Roll Call notes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that she would find the votes to pass a health care overhaul and said Democrats had already made major concessions to Republicans, including ditching the public insurance option.

Yes, Democrats have made significant concessions to Republicans, and I can’t believe the Democrats are still open to negotiating.  The Congressional GOP will not be happy until Democrats have conceded everything in the bill and there’s nothing left—a.k.a. they won’t be happy until the bill is dead.

This was evident from this week’s health-care summit.  How many GOP Congresspeople said Congress should start over with a “blank sheet of paper.”  Rubbish.  This is code for “we want to kill the bill.”  They argue the bill is too long.  Then the president’s plan is too short.  Then C-SPAN cameras should have been in the negotiating rooms.  Then when the cameras are present, it’s all political theater.  Enough already.

Clearly the GOP is uninterested in crafting legislation to help Americans in need—the same Americans they often say they’re fighting for.  I don’t know which Americans they’re fighting for, but certainly not for those in need.

Congressional Democrats are going to be judged in November on what they’ve accomplished.  Now is the time to accomplish something.  But not just anything.  Something that makes a difference.

So if the GOP is uninterested in cooperating, Democrats should move forward on their own—and on their own terms, terms that include the public option.  Time to close this concession stand.  No more give-aways.

Hearing today’s news that Mark McGwire “came clean” about using steroids made me think.

Baseball players who either voluntarily admit to or are outed as using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) ought to be immediately and unconditionally banned from baseball.  Users of PEDs cease to be athletes in their own right.  They’re cheaters, swindlers, frauds and should be treated as such.

Average people who get caught cheating at their jobs to advance themselves would likely be fired and fight to relieve themselves of the deserved stigma spawned from their transgressions.  Baseball players?  Not even close.  Instead of being scorned, admitted and suspected users of PEDs are given a pass as they often tearfully make apologies and requisite declarations of “I wouldn’t do it again” as media outlets simply attribute the wrongdoings to “that era in baseball.”  Rubbish.

Allowing active admitted users to remain in baseball and retired users to retain their tainted records amounts to being accessories to the crime.  Furthermore, ostracizing Pete Rose for gambling seems almost trivial in comparison.  I’m not encouraging gambling, but at least he didn’t cheat his way into record books.

So, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds?  Stripped of your titles and banned from baseball.  Alex Rodriguez?  Banned.  Manny Ramirez?  Banned.

Cheaters deserve a cheater’s end.

With all the talk lately about socialism and socialized medicine, I started thinking.

Thanks to “socialism,” government pays for such horrifically evil things like law-enforcement from the police, fire protection from the fire department, K-12 education from public school systems, higher education from state universities and colleges, Medicare and Social Security, workplace safety standards from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), regulations and highways to drive on from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), GPS satellites from the Department of Defense, public health protections from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), national parks and historical treasures from the National Park Service, aviation regulations from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), weather forecasts from the National Weather Service, technological advancement from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), food safety regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), care and support for veterans from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and a mail service from the U.S. Postal Service.  Oh, and I almost forgot: national defense courtesy of the U.S. Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard.

But according to detractors, the government paying for a societal improvement like health care would suddenly spiral this nation into socialism.

Wired this week reported this interesting story:

Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold, has patched a serious security weakness in its election tabulation software used in the majority of states, according to a lab that tested the new version and a federal commission that certified it.

The flaw in the tabulation software was discovered by Wired.com earlier this year, and involved the program’s auditing logs. The logs failed to record significant events occurring on a computer running the software, including the act of someone deleting votes during or after an election. The logs also failed to record who performed an action on the system, and listed some events with the wrong date and timestamps.

A new version of the software does record such events, and includes other security safeguards that would prevent the system from operating if the event log were somehow shut down, according to iBeta Quality Assurance, the Colorado testing lab that examined the software for the federal government.

I am continuously baffled as to why Direct Electronic Recording (DRE) machines—aka electronic voting machines—are permitted for use in elections.  Their track record is awful.  Read this nice Wikipedia summary of security issues regarding Diebold’s Premier Election Solutions’s machines.

If you’re really up for some reading, check out these reports that all clearly illustrate why electronic voting machines should not be used until overhauls can be made to these machines’ glaring security issues:

• the Hopkins report from July 2003: http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf
• the State-of-Maryland-commissioned RABA report from January 2004: http://mlis.state.md.us/other/voting_system/Trusted_Agent_Report.pdf
• the State-of-California-commissioned report from February 2006: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/security_analysis_of_the_diebold_accubasic_interpreter.pdf
• the Princeton report from September 2006: http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/ts-paper.pdf
• the State-of-Ohio-commissioned EVEREST report from December 2007: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/everest/00-SecretarysEVERESTExecutiveReport.pdf

I guarantee you will be disgusted after reading those reports.  Manufacturers of these machines as well as the complicit federal government seem not to care that results of elections can be so easily hacked and stolen.

The idea of electronic voting machines is great.  We live in the digital age.  We live by digital devices every day, from cell phones, to computers, to ATMs.  Yet we can’t perfect a device that, if it fails, has the capacity to a) change the course of history, b) render the democratic process moot, and c) undermine citizenry trust of the entire system of government if indeed an election is hacked and stolen.

Perhaps I’m missing something, but the solution seems incredibly simple.  First, these machines should be built exactly to specifications defined by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), established in 2002 by the Help America Vote Act after the infamous Florida recount debacle, and a team of voting and IT security experts.  Much like the Pentagon orders Boeing or Lockheed Martin to build fighter jets to exact specifications, the EAC should dictate how machines are designed and built and how they function.

Second, testing should be paid for by the EAC, not the manufacturers of the devices.  Currently, the devices are sent to private testing labs, and the manufacturers foot the bill.  Does this not seem like a potential conflict of interest to anyone else?

Third, they must, must, must have a verifiable paper trail.  You use an ATM, you get a receipt.  You pay a bill online, you get a receipt.  You use an electronic voting machine, you likely don’t get anything to verify what just happened.  In the event of irregularities, without a verifiable paper trail, there is no mechanism to check the results of the election, so what happened happened.  Period.  End of story.

The flagrant disregard for adequate premier security standards is a punch in the gut and a stab in the back to the democratic process by private corporations more interested in making money and a federal government more interested in looking the other way.  Progress is being made, but not nearly as quickly and as comprehensively as it should.

The so-called “debate” about health care reform is not a debate, and is not anything like a debate.  A debate is:

a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints

What we’ve been seeing are no discussions.  Instead, what we’ve been seeing are near-riots incited by smear-and-fear politics aimed not at achieving a particular type of health care reform but instead absolutely no health care reform.

Let’s start with the video.  From CBS News:

Here’s Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) trying to hold a town hall forum in Tampa:

Another angle:

Here’s Rep. John Dingle (D-MI) trying to hold a town hall forum in Troy:

As Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) was trying to speak with constituents, a mob followed him around yelling “just say no”:

Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) had to be escorted to his car by police after protesters got out of control.

Protesters hung an effigy of Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) outside his district office.

An attendee at a town hall of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford (D-AZ) dropped a gun and the police were called for safety concerns.

Some protesters have brought Nazi references to protests.

If left unchecked, this level of hatred brewing has the potential to boil over and produce despicable consequences.

Is this a true grassroots opposition to health care reform?  No.  Rachel Maddow explains:

In the end, a few things seem clear to me:

There is no proposed “government takeover” of health care. There is merely a government-run public option being proposed to compete against the established health care insurance corporations.  You like your health care option you have now?  Great!  Keep it!  You want another option that may cost less and allow you to be covered even with pre-existing conditions?  Great!  There would be an option for that, too.  This is the debate: having options, having choices, saving money, saving lives.

Those who argue a government bureaucrat will stand between them and their doctor miss the point and the irony of their argument.  There already is a bureaucrat between them and their doctor: an insurance corporation. The difference between the two, though, is that the insurance corporation bureaucrat cares more about turning a profit than he does making sure you get the care you need at affordable prices.  Corporations are out for profit.  That’s what they do.

Government already runs health care. It’s called Medicare.  You don’t hear anyone demonizing Medicare.  Why?  Because it’s popular.  Seems to me, then, we have a working, satisfying government-run health care program already.

