A Presidential ‘Shocker’

Oh what a difference context can make. Like the difference between the President of the United States making a ‘crude,’ sexual gesture:

…or the President of the United States posing with the Arizona State University track and field teams, which is what was really going on in the photo.

So why the ’shocker?’ ASU’s mascot is Sparky the Sun Devil, a creature that carries a three-pronged pitchfork which the gesture is intended to simulate. Of course, most people seem to be unaware of that usage, instead being either oblivious to any meaning or understanding it only as ‘The Shocker.’ It is the latter group that I suspect will begin calling for the President to apologize to their god and to their sensitivities for his crass behavior.

Politics Over Friendship? You Betcha!

Today a friend of mine made note of something that surprised her with its stupidity and, at first, I agreed with her.  But after some careless consideration, I’ve realized that it was actually completely reasonable.  She said (via Facebook) “r ppl really so hardheaded that they’re willing to lose friends over politics? really?”  The short answer, for me, is ‘yes…sort of.’

Prior to this election season I knew the political affiliations and inclinations of only a few of my friends, and it was rarely an issue.  As November 4th came near, some of my friends who had never before displayed to me the slightest interest in politics were wearing t-shirts supporting their chosen presidential candidate. Many of them began using their Facebook profiles as political soapboxes from which they would espouse the virtuous nature of their candidate while simultaneously condemning the opposition.  Though the latter was irritating due to the volume and frequency of updates all on the same topic, I was comforted to know that the news media’s characterization of my generation as politically apathetic wasn’t completely true.  More important, and more relevant to this post, is that although I may have disagreed with some of the positions my friends had taken, most of it was far too trivial for me to consider ending a friendship over.  Most of it…

There were a few people who really surprised me with their ignorance, both on Facebook and in the real world.  These were people who managed to destroy all respect I had for them by arguing that Barack Obama really is a Muslim, or that Sarah Palin is a brilliant person, or that John McCain was never a prisoner of war, or that Sarah Palin’s youngest child is actually her grandson.  The worst I heard was arguably also the most ridiculous, and that came from those few who were willing to admit that they would never, ever, under any circumstances, vote for a black candidate solely because of their race.

I can’t possibly maintain any sort of meaningful relationship with these people after these events have transpired.  Some of them are actually too stupid to comprehend the truth, like when it is explained to them that just because someone is named “Barack Hussein Obama,” he, like every other American, is free to choose and follow any religion he likes and is not, by default, a devout follower of Islam.  Others activate their self-preservation gene and utilize their skill in willful ignorance, like when they are given countless examples of Sarah Palin’s stupidity, or are shown photos of John McCain in a POW Camp, and they still refuse to accept the obvious truth of your argument.

While it may not have been directly because of politics that I’m willing to lose a friend, it was politics that saved me from wasting countless hours, if not years, investing in these morons.

The Curse of the Plumber, Part 2

Expect this on the news for the next day or two: Joe the Plumber is above the law.  On Wednesday, October 29th, Sam/Joe “The [Fake] Plumber” Wurzelbacher was pulled over by Toledo police for traveling at “…about 50 mph in a 35 mph zone in his Dodge Durango SUV,” but received a verbal warning instead of a citation.

Why no ticket?  According to the cop that wrote the report, they were “…concern[ed] it would reflect negatively on the Toledo department.”  Apparently, some jackass clerk that works in the police department looked up Wurzelbacher’s address in a state database the day before, presumably resulting in negative press for the department.

Anyway, you know what reflects negatively upon you, TPD?  When you not only condone, but promote your lack of professionalism.  Wurzelbacher, by your own admission, was caught, by you, breaking the law and he deserves a ticket.  It shouldn’t matter to anyone that John McCain gets his rocks off talking about this guy, so much so that McCain imagines Wurzelbacher being there even when he is not.

I guess this is kind of like what frequently happens in college football: the refs make a shitty call, and everyone knows it.  Then, to even things out, they make another shitty call during the next drive to penalize the other team, thereby simultaneously acknowledging and apologizing for their earlier mistake.  What the Toledo Police Department and NCAA referees apparently don’t remember, though, is that classic line from elementary school: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”  Instead, everyone who didn’t benefit from the decisions that were made ends up pissed off, and those involved end up losing some credibility in the eyes of the angered.

