist, you probably aren’t thinking on those terms. I think he simply slipped up. They should just stop talking about it so that it goes away. He’s said so many things like that about not knowing anything about the economy, thinking it was strong when it wasn’t (repeating Bush’s comments that made my jaw drop-see jan 28, 2008 post), choosing very questionable advisers to help him form policy on this subject he doesn’t know much about that I just don’t trust his judgment on this issue. They’ve finally let go of the Bridge to Nowhere. Maybe it’ll take time to let go of this one, too. It seems like they keep repeating some of the same gaffes (misleading accusations or embellished accomplishments), or defenses of them long after the public knows that they aren’t giving it to us straight. I don’t know what would account for the gap. Maybe they only communicate via USPS?

There was a question about the VP role that got some interesting answers. Palin said a VP presides over the Senate and that she’s glad the Constitution allows more authority given the VP if the VP so chooses to use it?? Huh? They vote when there’s a tie. Not exactly what I’d call authority or choosing to use authority. I guess they only half prepped her on that one since she last answered that question.

Let’s talk about the Israel love fest. “No one’s a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden.” That may be true, but take your head out of the sand for a minute. You’re not speaking in front of the AIPAC. You’re running for VP. You need to have a reasonable outlook (not that many Presidents and VPs have in a long time) on this. But if I don’t like the Democrats’ position on this, I’m going to hate the Republican position which can be blended with religious themes that are equally as crazy (not to mention unbiblical) as unconditional support for Israel and its state sponsored terrorism. The two state solution is falling out of favor with the people involved (or half of the people) and the situation on the ground (support for Israeli land grabs past and present, walls being built) is making a two state solution obsolete.

Palin brought up putting the embassy in Jerusalem, Israel as a peace seeking nation, its track record of peace seeking (yeah, and Ariel Sharon was a man of peace and pigs can fly), second holocaust. Insisting on the embassy in Jerusalem immediately sends the message you support Israel despite their contribution to the bloodshed and will only hamper the process, so you might as well stay out of it altogether if you take that position. About Israel and peace-seeking- they have a way of doing this on the surface, but with the motive of delaying final status issues so that they can grab more land with the goal of taking it all (google “political formaldehyde” for Weisglass’ quote on that). Enough with the second holocaust scare tactics already! Israel’s got one of the world’s strongest militaries and a history of ruthless leaders. You can’t convince me of their vulnerability, existential threat or their need for our continued assistance, free from any conditions to respect our laws and human rights by invoking old images of gas chambers.

Biden said he didn’t support the Palestinian elections because he knew Hamas would take over. Had all of the elections been allowed to be conducted around the same time, Hamas probably wouldn’t have won in the second batch. The US position of only supporting democratic elections when the outcome is favorable to us also contributed to the Gaza mess. We should either support democracy (like we claim to) or stay out of all of it.

Biden didn’t inspire confidence when he didn’t talk about Jerusalem. Obama had taken the Bush position of essentially giving it to Israel, no questions asked.

Both candidates are taking Bush’s position or maybe even a farther right, more hawkish position.


Palin called Obama/Biden “white flag of surrender in Iraq” which I think is not true and could be a misrepresentation or exaggeration.

Biden deserves some credit for overcoming personal tragedy, much like McCain. I really hadn't heard about Biden's as much as McCain's, so that was interesting and adds a new dimension to his character for me.

On the question of what would you change or cut from your plans due to the debt problem posed by the crisis, the VP candidates passed on this as the Presidential candidates did. I just don’t think you can get an answer from a candidate when you ask about cutting the plan or even about their Achilles heel. Those answers were rather comical. Palin responded to the lack of experience as a weakness (or if that’s not it, what is) question by saying she in fact has the executive experience and business experience and mom experience and that with being reform minded is why she’s on a good ticket. The closest she got to answering the question was saying that we as a nation aren’t perfect.

Biden did better in that he admitted to having an Achilles heel – lack of discipline or “excessive passion”, but didn’t really talk about what that means or how to deal with it in terms of being the VP. He used the time really to respond to Palin’s answer which was actually the opposite of the question asked. Biden does deserve some credit for his life experience. That is an unimaginable situation he was in and he got through it. He made a good point and maybe was smart to respond to Palin’s mom experience with his own. It was a bit comical to hear him try and out-mom her, though, with this and the violence against women legislation. I wonder how the public in general took it- did they feel a connection and sympathy or think it political?


Palin did have a little problem when she called McKeirnan McClellan and misquoted him (as did Biden?). She said that he said the surge would work in Afghanistan and I don’t think that’s what he said.

Palin mischaracterized Obama’s plan as government-run, even called it a mandate

Palin’s last remarks took a shot at the media for her shortcomings in the Gibson and Couric interviews. The filter of mainstream media?? Was she not talking to us in the televised interview? I didn’t see anyone telling us what we saw. I saw someone asking her questions she wasn’t prepared to answer- like a kid on a pop quiz who didn’t read the book. Maybe what she means by “talking directly to the people” is that she’d rather give a pre-fab speech rather than answer questions on the spot. I can totally understand that, but it’s not the media’s fault for how she performed in the interviews. They were pretty basic policy questions. The only thing that would have been more softball would be if they asked her how she felt to be running as the woman candidate, how she feels about x, y or z.



Palin’s use of Biden’s past quotes:
I wanted to do some fact checking on these things where she threw Biden’s own words at him, but I may not get to it. I don’t think she has these things exactly right, but I’d have to check. It sounds somewhat factual, but with the effort to mislead and misrepresent.

Now you said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic.
***
I was surprised to hear you mention that because you had said that there isn't anything -- such a thing as clean coal. And I think you said it in a rope line, too, at one of your rallies.
***
Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so.
PALIN: And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives.
***
We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met. And Maliki and Talabani also in working with us are knowing again that we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight.

Now, you said regarding Senator McCain's military policies there, Senator Biden, that you supported a lot of these things. In fact, you said in fact that you wanted to run, you'd be honored to run with him on the ticket, and that's an indication I think of some of the support that you had at least until you became the VP pick here.

You also said that Barack Obama was not ready to be commander in chief. And I know again that you opposed the move that he made to try to cut off funding for the troops and I respect you for that. I don't know how you can defend that position now, but I know that you know especially with your son in the National Guard and I have great respect for your family also and the honor that you show our military. Barack Obama though, another story there. Anyone I think who can cut off funding for the troops after promising not to is another story.
***
Ifill’s question:
…you said in July that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. You, senator, said, you would not be vice president under any circumstances (Palin apparently thought we’d believe she was joking and we have to take him at his word even though when you’re running for President, I don’t guess there’s any room for pondering, “hmm, if I lose, I really, really want to be VP”.)

*** *** ***
On the SNL VP debate…which I watched online since I can’t seem to stay up anymore…

I loved how they zinged Biden on the Scranton thing and Palin on the Couric interviews- It’s good to be here without the filter of the gotcha media with their fact checking, follow up questions, and the need to figure out what your words mean and why you put them in that order.

I really should have seen the last joke coming with the Joe six pack and maverick self labeling abound, but I nearly blew my tea all over the computer. It was the wink, I think.

Economy, Palin chaperoned, advisers, etc

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902049.html

The majority of House Republicans were against the bailout and McCain’s blaming Democrats- principally Obama and Pelosi- for the failure. Politics ahead of country? That’s reaching. I guess they need to create a little controversy to deflect attention away from the Palin interviews. McCain sat in on yesterday’s. She didn’t do as bad this time, but with McCain sitting there policing, it sent the message that she couldn’t handle the situation or wasn’t trusted to do so (maybe for good reason). There was the question about the voter asking about Pakistan…again McCain tried to divert attention away from the issue (reminiscent of Bush when under fire for a variety of questionable actions in his Presidency) with the “Gotcha Journalism” (another Bush tactic-give everything a catchy nickname so people remember the diversion, rather than the issue of concern) commentary. It was a “gotcha” moment. Palin gave an answer like the one McCain criticized from Obama. It’s a legit “gotcha”! Palin’s allowed to tell the terrorists our general plan, but Obama’s supposed to not let anyone know what he thinks should be done on foreign policy issues. Doesn’t really make sense.

Obama didn’t blame anyone for the crisis, but is talking about McCain’s deregulation history. McCain did say “ Fundamentals of the economy are strong.” And that he’s “fundamentally a deregualtor”.