The health care problem is about three types of people: those without health care insurance, those with coverage but are under-insured, and those who cannot sustain the financial costs of their insurance plans.  Real health care reform must cover all three groups.

Those who argue people who have no health insurance still have access to health care via an emergency room overlook the cost and, again, the irony. The costs of emergency room visits are exorbitantly higher than the costs of long-term preventative care through regular visits to doctors.  The irony comes in because this, like Medicare, is also socialized medicine because the public foots the bill for those who can’t afford to pay for their emergency room visits (fact sheet from the National Coalition on Health Care).

People in states that are net beneficiaries of the federal government and receive more federal money than what they pay should think twice about castigating the federal government for not being able to do something right.  If these people find so much fault with the federal government that they think it couldn’t run a health care insurance option, perhaps they should lobby their politicians to stop allowing their state to accept federal dollars.  According to the Tax Foundation in 2005 (most recent available data), Mississippi received $2.02 in federal spending for every $1.00 of federal taxes spent.  The liberal elite in Connecticut, though, received $0.69 for every $1.00 spent.  Curious that states with higher populations of people that argue for a smaller federal government are those that need the federal government more. (Thanks, Charlie, for pointing this out to me).

Finally, those who call themselves Christians should must believe providing health care for all is a moral imperative.  Jesus taught Christians to love their neighbors as themselves.  Isn’t ensuring everyone has adequate coverage doing what Jesus would have done?  Caring for the sick and the poor?  So if any of you protesters call yourselves Christians, think about what it means before you argue against health care for all.

My point is this: health care is a serious issue we face today.  Costs keep rising; people can’t afford coverage or are denied or dropped because of so-called pre-existing conditions.  What we need is real debate: how do we cover everyone, how do we pay for it, etc.  Instead of these intellectual conversations, the health care debate has devolved into a neanderthalistic competition on who can shout-down and disrupt the most number of democracy-serving town hall meetings that aim to spur information sharing and gathering.

These organized riots are as sick as the current unsustainable health care situation in this country.  We can do better.  And we must do better.

Since Michael Jackson’s death last week, the media has been flooded with stories, rumors, and overkill reporting on his life, his death, and his curiosities.

I’m sick of it.

My distaste of the over-saturation culminated on Tuesday with a “breaking news” email alert from CNN that commented: “At memorial service in L.A., Michael Jackson’s daughter Paris says he was ‘the best father you could ever imagine.’”  And CNN’s on-air “breaking news” that the Jackson family motorcade was leaving Los Angeles.  These stories are as breaking news as the lawn outside my apartment getting mowed because the grass grew a couple inches.  Big effing deal.

His music was great; he made history with his music; he touched many lives.  I understand that and don’t wish to devalue it.  But please stop with the constant coverage and mentioning of him.  There are more important things in the world to talk about.

Listing to NPR on my drive home yesterday, I heard an interview with Johnny Durry, a gun shop owner in San Antonio.  In the interview, Durry talked about gun ammunition shortages since the election of President Obama last November.  People, he said, have been stocking up on half-lifetime- to lifetime-supplies of ammunition at one time.

The thing those anti-gun people don’t understand is the people are buying it to protect themselves.  They’re so scared of the socialist type of let’s take over the banks, let’s talk about take over the oil companies, let’s give all of this money to people without jobs, let’s reward all these people who are not working hard, and they said, “Well if the government is going that way, what are they going to try to take away from us now?”  And you know what the big concern is?  They’re worried about not being able to get any ammo and not being able to protect themselves.

This is only one shop owner’s story, but still, the message both frightened me and angered me.  What the hell do people need a lifetime-supply of ammunition for?  To protect themselves?  From whom or what?  Are they planning on a Canadian invasion?

Is it not reasonable to believe, if the government really were aiming to take away people’s guns—as in coming to their homes and confiscating them, they’d take away the ammunition from them also?  So if an ATF agent knocks on their doors tomorrow, he’d be confiscating their ammo, too, no?  Unless they plan on using the lifetime-supply of bullets on the ATF agent?

Seriously, I fail to see the logic here.  This isn’t a decision by the Obama Administration.  Congress has to pass the law to ban guns, which seems unlikely, but Congress would first have to get around that pesky thing called the Constitution and repeal the Second Amendment.  Amending the Constitution would take 2/3 of both houses of Congress AND 3/4 of states.  Nearly impossible.  But for the sake of argument, let’s say Congress managed to outlaw personal possession of guns and had agents go door-to-door to seize them as these paranoid gun owners described in the NPR story seem to fear.  Why would they need a lifetime-supply of ammo?  First, they won’t have a gun to use the ammo with.  Second, the ammo would likely be seized along with the gun (unless they all formed a merry band of militia men and women and raised arms against the government—then, of course, we have a bigger problem).

So I ask again, what the hell do people need a lifetime-supply of ammunition for?

I’m very late in commenting on this story, but Tropicana recently announced it was un-designing its juice cartons.  What a shame.  When I wrote about the redesign back in January, I said:

The cleaner designs of Tropicana and Pepsi and specifically the minimal design of the Pepsi containers are a very welcome change in beverage packaging, proving once again less really is more.

But now those new, beautiful juice cartons are being replaced with the old, uninspired designs that preceded them.  Were the new designs perfect?  No, probably not.  But completely scrapping them in favor of the original designs takes seventeen steps backward.

What set these new (I guess I should refer to them as the old designs now?) designs apart from other orange juice packages was that they were fresh and simple with their approach.  Some people have argued the redesign made the cartons look generic, but I think other orange juice cartons are generic-looking because they all are variations on the same design with only slightly-modified elements—lousy font for the logo, check; the logo maybe in an upward arc, check; illustrated orange, check; plastered-on pulp- or squeezed-type text, check;  multitude of extraneous other text, check.  Instead of harmoniously- and smartly-designed packages, other cartons have become exercises in how much the “designer” can fit onto the carton.  Take this Florida’s Natural carton (from Global Package Gallery), for instance.  Just on the front, how many times does the word “Florida” appear?

Matt Everson at Astuteo makes the case that the new Tropicana cartons failed and details eight reasons why.  The first reason he lists is labeling, writing:

ORIGINAL: Text labeling appears along the top sealed edge and across the front, all knocked out of a large, tactfully positioned block of color indicating the type of juice. Product variations are easily distinguished at a glance.

REDESIGN: Text labeling of the juice type along the top and across the front is inconsistent – one is reversed and one positive – and the thin colored stripe is far less noticeable requiring a greater investment of time and concentration on the part of the shopper.

I’ve seen this argument elsewhere also, and it really bothers me.  For people to complain that they now have to actually read the carton is befuddling.  Shouldn’t that be a prerequisite before buying something anyway?  Or do people prefer to close their eyes and just grab something off the shelf, whatever it might be.  Are we now in the business of advocating laziness?

So with the old designs, locating the correct carton maybe took two seconds, but with the new cartons, locating the correct juice now takes five seconds?  The new cartons clearly state in a specific color-coded fashion what type of Tropicana orange juice you’re looking at.  But this isn’t enough for the average, lazy, too-hurried-to-actually-read-what’s-in-front-of-them, always-complaining-they’re-soooo-busy American who prefers this text to be blazoned across the carton in a manner that screams, “hey you moron, I’m ‘no pulp.’”

Maybe, though, the distaste I have for undesigning the Tropicana cartons and the reasons people cite as failures of the redesigns invoke larger questions and complaints I have about modern American culture, a culture that advocates multi-tasking, rushing through the day, and spending less time and focus on our tasks.

But I suppose that discussion is for another day.  Today, though, I can say I switched to Tropicana orange juice because I appreciated the package design immensely.  Once the superior redesigns disappear, maybe I’ll keep a carton around and keep filling it up with juice from the sub-standard, generic undesigns.

Today, Inauguration Day, is a celebration of the moment and the future.  For me, the day is summed up in one word: wow.

Wow in the sense the United States will inaugurate its first African-American president.  One-hundred forty-six years after President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and forty-six years after Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his “I have a dream” speech, the work and dreams of two men—and countless others— have been realized.  Collectively, we as a nation can judge beyond the color of someone’s skin.  After all, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”

Wow in the sense of the peaceful transition of power.  No matter the disagreements between outgoing and incoming presidents, no matter the personal feelings of the two men, no matter any animosity that exists between the political factions of the two men and their supporters, the dream of the Founding Fathers lives on today.

