The Debate

The debate…well, I frankly had a hard time paying attention. Whether it was the white noise coming from the candidates or the third beer or just being tired, it was mind-numbing like reading a grammar textbook. A Virginian caller to C-span Saturday said what was on my mind pretty well; “I think the American people were the losers last night….” (His comments are here—go to recent programs > Saturday, 27th > “watch entire program” > and scroll to 15 minutes.) I brought away two main things and a few lesser points.

Like the caller to C-span says, both candidates are “warmongering”—declaring nations “rogue states” and aggressors without weighing the facts. It doesn’t surprise me that McCain does this, but to have the left wing candidate participate in this insanity is just baffling to me. Being too busy to rewrite what I wrote the other day, I said to my brother, “For both of them (and, I am particularly disappointed in the case of Obama), I found the tough talk (if not "warmongering") against Russia, Venezuela and Iran deeply troubling. I believe strongly (though it is very hard to be certain with the lack of factual media coverage) that Russia was rightfully defending S. Ossetia which is populated by ethnic Russians with Russian citizenship, which was only included in Georgia fairly recently as a matter of post-Soviet convenience, and which has a history of being treated brutally by Georgia. It baffles me that we/ our politicians stand with the oppressor against the liberator and call us the defender. Iran, i think, we ought to deal with via hyperdiplomacy--simply try to build some sort of cultural understanding. Economic times should make this more acceptable than trying to beat the antiAmericanness out of them. The hyperbole of Ahmedinezhadorhoweverthefuckyouspellhisname is blown up to be all sorts of crazy genocidal rhetoric by the west while he's just just saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected (all too familiar). Fucking Chavez--he's a Democratically elected president of an American nation, and I think most USAmericans fail to understand that Communism is an economic system absolutely compatible with Democracy, which is a political system. In fact the US has gone around the world for fifty some years now undermining democracies over and over again because when given Democratic government, the people frequently choose a Socialist or Communist leader. This is the reason that Chavez spews his antiAmerican rhetoric--because we (US tax payers) have sponsored a coup attempt which successfully (though temporarily) deposed his democratically appointed administration and subsequently have sponsored the opposition media which lays a constant barrage of attacks against him. Thereby we have encouraged him to use hateful rhetoric against us. We have given him reason to clamp down on the "free press" (can you imagine if China was so rich that they bought our media and used it to shape US public opinion re. our leaders? We would have a fricken fit too.) and attempt to appoint himself permanent ruler. If instead we took him by the hand and said, "hey we really admire what you've been able to do for your people by using oil wealth for the general good and we hope that you'll strengthen your fragile democracy and your nation by abdicating your office and letting someone else have a shot at it," we could have a MUCH more productive relationship.”

Oh hell; I need to get to work. This is the rest of the e-mail to my brother:
“Another 5% was that McCain is again aiming really low. By not looking at Obama the whole time, I think he was trying to send a message that Obama is inhuman or unworthy of acknowledgement or something. He had to have some psychologist on his staff telling him to do this, because it was just so obviously intentional and such an unnatural/artifical interaction (or lack thereof). He's aiming for some gut response because he can't compete on substance...again.

“One of them answered that first question quite succinctly--"there is no final form of the legislation, so I cant say whether i'd sign it or not." I was glad one of them could at least spit that out. Big deal about nothing.

“Re. What would you cut? McCain said basically everything but the military, and Obama wouldn't say he'd give up anything. McCain was speaking to the shortsighted antigovernment folks and I would think he alienated anyone who values anything other than war. Omaba has said in the past and should have said in that context, "I'd give up tax breaks for people making over a quarter million a year" and "I would get the heck out of Iraq"--hows that for a budget cuts. I guess he was thinking more about what not to say; must be tough to be on the hotseat. Lerher (sp) shoulda said,let me put it like this, "tomorrow, every country on earth tells it's banks and citizens, do not lend any more money to the US. How are you going to balance the budget?"

“BTW, did you catch when McCain said Obama doesnt know the dif b'tween tactics and strategy and then not two minutes later called a tactic a strategy himself?”