I have heard some in conservative circles about McCain’s bill and warning of the financial crisis. If McCain did cosponsor something to fix Fannie and Freddie in 2003 or 2005, why is he not talking more about that? It seems like that would be ripe for disputing Obama’s digs…unless it is not as it seems. The bill never made it out of Republican committee, to Senate floor. His economic plan is more like Gramm’s, not this bill. Gramm left the campaign as chief economic advisor after the whiner comment this summer, but still assists the campaign, which is frightening.

On the one hand you’ve got that and on the other you’ve got different things McCain has said. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2007/12/mccain_its_abou.html
(It was at this point he looked to Gramm for advice-yikes!)

This is a sore point for both campaigns. Both candidates have connections to Fannie and Freddie- McCain’s got Phil Gramm and Rick Davis, among others.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-18-econteams_N.htm

Here’s a different view:
It wasn’t Fannie and Freddie
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/09/once-again-it-w.html


Old McCain foreign policy adviser list:
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/mccain-advisers/

More recent list:
http://www.connectusfund.org/mccain

Economic adviser list:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/other-list-mccains-economists.html


Voting record
http://www.411mania.com/politics/columns/69733

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/


This could be an interesting site. I didn’t have a chance to peruse it for long…
http://www.procon.org


Two oft repeated McCain quotes that make me chuckle:
(He repeated them in the debate, though he rushed through the delivery of the veto pen one so it wasn’t as dramatic as at stump speeches)
*veto pen; “ I will make them famous and you will know their names”
*”snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”- talking about Obama’s plan

Debate #1 Obama-McCain

First in debate business is I am surprised that there was one at all! I really thought since McCain thought the financial crisis grounds for suspending the campaign, canceling the debate, returning to Washington (to do who knows what), and urging Obama to do the same that he wouldn’t show. It was really a lose-lose situation. If he goes, he has to flip flop, if he stays in Washington, he lets Obama have the forum unopposed at a time when he’s really not serving a critical function or doing anything constructive at all. I guess this just goes to show that McCain’s big announcement and effort to look presidential and take charge really was as crazy as I thought it was. The McCain response to the debate, released about a minute after it, said McCain was presidential and Obama was political. McCain’s actions clearly show that at best, both are political! If this is true, this is also rather political- an ad was placed announcing McCain won the debate before it was known if he’d go or not. I hope the ad thing is some kind of joke the media picked up thinking it was real because that is really lame if it is in fact real. I was going to say it wasn’t presidential, but actually damage control and false information has become presidential, so that’s up in the air.

A second observation is how mad McCain appeared at the beginning to even be there. Or was it embarrassment?

I was disappointed that Obama didn’t focus on McCain’s history of pushing deregulation when talking about the current financial crisis. I think it was mentioned in voting with Bush or very briefly. McCain took the opportunity to mention a Fannie or Freddie tie with Obama’s campaign, but Obama didn’t return the favor by pointing out how many were/are working for McCain. Sometimes I think the time and format were to blame for either candidate not getting in a last dig.

Obama’s “John is right”…will we see this again? If not by comedians or Fox commentators, then in another McCain ad filled with half truths and lies (like the Messiah and sex ed ads).

McCain claims that Pakistan was a failed state before Musharraf. Not true. Ouch. Not looking good if foreign policy is supposed to be his strong point.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/703847.html

McCain also said he warned us about the financial crisis, but in November 2007 he said he hadn’t seen it coming.

The candidates argued over Kissinger’s position. Obama said Kissinger agrees that there should be talks without preconditions. McCain said Kissinger said there should be talks with low level officials and that he’s always supported that. Obama’s point was the preconditions issue, not high level vs. low level and McCain hasn’t supported talks with Iran. McCain did say that Kissinger doesn’t support high level, only low level talks and it appears he supports high level talks after all. I don’t know if McCain considers Secretary of State low level, though…

Kissinger’s position:
"Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic..." Sesno: "Put at a very high level right out of the box?" Kissinger: "Initially, yes. And I always believed that the best way to begin a negotiation is to tell the other side exactly what you have in mind and what you are -- what the outcome is that you're trying to achieve so that they have something that they can react to. Now, the permanent members of the Security Council, plus Japan and Germany, have all said nuclear weapons in Iran are unacceptable. They've never explained what they mean by this. So if we go into a negotiation, we ought to have a clear understanding of what is it we're trying to prevent. What is it going to do if we can't achieve what we're talking about? But I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations. We ought, however, to be very clear about the content of negotiations and work it out with other countries and with our own government." (CNN's "Live Event," 9/20/08)

McCain: "And I -- and I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas, including his initial reaction to Russian invasion -- aggression in Georgia, to his -- you know, we've seen this stubbornness before in this administration to cling to a belief that somehow the surge has not succeeded and failing to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge is -- shows to me that we -- that -- that we need more flexibility in a president of the United States than that."
*OK, McCain tries again to compare Obama to Bush. Still funny. Especially since McCain repeats the false statement about Obama’s initial statement about Russia and Georgia and the campaign let Palin repeat the bridge to nowhere half truth, etc. The whole thing about the surge working is not the whole truth in the first place, so Obama has nothing to “admit”. It is a little more involved than McCain would like to lead us to believe. There were apparently several factors independent of the surge that contributed to a “success”.

MCCAIN: "It's well-known that I have not been elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate nor with the administration. I have opposed the president on spending, on climate change, on torture of prisoner, on - on Guantanamo Bay. On a -- on the way that the Iraq War was conducted. I have a long record and the American people know me very well and that is independent and a maverick of the Senate and I'm happy to say that I've got a partner that's a good maverick along with me now."
*Obama was talking about tax plans and how McCain voted with Bush and wants to keep his tax cuts and McCain used the time to bring up his legendary maverick label and how he picked another maverick as a running mate. Not the reply with the most substance. But staying on topic would mean convincing us that voting with Bush on budgets, increased spending and tax cuts has helped our economy. Instead, lets talk about how he didn’t vote with Bush on climate change and torture. Bravo, McCain! You don’t agree with torture! Way to reach across the aisle!

Speaking of reaching across the aisle, one example McCain gave was working with Leiberman. I’d argure that Leiberman was the one reaching…

McCain managed, for good measure, to work this into talk about the possibility of another 9/11- “And I want to tell you that one of the things I'm most proud of, among others, because I have worked across the aisle. I have a long record on that, on a long series of reforms.”

Kudos to McCain for only saying "my friends" once or so! Maybe that was due to the fact that they were supposed to be talking to each other in this format?


Here's factcheck's summary:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html

Unbelievable Couric interview with Palin

Palin and Gibson, Couric - her coming out party has not been great so far, even though she is shielded fom the press. She may have peaked at the convention. She looked absolutely lost- I could feel the panic- both when Gibson asked her certain foreign policy questions (Bush doctrine) and when Couric asked her about Rick Davis, Freddie Mac . Palin couldn't cite any examples of McCain reforming "the way Wall Street does business" except the one Couric gave. She floundered and brought up the maverick slogan (when all else fails...) and then said she'd have to look it up and get back to her. McCain's got the Davis connection, among others, and he's trying to call Obama out for Raines, whom someone on the campaign apparently spoke to for a few minutes once. McCain should tread carefully when it comes to lobbyist/financial crisis ties. I think that is a losing contest for him, as there are so many and his record is not exactly clean or like that of a maverick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abicOUTn6v0&NR=1huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/11/sarah-palins-charlie-gibs_n_125772.html

More on Palin...
I guess the good news from her recent interviews is, Palin can now answer yes (without hesitation and clarification) to Gibson's question about meeting foreign leaders after her adventures at the UN. I still don't think that photo ops,no matterhow many you cram into 2 days, qualify as foreign policy experience any more than seeing Russia from an island in your state. I wonder if they will try and squeeze in an impressive number so that they can put in an ad that she "knows" more foreign leaders than Obama, never mind she doesn't know the issues, her party's position, at times her candidate's position, hasn't worked with foreign leaders or on foreign affairs in any official capacity. We will have to wait and see.

She responded to the notion that she viewed having Russia and Canada as neighbors "enhanced" (or made) her foreign policy experience. Some were saying she wasn't exactly saying that proximity was experience, but in speaking to Couric, she definitely equated proximity with experience (Her answer being, "Well it certainly does...") and dodged the question a bit with the trade delegation side note. And what she said about Putin!? "As Putin rears his head?!" I don't think you want to be talking that way about someone you hope to negotiate with, keep on friendly terms with, or want any sort of favors from in the near future. I guess that pales in comparison to McCain's talk of Russia. Not exactly your diplomatic dream team. Yikes.