Wow in the sense of a more personal reflection.  I was a supporter and admirer of soon-to-be-President Barack Obama since well before he was a candidate for president.  When I saw him speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I realized this man was going somewhere, and he would take the rest of us with him.  I wrote about him, I talked to friends and family about him, I attended a rally of his, and I donated to and volunteered for his campaign.  The magnificent journey that was the 2008 presidential campaign and that I and so many others participated in comes to a close tomorrow.

But with that closure comes a new chapter.  I don’t think anyone envies Obama and the enormous task he—and we—face.  I have no doubt, though, as he’s demonstrated in the weeks leading up to his assumption of power today, he has the patience, the intellect, and the ambition to work for and with us to rebuild.

Tomorrow, though, we celebrate, from sea to shining sea.

Wow.

Barack Obama has on countless occasions spoke of the need to heal the nation and bring divisiveness to an end.  He has on countless occasions spoke of there not being red states and a blue states, but a United States and has stressed the need to come together and work together to forge a more perfect Union.  If he truly believes what he says he believes, he will assemble not a team of yes-men and -women, not a team of people who agree with him, but, as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it, a team of rivals.  Not a team of homogeneous political makeup, but a team of varying and diverse political philosophies.  That team looks likely to include Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, and it should include Senator John McCain as secretary of defense.

As former rivals to Obama, Clinton and McCain would do a great service for their country by serving in his cabinet.  Obama spent many months critiquing Clinton’s policy proposals and calling McCain an extension of President Bush.  Would his appointment of these two senators invalidate his campaign and mean he said these things simply to be elected?  No.  Having advisors who don’t necessarily share your opinion is necessary for healthy debate and should be encouraging for the rest of us that our leaders can set aside partisan and political differences.

Obama has spoken in the past about his interest in modeling President Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, one consisting of a group of advisors who, previous to Lincoln’s election and subsequent nominations of them to their respective jobs, loathed him.  He chose them not because he wanted them to like and admire him, which they eventually did, but because Lincoln thought they were the best people he could enlist.

With Clinton and McCain, the question isn’t why Obama would put rivals, two people he spent months demonizing, in his cabinet.  It is a question of whether these former foes can place personal strife aside and serve the country.  It is a question of whether they are willing to set asides their specific differences with Obama should he ask them to enact policy contrary to theirs.  And can anyone argue neither Clinton nor McCain are qualified for their respective positions?  After all, the two came extremely close to being elected president.

But would Clinton or McCain shirk responsibilities of serving the president and create foreign policies or defense policies, respectively, on their own and perhaps divergent of Obama’s?  If they truly serve at the pleasure of the president, then no.  They would be asked to leave or would be passive-agressively forced out, no doubt severely damaging what’s left of their political careers if not their legacies.

Does it matter that the three may not like each other?  And again, does it matter the three have heavily disagreed on policies throughout the presidential campaign?  Absolutely not.  Because coming together, working together is putting country first.  And with two wars, an economic catastrophe, and environmental, health care, and education crises, that is what matters.

When President Bush stood atop a pile of rubble at Ground Zero and told the rescue volunteers the rest of the world would soon hear us, he had me.  When he went before Congress and the American people and spoke of either being with us or against us, he had me.  He had me feeling so patriotic, so American, that as I walked around my college campus I had an American flag sticking out of my book bag for months.  I supported the president.  I was patriotic.  I was proud to be an American.

But then the president threw it all away.  He lost me.  He lost me with the Iraq war and the false reasons for fighting, the poor planning and execution, and the lack of a responsible exit strategy.  He lost me with his government-sponsored torture programs and the indefinite detentions and lack of indictments of “enemy combatants.”  He lost me with his disastrous lack of a response and coherent leadership after Hurricane Katrina.  He lost me with his countless assaults on the environment and what is essentially his war on science.  He lost me with his warrantless wiretappings, his signing statements, and his trashing of the separation of powers with his unitary executive doctrine and his stonewalling of Congress and ignoring of subpoenas and contempt citations.  He lost me with his farcical war on terror and his failure to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.”  He lost me with threatening a war with Iran after he had severely weakened U.S. armed forces by stretching them thin and not sending them into battle fully supported, prepared, and supplied.  He lost me with the deterioration of America’s image abroad.  He lost me with Alberto Gonzales, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.  He lost me with Karl Rove and their tactics of divisive slash and burn politics.  President Bush lost me.  I lost my faith in the presidency, my faith in government, and my faith in America.

But then something changed that—rather someone changed that.  On a cold February morning last year in Springfield, Illinois, a young, vivacious senator invited us to fight with him for change and to restore America’s greatness.  Barack Obama gave me hope, and he gave me inspiration, and that is why I support him to be the 44th President of the United States of America.

After so many years of disillusionment and cynicism toward government and politics, feeling inspired was a welcomed change for me.  Our leaders should inspire us.  They should inspire us to work for the common good of our country.  They should inspire us to see hope in ourselves and each other.  They should inspire us to fight for and work hard to achieve that good and that hope.  Our leaders should inspire us not to serve them but to serve each other.

Our leaders should inspire us to work for the much needed and much discussed change we need—from securing our future by ridding our dependence on fossil fuels to investing in quality, affordable health care for all to strengthening our educational system and providing teachers and students with the tools and support they need for success to engaging in a responsible foreign policy that returns America to the respectable stature we once held.

And beyond the political issues to change our futures come the inspirational issues to alter generations—for young African-American children to have a role model in Barack Obama who isn’t a Hollywood celebrity, hip-hop musician, or sports superstar; for citizens of the world to see in Barack Obama a new face on America; and for us to see in Barack Obama not the color of his skin but the content of his character.

His character is his experience—the experience of strong judgment, the experience of intellectual curiosity, the experience of sound vision, and the experience of a ferocious calmness in the face of crisis.

What Barack Obama has taught me—inspired in me—is that we have the power to effect our future, to break free of the partisan shackles that have bound us to bitter divisiveness.  We have the ability to shout to those who clamor for status quo that we are tired of more-of-the-same, that we are ready for something bold and something new.  We are ready not to be blindly led and told what someone else can do for us, but instead we are ready for what someone else can do with us; we are ready for what we can do for each other by joining together with Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

We can move past that which divides us to form a more perfect Union.

We can create a new birth of freedom in America.

We can ask what we can do for America.

We can fix what is wrong in America with what is right in America.

We can heal this nation and repair this world.

Yes, we can.

Californians are in a battle over Proposition 8 on whether or not to add to the California Constitution this clause:

Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Voting “yes” on the proposition adds the language; voting “no” leaves the constitution as is.

I’m always extremely weary of direct citizen-driven changes to state constitutions.  Constitutions shouldn’t reflect torch-and-pitchfork-mob-like citizenry activism.  Instead, they should reflect well-thought-out, well-debated, well-researched, and broadly-supported ideas and statutes.  Using the U.S. Constitution as an example, there was a reason why in 1787 only 55 delegates debated and wrote the Constitution, and there is a reason why it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.  Amending the U.S. Constitution is deliberately hard, as it should be, so as to not reflect immediate, transitory changes people might desire.  Otherwise, we end up with a document that becomes so ever-changing it ceases being a strong, tried, and honorable document and instead becomes weak and diluted.

Proposition 8 in California is a citizen-driven attempt at changing the California Constitution.  Immediately, therefore, I am skeptical of it.  But my skepticism doesn’t cease there.  What else about this proposition that makes me shiver is the thought of enshrining into a state constitution language that legally and directly casts one group of people as a sub-class to another group (California, of course, isn’t the first state to do this, though).

Shouldn’t this fundamentally be a question about civil rights?  Shouldn’t this be a conversation about are we willing to say to one group of people they’re second-class citizens?  That they’re less human than the rest of us?  That they’re less worthy of enjoying the same rights as the rest of us?  Same-sex couples deserve the same basic rights that opposite-sex couples enjoy: the rights to marry, the rights to have a family, the rights to share medical benefits, etc.

