The Republicans are wrong, again.
The morning news indicates that Republicans in congress have proposed a new plan that wouldn't involve spending the $700 billion tax payer dollars.
New York Times link
I don't even have to explain the details of this plan for you to know it is wrong. For once (or for twice) George Bush is right. We need to bail these companies out to avoid a depression.
The Republicans have the right idea, in that they want to enact legislation that will not only stop the bleeding but also act preventatively. However, now is not the time for that. The time for that is a few weeks from now, when people aren't considering running the bank anymore.
John McCain was stupid to put himself in the same room as these people. Now he has an impossible choice. Should he support this silly legislation that is only causing trouble, or should he make the right choice and go with Bush? The only problem is that if he goes with Bush, the media will be all over it and it will fuel Barack Obama's silly anti-maverick ads. Just get outta there Johnny!
Friday, September 26, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Why this is happening
No alliterations or puns today. I'm not in the mood.
Excessive use of credit is going to destroy this country.
Right now, the Bush administration and congress are rescuing us from Bill Clinton's mistakes. I just published a post full of facts on the economic crisis. In that post, I point out that George Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's bad practices in their tracks. They were thwarted by Democrats. I also pointed out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government. They never should have been. The government has no business giving people houses. I also pointed out that Bill Clinton forced banks (large and small) to give loans in poor communities to people who would never be able to afford to pay them back.
Liberals in government have gotten America addicted to credit.
I hope that every American understands what has happened here.
Tutorial: What the hell just happened
For a long time, the prices of homes continued to rise. Starting around 2005/2006, their prices stopped increasing and started to fall. This is known as a bubble. Popping.
This would have been fine, if the people in those houses actually owned them.
But most people don't own their homes. They have mortgages.
Consider this. A family lives in a home and is paying a $300,000 mortgage on it. Their payments are too high to afford, so they want to refinance. However, their home is now worth only $280,000, so there is no equity on which to refinance. Therefore the family can't pay the mortgage and they default.
Of course, this means that the lender loses money. They could kick the person out of their home and try to sell it, but now that the house is worth less than it was before they will still lose money even if they do manage to sell it.
Since the housing bubble had popped nationwide (in fact, worldwide), this exact process recently occurred thousands of times over, which meant that thousands of mortgages became worth negative money.
Mortgages have long been traded by companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now all the mortgages owned by companies like Fannie and Freddie are worth negative money, and unless someone helps these companies out they will be bankrupt.
Of course, that is what the government is doing as I type. They are giving these companies money so that the companies don't have negative money anymore.
This is necessary, because without companies like these the American way of life would abruptly halt and we would be in a depression.
In summary, the government (Clinton) forced banks to give loans out to people who could never pay them. Now, the people aren't paying the loans (duh) so the government is paying them instead. In effect, the government bought thousands of people their houses. Actually, I paid for their houses. We paid for their houses.
Stop Credit
Everyone on TV, the radio, in the White House, and on Capitol Hill are talking about "solving the root of the problem". The root of the problem is credit. It is evil.
Yes, it is unfortunate if a person cannot afford a house and has to live in a dingy apartment. However, those people should be encouraged to work hard, save, and buy a house with cash as I intend to do. They should not be given a house. If everyone in the country were given everything on a plate, everyone would stop working and we would all die.
Please, tell your government to stop encouraging credit. Tell Democrats to stop earning their votes by promising people free things. It doesn't work. It hurts us. It fails. It's bad. Why don't people get this?
Excessive use of credit is going to destroy this country.
Right now, the Bush administration and congress are rescuing us from Bill Clinton's mistakes. I just published a post full of facts on the economic crisis. In that post, I point out that George Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's bad practices in their tracks. They were thwarted by Democrats. I also pointed out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government. They never should have been. The government has no business giving people houses. I also pointed out that Bill Clinton forced banks (large and small) to give loans in poor communities to people who would never be able to afford to pay them back.
Liberals in government have gotten America addicted to credit.
I hope that every American understands what has happened here.
Tutorial: What the hell just happened
For a long time, the prices of homes continued to rise. Starting around 2005/2006, their prices stopped increasing and started to fall. This is known as a bubble. Popping.
This would have been fine, if the people in those houses actually owned them.
But most people don't own their homes. They have mortgages.