Palin on Israel. Wow. She knows or cares even less than Bush about this foreign policy centerpiece. We can't second guess Israel because of the Holocaust??!! Our government (+Palin) is way more supportive (unconditionally and obsequeously so) of the Israeli regime, occupation, and collective punishment of Palestinians than a lot of people in Israel! Expressing concerns and discussing options isn't second guessing...hmm. She los tme there, but I am a bit tired... When all else fails, oversimplify and frame it as good versus evil. I'm kinda glad she elaborated, 'cause I was having a hard time figuring out who the good guys were. The history of extra-judicial assassinations, collective punishment, settlement existence/ building, disproportionate force, and suspicious evidence regarding targeting of civilians. Israel's multiple counts and decades of defying international law warrant a close watch or even sanctions. She toed the Zionist line that Israel is under an existential threat; that any threat is in fact existential. They have one of the most powerful militaries in the world and maybe the most powerful for its size. They don't need us (except maybe to steal classified info from). I don't know how their military would fair without our money pouring in, though.

McCain was worried that Obama was exploiting the financial situation for his own gain (when all the pundits were saying Obama boost in polls was due to the economy), but it seems he himself has put himself before his country in calling for debates and campaigning to stop so he can go to Washington and pace around and wait on the negotiations he and Obama aren't a part of to conclude. McCain and Obama's presence in Washington won't help the situation- they aren't on the committees as far as I know. So, debate away. Maybe I'd suggest moving the debate closer to Washington in case they need to vote or something, but cancelling it so they can sit around or pace like expectant fathers in old movies just seems like a political play to put off a debate that would highlight McCain's record of support for deregulation at a time when these actions are exposed as not serving us well- or in fact causing the whole mess. Perhaps McCain would like to postpone the debates until after another major terrorist attack?

Interesting in Bush's explanation of the mess was the absence of talk about deregulation which helped or caused the situation. He also said this situation transpired over the course of years, not overnight, yet in March- just 6 months ago- he was saying (along with McCain's advisor Phil Gramm) that our economy is strong. I don't know what to believe when Bush speaks anymore. I guess expect the opposite of truth.

symbolism and trash/ endangered words!

Much like California efforts to get a sewage plant named after W, Israel has gotten a permit to dump it's trash in Nablus. We all knew this was the attitude of the Israeli government toward Palestinians, but I guess this just adds another layer. The rest of the world doesn't think of Palestinians in this way. The recent archaeological discovery near the site of the dump proves that the Palestinian Territories have a rich history that needs to be preserved and protected. If only someone could convince Israel of value of the land and people it has been trying to suppress, silence, and generally "disappear".
http://www.imemc.org/article/57034


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7630934.stm
The Jihad and weddings subtitle made me laugh. What could be more romantic than killing?
Anyway, the idea of Bin Laden as a poet is pretty funny, too. It would be intriguing to look at some of this stuff. I mean, how did he go from so unpolished to revered and feared? He's still no more qualified to issue a fatwa than I am--it makes no sense.


In less political news, there is a save the words campaign going on. Anyone want to adopt a word?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3046488/Collins-dictionary-asks-public-to-rescue-outdated-words.html
The BBC and other British organizations have adopted an obscure, endangered word in hopes that it won't be excluded from the dictionary. As I was listening to this on the radio, I was thinking of a political blurb using a bunch of them, but it seems someone beat me to it if you read the comments on the article, so I won't bother. Funny stuff.

Election notes

I'll fix these links and edit soon...

Reading List:
Angler- Cheney VP book. I think I want to read it. It may give me nightmares, though, so maybe not.


More election notes:

McCain criticized the Obama campaign recently for saying the economic trouble and bailouts will help him politically . McCain accused Obama of exploitation. (I don't think just the Obama campaign is saying that-seems everyone knows it.) This sounds familiar…wait a sec… McCain’s campaign had the same to say about McCain and another terrorist attack…how it would help them or something like that…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7470399.stm


At least in Obama’s case, this is just a generally acknowledged fact. The crisis is here. In McCain’s case, I think the guy was caught implying that he was hoping for another attack. Since this was not said in the immediate aftermath of an actual attack, this came off sounding rather more sinister than (I hope) it was meant.

Palin said this recently of Obama… 'He likes to point the finger of blame,' she said of the Democratic candidate 'But has he ever really lifted a finger to help?'
The much ridiculed community organizing comes to mind, among other things...

Palin talks about experience as a mom, but no one can criticize or ask about balancing a 5 month old with Down’s Syndrome, pregnant teen, and other family issues with her very demanding, very public jobs.
Also, people say no one would talk ask about family obligations/balance for a man, so we shouldn’t of Palin. BUT, the men generally don’t stand up and talk about being a dad as though it qualifies them for public office. Maybe this is unique to her or maybe it speaks to the unique role of the woman in the home. I’m not one to say women should stay home, but in considering a job of this magnitude and the fact that she has made being a mother into a resume item, I think it’s legit to ask about the work/family balance and related issues.


83 Wall Street Lobbyists Among McCain Aides, Donors
Meanwhile, a new analysis of his donors and advisers has found McCain has extensive ties to eighty-three lobbyists of the financial industry he’s been criticizing. According to Mother Jones magazine, the eighty-three include McCain’s chief political adviser, Charlie Black; his national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman; and his vice-presidential search director, Arthur Culvahouse.
From Democracy Now 9/19/08
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9753_mccain_campaign_lobbyists_wall_street_aig.html


It is odd to hear Obama talking about corruption in Wall Street, etc, and making the populist appeal when he had a fund-raising event that was $28,000 per ticket!


"The congressional leaders who give him his marching orders now say this mess isn't their fault and they aren't going to take any action on this crisis until after this election. What?" (audience booed)
"That's the kind of 'Me First, Country Second' politics that's broken in Washington.”
*He makes it sound like Obama is Washigton’s robot and this “brain” is responsible for the whole enchilada. McCain’s been there longer and supported deregualtion, which actually did lead to this mess! McCain trying to paint Obama as the elitist establishment candidate is always good for a laugh.

All that being said, either of the two candidates effecting real change in Washington is equally unbelievable.


Three funny quotes:
'I could walk [100 miles] from here to Lansing and I wouldn't run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.'
Joe Biden, Monday

'The fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.'
John McCain, Monday

'Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he's President he'll take on, and I quote, "the old boys' network in Washington" ... The old boys' network? In the McCain campaign that's called a staff meeting.'
Barack Obama, Wednesday

more campaign comparisons and observations...

Candidate profiles are interesting. You can compare foreign policy experience with 3 of the 4 candidates on the tickets. They are probably about equal in experience, though what makes it up is different for each. McCain and Biden have long careers and resumes. McCain was in the Navy, but Biden has a focus on foreign relations specifically and is chair of that Senate committee. Obama has a shorter career, but with personal overseas experience. His resume is impressive and pretty serious for someone not long in Washington- he’s proven he can reach across the aisle and he’s familiar with a wide array of important issues, and has visited a handful of countries in an official capacity. Palin definitely trails behind these three, though she has a couple of years of executive experience. If she (and Giuliani and other assorted conservatives) laughs/smirks/ at Obama’s community organizing as a resume item, then I definitely don’t think “living next to Russia” (you can see it from an Alaskan island) should count as foreign policy experience!
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/2008presidentialrace/2008_Presidential_Candidates_and_US_Foreign_Policy.htm


In the past, McCain has tended to be more independent (“pro” column) and has said more things that make sense than other Republicans, so I didn’t feel like it was so bad that he was going to win the nomination. BUT he doesn’t always vote the way that makes sense and for several years he’s been getting more conservative, perhaps in preparation for the nomination.
Anyway, here are some McCain foreign policy “cons”:
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=8&f=00&su=p649.3.336.ip_&tt=2&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//hnn.us/articles/50983.html

When the issue of McCain not being such a maverick or of Palin accepting a boatload of earmarks while claiming to have refused them, their supporters always point out how Obama hasn’t stood up to his party or how he participates in the earmark game as well rather than addressing the fact that McCain’s not a maverick or Palin’s earmark successes. Obama isn’t running on a platform of standing up to his party and trying to win independents and or democrats. He may be guilty on the earmark thing if you look at the whole issue of reform, though.