Furthermore, for anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on the grounds it will deteriorate the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, please explain to me how a loving gay couple is going to destroy your marriage.  Give me evidence of a same-sex marriage that has damaged your marriage or the marriage of any other heterosexual couple you know.  Can’t do it?  Then stop using this excuse as an excuse to deny rights to others.

As a reason for supporting Proposition 8, the vote yes website cites in 2000 61% of Californians supported Proposition 22 that used the same words Proposition 8 uses, except Proposition 22 didn’t change the California Constitution.  The measure was decided by the California Supreme Court to be unconstitutional:

The state Constitution’s guarantees of personal privacy and autonomy protect “the right of an individual to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one’s choice,” said Chief Justice Ronald George, who wrote the 121-page majority opinion. He said the Constitution “properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples.”

It seems to me that people in opposition to same-sex marriage basic civil rights are going to look as foolish as those in decades ago who opposed civil rights for African-Americans.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Sarah Palin needs to shut-up and go home.  She has proven to be disastrously unqualified to be vice president or president, she has proven to be an unmitigated embarrassment for John McCain, and she has proven to be either unwilling or incapable of realizing what she says is either so false, so hypocritical, or so divisive that she makes George Bush look like Aristotle, Ghandi, and Mother Theresa combined.

What Sarah Palin will tell you is she’s one of the most popular governors in the nation.  What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is why.  Numbers lie.  Yes, the numbers will tell you that prior to her selection as the GOP vice presidential candidate, 82% of Alaskans approved of her job performance (since her selection, her approval rating has dropped to 68%, still a high number).  But that 82% doesn’t tell you why they approve.  Certainly one reason is that every year Alaskans get a cut of oil company profits; this year every eligible (meaning you lived in the state for a full calendar year and weren’t a felon) man, woman, and child received $2,069 from the State of Alaska.  That’s not Palin’s policy, since it was instated in 1976.  What is Palin’s policy, however, is this year every man, woman, and child received an additional $1,200.  $3,269 total.  A family of four year-long residents received $13,076.  No wonder why they approve of her job performance.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is whether or not she’s supporting indicted Alaskan senior Senator Ted Stevens.  We do know that she once ran a 527 group of his.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she has no idea what the vice president does, but if she did, it would be like the Cheney vice presidency.  First was the interview several months ago before she was the vice presidential nominee where she plainly admitted to not knowing what the vice president does:

As for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.

Then on Monday she said this in an interview:

A vice president has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the president’s agenda, they’re like the team member, the teammate to that president, but also they’re in charge of the United States Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it’s a great job and I look forward to having that job.

Emphasis added.  The vice president, of course, has no substantive role in the U.S. Senate unless there is a tie vote.  Article I Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution is clear on this matter.  Also, during the vice presidential debate, she argued for expanding the role the vice president a la Dick Cheney:

Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president’s agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with [Cheney] that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we’ll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

How you can argue for more power when you don’t even know the existing power of the office is beyond me.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is since she was announced as John McCain’s running mate, voters’ opinion of her has plummeted:

In addition, for the first time, more voters have a negative opinion of her than a positive one. In the survey, 47 percent view her negatively, versus 38 percent who see her in a positive light.

That’s a striking shift since McCain chose Palin as his running mate in early September, when she held a 47 to 27 percent positive rating.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is how anti-intellectual she is or is not.  Andrew Sullivan writes:

Here’s one way to look at the question: how has Palin brought up her own kids? Her eldest son is a high-school drop-out. Her eldest daughter has had, so far as one can tell from press reports, very uneven attendance in high school, and no plans for college. Her other daughters seem to spend a lot of time traveling the country with their mom at tax-payers’ expense. I’ve seen them at several rallies with the Palins this fall. Are they not in school?

The least one can say is that none of her children seems to have been brought up thinking that college is something to aspire to. And her new son-in-law just dropped out of high school as well.

Sarah Palin’s own record of several colleges over several years—ending with a degree in sports journalism—tells you a lot. So does her interest in policing the Wasilla library as mayor and using the town’s money for a sports stadium. She cut funding for the town museum and opposed building a new library. So does her amazing ignorance about the constitution.

What Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she abused her power in the Troopergate scandal (although she will tell you the investigation “cleared” her); what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she lied about telling Congress “thanks, but no, thanks on that Bridge to Nowhere” and then proceeded to spend some of the received money anyway on a Road to Nowhere; what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is she took full advantage of the earmark system that John McCain moans about; what Sarah Palin won’t tell you is on these issues and a host of others, she is incapable of telling the truth—often simple truths, at that—but is more than capable of simply making things up to suit her needs.  She won’t even tell you what newspapers or magazines she reads.  She won’t tell you these things because she refuses to hold a press conference and instead would rather hide from the media and the American people.

What Sarah Palin will tell you, however, is Barack Obama pals around with terrorists.  What Sarah Palin will tell you is he is a socialist because he thinks spreading the wealth around is a good policy for the economy.  Here’s the full quote in its context for the record:

So all I want to do is—I’ve got a tax cut. The only thing that changes, is I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5% of the folks who are doing very well—even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that—I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts. [...]

My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

Sarah Palin will tell you Obama is a socialist, but she won’t tell you if you apply her definition of a socialist, her taxing a corporation and then spreading that wealth makes her a socialist.  She also won’t tell you the John McCain of 2000 said the same thing Obama said:

Responding to a question from a girl who wants to know why her her father, a doctor, pays a higher tax rate than people who earn less:

McCain: “I think it’s to some degree because we feel, obviously, that wealthy people can afford more.”

Doctor’s daughter: Aren’t we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?

McCain: “Here’s what I really believe. When you are, reach a certain level of comfort, there is nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.”

What Sarah Palin will tell you is some parts of America are more American than others (although she later apologized for her comments, they were delivered at a rally and were no doubt meant to fire up her supporters who probably don’t care whether or not she apologized), and she will tell you that community organizers aren’t that great because they don’t have “actual responsibilities.”

What Sarah Palin will tell you is she is one of us, that she’s a “hockey mom,” whatever that is supposed to mean.  Well Sarah, you aren’t one of us.  We don’t lie, cheat, and swindle our way through life.  We don’t pal around with groups in our states who want to secede from the Union.  That isn’t the American way.  That isn’t putting country first.  That is putting you first.

Sarah Palin, it’s time for the rest of us to tell you something: go home.  You are unfit to be vice president let alone president, and by choosing to have you on the GOP ticket and possibly in the White House, your “maverick” friend John McCain is unfit to be president.

After yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, there was a heavy, disgusting game of blame being played.  Republican leaders blamed a floor speech by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Democrats countered by (deservedly) mocking them.  And then there was this:

This is why people hate politics.  This is why people don’t care anymore and don’t pay attention.  And this is why people don’t vote.

Fine if lawmakers don’t like legislation.  Argue against it.  Suggest alternatives.  But don’t look for excuses to cover your asses.  Now if (when?) the economy tanks this week without Congress passing legislation to attempt a prevention, Democrats can blame Republicans for not acting sooner.  Ugh.  More blame.  Blaming each other, not getting anything done, and who’s left holding the short straw?  You and me.

After the failed vote, lawmakers as a whole have only themselves to blame.  Ben Pershing at the Washington Post offers several reasons why the vote failed (and why lawmakers as a hole are to blame):

1) Poor Salesmanship. Did you know that the general consensus is now that this bill will not cost $700 billion? If you didn’t, it’s because the bill’s proponents did a poor marketing job. From the start, the Bush administration did not do enough to emphasize the point that taxpayers would get at least some of the money back, and that gigantic price tag got stuck in the head of the public (and the media).

The administration was also too eager and ambitious with its initial proposal, alienating many lawmakers right from the start by seeming to ask for the moon — give us everything we want, with no oversight. This White House has long played political hardball, but this was not the time for hardball. This was the time for begging. The administration also let the “bailout” label stick to the package right from the start. By the time President Bush started calling it a “rescue” measure, it was too late.

3) No Center of Gravity. Who’s running Washington right now? Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, with a minuscule approval rating and no clout or political protection left to offer. Bush and Vice President Cheney were reportedly making calls to wavering Republicans right to the end; obviously that didn’t do the trick. Barack Obama and John McCain both supposedly support the bill, but neither of them has been exactly wholehearted in their backing, and there haven’t been any reports of either candidate calling members of their own party to lobby.