"Sarah Palin is..." Google Search Results

Google search results (September 17, 1530 hrs):
"sarah palin is" 878,000 hits
"Sarah Palin is unqualified" 209,000 hits
"sarah palin is a babe" 132,000 hits
"sarah palin is hot" 62,800 hits
"Sarah Palin is scary" 48,400 hits
"sarah palin is awesome" 27,900 hits
"Sarah Palin is an idiot" 24,100 hits
"sarah palin is not qualified" 15,500 hits
"sarah palin is dangerous" 1990 hits
"sarah Palin is crazy" 984 hits
"sarah palin isn't qualified" 850 hits
"sarah palin is a MILF" 823 hits
"sarah palin is a dangerous" 755 hits
"sarah palin is great" 652 hits
"Sarah Palin is a nightmare" 601 hits
"sarah palin is the devil" 574 hits
"sarah palin is the antichrist" 490 hits
"sarah palin is stupid" 386 hits
"sarah palin is a godsend" 277 hits
"Sarah Palin is hypocritical" 259 hits
"sarah palin is a whore" 206 hits
"sarah palin is fantastic" 92 hits
"sarah palin is wonderful" 78 hits
"sarah palin is weak" 76 hits
"Sarah Palin is ugly" 65 hits
"sarah palin is irrelevant" 64 hits
"Sarah Palin is a retard" 51 hits
"Sarah Palin is a fucking idiot" 10 hits
"sarah palin is retarded" 7 hits
"sarah palin is a zealot" 5 hits
"sarah palin is the spawn of" 3 hits (Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, and the devil)
"sarah palin is the answer to our prayers" 2 hits
"Sarah Palin is a fucking retard" 1 hit

Meyera Oberndorf for President!

A letter to the editor that got out of hand:

Meyera Oberndorf for President! I’m just joking; she’s really not qualified.

She’s been the Mayor of a city, Virginia Beach, with a population comparable to that of the entire state of Alaska for twenty years and was in the City Council for a decade before that. She oversaw the city through a decade when it was the fastest growing city in the nation. She presided over the city as its size doubled and redoubled. Virginia Beach is home to the largest naval air station in the world as well as several other notable military installations. Considered together with the adjacent cities’ military operations, including the largest naval base in the world, the naval operations in Virginia Beach make it vitally important to our national defense. The Virginia Beach campus of Tidewater Community College alone enrolls two thirds as many students annually as the entire state-wide University of Alaska System. The city has the 45th largest public school system in the nation. Meyera has managed this domain for decades, not just years, and for any shortcomings she’s had, we have to let her off the hook, because it has not been an easy task. Meyer has interfaced with international businesses and delegations. She’s dealt with the military. She’s dealt with job loss and job creation, with natural resource shortages, with land and resource development. She’s overseen a police department comparable in size to the Alaska National Guard. But, does this prove she’s qualified to manage the national budget, the national defense, and national economic and energy policies? Can she guide us into energy independence? Does it show she understands the complexities of the conflicts in the Middle East or the foundations and implications of the West’s conflict with Russia? No. No. No. It doesn’t.

Statistically speaking, McCain has a slim chance of surviving his first term based on his age and medical history, so he needs a second who is ready to run with the ball. Sarah Palin is NOT ready. Regardless of how she appeals to people with her ideology, she is simply not qualified. The presidency is not a job that just requires folksy common sense; it requires expertise. And, Palin has none. Her reputation as a reformer is shaky at best, having abused her office, fired any public official with whom she had a disagreement, and having “stood-up to” oil companies by building a pipeline they did not want. Her conservative ticket’s claim to maverickdom is oxymoronic. By choosing her, McCain has completed the sale of everything he stood for eight years ago. He has sought and found the lowest common denominator, and it is shocking to see the people seem to be buying it.

Why are people so fucking dense?

If it were not the case that people see and hear what they want to see and hear, this (copied below) might make me very happy. It would make me happy because it would show to all of the people the Republican propaganda machine is duping with the "drill here drill now" nonsense that the oil supply is being manipulated to inflate prices and that the only solution to the oil market quandary is to decrease demand. No matter how much oil is produced domestically, it is unforeseeable that the US will ever be oil-independent unless demand is wildly reduced. It hints that the oil market is not being driven by supply and demand (because supply is potentially so great and easily fixable) and that even the chance that the price might drop in response to falling demand is causing suppliers to organize to match the market with a drop in supply (that is to "defend" high prices with artificially decreased supply). While this it is OPEC conspiring to do this, American oil companies will be of no help, because any price elevation is hugely beneficial to them. They are obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. So, regardless of where and how much you drill, they're going to subject their countrymen to the same manipulated market price the rest of the world is dealing with. Whats more, oil companies are justified in asking whatever price people are willing to pay (basic microeconomics), so, once again, the consumer's only choice is to decrease demand by using an alternative product.