The Curse of the Plumber, Part 1

I’m sorry to say folks, but it looks as though those of us who assumed this “Sam/Joe ‘The [Fake] Plumber’ Wurzelbacher” character was nothing more than a flash-in-the-pan utilized by the faltering campaign of a presidential hopeful, were wrong.  He has not only hired a publicist, but now he’s planning on writing a book.  Thankfully he is not, as rumors had previously suggested, working toward becoming a country music star.

I wonder how it is that he apparently can’t pay his taxes but can afford a publicist.  Maybe the firm took him on as a client in the spirit of charity and he isn’t paying them anything.  Or maybe he’s paying them in free plumbing work, which they will inevitably have to get re-done because he’s not licensed and his work would never pass inspection.

Perhaps the greatest irony here is that the only people who would be willing to read a book written by this guy are those who are unable to read.  Looks like they’ll have to wait for the miniseries to air on Lifetime which, if the media obsession with this faux-celebrity continues, might just become the big hit this holiday season.  That would be funny if it weren’t a realistic possibility…

The Plumber Doesn’t Speak For Me, McCain

At a rally in Sandusky, Ohio yesterday, John McCain referred to Sam Wurzelbacher as “…the voice of America.”

This, Senator McCain, is where I draw the proverbial line and you, sir, are in grave danger of permanently losing what little respect for you that I have left.  You can refer to this ill-informed attention whore as your “…role model,” if you so choose, though I think it serves as further evidence of your horrific decision-making skills.  He is absolutely not the voice of the America in which I live, and I know this because nobody I know and respect would ever consider letting this guy speak on their behalf.  Couple that with reassurances I have received from those around me that I am indeed currently living in America, and I’ve got a pretty solid argument.

Perhaps, though, you meant that he is the voice of Governor Palin’s America, you know, real America.  I imagine that being a place where spending tax revenue on social programs is the only criterion needed to brand an entire government as a socialist regime.  I envision it as a place where an assumed deity directs both foreign and domestic policy utilizing the White House as a medium (insert obvious comparison to Catholicism here, just to scare “The Republican Base” with festive, Halloween fun).  I think of it as a place where the health of females is an appropriate punch line of a deriding comment made by the Presidential candidate.  I picture it as a place where the brightest people are prevented from assuming positions of leadership in favor of electing the borderline-illiterate.

So you know what, Senator McCain?  If there are in fact two Americas, and one of them is Palin’s Real America, and Joe “The [Fake] Plumber” Wurzelbacher is the man tapped to become spokesperson for that society, then I suppose I’m fine with it because I don’t live there anyway, nor would I want to.

The POTUS and The SCOTUS

There was a piece aired during Campbell Brown’s No Bias, No Bull show on CNN this evening in which she discussed the Supreme Court.  As you should know, the Supreme Court is currently composed of nine judges, all of whom serve for life or until resignation or retirement.  When a vacancy occurs anyone can be nominated by the sitting President of the United States (POTUS) to fill the gap and, following a majority vote by the United States Senate, the nominee becomes a justice of the Court.

I think it is obvious to most people that it is in the best interest of the President to select someone who shares their views on all things political; conservative presidents should select conservative judges and vice versa.  President Eisenhower said that appointing a liberal judge that he mistakenly thought was conservative was the “…biggest damn fool mistake [he] ever made.”  What did that judge, Chief Justice Earl Warren, do to upset Ike?  He voted in favor of desegregating public schools in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision.  It is my contention that in certain situations, pushing their political agenda would be exceptionally irresponsible of the Commander-in-Chief and, dare I say, un-Presidential.

The Supreme Court exists to “…say what the law is,” as brilliantly-stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 case Marbury vs. Madison.  The justices are not there to make laws, commonly referred to as ‘legislating from the bench.’  Instead, they are supposed to remain completely impartial, interpret laws as they are written and compare their legality to what is provided by the Constitution.  However, there is nothing in place to ensure that this happens other than the possiblitity of impeachment of a justice by Congress, Congress overturning a decision by the Court, or a future Court overturning the decision reached by an earlier Court, all of which are exceptionally rare.  It is because of this that there exists the possibility of enduring a Court with a specific and obvious political bias regarding the cases that are heard.