House leaders, meanwhile, did support the bill and did whip it. But this wasn’t a party-loyalty vote; lawmakers were asked to vote yes, but they weren’t threatened. They (probably) weren’t bribed. Add all that up, and you had a power vacuum. [...]

It’s possible despite weeks of warnings, and a stock market that is cratering as we speak, that a lot of members still aren’t taking any of this seriously enough. And that, ultimately, may be the real reason for today’s vote.

Also, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com says the many lawmakers in swing districts that voted against the bill doomed it:

ALL VULNERABLES = 8 YEAS, 30 NAYS (21%)
OTHERS = 197 YEAS, 198 NAYS (50%)

Members of Congress: instead of pointing fingers at each other, point them at yourselves.  Accept responsibility and do your job.  That’s what we elected you for, that’s what we pay you for, and that’s what we expect from you.

This totally unprepared, unvetted, untested, doesn’t-know-the-issues, serial-lying, hiding-from-the-press, hiding-from-the-American-people, joke-of-a-candidate can be the president of the United States in January.  When will Americans wake up to realize the ploy being foisted upon them?

It wasn’t enough to say she has foreign policy experience because she lives next to Russia, but now she has experience because Vladimir Putin flies over Alaska to get to the United States:

Sarah Palin as a vice presidential nominee is disgusting.  I don’t doubt she’s a capable leader for a small town or even a small state, but as vice president—or more importantly as a potential president—she is totally out of her league.  And that’s John McCain’s fault—and lack of judgment—for asking her to embarrass herself—and him in the process.

On Tuesday, Governor Sarah Palin met with world leaders in New York who were there for the UN General Assembly.  Yet another McCain campaign farce.  So her meeting with world leaders will make her better qualified to be one herself?  I’ve met Halle Berry.  Does that make me qualified to be a Hollywood actor?

Steve Biegun, a former staff member of President George W. Bush’s National Security Council said of her meetings,

Her primary purpose was to develop a relationship and to listen. I think she’s already fully prepared to be vice president.

Fully prepared to be vice president.  Since the job of the vice president is solely to be around if the 25th amendment need be invoked and to cast tie-breaking votes in the U.S. Senate, I find it hard to imagine how someone is NOT prepared to be vice president.  But on the former, can she effectively step in should she need to?  Is she fully prepared to be president?  Isn’t that a question we should be asking instead?

Or how about why, almost a full month after she was announced as McCain’s veep candidate, has she not only not held a press conference, she has taken but a few questions from reporters?  Do we not have the right to know how a potential president would think and act in the job?  Why does she need to be shielded from the press?  Or, for that matter, the American people?

From the Washington Post:

Mr. McCain’s selection of an inexperienced and relatively unknown figure was unsettling, and the campaign’s decision to keep her sequestered from serious interchanges with reporters and voters serves only to deepen the unease. Mr. McCain is entitled to choose the person he thinks would be best for the job. He is not entitled to keep the public from being able to make an informed assessment of that judgment. Ms. Palin’s speech-making skills are impressive, but the more she repeats the same stump speech lines, the queasier we get. Nor have her answers to the gentle questioning she has encountered provided any confidence that Ms. Palin has a grasp of the issues.

The Obama campaign should be running high-road advertisements, whether they be pushing Senator Obama’s plans or critiquing Senator McCain’s.  Like the McCain campaign, however, the Obama campaign has released ads that stretch the truth and distort quotes and past votes in Congress.

Ad one attempts to tie Senator McCain with Rush Limbaugh and out-of-context quotes Limbaugh in a manner that seemingly attempts to pit Hispanics against Senator McCain.  From Jake Tapper at ABC:

First of all, tying Sen. McCain – especially on the issue of immigration reform – to Limbaugh is unfair.

Limbaugh opposed McCain on that issue. Vociferously. And in a larger sense, it’s unfair to link McCain to Limbaugh on a host of issues since Limbaugh, as any even occasional listener of his knows, doesn’t particularly care for McCain.

Second, the quotes of Limbaugh’s are out of context. [...]

The greater implication the ad makes, however, is that McCain is no friend to Latinos at all, beyond issues of funding the DREAM act or how NCLB money is distributed. By linking McCain to Limbaugh’s quotes, twisting Limbaugh’s quotes, and tying McCain to more extremist anti-immigration voices, the Obama campaign has crossed a line into misleading the viewers of its new TV ad. In Spanish, the word is erróneo.

In ad two,

Obama says that McCain voted three times to privatize Social Security, and that he is willing to risk the nation’s retirement program on the risky stock market. Now, it is true that McCain did support President Bush’s effort to privatize a portion of Social Security. But it is not true that McCain is running for president on a platform of turning Social Security over to Wall Street.

Ad three (from the same article)

says McCain “voted against tax incentives for alternative energy—against ethanol, against fuel cells, against hybrids, against electric cars, against wind and solar, against geothermal.” Then the ad says McCain wants to give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies. This is all a nifty bit of misdirection. The oil company tax breaks the ad refers to are a corporate tax cut McCain favors, which would apply to almost all profitable companies, not just oil companies—including those companies that work on wind, solar and biofuels.

I understand the necessity of the Obama campaign to make low-road hits after the onslaught of similar ads from the McCain campaign.  But surely there are enough critiques to be made of the McCain plan for America that don’t involve stooping to his level of dishonor.

I really don’t understand why someone in the Obama campaign thought this was a good idea.  What a disappointment, Barack.  You’re better than this.  Please remind us.

This will be a long and hard and well-fought and, I believe, honorable campaign, one that is marked by respect.
—Senator John McCain, 5 June 2008

Honorable.  An adjective we like to describe our leaders as and an adjective that we look for in each other, but an adjective that can no longer describe John McCain.  He promised us an honorable campaign; thus far, he has delivered us a campaign far from honorable.

At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Senator John Kerry delivered a powerful speech ripping into the difference between Senator McCain and Candidate McCain, citing instances where John McCain as a senator held one opinion and John McCain as a presidential candidate held an opposite opinion.  Should our leaders not have the ability to rethink their positions on issues?  Of course not; the dangerously-stubborn, stay-the-course-no-matter-if-you’re-right-or-wrong mentality of the current administration dictates the necessity of rethinking policy with new information.  But in John McCain’s case, this isn’t the case.  He said he was willing to lose an election to win a war, but was he willing to lose a war (with his principles) to win an election?  The Carpetbagger Report lists 74 items that McCain has reversed himself flip-flopped on.

3. He opposed indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. When the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, he called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”
4. In February 2008, McCain reversed course on prohibiting waterboarding.
20. McCain staunchly opposed Obama’s Iraq withdrawal timetable, and even blasted Mitt Romney for having referenced the word during the GOP primaries. In July, after Iraqi officials endorsed Obama’s policy, McCain said a 16-month calendar sounds like “a pretty good timetable.”
64. McCain supported a campaign-finance bill, which bore his name, on strengthening the public-financing system. In June 2007, he abandoned his own legislation.

How honorable of a candidate is John McCain?  During the 2008 Republican National Convention, it was clear that John McCain was embracing the past while dismissing the preset and future.  Seemingly every major speaker, including McCain, touted his military service in Vietnam.  Did he or any other speaker mention Afghanistan?  No.  While they may enjoy celebrating his actions in a war we aren’t fighting, they casually forgot to mention a war we are fighting.  You would think if John McCain has a secret plan to catch bin Laden, he might have mentioned something about where the al Qaeda leader is hiding (or regrouping).  You would think if McCain and his convention planners callously exploited 9/11 in a “tribute” video meant solely as a fear-mongering tactic they might also talk about their plans to pursue the terrorists where the real war on terror is being waged.

But we didn’t hear about Afghanistan.  We didn’t hear about the many issues John McCain supported he no longer supports.  We heard about service, about strength, and about honor.  We heard about personality, not issues.  Rick Davis, John McCain’s campaign manager, recently stated:

This election is not about issues.  This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.