Another thing that bothers me about McCain are his adviser choices. I don’t think he chooses wisely- he’s picked some infamously controversial ones as well as ones that don’t make sense. Bolton as a foreign policy adviser?? There are few more controversial than that. If Bush chose this person for anything, you don’t want him! That and his record. Some say he spins intelligence, isn’t too diplomatic, hates the UN, and generally isn’t someone you want involved in diplomacy.

McCain himself has said some rather odd things foreign policy wise. Maybe some view it as revolutionary or reform minded, but I’m going to go with crazytalk or schizophrenic. He is very antagonistc toward Russia, which I don’t think will help a anyone or anything. He has said something about leaving them out of the G8 and or creating an alternative to the UN and not allowing Russia to join. And, he wants an arms control treaty with Russia and more transparency. Doubt that’s going to happen if he excludes them from all the clubs.

Phil Gramm was an economic adviser to McCain. He’s the Enron guy who said we should stop whining; the economy’s fine or something like that. I think scandal has caused some distance here, but I doubt McCain’s judgment on many of his choices of advisers. This proved to be an indicator of how the Bush presidency turned out, so we’ve got to look into these things. Bush surrounded himself with neoconservative war hawks who ended up pushing us into a war we had no right to start.

Palin also appeared to be a rather hasty choice. Rove wanted Romney. McCain wanted Lieberman. Palin was chosen. Palin, with no foreign policy experience (except that Russia is next door) and little to no economic experience (we can’t all balance our budget with Big Oil money). Palin, with a rather interesting personal “situation”- a pregnant teen daughter. On the surface, it seems like a reckless choice, though I’d like to think she’s more vetted than it looks. It doesn’t make much sense, unless he was looking to make ultra conservatives happy, which it did. They may have been trying to “steal” some bitter Hillary fans, but that’s probably not going to be very successful, unless those supporters didn’t care about any issue except the gender of the candidate.

Gas prices. Yikes!

Gas went up from $3.60 in my area to $4.25 ($3.99 for the 2 other stations on the road) on Friday. This was before Ike hit. Some people reported it and it went “down” to $3.99 the next day, the equivalent of some other stations down the road. Saturday, the same day I noticed it was “down”, it went back up to $4.25 by the end of the day.

Now, I had looked into the whole gas price thing, read stuff by people who said oil companies were profiting, some said it was the market and nothing’s wrong, some said it’s because soon there won’t be any resources left and oil companies are trying to recoup losses now. I was kind of leaning toward the latter two explanations. Until now. I really think there’s something fishy going on. The refineries weren’t hardly damaged and the high price ahead of the storm still holds. Somebody’s raking in some serious profits.

If McCain puts Palin on the economy or energy or anything related to that, then we won’t get any relief or results. Oil companies will continue to take advantage. She is governor of a state that doesn’t really need to worry much about budget, so her experience there is going to be limited as well. Alaska’s economy is driven by oil, oil pays the bills, so she will see no need to investigate them. She hasn’t lived where gas is $4.00 and up per gallon and citizens don't get money back from oil. I think she even worked to get more money to people in this way and so Alaskans got paid more at the rest of the country's expense.

Palin or Fey? Can you tell the difference??

You have to see Tina Fey as Sarah Palin if you haven't already. There couldn't be a better impersonation. It was great. I guess this would go under my "pro" column for McCain if good TV were more important in the scheme of things than foreign policy, the economy and health care. I could deal with 4 to 16 years of Tina Fey. As with Bushisms, though, the funny's probably not actually worth the overall pain.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/

Update to pro/con list:
Charlie Gibson's interview with Palin- she very clearly didn't know what the Bush doctrine was and really gave legs to the concerns of a foreign policy void on her resume. McCain can't really help her, either. He spent time saying Giuliani and Romney's executive experience didn't count... and their time in office is longer than Palin's!

An interesting blog also has the transcript. I'll have to have a closer look at this one...
http://therebeller.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-abcgibson-interview-tanscript-9.html

Another account- this claims that some was edited out of the interview. I remember hearing some of the underlined, "left out" stuff, though. I'd have to go back and check it out...
http://www.brutallyhonest.org/brutally_honest/2008/09/the-un-edited-g.html

Mudslinging

I guess I should say something about the mudslide of late.

Lipstick on a pig. I've heard that before. Yes, McCain used it, but I had heard it before that. It's a common saying and he was reportedly in a rural area, so it was relevant. What's the big deal? Palin compared or called, as some would say, a pit bull. Is that any better? Had Obama said or repeated that, he'd be accused of calling her a female dog. The context was not women, Palin, weight, women who stink, etc. The context was the McCain campaign saying the same things, but changing their slogan to change. The whole change thing sounds a lot more evil and hokey when Democrats used it, I guess. Now it's cool.


What looks more like mud is:

"Messiah complex" ad tops McCain's accusation of Obama would put himself first, not country first:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ah7Zsqh6M

sex ed ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NxioiwqufU

9/16/08 edit: The McCain campaign released a Web ad Wednesday that plays Obama's lipstick comments, then asks, "Ready to lead? No. Ready to smear? Yes."
McCain needs to watch it on that one, given the ads cited above. But then again, they're still repeating Sarah Palin said thanks but no thanks to the Bridge to Nowhere, when that has been well proven to be a half truth at best.
Facts don't really matter sometimes. Like when the line's as catchy as that one is. It sounds good, over and over and over and over and over... and over again.

Some say to ignore the mud and get back to the issues. I'd say yes and no. Yes, it can be petty and we should pay more attention to the issues and sort fact from fiction, but I think Obama should respond to the mudslinging. If he ignores it, he'll end up like Kerry. If he gets too flustered, that won't look good and it's not necessary since they are lies anyway. And why not talk about the mud? As long as we are talking about the issues too. An issue to me is how the candidates act under the pressure and mudslinging and who do they surround themselves with-bloodthirsty, dasterdly Karl Roves or composed, civilized individuals? I guess the mud serves some purpose.

Conventions- no, of course there's nothing else going on in the world... :)

This isn't a comprehensive list of pros and cons. Some I haven't written (and may never, as is my blog track record!) yet and some items I've already written about in other posts.

I want to look at other candidates, too. Nader, McKinney, and Kucinich (so he's not a candidate...) are interesting to me for various reasons, but I can't say I agree with them 100% or even 75%.

McCain

He attacks Obama for being "me first," rather than "country first" like McCain says he is, which is unsubstantiated especially given is many, many references to his handling of his POW experience.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/08/15/cnn-forwards-idea-mccain-ad-hints-obama-antichrist

He and others say he's a maverick and lobbyists' enemy- over 150 run his campaign or are big contributors
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/politics/21bundlers.html

Votes against his party less often than others, maverick is more like an empty campaign slogan; he votes with Bush most of the time. I don't know how he got the maverick nickname, except maybe the times he did go with the Democrats, it was covered by the media (yes, the same one that is so out to get Palin!)

Conservatives bashed the hope/change theme of Democrats and now they’re trying to steal it. Guess it wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Maybe they realized that all running for office are putting country first, so they’d better change it up.

Said to be reluctant to talk about POW experience, yet he talks about it every campaign and it seems to be substitute for record in foreign policy/veterans
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559

Said he voted for the troop surge when it was unpopular, right thing to do
-BUT surge didn't cause decrease in violence
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403160.html?hpid=topnews
He was wrong to support the Iraq invasion and is in opposition to Iraqi and our interests in keeping troops there.

Supposedly wants to get rid of pork barrel spending, yet chose Palin?

Values candidate married to his mistress?? No one cares, apparently. This sort of thing destroys Democratic campaigns. So would teenage pregnancy, but when on the Republican side, it makes them more real, they live out their pro-life values, etc. Doesn’t say much for abstinence only, though. There is a double standard where Republicans' sins make them more real or are needless attacks on their private life, but Democrats' sins are grounds for dumping from public service, impeaching, banning, etc. Another example of the double standard is the Bush/ Clinton drug use- Republicans react by saying don’t listen to vicious attacks, however true they are; this ruins reputations/campaigns for Democrats. Also, the wealth of Cindy McCain isn’t really emphasized the way Kerry’s wife’s was (except for the “how many houses do you own” debacle)- may or may not matter, but it is part of the double standard. Another is Bristol's teen pregnancy, though we can only speculate on the Democrat side.

Less government spending? See Palin

Chose Phil Graham of Enron troubles for economic advice- ouch. He may have since distanced himself from that.