Of the nine current members, four are considered conservative (Chief Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito), four others are considered liberal (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer), and another is considered to be an independant conservative (Kennedy).  This is an excellent balance in our two-party system because both parties are evenly represented, and in the event of a highly-partisan issue being brought before the court it will be up to someone who is considered to be politically impartial, at least moreso than the other justices, to decide the case.  Essentially, this balance serves as a safeguard against a political ideology deciding the law instead of impartial reason, logic and precedent.

Unfortunately, many of the justices are getting quite old, which increases at an increasing rate the odds that they will die, resign or retire during one of the next few Presidential administrations.  Stevens is 88, Ginsburg is 75, Scalia and Kennedy are 72, Breyer is 70, Souter is 69 and the others are, comparitively speaking, spring chickens at 60, 58 and 55.  Of the justices considered to be conservative, only one made my list of those six I arbitrarily consider to be ‘getting old.’  Most problematic, though, is that all four liberals and the one semi-independent made the list.

This brings me to the issue of Presidential responsibility when selecting justices.  Under a McCain/Palin Administration, what are the chances that if all four liberal judges were to die, resign or retire that they would be replaced by four other liberal judges in the interest of preserving the political balance of the Court?  Probably close to what they would be if the tables were switched, with an Obama/Biden Administration and four conservative justices leaving the bench.  It seems to me, though, that Presidents should see it as their responsibility, their Presidential Duty if you will, to do what they can to preserve the political balance in the highest court in the land for the sake of fairly “…say[ing] what the law is.”

Say What You Mean

I strongly believe in protecting the right to free speech as guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, just look at my posts on profanity and personal freedom.  That said, I really wish that there was more honesty and less bullshit pouring out of the mouths of the talking heads.

On The Situation Room this afternoon, Wolf Blitzer spoke with guests Leslie Sanchez, a Republican Strategist and entrepreneur, and the “Ragin’ Cajun” James Carville, discussing the effect evangelicals will have on this upcoming election.  Ms. Sanchez spoke of the religiously-inclined independents and religiously-inclined undecided voters, regarding their desires in a President.  Though she cited several examples, one in particular stuck with me which was “protecting the family.”  Any American with a brain knows what she meant, that religious types want a President who will work to prevent gays from getting married.  Though I firmly defend her right to phrase anything she wants to say in any particular way she desires, I wish she would be more straightforward and just say what she means.

We all sugarcoat words and phrases in certain situations and it is generally acceptable, even preferable, to portray certain things in a veiled manner.  But why does our society act so complacently when the blow we are attempting to soften is blatant discrimination?  How is replacing “gays aren’t deserving of the same rights and opportunities as straight people” with “we are protecting the family” while on television the equivalent of replacing “I fucking hate that bitch” with “I really don’t like Sarah Palin” while your grandmother is present?

Aside from that, the words they have chosen to act as a synonymous phrase are completely illogical.  “Protecting the family” brings to mind a father, armed with a large-caliber rifle, standing in front of his wife and small children as a large bear charges toward them.  If you replace the rifle with legislation and the bear with Clay Aiken, both the phrase and the image seem ridiculous.  Gay people offer no threat from which anyone needs protection, not families, not children and certainly not the religious.

The problem I have with Ms. Sanchez and others like her who choose to put a noble-sounding name on such a ridiculous notion is not with the act itself, it is with the effect this glossing-over has.  It makes it socially acceptable for anyone to spew hateful rhetoric and for the government to intervene in the private lives of individuals.  The latter, of course, then serves to legitimize the claims of those who chose to discriminate against homosexuals in the first place.

President Sarah Palin

May I present to you a glimpse of daily life in the Oval Office if Palin were to ever become President: http://palinaspresident.us

Turn the volume up, click around, laugh your ass off, and be sure to not have any liquids near your keyboard while doing so.

Undecided Voters

Imagine, if you dare, the type of person who remains undecided mere hours before the 2008 Presidential Election about which candidate they intend to vote for, Barack Obama or John McCain.  Believe it or not, you have more than likely seen them and their idiocy in action long before this election.