Consider this. A family lives in a home and is paying a $300,000 mortgage on it. Their payments are too high to afford, so they want to refinance. However, their home is now worth only $280,000, so there is no equity on which to refinance. Therefore the family can't pay the mortgage and they default.
Of course, this means that the lender loses money. They could kick the person out of their home and try to sell it, but now that the house is worth less than it was before they will still lose money even if they do manage to sell it.
Since the housing bubble had popped nationwide (in fact, worldwide), this exact process recently occurred thousands of times over, which meant that thousands of mortgages became worth negative money.
Mortgages have long been traded by companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now all the mortgages owned by companies like Fannie and Freddie are worth negative money, and unless someone helps these companies out they will be bankrupt.
Of course, that is what the government is doing as I type. They are giving these companies money so that the companies don't have negative money anymore.
This is necessary, because without companies like these the American way of life would abruptly halt and we would be in a depression.
In summary, the government (Clinton) forced banks to give loans out to people who could never pay them. Now, the people aren't paying the loans (duh) so the government is paying them instead. In effect, the government bought thousands of people their houses. Actually, I paid for their houses. We paid for their houses.
Stop Credit
Everyone on TV, the radio, in the White House, and on Capitol Hill are talking about "solving the root of the problem". The root of the problem is credit. It is evil.
Yes, it is unfortunate if a person cannot afford a house and has to live in a dingy apartment. However, those people should be encouraged to work hard, save, and buy a house with cash as I intend to do. They should not be given a house. If everyone in the country were given everything on a plate, everyone would stop working and we would all die.
Please, tell your government to stop encouraging credit. Tell Democrats to stop earning their votes by promising people free things. It doesn't work. It hurts us. It fails. It's bad. Why don't people get this?
My life is over
The debate scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled (postponed?). [CORRECTION on 9/26/08]: It appears the debate is ON! Although...McCain won't be there, so it will be Obama debating himself. NYT
Initially, Barack Obama was opposed to canceling the debate. John McCain offered the initial suggestion because he feels he can be of more help to Americans by returning to Washington and working on the economic rescue legislation. Democrats (including Obama) criticize McCain's move, calling it a "Hail Mary". “What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?”
New York Times article
That's disgusting. As always, the Democrats are trying to spin a good thing and make McCain look bad. The fact is that McCain obviously does want the congress to work past their bed time in an attempt to save the country from Bill Clinton's mistakes (more on that later). I guess if Barack Obama is elected president we can expect anarchy after 9PM, when he will be having his TV time.
Grow up!
Initially, Barack Obama was opposed to canceling the debate. John McCain offered the initial suggestion because he feels he can be of more help to Americans by returning to Washington and working on the economic rescue legislation. Democrats (including Obama) criticize McCain's move, calling it a "Hail Mary". “What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?”
New York Times article
That's disgusting. As always, the Democrats are trying to spin a good thing and make McCain look bad. The fact is that McCain obviously does want the congress to work past their bed time in an attempt to save the country from Bill Clinton's mistakes (more on that later). I guess if Barack Obama is elected president we can expect anarchy after 9PM, when he will be having his TV time.
Grow up!
Facts on the Economic Crisis
Before, I posted an editorial on the housing crisis. Now that the housing crisis has grown into an even larger problem, I will post again. This time, there will be no opinion. This is a factual post. Facts only.
Please note that I link to a few Wikipedia articles here. Although I do not believe Wikipedia is as reliable a source as newspapers and video, I do believe its articles can serve as a good overview of some issues as well as a place to find informative links. So, read the Wikipedia articles at your own discretion.
Facts about the housing crisis
In 2003, George Bush recognized a problem in the mortgage lending industry. In response, he proposed a plan that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determined whether the two mortgage lenders were properly managing the risk of their investments. The Bush administration also wanted to eliminate the power of the president to appoint the two companies' directors, since this practice can produce ineffective leadership in the companies.
For the most part, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both endorsed Bush's plan. The industry encouraged congress to pass this legislation in a timely manner.
Democrats strongly apposed Bush's plan. Barney Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, New York Times, September 11, 2003
Wikipedia explains Bush's proposed changes
In 1995, the Clinton administration enacted legislation that forced lending institutions to prove that they were lending to enough lower-income people. Under this legislation, the government limited the ability of financial institutions to grow if they did not give enough loans in poor communities.