Didn’t take Rove’s suggestion on VP (Romney); distance from Rove is good news for bringing integrity back to the Presidency

Age and health-PTSD- which leads us to take a closer than usual look at the VP pick-and there is a lot to look at since her name really wasn’t floated like some others were.



Palin

The fact that she has governed for 2 years longer than the 2 Dems and even McCain counts for something, but there are a lot of “cons” compared with that “pro”.

troopergate, though touted as tough on corruption

Pregnant daughter- if Palin were democrat, this would be issue number one for Republicans; it would probably be said “if you can’t lead your house, you can’t lead the country; family values would be made the centerpiece without specifically mentioning the daughter so as to subtly make a contrast-me, good; them, bad.

Alaskan Independence Party- Palin spoke at its 2008 convention and spoke about Alaska’s self-sufficiency. If she means economic, then her earmark history (bridge to nowhere story, increasing them for zero to $27,000, hiring the first lobbyist, asking Ted Stevens for $200,000 in earmarks) proves that wrong. If she means secession, then what about country first? This would be more serious than a flag pin, IMO.

Book banning effort-need more info on that... will she be like Bush and feel a need for more control than is good for the office?

Earmarks- bridge to nowhere, good at pork barrel

Foreign policy- her state borders Canada and Russia (qualification given by Cindy McCain and John Bolton)

Mayor-Wasilla didn't have a budget, left town with $22 million deficit

Iraq- Soldiers sent on task "from God", former minister's other fundamentalist views.
Yes, we should talk about it as it could affect the way she would govern or lobby McCain (is she worse than Bush??). If anyone at all entertained the “Obama’s a Muslim” rumor, then we should definitely talk about this. Since we talked about Wright, then we should talk about what her preacher preaches and what she said in a speech to her former congregation (praying for a pipeline, etc).

She’s a woman-I like to think she can bring something new to the table that men can't-BUT in her speech and Cindy's intro, rather male qualities are emphasized and valued listed sports played, hunting, fishing, etc.

Will she address mom issues- more paid leave, vacation time- how else are value voters supposed to pass on the values but to be given more time to spend with children- or will she adopt the rich WASP issues.

Some things from moveon.org (I’m not a huge fan, but they made some good points here):

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1
Valid concern.

Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2
I agree with her on this, but don't know about a total ban- mother vs. baby's life?

She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000. 3
Scary.

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
I think it should be taught that evolution, big bang, etc is not absolutely true, discuss holes in the theory, even alternatives. I'm not sure about creationism specifically, unless it is a private institution, not getting state funding. The parents need to step up and teach the truth in matters relating to religion.

She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
That's a bold statement and perhaps not informed. I don't know that climate change is solely human's fault or that it's as bad as Gore would have us believe. I'm open to the idea that the changes may be cyclical and that we haven't been recording data long enough to see a cycle or enough cycles to determine the cause, but that's not to say we shouldn't reduce, reuse and recycle and look for alternative energy sources.

She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6
Well here we can say she has experience--in protecting big oil in Alaska. On the national scene, big oil isn't our interest like it is Alakans'. Her husband is or was in big oil and her inauguration was sponsored by BP.


How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7
I think he vetted her more than it appears, but I’ve got concerns that he chose her to grab Hillary’s fans, pump up the Evangelical or Conservative base and because she’d be more popular than Lieberman or someone that would have made more sense. It seems to be a political choice rather than one based on experience (foreign policy, economy).

Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.
I'm all for abstinence, but not abstinence only. I think it’s fair to think about this in light of Palin’s daughter’s situation.

RNC observations:

Protestor arrests for no reason

Several at RNC poke fun at Obama's community organizing; yet "service" placards held by fans.

Giuliani was appalled that 9/11 wasn't mentioned much at the DNC?? Our biggest threat??
Why?? Shall we let fear rule us? We were scared into attacking Iraq for no reason the last time the 9/11 attacks were invoked on the national stage.
He’s known for handling it well and doesn’t want us to forget it!
We had support after than and blew it, so revisiting it isn’t going to bring that back in this country or others. 9/11 is now inextricably linked with how the administration handled it, which is very badly.



Obama

Either he or Biden originally supported an amendment to the Iraq invasion bill that would have added a second UN discussion among other things to further assess the actual threat Iraq posed. This was the sensible thing to do and shows good judgment.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee-worked on many issues, visited several hot spot regions, bipartisan work

More familiarity with Islam than other candidates, which would be helpful since we are entangled in a region where a knowledge (respect, etc) of this would be a big help.

Civil rights experience-personal and as a lawyer does bring something to the table.

Constitutional scholar and community organizing are belittled or overlooked, but I think it is worth a mention.

The community organizing is really an interesting background for a politician and presidential candidate. It's democracy at work and the opposite of Washington's way-sort of. People organizing to take unjust laws off the books, protect workers, or any other thing that government has failed to accomplish. I think this is a helpful thing for a politician to have been involved in. If Palin's daughter keeping her baby conceived out of wedlock is proof of her family's strong moral fiber, then community organizing is definitely proof that Obama stands for and can mobilize people and make positive changes and contributions. It's not something to be belittled at all.

Background could bring unique view of things the way Palin's being a woman may.

Emphasis on diplomacy I still like and think is important for a President.

Raise taxes for rich, lower for poor, instead of cuts for everyone but esp. the rich and big business.

Wants to be seen as not a part of the establishment, yet chooses Biden. To add experience, I guess?

Talks about diplomacy, freedom and rights yet chooses Biden, who thinks our interests and Israel's are the same and takes the neocon stance. Biden called a bus bombing where ten or so Israelis died a massacre and issued a statement, but said /says nothing when hundreds of innocent Palestinians are killed, arrested without cause, collectively punished.



Biden

He’s not all bad.
He does have good ties with many on both sides, Democrat and Republican
He’s been a long time member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has chaired it.
He was a part of several committees that stuck it to the President on several issues relating to (+ or-) Iraq, detentions, Wolfowitz, Gonzales, etc, which I appreciate.

DNC blues

I wrote this around the tim eof the DNC...I emailed it to myself to finish, but forgot about it!


I was excited for Obama to be running at one time. With Biden as runningmate, I am significantly less enthused. Biden the proponent for war. Biden the guy who thinks it’s ok we’re not an honest, unbiased broker for peace in the Middle East and who thinks ours and Israel’s interests are one and the same.

Also troubling was the sponsorship of AT&T for the DNC. This not long after immunity was given to telecoms. Obama said he’d filibuster any bill that gave immunity and he suddenly changes his tune. Sounds a little suspicious.

Also, Obama has done some talking about the economy and has tried his best to identify with the shrinking middle class. I remember this as I watch coverage of the DNC and see the huge amount of money wasted on extravagant decorations, security, and lavish parties.

Rather than giving millions to campaigns so that they can use the money to make attack ads and ride around to campaign stops in gas guzzlers I’d rather they use the money to design a program, help education, or healthcare in this country. I know they’d figure out a way to use that for their gain or to buy votes or something, but it’d be nice to see all that cash go to something useful and beneficial rather than horrible campaign ads, conventions and parties that don’t do us ordinary Americans a bit of good.

Obama and McCain, the same but different

Where is a good 3rd party candidate when you need him/her??

This is a "Presidential Report Card" I was sent by a relative. I come from a conservative background, so I see a lot of this sort of thing. While I agree with some points "value voter" Republicans make, I don't see it quite the way they do. Some of them say they pick the candidate based on what the Bible says and that's good, but when you conclude that Christians can only vote for the pro-life, gay marriage banning (Republican) candidate, I just don't agree. My disagreement isn't about what the Bible says. I'm right there with them on that. I believe that a Christian's duty is to teach and put the information out there. People have to decide for themselves. We can't legislate them into heaven.

There aren't just two issues to be considered. There is a moral aspect to just about all the issues. I think abortion and gay marriage have been over-politicized and too much weight given to them.

Click here to see the original document:
www.savecalifornia.com/PresidentialReportCard.pdf


Interesting how out of all the issues, 8 are chosen and 5 or 6 of them are abortion/gay marriage related. If they’d asked about supporting Roe v. Wade repeal, both candidates would say no, so I guess we have to dig a bit deeper to find the pro-lifer in McCain.