Not about the issues.  This idea bore full strength this week in the now infamous “lipstick on a pig” faux-uproar.  Instead of talking about issues, the McCain campaign is content with running ads dripping with distractions and lies.  I understand politicians will from time to time stretch the truth, but what the McCain campaign has done is ridiculous, indefensible, and dishonorable.  We’ve seen the “Obama is a celebrity” ads, we’ve seen the “lipstick on a pig” ad, we’ve seen the “I told Congress thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere” ad (a lie numerous media outlets have called-out but Palin still continues to say), we’ve seen the ad about Obama’s support in the Illinois legislature for a bill aimed at protecting children against sexual predators that the McCain campaign twisted into teaching kindergartners sex-ed, and we’ve seen the ad claiming Obama has put forth no major legislation.  Perhaps Rick Davis was wrong: this election may be about the issues, but John McCain’s campaign surely is not about the issues.

We hear about pigs and celebrities (a connection?) instead of why 45.7 million Americans (8.1 million children) are without health insurance, why 37.3 million American live in poverty, or why women only earn 78% of what men do (Census PDF); instead of why the unemployment rate is at 6.1%; instead of why high school graduation rates are below 50% in 17 of the 50 largest cities.  We hear about distractions instead of about issues, instead of about the problems we face and how to fix them.

This is why people hate politics, why they don’t pay attention to politics, and, more importantly, why they don’t vote.  The tired phrase of “politics as usual.”  In the past, however, we’ve rewarded the kind of campaign, the kind of politics that John McCain is subscribing to.  Rewarding this type of campaign yet again will only serve to perpetuate the distaste of politics.  If we really want change, we have to reward a different kind of politics, a kind of politics that is far more honorable and talks about the things that actually matter.

It’s official now. I can no longer take John McCain seriously. Prior to last Friday, I thought his perceived-but-not-always-true maverick veil and his POW stature could carry him as a serious candidate for president. Then Friday happened, and that seriousness disappeared faster than President Bush could say something stupid.

John McCain’s campaign slogan has been “Country First” (actually, I find it grossly insulting. To me, this means that anyone not supporting him or not in step with him is somehow not putting country first. Well, John, what are we putting first? But this isn’t the point I’m trying to make). Country First. So this means that all of his decisions are made thinking first about the well-being and future success of the United States. Right? Not so fast.

As we all know, on Friday, John McCain announced Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. First question out of everyone’s mouth: who is Sarah Palin? A mayor for nine years of a town with less than 9,000 people, and a governor for two years of a (no offense to Alaskans, but) remote state of less than 700,000 people. Not very experienced you say? Don’t worry, the McCain folks will have you believe that she’s more experienced than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined! (They’re quick to forget that while they are saying she has more executive experience than the two of them, she also has more executive experience than their guy). And as the commander-in-chief of the Alaskan national guard, she has significant military and foreign policy credentials. Marc Ambinder notes:

The argument that she is “more qualified than Obama” is not the same thing as an argument that she is ready to be president. Republicans had to reach, pointing out her fishing dispute negotiations with Canada and her service as the head of the Alaska National Guard.

Ok. Question to the McCain folks: do you people honestly listen to the drivel that comes out of your mouths? Even just a little bit? Watch this interview with McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. Or this one with Cindy McCain. Classic.

But the level of baffling-ness doesn’t stop there. In the last three days since the veep announcement, we, and presumedly the McCain campaign as well, have learned so much about Sarah Palin—things I’m sure the McCain camp would prefer us not to know. Here’s a great recap, via TPM Election Central:

• The news that Palin once backed the Bridge to Nowhere went national.
• It emerged that Palin has links to the bizarro Alaska Independence Party, which harbors the goal of seceding from the union that McCain and Palin seek to lead.
• The news broke that as governor, Palin relied on an earmark system she now opposes. Taken along with the Bridge to Nowhere stuff, this threatens to undercut her reformist image, something that was key to her selection as McCain’s Veep candidate.
• The news broke that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter became pregnant out of wedlock at a time when the conservative base had finally started rallying behind McCain’s candidacy.
• Barely moments after McCain advisers put out word that McCain had known of Bristol Palin’s pregnancy, the Anchorage Daily News revealed that Palin’s own spokesperson hadn’t known about it only two days ago.
• A senior McCain adviser at the Republican convention was forced into the rather embarrassing position of arguing that McCain had known about the pregnancy “last week”—without saying what day last week he knew about it.
• It came out that Republican lawyers are up in Alaska vetting Palin—now, more than 72 hours after it was announced that she’d been picked.
• Palin lawyered up in relation to the trooper-gate probe in Alaska—a move that ensures far more serious attention to the story from the major news orgs.

We also learned that she was the director of Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens’s 527 political action committee. Since his indictment earlier this year, having any connection to Ted Stevens isn’t likely to earn you any points.

The question must be asked: how seriously did the McCain campaign vet Sarah Palin? Without careful, serious consideration in this veep choice, John McCain has potentially endangered the future of our country, certainly not putting country first. We’ve all heard the arguments over the last few days about Palin being a heartbeat away, etc. So how serious, really, does John McCain consider himself not in being elected president, but rather in being the president? As a decision maker, his decision says enough: John McCain is a lousy decision maker. From the New York Times:

At the very least, the process reflects Mr. McCain’s history of making fast, instinctive and sometimes risky decisions. “I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book, “Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

Just what we need, another shoot-from-the-hip-first-and-ask-questions-later decision maker. Eight years of that is enough. From Joel Klein:

…the Palin pick reflects the most dangerous tendencies in McCain’s foreign policy—the tendency to react, to overreact, to crises, without thinking it through. It also reflects a defiant, adolescent “screw you” attitude toward governance. I always thought McCain’s best choice for vice president was Rob Portman—the former Congressman and Office of Management and Budget director from Ohio. Portman is smooth, attractive, extremely smart, reliably conservative, but he also knows how the federal government works. His experience as OMB director would have enabled McCain to say, “I’ve picked a guy who knows where all the bodies are buried, where all the waste is.” The Ohio part of the program wouldn’t have hurt McCain in locking down that crucial state, either. But the pick would have been seen as safe, unexciting—and John McCain doesn’t like safe. Which is a real problem in a President.

If the McCain folks want to paint Obama as the risky candidate, they’re really only splashing paint on themselves. With the selection of Joe Biden, Obama proved he has the necessary sane and level-headed decision-making skills to be president; McCain proved he shouldn’t be taken seriously.

In the end, I find the likelihood of Sarah Palin being the Republican vice presidential nominee come November 4th unlikely. I feel that by week’s end at the close of the GOP convention, there will be a different name on the ticket, and the selection of Palin was nothing more than a stunt. McCain needed to knock Obama off the news cycle after his acceptance speech last Thursday. Announcing Palin as veep not only knocked Obama off, it completely buried him. As an added bonus, McCain raised $7 million in 24 hours—the base is fired up, hotter than ever given their past tepidness for McCain. Group this, then, with the McCain camp’s apparent total failure to vet her, and you have what could have been only a temporary nominee. At the convention, she can turn down the nomination explaining she doesn’t want to take away from raising her special needs child (the classic politics line: “I want to spend more time with my family.”) (and something I can’t believe didn’t dissuade her from accepting McCain’s invitation in the first place). It will look like it was Palin’s decision to step aside; she’ll be a hero, McCain’s perceived decision making ability will be, for the most part, intact, the campaign will be several million dollars richer, and the base will be fired up.

This, of course, is pure speculation. What isn’t speculation, though, is that John McCain is so far off the reservation that even Vasco da Gamma with a Garmin couldn’t help him get back. He has proven to us that he takes his possible role as chief executive not at all seriously and that we, in turn, should not take him seriously.

[Selecting Sarah Palin is] a wild gamble, undertaken by our oldest ever first-time candidate for president in hopes of changing the board of this election campaign. Maybe it will work. But maybe (and at least as likely) it will reinforce a theme that I’d be pounding home if I were the Obama campaign: that it’s John McCain for all his white hair who represents the risky choice, while it is Barack Obama who offers cautious, steady, predictable governance.