As a compromise, the Republicans tried to reduce the extent to which small- and medium-sized banks were forced to make loans in poor communities. Democrats opposed their attempt.
1993 Clinton press conference
Republicans Seek a Cutback in Lending Rules for Banks, New York Times, March 31, 1995
Wikipedia explains Bill Clinton's changes
Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938 as a part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Wikipedia explains about Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac was created by the government in 1970.
Wikipedia explains about Freddie Mac
Please note that I link to a few Wikipedia articles here. Although I do not believe Wikipedia is as reliable a source as newspapers and video, I do believe its articles can serve as a good overview of some issues as well as a place to find informative links. So, read the Wikipedia articles at your own discretion.
Facts about the housing crisis
In 2003, George Bush recognized a problem in the mortgage lending industry. In response, he proposed a plan that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determined whether the two mortgage lenders were properly managing the risk of their investments. The Bush administration also wanted to eliminate the power of the president to appoint the two companies' directors, since this practice can produce ineffective leadership in the companies.
For the most part, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both endorsed Bush's plan. The industry encouraged congress to pass this legislation in a timely manner.
Democrats strongly apposed Bush's plan. Barney Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, New York Times, September 11, 2003
Wikipedia explains Bush's proposed changes
In 1995, the Clinton administration enacted legislation that forced lending institutions to prove that they were lending to enough lower-income people. Under this legislation, the government limited the ability of financial institutions to grow if they did not give enough loans in poor communities.
As a compromise, the Republicans tried to reduce the extent to which small- and medium-sized banks were forced to make loans in poor communities. Democrats opposed their attempt.
1993 Clinton press conference
Republicans Seek a Cutback in Lending Rules for Banks, New York Times, March 31, 1995
Wikipedia explains Bill Clinton's changes
Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938 as a part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Wikipedia explains about Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac was created by the government in 1970.
Wikipedia explains about Freddie Mac
Monday, September 22, 2008
Democrats against the environment
Saturday, the Boston Globe published an excellent editorial on leadership in environmentalism. Read it--really!
On climate, who will lead by example? Boston Globe
The editorial points out the shaky environmental leadership from John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts senators. Although both scored a 93% voting-record rating from the League of Conservation Voters, they are far from environmental role-models.
Kennedy has always opposed the first offshore wind farm in the United States.
Kerry refuses to take a stand on the first offshore wind farm in the United States.
Kerry and Kennedy supported paying $96,193,715 to General Electric for helicopter motors.
For decades, General Electric has resisted PCB cleanup projects for the rivers they pollute.
...and they still do.
GE is also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear energy, since they stand to make millions from building nuclear power plants.
It's not surprising, though, that Kerry is a political supporter of GE. In 2006 alone he had over $3 million invested with them.
Speaking of investments, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, and James Oberstar also each have up to $100,000 invested in GE.
This Globe editorial is so spot-on, I won't continue to paraphrase it. Here is its conclusion:
On climate, who will lead by example? Boston Globe
The editorial points out the shaky environmental leadership from John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts senators. Although both scored a 93% voting-record rating from the League of Conservation Voters, they are far from environmental role-models.Kennedy has always opposed the first offshore wind farm in the United States.
Kerry refuses to take a stand on the first offshore wind farm in the United States.
Kerry and Kennedy supported paying $96,193,715 to General Electric for helicopter motors.
For decades, General Electric has resisted PCB cleanup projects for the rivers they pollute.
...and they still do.
GE is also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear energy, since they stand to make millions from building nuclear power plants.
It's not surprising, though, that Kerry is a political supporter of GE. In 2006 alone he had over $3 million invested with them.
Speaking of investments, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, and James Oberstar also each have up to $100,000 invested in GE.
This Globe editorial is so spot-on, I won't continue to paraphrase it. Here is its conclusion:
Kerry also had investments totaling between $81,004 and $215,000 in ExxonMobil and BP. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has investments in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips totaling between $66,003 and $168,000. The top congressional investor in ConocoPhillips, at $500,001 to $1 million, is Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and self-proclaimed "leading advocate of farm conservation programs."
The Center for Environment and Population report asked, "What are we willing to change, or give up? . . . Is it the world's climate, as we know it? Plentiful water supplies? Land? Species? Or do we have to make different policy, lifestyle, business, or industry choices?"