Human life is said to be valued with the abortion issue, but there is dead silence on the Iraq invasion, how we rushed to war without a credible threat so that we were proven WRONG in our reasons for going. In taking this course of action, Bush and his supporters didn’t sufficiently value our soldiers who are being sent to Iraq and come home changed and usually not for the better- physically or mentally. Then there’s the whole issue of abuse and torture of detainees, do they have rights as POWs or shall we revoke human rights as they are actually illegal combatants, etc. This is a problem for me as a pro-lifer, yet I never hear pro-life Republicans talk about this. You apparently can’t be for human rights, against the Iraq invasion, and against abortion in this country.


Support Partial-Birth Abortions
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is one of those issues that McCain can use to define himself as pro-choice and so the Democrat must be pro-choice to pick up the other votes. Obama doesn’t so much say that he supports abortion, but that he thinks doctors and women should make the decision rather than the courts. Not quite the same thing. He seems to question a ban more than support abortion rights, which I think is something to consider. I am pro-life, but a total ban concerns me, so I lean Democrat. And the Republican rape and incest exception might as well be pro-choice, so I don’t think they have the moral market cornered, either.

Support Parental Notification
of Abortion
Obama: NO
McCain: YES

McCain’s abortion position clarified:
Abortion OK if raped; and no testing for rape. (Jan 2000)
Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions. (Jan 2000)
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations. (May 2007)

Sounds like he’s essentially pro-choice, but trying to keep those further right happy.
McCain sounds more pro-choice than he votes and Obama sounds more pro-life than he votes, so both are involved in pandering to the extremes of their parties and taking polar opposite positions to get a certain sector’s votes. That’s something that really annoys me about the Republicans and Democrats. The other is that they are pretty much the same while being polar opposites. Politicians!
And if McCain’s going to be making exceptions, the only morally questionable area would be life of the mother (ectopic pregnancy, etc-whose life to save, etc). If he’s going to exclude rape and incest, he is pro-choice in my opinion.

Protect Man-Woman Marriage on the Ballot
Obama: NO
McCain: YES

I don’t even think this should be on the ballot. People have the right to choose how to live. I believe homosexuality is a sin, but I also believe people have the right to decide how to live-to choose Christ or to reject him. Christians have the right and duty to teach, but I think legislation goes too far. It is a step toward forcing people to live by the Bible even where it doesn’t infringe on others’ life, liberty, etc.

Require Schoolchildren to Think Favorably About Homosexuality
Obama: YES
McCain: NO

The comments cited don't really say that Obama wants to require schoolchildren to think favorably about abortion. He says that he'd be ok with the story being read to his kids so they know about that possibility. I think being educated about it is fine. It is the parents' job to further teach the child that it is a sin. That's not the teacher's job. I hope as a parent that I will keep up with the school curriculum to further teach my kids, but I don't expect the teachers to do my job if I don't have the time or energy at a given time.

Support Adoption of Children by Homosexuals
Obama: YES
McCain: NO

Of course my opinion is that it is best if Christians adopt children so that they will get the opportunity to be taught the gospel; that’s why Agape of NC is great. BUT- if children need a home, they shouldn’t be denied that because of homosexuality. As the children grow up, they will think for themselves and they will be able to see if their parents/guardians are living according to the Bible or not. Again, Christians are to teach and put the information out there. It is up to the individual to act on it or not. Forcing compliance is not the Christian’s job. I can understand the point of view that Christians take when they support banning homosexuals from adopting and marriage, i.e., standing up for Biblical principles, but I have a different take because I disagree with what action to take, I guess.


Allow Local Governments to Ban Gun Ownership
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
I really don’t care about this issue, myself. I don’t want to own or shoot guns. I don’t think there should be a ban, but wouldn’t care if there were. I don’t think it would help with crime prevention. I do have an opinion on one aspect, though. I do think local governments should be able to decide what’s best for their community- Washington isn’t going to know what’s going on in each city and state.

Nominate Strict Constructionist Judges
Obama: NO
McCain: YES


Raise Taxes
Obama: YES
McCain: NO
*This is a bit misleading. Obama will decrease taxes on lower incomes and increase on higher incomes. It’s about time those with the ability to pay actually paid, instead of received all the breaks.
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html



So many thoughts, so little time...

Camera or weapon? Who can tell the difference?

Cameras and guns alike are dangerous to Israel. The difference is they have to act like they believe free press and cameras are ok with them; they don't with weapons on suspected terrorists.

A journalist was killed by Israel recently. This is much more newsworthy than the thousands that die (including kids) who aren't famous or journalists, unfortunately. Israel appears concerned...

Government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel understood the role of an independent, free press in a free society.

"These are situations that are faced internationally and we have got to find a better way to try to make sure journalists are not caught up in crossfire," he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7560672.stm

Oh, wait. Not so fast...

The Israeli military will not take action against a tank crew that killed a Reuters television cameraman and eight other Palestinian civilians in Gaza and has defended the decision to shoot as "sound". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/israelandthepalestinians.reuters?gusrc=rss&feed=media

So it wasn't concern so much as lip service.


Israel has a lot of these "mix ups". Perhaps they aren't as accidental as they want us to think...

boycotts

Ok. Bush and others discouraged an Olympic boycott of China because its not fair to the athletes to bring politics into the sports competitions. Great. Human rights, sweat shops, Tibet, and a bunch of other stuff. We'll ignore it.

An Iranian wants to sign with the NBA now. Guess what? It's ok to punish athletes in this case.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/basketball/news?slug=aw-nbairan081608&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

A flow chart of Bush policy would be a total web of confusion and contradiction, except if you map presidential power. That one's very simple, ballooning from 2000-2008.

Irony and double standards

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighbouring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people," George W Bush said in Washington.

"Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st Century."

Hmmm…In which century did we invade Iraq? True, the people didn’t exactly elect Saddam Hussein, but it was a sovereign nation and relatively stable, unlike now. It is interesting to hear that come out of his mouth. I think I’m not surprised anymore by such irony. He once said bring ‘em on in talking about terrorists – that one surprised me. Why even joke about that as leader of the free world in a public setting??

*** *** ***

John Edwards has admitted to adultery. That’s disappointing, as I have favored him for Presidential and VP runs. This will no doubt ruin political aspirations. Not that that's all that matters. Adultery is serious and I don't condone it at all. My issue is that the private lives ruined or at least tainted the careers of Edwards and Clinton, but Bush will apparently bear no responsibility (he certainly won't admit he's wrong, let alone guilty) for questionable, not-so-transparent, and possibly illegal things he's done as President.

This seems a bit funny as you put Edwards’ and Bill Clinton’s marital issues in contrast to what Bush has done politically on the world stage. He invaded Iraq for essentially no reason. At best, we acted too hastily, without the whole story (no WMD, no 9/11 link, “spreading democracy is a legit reason to bomb, etc); at worst, he or the administration flat out lied. Ron Suskind has a new book out that may expose that we knew Iraq had no WMD and fabricated a letter coming to the opposite conclusion--impeachable offenses. We’re holding people indefinitely in Guantanamo and even if they do get a trial, and aren’t guilty, we can still hold them indefinitely as long as this nonspecific, broad and general so-called war on terror goes on. We’ve sanctioned harsh interrogation methods (torture) and kidnapped people and tortured them in 3rd party countries. We even made up a new name for POWs, so we wouldn’t have to deal with the Geneva Conventions under this administration. Going to war so hastily or under a lie is absolutely reprehensible, yet Bush will encounter no consequences, unlike Edwards and Clinton for their private affairs (pun intended?). War has effects that range from monetary cost to the extensive human cost- the dead, the injured, the psychologically injured, soldier suicide, and the families and friends that have to bear this cost. And the military doesn't really take care of it's own. PTSD doesn't really exist to them. I have heard that some who admit to this to a military doctor are told that the cure is to go back over and kill more Iraqis. Nice. The military can break people down and turn them into killing machines, but does nothing to help bring them back to civilian life as a functional, happy human being bearing some resemblance to who they used to be.

Bush will remain blissfully ignorant of the effects of war (personally) and untouched by any number of consequences that should go along with such offenses as he has committed. War should be a last resort and it is becoming clearer that Bush doesn't have the same opinion- unless of course the country in fact DOES actually have nukes, like N. Korea- then, proceed with caution.

There is a good quote that you can win a war no more than you can win an earthquake.