Of course, we need energy, so the only pragmatic and practical long-term solution is to exploit energy alternatives; this is exactly what the Democrats have been saying and proposing. Why are people so fucking dense?

http://www.npr.org/newsinbrief/index.html (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)

Oil Drops To $108 Per Barrel Amid Slowing Demand (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)

Oil prices tumbled below $108 a barrel on Tuesday, down nearly $8 from last week's close, as investors shifted their focus to slowing global demand after worries about Hurricane Gustav subsided.

By midday in Europe, light, sweet crude for October delivery was down $7.85 a barrel to $107.61 in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session it had dropped as low as $105.46.

On Friday, the contract settled at $115.46 a barrel as Gustav approached the U.S. Gulf coast, a key region for oil drilling and refining. But traders were relieved that Gustav weakened as it neared the offshore oil rigs and Louisiana refineries, and appeared to have caused less damage than expected in New Orleans and surrounding areas.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is scheduled to meet Sept. 9 in Vienna and has indicated it may take action to defend the $100 a barrel level.

More:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7605584.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7607508.stm
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html

Drilling for divisiveness

I went looking to see who pays the bills for Drill Here Drill Now, which appears to be some sort of grassroots organization. I expected to find some slightly fuzzy link to "big oil," but instead I found it, as well as it's parent organization (American solutions for winning the future), and it's leader, Newt Gingrich, are funded primarily by Sheldon Adelson, a casino magnate, the third richest American, and a conservative "philanthropist." Adelson also bankrolls Freedom’s Watch, which was founded primarily as a pro-Iraq-war organization and which has gotten deeply into partisan politics. So, it seems that DHDN’s real aim is partisan politicking, not so much lower gas prices.

Scary thing is the DHDN petition has 1.5 million signatures, and NPR reported thismorning that Democrats in Congress were starting to jump on the bandwagon. Seems a lot of folks don't understand that we simply don't have enough domestic oil to satisfy our needs. Hence the need for energy alternatives...duh.

Associated links:
http://www.alaskawild.org/news-and-events/fact-sheets

Letter to the Editor of the Post and Courier

I've seen so much disturbing nonsense in the last couple weeks that I just didn't know where to begin, but summarized just a shade of what I've been thinking in a letter to the editor thismorning:

"I considered John McCain a worthy Presidential candidate in 2000, but, through his continuous stream of misinformation and hypocritical rhetoric, he has last lost my respect. The advertisements run during coverage of Tropical Storm Hanna which presented the gross distortion if not lie that Senator Obama will "raise taxes on working families" were the final straw. The fact is that Obama's tax plan will increase taxes on only 5% of Americans who earn the most--hardly your typical "working families." McCain has chosen to undermine the rational selection of a President by overwhelming reason with emotional appeals, indicating not only that he believes Americans are intellectually poor enough to fall for it but that he is willing to exploit them. He has said repeatedly, "more unites us than divides us," but out of the other side of his mouth he implies that democrats don't put their "country first"--that their interests are contrary to America's. The slogan "change we can trust" implies that you can't trust his opponent, Senator Obama; whether you agree with this sentiment or not, it is just a sentiment. We have just as much, or more, reason to trust Obama as we do McCain. Surely, we all have America's best interests—national security, economic health, individual liberty and prosperity--in mind; we Americans just disagree on how to best achieve these ends.

"The facts that we don't all agree on the course of action we should take and that we deliberate the best course and vote on the resulting consensus are what makes this a democracy. The fact of disagreement and the process of resolution are fundamental to the American system. Slogans and propaganda steer people away from thinking rationally about issues that matter and undermine our democracy. McCain's voices opposition to "legislation from the bench" but contradicts himself by supporting "constructionist judges" who will incrementally undermine Roe vs. Wade. This hypocrisy illustrates the manner in which he is using loaded phrases to appeal to individuals' predispositions rather selling them on a rational policy. McCain Advisor Rick Davis said "this election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of ... these candidates." Davis clarifies that they're not selling policy; they're selling an image and an abstraction. The McCain camp has repeatedly called Obama's speech empty rhetoric, even though it's based on well-defined policy positions available online for months—as if his own campaign's slogans are anything but empty rhetoric. I hope South Carolinians have the strength of character to look beyond the hype, slogans and insinuations to compare these candidates on the virtues of their policies."