From the private choices of our eco-warriors, we might as well give up.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
I am a liar and a loser
A few posts ago I said I was going to focus on Iraq soon. I lied. I'm a loser.
The truth is, I know so little about Iraq that anything I post on it will just be blathering.
I know I overuse certain words, including "blather". There are two reasons for this. For one, I have a limited vocabulary (it happens when half the books you read contain the word "programming" in their title). The second reason is that I come across blathering so often, it is hard not to mention it.
Blather (v.): to talk or utter foolishly; blither; babble: The poor thing blathered for hours about the intricacies of his psyche.
Exactly.
After reading a horrible editorial in The Huntington Ruse and then a few excellent editorials in the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, I decided I should raise my own editorial standard. And that means not writing about things I don't know a damn about and can't seem to really learn a damn about.
Instead of blogging on Iraq, I will leave you with one sentence about it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong about Iraq. Think about it.
The truth is, I know so little about Iraq that anything I post on it will just be blathering.
I know I overuse certain words, including "blather". There are two reasons for this. For one, I have a limited vocabulary (it happens when half the books you read contain the word "programming" in their title). The second reason is that I come across blathering so often, it is hard not to mention it.
Blather (v.): to talk or utter foolishly; blither; babble: The poor thing blathered for hours about the intricacies of his psyche.
Exactly.
After reading a horrible editorial in The Huntington Ruse and then a few excellent editorials in the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, I decided I should raise my own editorial standard. And that means not writing about things I don't know a damn about and can't seem to really learn a damn about.
Instead of blogging on Iraq, I will leave you with one sentence about it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong about Iraq. Think about it.
In the news: Universal health care troubles?
(Opinion)
There was an excellent article in The Boston Globe yesterday. The article explains that Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) is seeking "widespread emergency cuts in the state budget" because tax collections "plummeted by $200 million in the first two weeks of September". Here is my favorite quote:
(unfortunately, The Boston Globe requires you to sign up for a free account in order to view the second page of this article)
I won't blather on about this because I know very little about it. I just wanted to note the simple logic which has been clearly proven here: when the government offers an easy way out, people take it. Universal health care seems to bring "higher-than-expected" everything.
Also, I like how they call it "a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law". Again, I do not know this, but I bet that means TAX!
From the other side of the issue, the fact that higher-than-expected numbers of people have enrolled in state-funded insurance is a good thing. I can buy into the claim that more people with health insurance is good, but I won't claim that more people on state-run health care is. First of all, this means that more taxpayer money is supporting these people's health care (as the article mentions). This is communist. Ideally, I should not be paying a dime for my neighbor's health care. Second, this is sure to encourage more interaction on the government's part in the medical field. And we all know that when the government gets involved, things get ugly.
There was an excellent article in The Boston Globe yesterday. The article explains that Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) is seeking "widespread emergency cuts in the state budget" because tax collections "plummeted by $200 million in the first two weeks of September". Here is my favorite quote:
The state also faces rising costs associated with its universal healthcare law, which has led to higher-than-expected enrollment in state-funded insurance programs. Patrick proposed a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law.http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/20/patrick_ponders_big_cuts_as_state_revenue_tumbles/
(unfortunately, The Boston Globe requires you to sign up for a free account in order to view the second page of this article)
I won't blather on about this because I know very little about it. I just wanted to note the simple logic which has been clearly proven here: when the government offers an easy way out, people take it. Universal health care seems to bring "higher-than-expected" everything.
Also, I like how they call it "a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law". Again, I do not know this, but I bet that means TAX!
From the other side of the issue, the fact that higher-than-expected numbers of people have enrolled in state-funded insurance is a good thing. I can buy into the claim that more people with health insurance is good, but I won't claim that more people on state-run health care is. First of all, this means that more taxpayer money is supporting these people's health care (as the article mentions). This is communist. Ideally, I should not be paying a dime for my neighbor's health care. Second, this is sure to encourage more interaction on the government's part in the medical field. And we all know that when the government gets involved, things get ugly.
Friday, September 19, 2008
A Huntington Ruse
The Huntington News, formerly known as the Northeastern News, published a falsity in their paper.
Although I do think the Huntington News should correct this and apologize for it, I do not blame them for publishing it. Most people believe the propaganda about Palin.
In fact, Sarah Palin supports education about contraception with an emphasis on abstinence.