Where did my vacation go?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_leave

Check out the chart. Us and Australia are the only countries without significant paid parental leave. The developing world’s parents have it better than we do. The “value voters” (or any voters) don’t really take on this issue from what I can tell, but it would make sense. More sense than some other issues they champion. I mean, more time with your kids and family-wouldn’t that translate to well- or better-adjusted kids? Stronger families? Oh, but it conflicts with the almighty market system, so mothers, pop that baby out and back to work! Pronto!
I look forward to the day when I can quit and take care of the kids. Only problem is, that is more likely to occur by the time they’re in college. Then what’s the point? At that point, we need to work to have something to do with ourselves. We need the year or so off when they are young and they need us most (and we need it most), but no one can afford to do that. Except the very fortunate. It’s so backwards.

As it is now, we get 3 months to take, provided we have the vacation time to do it and your boss doesn’t pressure you to return. Mine didn’t, but it happens. By law, you can’t lose your job. If it disappears, they have to provide an equal one or something like that. From the point of view of mothers, though, 3 months is nothing. You spend most of it hormonal, fat, hair falling out, in pain, and trying to get the hang of breastfeeding and caring for a being that totally depends on you. On my first leave, I was in pain and uncomfortable the entire time-the first half from the c-section and the second from the surgery to fix the breast abcess I had gotten after the antibiotics didn’t work on the mastitis. Having the year off would send women back to work who actually had their minds on their work, instead of worrying about the 6 week old or 3 month old they left behind, trying to stay awake every day on 3 hours of sleep, trying to find time and place to pump every few hours, etc.

Anyway, look at the chart. Sad.

***
The End of Summer Vacation
http://www.slate.com/id/2193389/

We don’t get as much vacation time as other nations. Surprise! Surprise! We would much rather drop dead of a heart attack that take a few weeks off of work to enjoy ourselves and our family. The American dream. Thanks again market economy! You work so you can have more money, then you have no time to enjoy it. If you take the time off, you won’t have the money.
A week or less at Christmas, a few days at Thanksgiving, several days for child care issues and… POOF! No vacation left. People have asked me what I’m doing for summer vacation. I’d love to say we’re going to the Bahamas or even the beach 3 hours away, but no. Summer vacations ended in high school really.

It is also said that Americans don't take the time they have off anyway. Maybe that's why it's disappearing. I saved my leave so I could take a "decent" (by American standards) maternity leave. Some may feel like they can't take off because they'll lose customers or look like a slacker to their boss. Mine accumulates (within a certain limit), so I'm constantly saving it so I can take more than a day off to see family, etc.


http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS130132+15-Apr-2008+PRN20080415
U.S. 14
Canada 17
Great Britain 26
Germany 27
France 31
Spain 37
Italy
Netherlands 28
Austria 28

Poop...and coffee

Picture from: http://www.carlspackler.com/archive/cs_183.jpg

When I heard about the coffee described below, I thought about this scene from Caddyshack. (It's a Baby Ruth bar, if you haven't seen the movie.) Even some fairly innocuous items in different settings can cause a degree of panic...

My husband keeps talking about this coffee. There is a really expensive coffee that is pooped by weasels. Imagine that! Would you pay $48 a cup for civet poop coffee?? I think I’ll pass. Pretty crazy stuff. Chock Full of Nuts or Starbucks will do just fine! Maybe you can get it cheaper "unprocessed". Ew.

But this is funny...
http://www.ravensbrew.com/NewFiles/kopiluwak.html

And Wikipedia comes through with this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak

Bush sewage plant!

This is for real. Some Californians are pushing to rename a sewage plant after Bush in commemoration of his policies and legacy. This is great. I kind of hope it passes. Only in California! Too funny.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/presidential.putdown.ap/index.html

The Dark Side

The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals by Jane Mayer

This is the latest book I want to read. We'll see if it happens. It seems like I only read a small fraction of the ones I want to read. Some of it is due to the fact that a lot of the books are political and become less relevant 5 or so years down the line. Part of the joy of reading things like the Bush Tragedy is seeing researched and in print what was dismissed as fiction by the neocon right for the longest time (poor Cheney still hangs on to much of it).

This one is great. It's the story of the interrogation debacle(s) and the evolution of policy on these issues. What the intel agencies/Bush admin did was use a program (SEER) designed during the Cold War for our people to resist interrogations and use it in reverse to interrogate "suspects". Torture is known to produce forced confessions. Cold War Soviet use of the tactics wasn't even designed to gain real intel; false confessions were fine with them--and we are using and have used these same tactics!

Also interesting is 1/3 in Gitmo were mistakenly picked up. One anecdote is a student identified his teacher as a terrorist for giving him a bad grade. Since we got rid of the Geneva Conventions, we no longer had to check into or even ask about such things. Half of those held are thought to be guilty.

Terror And The Unraveling Of America's Moral Fabric

Fresh Air- NPR 7/15/08- awesome interview

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92528583

McCain and Iran

McCain singing Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/04/mccain-sings-bomb-bomb-iran.html

I realize it was a joke, but it's really uncalled for when you're talking about bombings that will involve killing innocents. Unless they have those magic weapons that Israel has that don't kill any inncents, right? The "threat" is another resurrected one, so far unsubstantiated, so he should even be talking like that, let alone joking about it.

US Exports Cigarettes and more to Iran-supporting terrorism??
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/iran.us.buying.ap/index.html

McCain responding to the above report of exporting cigarettes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080709/pl_nm/usa_politics_mccain_iran_dc

Again, yes, it's joke. But sometimes some kinds of jokes are inappropriate. Especially if you're running to be in charge of such matters in the near future! I want someone that I know will take matters seriously, especially ones that involve life and death. One who will consider the human cost and make absolutely sure there's an imminent threat before we cause harm to us and others.

Speaking of responsible choices... McCain's probable pick for Treasury Secretary is Phil Gramm. THE Phil Gramm. Enron (he and his wife). Forclosure crisis. Is that someone who you wnat anywhere near financial decisions?? Yikes. And recently he said Americans need to stop whining about a mental recession. Where is this guy living? Mars? Anyway, McCain did the obligatory backpedaling, but will we see him kick Gramm to the curb, as Obama has done with controversial figures?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/9/foreclosure_phil_journalist_david_corn_on

Politics and the pulpit

2019 edit: Interesting how even at this early stage, how I was putting things together. If abortion was truly murder, then rape and incest wouldn't be exceptions. I didn't quite come round to the full thought put forward in  Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice - that the fact that they allow for those exceptions shows they aren't interested in the zygote so much as the woman's behavior...

Back to 2008...
It’s an election year again and I’m reminded of my unending personal debate. I’m fairly conservative religiously compared to the general population, but fairly liberal otherwise. I grew up listening to my dad, my parents’ friends, and even sermons in church say and imply that the Republican party offers the most Godly platform and positions and candidates and so we Christians should vote that way. The sermons generally wouldn’t say vote Republican explicitly, but you could tell what they were getting at. In my parents’ house, with their friends and to some degree among the Christians I grew up with, liberal was a dirty word- used almost like a slur.

For the Christians, including my parents, that I speak of I have the utmost respect and I agree totally with them on matters of Scripture. I do take issue with when Bible and Christianity mix with politics, though, and I hope if any of them happen to read this that they don’t take offense or think me disrespectful. I’m still trying to muck out my political position exactly. There isn’t really a party that captures my beliefs perfectly, no candidate that I can feel passionate about supporting.

I have a problem with saying candidate or party A is against abortion and gay marriage and the Bible is against them, therefore I must support A. I believe and can provide Scriptural support for their (and my) position that abortion and homosexuality are sin, but I think the fact that you must support candidates that have that position is opinion because it’s not that simple. Let me explain my thought process.

What was and is Jesus’/God’s goal or desire? That all would come to Him, that is, believe and live faithfully. 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 say this quite well. When we look at Jesus’ example, he didn’t want to change (inside or outside the set process of government) the government even though the Romans were quite harsh on Christians and it was far from Godly. His focus was on individual responsibility because that is how we’ll be judged- John 12:48 and Rom 2:6. While I can see some value to having Christian leaders of a country, there are problems, too. One being the issue of having religious influence in government such that laws would be specific to certain denominations or something like that-the slope is slippery and I fear that myself and those who believe like I do wouldn’t be in the majority, so we’d be at their mercy.