Remember the last time you were at a Taco Bell standing in line behind someone who was reading the menu even though everyone knows that everything on that menu is composed of the same five ingredients?

Remember the last time you came to an intersection with a four-way stop and there was some jackass who just would not move until you waved them on, even though they had the legal right-of-way?

Remember the last time you were in a public place and endured the pain of watching a parent attempt to reason with a screaming child under the age of five?

Remember the last time you saw an attention-whore on television asking a presidential candidate about his intended alterations to tax policies that would not apply to him?

Remember the last time you were in Vegas playing Blackjack and the person seated next to you kept asking for the dealer’s opinion on strategy?

Remember the last time you were walking down a near-empty sidewalk or hallway while a person was walking toward you, and that person chose to move to their left instead of their right as you were about to pass each other?

Remember the last time you sat at a bar and overheard someone respond to the bartender’s “Whaddya havin’?” with a “Whaddya got?”

I’m certain that all of those people are undecided voters.

If you are an undecided voter, please take the following to heart: I don’t care who you vote for anymore, just fucking pick someone and cast your ballot.  Flip a coin if you have to.  Make it a best-of-seven series if you need some excitement.  Write in your dog’s name if you simply can’t choose.  Just get it over with and shut up about it, the rest of America is sick of hearing about you and your fear of commitment.

Think You Know Obama? Update

Here is a response to my blog post, “Think You Know Obama?” that I received via Facebook:

“Not so much enlightening, as exhausting/overboard…one wonders how long it must’ve taken to go to such great lengths to “correct” or shall I say “nit-pick” each and every one of the claims made. As far as I’m concerned, the “corrections” did not at all redeem the candidate. I think this will be obvious to anyone who read your “politically correct” blog response. I’m so glad I haven’t had to worry about going to such great lengths to defend and justify the actions, etc, of the candidate I support.”

You may be interested to know that the person who wrote that response grew up in the same town and went to the same schools that I did.  For more on that topic, read this post of mine.

Anyway, in keeping with the title of this blog, I figure I can best respond with a series of my very own, original one-liners:

“Not so much enlightening, as exhausting/overboard…”

Though the truth is often cumbersome, its necessity can not be ignored.

“…one wonders how long it must’ve taken to go to such great lengths to “correct” or shall I say “nit-pick” each and every one of the claims made.”

In the pursuit of truth, time is of little consequence.

“As far as I’m concerned, the “corrections” did not at all redeem the candidate.”

What hell it must be to live in your world, where the truth serves not as salvation from falsehoods, but as a tool for their reinforcement.

“I think this will be obvious to anyone who read your “politically correct” blog response.”

We’ll never know for sure as very few of my readers bother to leave comments :(

“I’m so glad I haven’t had to worry about going to such great lengths to defend and justify the actions, etc, of the candidate I support.”

Perhaps that is because you have never attempted to form a logical and rational public argument in defense of Sarah Palin.

All of that said, she missed my point.  I wasn’t attempting to get her to change her vote, in fact I don’t really care who she votes for.  As I said before, I’m sure that her entire county will vote for McCain.  I was simply doing what I could to offer her and many others the chance to make a better-informed decision next week.  It’s one thing to vote for a candidate because you agree with their stance on issues, but choosing to vote for their opponent solely because you believe a long list of ridiculous and disparaging lies that have been propagated about them is quite another.  To twist the quote by Bodie Thoene, “Ignorance is the glove into which politicians slip their hand.”

On the Issue of Race

Much has been said regarding Barack Obama’s historic Presidential run, and few things have been mentioned more frequently than his race.  A quick search on CNN yielded several news stories, and Google News has plenty of them as well, regarding the issue of race in this election.  The opinions found in those stories vary quite a bit: some people think it will matter in the election, others think it won’t, and others attempt to persuade their readers that it shouldn’t matter, even if it does.  Having been raised in a so-called ‘battleground state,’ and in a predominantly-white area of that state, I can tell you from personal experience that race most certainly matters to some people, and likely will matter in this election.