LA Times link
Her daughter Bristol once attended Wasilla High School but now attends Anchorage West High School. A summary of West High School's sexual education policy can be found at the link below. It stresses abstinence, but also includes information about condoms and other contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, breast and testicular self-exams, and STDs. That doesn't sound like abstinence-only sex education to me.
Anchorage West High School Sexuality Education guidelines
As far as the sex education at Wasilla High School, it isn't abstinence-only either. They don't have the curriculum posted online, though. Their policy stresses abstinence, but also covers contraception.
Boston Herald link
So, to sum it up, here is how Wasilla High School, Anchorage West High School, Matt Collette of the Huntingon News, and I think that sex education ought to be taught:
Of course, I don't believe that the sex education in Alaska "doesn't seem to be working" just because one girl got pregnant. She made a mistake. We don't condemn a mathematics curriculum just because a few students fail, so neither should we condemn a sex education curriculum just because a girl gets pregnant.
Of course, we could go on condemning parenting practices...but that is another story.
...abstinence became part of the national dialogue with the news that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Palin is a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, but that doesn't seem to be working, even under Palin's own roof.
...Whether it's Bristol Palin getting pregnant or college students getting drunk, authority figures need to recognize that just saying "don't do it" doesn't do any good. Plenty of people will choose to abstain, but it's naive to think they will do it just because their RA or their governor mother says to.
-The Huntington News, 9/15/08
Although I do think the Huntington News should correct this and apologize for it, I do not blame them for publishing it. Most people believe the propaganda about Palin.
In fact, Sarah Palin supports education about contraception with an emphasis on abstinence.
LA Times link
Her daughter Bristol once attended Wasilla High School but now attends Anchorage West High School. A summary of West High School's sexual education policy can be found at the link below. It stresses abstinence, but also includes information about condoms and other contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, breast and testicular self-exams, and STDs. That doesn't sound like abstinence-only sex education to me.
Anchorage West High School Sexuality Education guidelines
As far as the sex education at Wasilla High School, it isn't abstinence-only either. They don't have the curriculum posted online, though. Their policy stresses abstinence, but also covers contraception.
Boston Herald link
So, to sum it up, here is how Wasilla High School, Anchorage West High School, Matt Collette of the Huntingon News, and I think that sex education ought to be taught:
Now Johnny, I want to talk to you about sex... I think you know that the only way to completely avoid getting genital herpes or knocking up your girlfriend is to abstain from sex. But if you do decide to visit Boom City, use a condom.The most ironic thing, though, is not that the Huntington News made an error. I find it ironic that the very type of sex education that we are all recommending is actually the type that "doesn't seem to be working", not the abstinence-only type.
-Huntington News, 9/15/08
Of course, I don't believe that the sex education in Alaska "doesn't seem to be working" just because one girl got pregnant. She made a mistake. We don't condemn a mathematics curriculum just because a few students fail, so neither should we condemn a sex education curriculum just because a girl gets pregnant.
Of course, we could go on condemning parenting practices...but that is another story.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Watch the debates
Please watch the debates. They have been scheduled for the following dates:
Friday, September 26th, 9PM Eastern time
Tuesday, October 7th, 9PM Eastern time
Wednesday, October 15th, 9PM Eastern time
No person should decide which candidate to vote for before watching all three debates. The debates are a time when each candidate defends his policy in his own words with no media bias. It is an opportunity for candidates to change peoples' minds. I plan to open my mind to change should a particular candidate give a convincing argument.
That said, the debates are going to suck.
It is arguably true that the Republican and Democratic party have conspired to keep third-party candidates out of the debates, as is noted in a recent issue of The Liberator. The Liberator is run by my favorite party, the Libertarians.
Liberator online vol. 13 num. 15 (scroll down to where it says Phony Presidential "Debates")
This is outrageous. Although I am not idealistic enough to believe that a Libertarian like Bob Barr would win a presidential election, it is detrimental to the debates to eliminate input from third parties. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was not a choice candidate, but his input during debates gave a strong libertarian influence to the national discussion. In the same way, having only two candidates in the presidential debates will limit the scope of the national discussion to two points of view.
If both McCain and Obama disappoint in the upcoming debates, I will be voting for Bob Barr (just for fun).