One way to accomplish this (Jesus’ desire), some might say, is electing Christian officials to enact Christian laws and ones that don’t violate God’s law. This seems a little backwards to me, though there is some truth to the expression “fake it til you make it”. Another, the opinion I hold for now, is to focus on spreading the gospel individually such that people choose not to have abortions, rather than go the more authoritarian route. I think everything has a moral issue to consider whether it’s the abortion stance, how well he will handle money (money God blessed me with and I am to be a good steward of), or whether he will attack countries at will, killing innocent people for no real reason. The point is, is that how to accomplish God’s desire is opinion. Sin is sin and there is Bible proof for that, but who you elect, whether you are pro separation of church and state or against, and other political issues are open for debate. There has been a movement in the past decade to politicize certain religious issues, which has removed the necessity to think for oneself. Not to say that those who disagree with me aren’t thinking for themselves-far from it-but the propaganda doesn’t help us talk intelligently and freely about these issues.

I also have an issue with the fact that the abortion ban poses some problems. It is murder when used as birth control and even in the case of rape and incest (on which most Republicans will take exceptions BTW), but what about ectopic pregnancy or other instances that I can’t think of where the question is to save the baby or mother or both are in danger? Will an abortion ban account for those, albeit, small number of cases? Should it, Biblically? Since I can’t answer that, I have a hard time with saying ban abortion absolutely and vote for those who will work to ban abortion. Never mind the fact that the so-called family values candidates are willing to murder a baby when the mother was raped. It’s a hard situation for sure. Would I make the right decision? I don’t know. But there is a right decision there and Republicans and Christians who support Republicans as the Godly choice have no problem with murder in those cases (or they must not because they say they can’t support a pro choice candidate because he leaves the door open on murder).

Also invoked in election years is how the country needs to get back to its Christian roots. I don’t think we want state established religion, do we? That’s how we started. If you didn’t attend twice on Sunday there were a set of consequences that involved the gallows at sea. And if you weren’t the “correct” denomination, there were harsh consequences including but not limited to prison. Founding Faith is an interesting book to read on this subject. The Founding Fathers and others of the time (who weren’t part of the state enforced denominations) tended to believe, with some exceptions, that separation of church and state would be good for both in different ways. Now, religious folks often look at separation of church and state as evil, worldly, and trying to take God out of schools, etc.

I hesitate to post this as some will probably think it heresy or worse, but this is a pet peeve of mine-politics from the pulpit- and I don’t always say what I want and don’t always have opportunity to say it, so I’ll write it here and move on. I hope you can do the same. I apologize if anyone reads it and it’s hard to follow or if I don’t explain myself clearly-I did my best with the time I have.

I guess I'll post it. Here goes...

Omer's beating: a lesson to innocent Palestinians??

This is something I posted at http://share.triangle.com (N&O). My fellow N Carolinians aren't much interested in foreign affairs it seems. I've got some in politics and current events and no one responds, so I'll turn it into a blog post. Not that anyone will read this, either!

Mohammed Omer was beaten (to put it mildly!) by Shin Bet on his way back to Gaza from London after receiving the Martha Gellhorn Prize for journalism.

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/06/28/israelia_8217_s_beat_and_torture_returni

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/headlines

10th topic down

Is this proof that the oft repeated claim that if the Palestinians would stop doing x, y or z then Israel wouldn't have to use force is false?

When Palestinians who are obviously innocent and unarmed are treated in this way, what incentive is there for other not so prominent Palestinians to turn from violence or resist joining the violent fringe?

Was this a political statement by Israel? Are they trying to silence his reporting in Gaza?

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/7/award_winning_palestinian_journalist_mohammed_omer

Shin Bet response to the issue: Omer “received decent treatment and no extraordinary measures were taken against him.” Read and decide for yourself. Should the US also institute these routine measures? We have learned a lot from Israel about torture-Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, etc. I wonder if these critical safety measures will accompany the taking off of shoes in our security procedure since they are routine and so effective.

Check this link if you want to know exactly what happened to this guy. It was obviously not in the name of security. The agent said we wouldn't have let you out if we knew you were coming back. The guy posed absolutely no threat and did nothing threatening except speak out at conferences, which in a democracy you'd think this would be respected to some degree. The agent reveals that the goal of so called security measures (entry policies, collective punishment, and torture) is ethnic cleansing. Pure and simple. Security is not part of it at all.

If this is how the innocent are treated, how can Palestinians believe that even if they had power over the militant groups to stop suicide bombing, that they would get rights, justice, respect, etc?? Collective punishment so harsh that it involves killing, torture, bulldozing homes, etc of innocents is not proportional or warranted in response to the threat. They have the wrong target and criticize suicide bombers for targeting innocents. Their weaponry is more advanced, precise, and plentiful and still they target or have A LOT of "accidents". Is Israel any better than those suicide bombers?

Israel and children

10-year-old subjected to torture by Israeli soldiers
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=811&CategoryId=1

How many times have you heard this story in the last week?? If this were an Israeli killed or injured by a homemade rocket, we'd hear it several times a day for several days.

We have very cozy relations with this country, one that we call the only democracy in the Middle East. WHY? It is debatable whether or not they have "democratic values" and respect for human rights. Ok, it's not debatable. They flout international law, continue to build settlements in defiance of international law and our restatement of international law on the subject, and think it's just fine to punish/torture a whole population for the crimes of a few.

McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton all made appearances at the AIPAC, trying obsequeously to win them over. Obama even abandoned his diplomacy theme (which is something that drew me in) for tough talk on Iran. Our Senators and House members preface their comments in the chamber with prolific praise and examples of how their constituents are friends of Israel. This is disconcerting to say the least, but I'll bet you won't hear them reprimanding their "friend" for this abuse, people that have died at checkpoints, use of human shields, settlement building, etc any time soon.

Why not? We hear about every injury and the periodic death by homemade Palestinian rocket. The Palestinian injuries and deaths mount in almost total silence, though they are almost triple the Israeli deaths. Are there just so many, that people would or have gotten tired of hearing about it? Is it because Israelis look and dress like "us" and Palestinians are brown? Are the Territories just too dangerous to report in, so they look to Israel, which has some action, but not too much? Conspiracy, carelessness, desensitization?

Congress can't speak out or they will lose their AIPAC funding or AIPAC will fund their opponent to get a more pro Israel candidate. Where are the journalists? Journalists seem to love covering hurricanes. They will stand there until they themselves blow away and seem to love every second of it.

Bulldozer attack

The big news is a Palestinian who went on a "rampage", killing three. Given that Israel, with the help of the company, Caterpillar, has bulldozed thousands of homes, made an average of 12 homeless per home, and killed indiscriminately, I'd say we should have expected this a lot sooner. You might call it ironic.

It's called a terror attack, but is it not possible that a Palestinian who's fed up with the Israeli oppression is driven crazy by possibly family being killed by IDF, lack of movement, Israel induced stagnant economy, etc? This one makes the news because the victims are Israeli. The 5000 homes demolished are not worth mentioning because Palestinians are losing everything, sometimes their lives; no Jews were harmed. Rachel Corrie made the news, but our government refused to hold Israel responsible, as it folded to Israel's wishes in the USS Liberty attack. I guess if we gave up our own servicemen to save Israel's rep, why sweat one young girl, right?

Here is the link for the Big Story- Palestinian bulldozes three in terror attack
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/02/israel.bulldozer/index.html?iref=nextin

Everyone is calling this a terrorist act, trying to find a group that will claim responsibility, etc. Israel's home demolitions and associated murders are just administrative moves- journalists don't mention terrorism, collective punishment, land grabs, or even do a follow up with the family ot find out what their next move is (as in other disasters) if they report it at all. The President doesn't call with condolences when Israelis are driving the bulldozers that crush homes, kill people, crush cars, etc. Mention "national security" and murder and destruction of property are immediately justified, no matter how unrelated it is to national security and how little sense it makes otherwise.

I heard a good point mentioned recently: Where were the bulldozers razing the family homes of relatives of the guy who assassinated Rabin? That's Israel's policy, right?

Here are some facts on home demolitions and other examples of Israel's continued commitment to human rights:

http://icahdusa.org/facts

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1

Terror watch uses local eyes
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_9725077

This sounds scary. Or it could be. It doesn't look that bad in the article, but the fact that things you do and say that aren't even illegal are being recorded and could be pieced together in patchwork fashion to frame you if the need arose is crazy. This opens the door for abuse, big time. On one hand it's great they're being vigilant; on the other, we're all a bad picture away from Guantanamo.


Preparing the Battlefield
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh
Hersh knows what's up. When he wrote about Iraq, I was thinking...naw...Bush isn't that crazy. It would be too hasty, there are too many former officials dissenting, the evidence doesn't seem to be there yet. And we ended up in a disaster there.