When school let out for winter break in December of 2006, I flew back to my hometown where I met a veteran of the Vietnam War and a self-proclaimed lifelong Democrat.  We discussed the next Presidential election and upon learning of his political affiliation, I asked his opinion of Barack Obama, who I had heard was considering running for President.  This man admitted that he didn’t know much about Obama, and that he would never vote for a black person because he had learned during his time spent in Southeast Asia that “…they [black people] can’t be trusted.”  I returned again in December of 2007 during the next winter break, and I ran into the same guy.  Unfortunately, his position had yet to change, and he still would not be voting for a black candidate.  Perhaps most interesting to those of you who didn’t grow up in the same area as I did is that I wasn’t at all surprised by his statements.  Racism was and apparently still is normal, acceptable behavior for some people in that part of the country.

How normal was it?  Funny you should ask:

When I was in second grade, I was made fun of by my classmates for wearing ‘n—-r pants,’ which were black khakis that my grandmother had bought for me.  Like a lot of grandmothers, she chose a pair that were several sizes too big so that I could ‘grow into them,’ a hold-over from the Depression Era, I suppose.  However, her decision had the unfortunate and unintended consequence of making me look like MC Hammer, according to the kids at my school.  I remember sitting at a table in the cafeteria at my high school as one of my classmates explained to me why using the word ‘n—-r’ is acceptable.  I would have said ‘one of my white classmates,’ but aside from the adopted Korean girl, all of my classmates were white, as were all of my teachers and school administrators from kindergarten through graduation.  The parents of a friend of mine adopted a child and upon doing so, were asked by their priest to not return to their church because that child was black.  For more than a year I dated a girl who isn’t white and there were people in my life who I never introduced her to for fear of what may have transpired solely because of the color of her skin.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that a majority of people from my hometown harbor racist opinions, but there are a few.  The point of this post is that Ashland is just one small sliver of the American population and it is moronic to think that there aren’t a number of people across the country who share the views of the people I have mentioned here.

I’m saying it here first: even if Barack Obama wins a majority of Ohio’s 88 counties, you can bet that on November 4th, Ashland County will be blood-red just like it was in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988 and 1984.  Why?  Hopefully because the majority of Ashlanders are Republican and vote with their party.  But based upon personal experience I’m guessing that it will be, at least in part, because race matters to some people regardless of whether or not the rest of us like or accept it.

UPDATE 1 – Nov. 10, 2008: My prediction was correct, John McCain won Ashland County with 60% of the vote.

Think You Know Obama?

On October 16th, 2008, one of my Facebook Friends posted a note on her profile titled “Think you know Obama?”  While reading the note, I was surprised to find out what she apparently believes to be true about the current Democratic candidate for President.  Through the comments left regarding that note, I realized that she may not have been the original author, instead receiving it perhaps through e-mail.  What is for sure, though, is that she posted it on her Facebook profile and I can only assume that she believes the content of the note to be true.  It is because of the many factual inaccuracies contained within that note, and also that the note may have been sourced from a chain e-mail with countless numbers of people reading it (and possibly believing it to be true), that I have decided to take it upon myself to dispel the rumors now and set the record straight by responding directly to the author(s).

Lines appearing in bold are those of the original note, those in plain-text are mine, and because I am performing the ‘copy/paste’ direct from Facebook, any spelling or grammatical errors in the bold lines were there long before I ever saw them.

Claim #1: His father was a black african muslim from kenya .

Barack Obama Sr. was raised as a Muslim, but by the time he met Stanley Ann Dunham (Barack Obama II’s mother), he had been an atheist for quite some time.

All people from Kenya are, by definition, African. Muslims also make up roughly 10% of the Kenyan population, compared with about 0.6% of the people in the United States, so it isn’t really all that unusual that his father would have been raised as a Muslim, given where he was born. We also know that he has been married at least three times and has at least seven children, though the only child he had with Ms. Dunham was Barack II.

Claim #2: We have seen pictures of his african family.

Although I have not seen pictures of all members of his ‘African’ family, it is possible that they are out there. Regardless, what relevance does this have to the Presidential election?

Claim #3: His mother was a white american atheist from kansas .

Perhaps true, though her daughter, Barack Obama II’s half-sister Maya, describes their mother as an agnostic. While it is true that she was born in Kansas, she had moved with her parents from Kansas to California, to Texas, to Washington state and then to Hawaii before she had even turned 18.

Claim #4: Where are the pictures of his american family?