Friday, September 26th, 9PM Eastern time
Tuesday, October 7th, 9PM Eastern time
Wednesday, October 15th, 9PM Eastern time
No person should decide which candidate to vote for before watching all three debates. The debates are a time when each candidate defends his policy in his own words with no media bias. It is an opportunity for candidates to change peoples' minds. I plan to open my mind to change should a particular candidate give a convincing argument.
That said, the debates are going to suck.
It is arguably true that the Republican and Democratic party have conspired to keep third-party candidates out of the debates, as is noted in a recent issue of The Liberator. The Liberator is run by my favorite party, the Libertarians.
Liberator online vol. 13 num. 15 (scroll down to where it says Phony Presidential "Debates")
This is outrageous. Although I am not idealistic enough to believe that a Libertarian like Bob Barr would win a presidential election, it is detrimental to the debates to eliminate input from third parties. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was not a choice candidate, but his input during debates gave a strong libertarian influence to the national discussion. In the same way, having only two candidates in the presidential debates will limit the scope of the national discussion to two points of view.
If both McCain and Obama disappoint in the upcoming debates, I will be voting for Bob Barr (just for fun).
Dear God
(Opinion alert)
Last post I said I was going to focus on issues again, but Sparky has been texting me avidly about some Sarah Palin quotes involving God. Since it does have to do with my next issue, Iraq, I'll post on it.
First, let me be clear. Sometimes I use poetic license when I describe conversations between Sparky and me. For example, I will say, "so Sparky called me up and started jabbering..." when what I really mean is, "In recent conversations when this subject has come up, Sparky started jabbering...".
However, this is not the case right now--no poetic license here. Sparky has literally been texting me one or two times a day giving me Palin quotes and telling me she is a religious wacko.
Religious wacko she may be, but I want to set the record straight on at least two Palin quotes that have been circulating and that I have recently stumbled upon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA&feature=related
Secondly, Sparky, Sarah Palin does not claim that the Iraq war is a "task from God" or that an Alaskan pipeline is "God's will". To a reasonable person, both of these quotes (when not taken out of context) are Sarah Palin telling the churchgoers to pray for good things. She tells them to pray that God watches over our soldiers. She tells them to pray that America will become unified over the cause of alternative energy. Yet, according to Sparky, this is wacky, insane, evil stuff.
Again, let me reiterate this point for the billionth time. We should not be talking about this. Sparky shouldn't be talking about Sarah Palin sound bytes. I shouldn't be talking about Barack Obama being out of touch. If Sparky would allow me to, I'd much rather debate with him on governmental policy.
Please, Sparky! Stop allowing me to prove that I am right when I say that all politicans are slimy and we should get over it! Please allow me to prove to you instead that Barack Obama's policies are worse than John McCain's!
And another note, Sparky. It would be very, very easy for me to respond to your Palin argument with a simple list of links. I could link to an out of context sound byte of Barack Obama calling Sarah Palin a pig with lipstick, to his former reverend of twenty years ranting about the white enemy, to video of Barack dancing in jubilation at one of these sermons, to pictures of Barack launching his campaign from the house of Bill Ayers the terrorist, or to a host of other fun-filled media clips that make the man look bad. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter how bad he is. He is a politician. We compare politicans by their policies, not by the dirt the media can dig up on them.
Again, Sparky, please stop. You are my best friend, but when you talk about this stuff you only make a fool of yourself.
Last post I said I was going to focus on issues again, but Sparky has been texting me avidly about some Sarah Palin quotes involving God. Since it does have to do with my next issue, Iraq, I'll post on it.
First, let me be clear. Sometimes I use poetic license when I describe conversations between Sparky and me. For example, I will say, "so Sparky called me up and started jabbering..." when what I really mean is, "In recent conversations when this subject has come up, Sparky started jabbering...".
However, this is not the case right now--no poetic license here. Sparky has literally been texting me one or two times a day giving me Palin quotes and telling me she is a religious wacko.
Religious wacko she may be, but I want to set the record straight on at least two Palin quotes that have been circulating and that I have recently stumbled upon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs
...that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there's a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So, uh, bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers, and speaking of...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA&feature=related
If you simply read the quotes and didn't watch the videos, I suggest you do so. To any reasonable person, it is painfully obvious why Sarah Palin brought up God in these two quotes. She is speaking at a church. She is trying to work God and prayer into everything she says, because that is supposed to be the focus when you are in a church. I'm no expert in linguistics or speech, but I don't have to be. This is truly, truly obvious.