— Former Bush speechwriter David Frum

By now, you’ve probably heard of or most likely received the viral email claiming Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, and that we all should take heed at a possible Obama presidency. I received this email yesterday. Here it is:

Who is Barack Obama ? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was! 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, “He was “once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.” Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that his introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary, at best. But,in reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran. Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from “the inside out”. What better way to start than at the highest level – through the President of the United States being one of their own !!!! Please forward this to everyone you know. Do you want this man leading our country?…… Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts…this is very scarey to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States…better heed this and pray about it and share it.

Since most people when forwarding emails don’t put all their recipients’ address in the BCC field, I had several email addresses throughout the forwarded email chain. So, I decided to send an email to everyone on the list. Here was my response:

Most of you receiving this email do not know who I am. Who I am does not matter; what I have to say, however, does. If you do not know me and wonder where I obtained your email address from, I obtained it from a forwarded email-chain.

The scurrilous email in question purports that Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim intent on destroying the United States from “the inside out.” Interesting, though, that each one of the many fallacious claims are not supported by any evidence or citation, an obvious red flag.

The email is meant only to scare people, and in forwarding it to others and not verifying its contents, we have validated the intent and purpose of this email. If we have two minutes to forward these types of unverified and unsupported emails to our friends and family, surely we have two minutes to perform a simple Google search.

Performing a quick search on “Obama Muslim” is highly enlightening. The first search result, curiously, is a sponsored link (meaning the site it links to paid for the link to be there) from the Obama campaign website. It is ridiculous that the campaign has to spend time and resources refuting these inaccurate claims.

If the numerous quotes and facts on the campaign website are not enough to dispel the rumors, though, then the following two articles are. Snopes, a website dedicated to verifying and debunking urban legends and myths, debunks the original email.

The second article deals with the so-called “madrassa” Obama attended in Indonesia. A CNN reporter actually visited the school to prove this claim false. Watch the reporter’s story and read the article.

Finally, the claim that Obama was sworn into the U.S. Senate on the Koran is also unfounded. Obama was not sworn in on a Koran, but Congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota was.

This Obama email smear is the same disgusting type of smear campaign that was waged against Senator Max Cleland in Georgia while running for reelection in 2002 and Senator John McCain in South Carolina while running for president in 2000. Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost two legs and one arm in the war, was accused of being anti-American; McCain, who has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter, was accused of fathering an illegitimate African-American child. In both of these previous cases and now, too, in the Obama case, the unidentified accusers are incapable of mounting a substantive issues-based campaign against their targets, so instead, the accusers resort to despicable and monumentally false character smears.

Perhaps we can write this off as “politics as usual.” Sure, this is what hardball politics has come to in the United States. But we owe it to ourselves and to each other to put an end to this type of politics and instead engage in a new kind of politics. Instead of politics of fear, let us embrace politics of hope.

Please, in the future, instead of spreading lies and validating shameless fear tactics, spread truth; spread hope. This country—and this world—could use a heavy dose of both.

Over the last several weeks, I’ve lost all respect I had for Bill Clinton.

Here he is, the de facto head of the Democratic Party (and hugely popular within it), and he’s not just campaigning against someone else in his party, he’s trashing someone else in his party. But this person isn’t just “someone” else—this person is the future of the Democratic Party. What Barack Obama symbolizes and what he brings to the discussion is what is so-badly needed in the Democratic Party and in this country. I can understand Bill wants to get Hillary elected, but he is grossly overstepping his bounds. First we had the “fairy tale” incident in South Carolina, then the Reagan-quote smearing, then he literally got red-faced with a reporter in Nevada (over the bogus lawsuit) and in South Carolina (about why the media is bad—typical Clinton spew). It is becoming more and more clear to me that he’s not just helping to get his wife elected, he’s running for a third term.

Here we have a hugely historical moment—the first woman president. But that moment is fundamentally trashed because of Bill. I ask feminist Hillary-supporters to answer this question: where would she be without her husband? I have no doubt she would still be a very powerful lawyer for some prestigious law firm (or perhaps even her own) or even somewhere in elected government, but I firmly do not believe she would be a major candidate for president if not because of her husband. So what does that say for feminism and the first woman president? The popularity of Bill, I think, is what her campaign is hoping for—for people to say, “hmmm, well the 90s were pretty good, and Bill Clinton was in charge then, and here he is again wanting to get back in the White House, so I think I’ll vote for him again, errr, I mean his wife.” (The last South Carolina Clinton ad played exactly to this). I don’t argue the 90s were good times and that we need to move again toward good times, but the 90s were also a very partisan times (think government shutdown). To not associate the Clintons with this partisanship is to not associate water with a flood.

When Bush was elected in 2000, I think people assumed characters from the first Bush Administration were going to reprise roles in a second Bush Administration (some did return, but not too many). With a second Clinton Administration, you can bet there will be reprisals.

First, there’s Bill himself. If he’s this vocal and this visible in a primary election, what exactly will his role be if she’s elected president? We’ll have an unsettled, unsatisfied, unscrupulous, and unelected person calling shots. He’s such a huge character and has such a huge personality that there isn’t any possible way to contain him. I can understand peoples’ longing for good times, times of prosperity, times of peace, but there is such thing as a Constitution. Not only should he not be in the White House for a third term, he’ll be unaccountable. Dangerous, if you ask me.

Second, Hillary’s post-Iowa speech dripped with old-faces. Standing behind her were Bill, Madeleine Albright, and Wesley Clark. The old guard. No doubt they’ll play a role in another Clinton Administration.

Reprisals aside, what bothers me most about the Clintons is not just that they have to win, but the blatancy in which they do everything they can in order to win. First we had the misleading misquoting of Barack’s Reagan statement and the incredibly false social security mailing in Nevada. Now, we learn that Hillary will do what she can to get delegates from Michigan and Florida seated at the Democratic Convention. She wasn’t supposed to campaign in Michigan, which she didn’t, but she was the only one of the three (Obama, Edwards the other two) who left her name on the ballot. No one else ran there, but she “won” so she has to collect a prize that the DNC said doesn’t exist. And now that she “won” in Florida, she wants to cash in. Why wasn’t she this vocal about having Michigan and Florida delegates count before she won the uncontested popular vote? She wants to change the rules whilst playing the game. She, and now Bill, disgusts me.

Barack recently said something to the effect of, “in November, I know Hillary’s supporters would also support me [if I'm the nominee], but will my supporters also support her [if she's the nominee]?” I, for one, will go on record right now stating there is NO circumstance in which I will vote for Hillary Clinton for president. NONE. The Clintons, I think, were responsible for a good portion of the partisanship and divisiveness we have today that grew out of the 90s. I want no more of that. Time to move on.

In endorsing Obama, The State, the largest newspaper in South Carolina, said this:

The restoration of the Clintons to the White House would trigger a new wave of all-out political warfare. That is not all Bill and Hillary’s fault—but it exists, whomever you blame, and cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton doesn’t pretend that it won’t happen; she simply vows to persevere, in the hope that her side can win. Indeed, the Clintons’ joint career in public life seems oriented toward securing victory and personal vindication.

I absolutely cannot buy the argument, “well the Republicans will be throwing fire in November, so we ought to nominate someone who can throw fire back.” Yes, let’s fight fire with fire and perpetuate the divisive hatred we have in this country. Good idea.

Why can’t Dems say “enough is enough” and instead nominate someone who believes in fighting fire with water? It’s time for a change, and the Clintons—plural—don’t represent change.

Obama does.

Because we’re all crooks according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), our music overlords. In a brief dated 7 December 2007, a lawyer for the RIAA argues that copying music from a legally purchased CD to the purchaser’s personal computer amounts to a “unauthorized copy.”

Back in 2004, recording labels started placing the new FBI Anti-piracy warning on CDs:

The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by up to five years in federal prison and a fine of $250,000.

Interesting, though, that no one bothers to explicitly define what an “unauthorized reproduction” is. The RIAA website, the brief above, and one other specific site the RIAA FAQ section links to simply mentions “unauthorized” copying, but conveniently neglects to define it. RIAA Faq section:

11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for their work. [...]

For more on what the law says about copying CDs, click HERE

Clicking on “HERE” leads you to this site. From MusicUnited:

It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes. It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them)—but, again, not for commercial purposes.Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

• The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
• The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use—in fact, it’s illegal—to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

More covering-their-asses obfuscation: “won’t usually raise concerns.” But this statement from MusicUnited directly contradicts the December RIAA brief. Our copying-to-our-computer-for-personal-usage (like uploading music on an iPod) nonetheless amounts to “unauthorized” copying, thus apparently USUALLY raising a concern.