I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline--about a thirty billion dollar project that's gonna create a lot of jobs for Alasksans and we'll have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. I...
Secondly, Sparky, Sarah Palin does not claim that the Iraq war is a "task from God" or that an Alaskan pipeline is "God's will". To a reasonable person, both of these quotes (when not taken out of context) are Sarah Palin telling the churchgoers to pray for good things. She tells them to pray that God watches over our soldiers. She tells them to pray that America will become unified over the cause of alternative energy. Yet, according to Sparky, this is wacky, insane, evil stuff.
Again, let me reiterate this point for the billionth time. We should not be talking about this. Sparky shouldn't be talking about Sarah Palin sound bytes. I shouldn't be talking about Barack Obama being out of touch. If Sparky would allow me to, I'd much rather debate with him on governmental policy.
Please, Sparky! Stop allowing me to prove that I am right when I say that all politicans are slimy and we should get over it! Please allow me to prove to you instead that Barack Obama's policies are worse than John McCain's!
And another note, Sparky. It would be very, very easy for me to respond to your Palin argument with a simple list of links. I could link to an out of context sound byte of Barack Obama calling Sarah Palin a pig with lipstick, to his former reverend of twenty years ranting about the white enemy, to video of Barack dancing in jubilation at one of these sermons, to pictures of Barack launching his campaign from the house of Bill Ayers the terrorist, or to a host of other fun-filled media clips that make the man look bad. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter how bad he is. He is a politician. We compare politicans by their policies, not by the dirt the media can dig up on them.
Again, Sparky, please stop. You are my best friend, but when you talk about this stuff you only make a fool of yourself.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Maverick Kadabra
(Opinion alert)
Before I get back to focusing on some issues, I'll post once more on some Obama propaganda. As always, I hope you know I don't think it matters. However, since my friend Sparky insists on using every Obama ad as fodder for his argument when we debate, I decided it would be appropriate to look at this voting-record conundrum.
In his latest smear ad, Obama claims that John McCain and Sarah Palin are "anything but mavericks" and are just "more of the same". Let's go over some of its key points.
Point: "Sarah Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it"
Counter 1: Remember when the outspoken political pundit Kanye West said that George Bush hates black people because he failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina? He was right about Bush's lackluster response, but maybe he should have said something about Barack Obama's, too. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were for the bridge to nowhere, always. Even when a Republican senator compromised by suggesting the funds be transferred to Katrina relief, Barack Obama said no. Voting records
Counter 2: Attacking Palin's position on this is the oldest political trick in the book, just more of the same. Rather than giving Sarah Palin credit for standing up to congress and stopping the project when it became too costly, Obama chooses to mudsling and attack her apparent "flip flop". More of the same, Mr. Obama? Look in the mirror.
Point: "Seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists"
Counter 1: Seven? McCain has thirty-six advisers just on his economic team. He also appears to have about thirty-five foreign policy advisers as well as a slew of at least thirty more advisers in other miscellaneous categories. As Obama points out, seven out of more than a hundred happen to be lobbyists. Looks like Obama's advisers did a good job counting. After all, more than seven of them are media consultants (pollsters, campaigners, media managers).
Counter 2: One of Obama's key campaign points has been that McCain refuses to focus on the issues. Maybe Obama should practice what he preaches. Of course, if he did, he would realize that those policies that the evil McCain came up with beat the pants of his policies, some of which have been proven to fail.
Point: "He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90% of the time"
Counter: Barack Obama is not fooling anybody when he cites that statistic. McCain has always stood for what he thinks is right. He voted against Bush on at least these teensy-tiny issues:
Anything but a maverick: Barack Obama
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, an independent organization, gave each member of congress a score as to how much they stand up against wasteful earmarks.
John McCain scored 100%. Barack Obama scored 10%. Joe Biden scored 0%. Sarah Palin is not a congresswoman, but I am sure such a score on her part would be neither as high as McCain's nor as low as Biden and Obama's.
CAGW Ratings (intro)
CAGW Ratings (listing)
So there you have it. John McCain, "anything but a maverick" according to Barack Obama. Barack Obama, the exact opposite of a maverick according to an independent study.
Before I get back to focusing on some issues, I'll post once more on some Obama propaganda. As always, I hope you know I don't think it matters. However, since my friend Sparky insists on using every Obama ad as fodder for his argument when we debate, I decided it would be appropriate to look at this voting-record conundrum.In his latest smear ad, Obama claims that John McCain and Sarah Palin are "anything but mavericks" and are just "more of the same". Let's go over some of its key points.
Point: "Sarah Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it"
Counter 1: Remember when the outspoken political pundit Kanye West said that George Bush hates black people because he failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina? He was right about Bush's lackluster response, but maybe he should have said something about Barack Obama's, too. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were for the bridge to nowhere, always. Even when a Republican senator compromised by suggesting the funds be transferred to Katrina relief, Barack Obama said no. Voting recordsCounter 2: Attacking Palin's position on this is the oldest political trick in the book, just more of the same. Rather than giving Sarah Palin credit for standing up to congress and stopping the project when it became too costly, Obama chooses to mudsling and attack her apparent "flip flop". More of the same, Mr. Obama? Look in the mirror.
Point: "Seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists"
Counter 1: Seven? McCain has thirty-six advisers just on his economic team. He also appears to have about thirty-five foreign policy advisers as well as a slew of at least thirty more advisers in other miscellaneous categories. As Obama points out, seven out of more than a hundred happen to be lobbyists. Looks like Obama's advisers did a good job counting. After all, more than seven of them are media consultants (pollsters, campaigners, media managers).Counter 2: One of Obama's key campaign points has been that McCain refuses to focus on the issues. Maybe Obama should practice what he preaches. Of course, if he did, he would realize that those policies that the evil McCain came up with beat the pants of his policies, some of which have been proven to fail.
Point: "He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90% of the time"
Counter: Barack Obama is not fooling anybody when he cites that statistic. McCain has always stood for what he thinks is right. He voted against Bush on at least these teensy-tiny issues:- McCain supported stem cell funding when Bush opposed it
- McCain voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage when Bush supported it
- McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (though he later admitted that they had worked the way Bush planned)
NPR link
Anything but a maverick: Barack Obama
The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, an independent organization, gave each member of congress a score as to how much they stand up against wasteful earmarks.John McCain scored 100%. Barack Obama scored 10%. Joe Biden scored 0%. Sarah Palin is not a congresswoman, but I am sure such a score on her part would be neither as high as McCain's nor as low as Biden and Obama's.
CAGW Ratings (intro)
CAGW Ratings (listing)
So there you have it. John McCain, "anything but a maverick" according to Barack Obama. Barack Obama, the exact opposite of a maverick according to an independent study.
Notes on my blog
Note 1: Apologies if I ever appear to post about things before they happen. As soon as you create a post draft in Blogger, it assigns that time and date to the blog post. So if I create a draft on Monday but don't finish and publish until Friday, the post still gets marked as being posted on Monday. I can change that manually but sometimes I forget.
Note 2: For those of you who just tuned in, there may be a lot more blog posts than you think. On the right hand side, if you click the little arrow next to "August", it will show you all the posts I made in August. Unfortunately, I have no way of showing all the posts in one list, so you have to use the stupid arrow thingies.
Note 3: If you want to send a particular post to a friend, you can find the link to only that post by clicking on the title. For example, if you click on "Notes on my blog" above, you will be brought to a page that only contains (and always will contain) just this posting.
Note 4: Again, please leave comments. Below each post is a link that says "comments".
Note 5: In every blog post, the first time I mention Sparky's name I link to the post I made about him. It's always the same link, so you don't have to keep checking.
Up next: Iraq. How everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
Keep watching!
Note 2: For those of you who just tuned in, there may be a lot more blog posts than you think. On the right hand side, if you click the little arrow next to "August", it will show you all the posts I made in August. Unfortunately, I have no way of showing all the posts in one list, so you have to use the stupid arrow thingies.
Note 3: If you want to send a particular post to a friend, you can find the link to only that post by clicking on the title. For example, if you click on "Notes on my blog" above, you will be brought to a page that only contains (and always will contain) just this posting.
Note 4: Again, please leave comments. Below each post is a link that says "comments".
Note 5: In every blog post, the first time I mention Sparky's name I link to the post I made about him. It's always the same link, so you don't have to keep checking.
Up next: Iraq. How everyone is right and everyone is wrong.
Keep watching!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)