It seems to me that the RIAA’s crusade against personal usage amounts to ice sculpting with your fingernails. Illegal downloading is going to continue, but the RIAA should pursue legal action against the companies and websites that facilitate this and the heavy downloaders who engage in this (not those who shared 24 songs). To pretend that legal copying for personal use is “concerning” is just as dangerous as it is ridiculous.

Apparently the Catholic Church has never heard of separation of church and state:

Roman Catholic voters and lawmakers must heed church teaching on issues ranging from racism to abortion or risk their eternal salvation, U.S. bishops said Wednesday.

I’m sorry, but you want to tell me how to vote? You want to tell me who to vote for? In a democratic society? Right. You get one vote just like I get one vote. And since I can’t tell you how to vote, you can’t tell me how to vote. And on that subject, when was the last time you asked for my input when you were electing a new pope? You know, the guy who leads the church and issues doctrines the rest of us are ordered to follow (talk about authoritarian). Oh what’s that? That’s not how the Catholic Church works? Fine, then if I don’t have a say in who you elect pope, then you don’t have a say in who I elect president, senator, representative, or member of my local school board.

Does the Catholic Church not see how big of a joke they’ve become? Separation of church and state is meant to protect the church from the state. But it isn’t a one-way street. This doctrine should also protect the state from the church. Just as the state cannot influence the church, the church cannot influence the state. But that’s not the way the Catholic Church sees it.

I’ll say it again: on this issue and so many others, the Catholic Church is stuck churning in the 12th century.

Two stories recently caught my attention and are worrisome to me. The first is the much-discussed MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times with the headline of “General Petraeus or General Betray Us.”

The second article is of a student editor at a university newspaper writing an editorial that said “Taser this: Fuck Bush.”

In both instances, the snide remarks are offensive and uncalled for when instead of lowering the level of debate in the country, we should be raising it. In both cases, the remarks slash the professionalism of both the activist group and the student editor.

But in both cases, First Amendment-guaranteed free speech was being exercised. And for the U.S. Senate to devote time to debate and vote on condemning MoveOn.org and for university officials to debate on action to take against the student are both very frightening. Yes, the remarks were made in poor judgment, but they remain an exercise of free speech.

I don’t like much of what Bill O’Rielly says at Fox, but he has a right to say what he wants to say. That is the freedom that is American and is worth protecting.

This past week, we had testimony from General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker as well as a national address from President Bush. Neither event left us with anything new—no new breakthroughs, no new ideas, no new substantive progress.

One thing new this week, though, was a survey released by ABC News, the BBC, and NHK of Japan. Some findings of the report:

More Iraqis say security in their local area has gotten worse in the last six months than say it’s gotten better, 31 percent to 24 percent, with the rest reporting no change. Far more, six in 10, say security in the country overall has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.

More directly assessing the surge itself—a measure that necessarily includes views of the United States, which are highly negative—65 to 70 percent of Iraqis say it’s worsened rather than improved security, political stability and the pace of redevelopment alike.

You can view the full story and download a PDF of the full survey results here. From the full results:

79% of Iraqis oppose the coalition’s presence:

Just under half say the coalition forces should withdrawal now, but far more shocking is the percentage of polled Iraqis that say attacks on U.S. forces are “acceptable.”

So Iraqis don’t support coalition forces being there, and a majority claims attacking those coalition forces is okay. How can we help people who don’t want us to help?

Even after four years occupying and rebuilding Iraq, electricity even for half the day is a precious commodity. In 2005, 41% had electricity for more than 8 hours in a day (from a 2005 ABC News survey):

Two years later, that number should be much higher, yes? Not the case, as only 48% have electricity for more than 8 hours a day:

Two years, and only 9% more have electricity for one-fourth of the day. Not even a full day. One-fourth. If this were in the U.S., it would be unacceptable.

Given these statistics and so many more in the survey, seeing progress in Iraq is difficult. These aren’t the political goals the Iraqi government were to meet, but even with those, failure apparently IS an option, as the GAO gives satisfactory progress on only 3 of 18.

So my question is: why are we still in Iraq? If the Iraqi people aren’t willing to let us help them, and the Iraqi government is not willing to help themselves, why are our troops supporting a country that its citizens cannot or will not support? In the middle of a civil war, why did the Iraqi parliament feel the need to take a month vacation last month? Did the U.S. government take a break during our civil war?

But a withdrawal is simply not that easy for two primary reasons. First, of course, is the question of what happens when we’re gone. Will the civil war escalate to unimaginable proportions? Will ethnic cleansing do the same? And can Iraqi security forces take over from the Americans and hold the security progress our troops have fought so hard for, or will those few secured areas fall back into strife?

But this last question begs a counterpoint: will the Iraqi security forces EVER be able to take over? And how long will it take for them to be ready? Will American forces, then, be necessary for hand-holding until the Iraqis are ready?

The second issue is oil. Oil has to be considered a major issue when discussing our strategy in Iraq. We in America, we in the world, must have oil. Until we can seriously devote ourselves to engineering a viable alternative fuel, we will depend on the Middle East region for our fuel source.

But how enormous of a security threat is our dependence on the Middle East to make this delivery if the region is engulfed in civil war and conflict? If we did not need the Middle East’s oil, how much attention would Americans give to the region? If they have nothing to give us, then we don’t need to care about them, right? At least that’s what Americans would likely think. Take Africa, for instance. How does Africa benefit the average American? And now, how much do we pay attention to the political, economic, and social conflicts in Africa? It’s a harsh but painful and unsettlingly unfortunate reality—they have nothing we need, so why should we pay attention to them? The Middle East, without its oil, would largely become the same situation. But someone may argue, without the world caring about the region, then the strife would continue, and perhaps ethnic cleansing on a large scale would continue. Two words for this person: Darfur and Rwanda.

Ethnic cleansing, though, is already happening in Iraq. The president claims sectarian violence is down, but that’s simply because there are fewer people to kill. If Sunnis aren’t displaced from primarily Shiite regions and Shiites displaced from primarily Sunni regions, then they’re being killed. The map below, from the 20-member military commission headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, illustrates the ethnic cleansing (PDF of his report). From July 2006 to July 2007, the tan areas on the map, indicating mixed-Muslim areas, are significantly reduced.

Ethnic cleansing is happening in Iraq RIGHT NOW, and it’s under OUR watch.

The entire unpredictability and uncertainty with the situation is why I on some levels question an immediate withdrawal. But at the same time, I cannot morally ask our troops to serve if I too am not in some way contributing to the war effort, something as big as enlisting to something as small as writing letters and emails or sending care packages to troops in Iraq. It is too easy to ask someone else to do something you don’t want to do yourself.

This issue of drawing a connection to the war effort is another failure of the Bush Administration. At no point during the last four years have Americans been asked or demanded to make some sort of large-scale contribution or sacrifice. The only Americans doing any large-scale contributing or sacrificing are those who either are serving or those who have family members serving. The Bush Administration has failed to make this an organized, American effort.

Failure has been ripe throughout the entire war thus far. From administration failures to Iraqi governmental failures, this war effort has been misguided and mismanaged from the beginning. There has been so little progress made on so many fronts, the question of why we are still there must be asked. And the question deserves a rational, sincere, and honest response.

If Democrats in Congress are serious about ending the war, they could vote tomorrow to cut-off funding for the war. Critics and the president may say they would only be hurting the troops by not providing the funding necessary for critical equipment the troops need. But the Democrats can come back and say the president has had four years now to give the troops all the equipment they’ve needed, and if they don’t have it yet, that’s not the Democrats’ fault.

The president has had four years to prove his plan. We’ve changed strategies, added more troops, set-up benchmarks, and still no substantive progress can be claimed. Our troops are sacrificing for what? It’s time we really do support our troops and bring them home. By this time next year, an overwhelming majority of troops should be redeployed out of Iraq. They have done and continue to do all we ask of them, and now it is time for us to do something for them.

(Nod: ThinkProgress)