His mother, Ann Dunham, died in 1995 of ovarian and uterine cancer, which is why there haven’t been any recent photos of her circulated, not to mention the fact that her death may be a sensitive topic. There is a picture of her on the top of that linked page.

He has no siblings from his mother’s marriage to his biological father, and probably because of that, no pictures of these non-existent people have ever been taken.

His sister, Maya, from his mother’s second marriage (to Lolo Soetoro) was born in Indonesia though she moved to Hawaii with her mother at age 9 (following her parents’ divorce) where she continues to live and work as a high school history teacher and college professor. There is also a picture of her on that page with her husband, a Canadian of Chinese descent, and their daughter (who is a mix of Caucasian, Chinese and Pacific Islander ethnicities).

Here is a picture of Barack Obama II and his maternal grandparents on the day of his high school graduation. It is also worth noting that his grandfather died in 1992 and that his grandmother is alive, still living in Hawaii.

You may also be interested in the surviving members of his “American as Apple Pie” nuclear family.

Again, though, I don’t see how this is relevant.

Claim #5: His father deserted his mother when he was only two years old and went back to Africa by way of harvard university .  How? Was his father wealthy?

In 1959 Kenya was still a colony controlled by the British, and there was no university anywhere in the entire country. To help educate his fellow countrymen, a Kenyan man named Tom Mboya raised cash (partially from American athletes and movie stars) to send 81 of the most intelligent young Kenyans to America where they would receive a free college education. One of those 81 students was a 23-year-old Barack Obama Sr., who had grown up herding goats.

He enrolled in classes at the University of Hawaii as an Economics major where he met Ann Dunham and, in short, they got married in 1961 (she was 18, he was 25) and had a kid six months later. In 1963, Obama Sr. had graduated with his degree in Economics from U of H and was accepted as a doctoral candidate into the Economics program at Harvard, which he chose to pursue, while Ann chose to remain in Hawaii with their son.  The operative word in that last sentence is ‘chose.’  No desertion, no abandonment, just two adults exercising their right to choose their paths in life.

Claim #6: His mother married an indonesian muslim and then moved to jakarta where he was enrolled in a muslim school .

Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro in 1967 while both were studying at the University of Hawaii. It is true that he was from Indonesia.

Mr. Soetoro was raised as a Muslim, though his devotion to that faith is, at best, suspect. He was essentially a ‘non-practicing’ Muslim, as witnessed by the fact that he frequently drank alcohol, something that Islamic law (known as Sharia) forbids, even dying of liver failure in 1987 at the age of 51. It should be mentioned that Indonesia has the world’s largest concentration of Muslims, as roughly 86.1% of its people follow that faith.

True, they moved to Indonesia’s capital city in 1967 soon after they were married, taking then-6-year-old Barack Obama II with them.

Barack Obama II lived in Indonesia for four years, from the age of 6 until the age of 10. During those first three years, he attended a Catholic school, and in the last year, he attended a state-run (read: secular) school, one of the most competitive and elite in the country. His mother moved him from the Catholic school to the secular school because she was worried about the quality of the education he was receiving, which leads us to your next point…

Claim #7: When he reached high school age his mother sent him to hawaii to be with his white grandparents and he was put into an expensive private school.  He later went to Harvard University .  How? Were his grandparents rich?

Barack did indeed move back to Hawaii in 1971 at the age of 10 to attend a college-prep K-12 school, and he lived with his grandparents (who were not rich by my standards) during that time. As for the cost, it depends upon your definition of ‘expensive.’ Tuition for the 2007-08 school year was over $15k, but compared to some schools in the northeastern US that charge in excess of $30k, it’s a bargain. Regardless, it’s important to note how Obama II’s primary and secondary education was financed: partially by scholarship and partially by his grandparents.

As for college, he spent two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles then finished his BA in Political Science at Columbia University in New York City. Afterward, he attended Harvard Law School, where he became the first black president in the school’s history of the “Harvard Law Review.”  Though his two years at Occidental were free because of an athletic scholarship, his years at Columbia and those spent at Harvard were financed by student loans, well over $40k worth, and financial aid.

Claim #8: He lives in a $1.4 mill ion house obtained through a deal with a wealthy fundraiser.  How?

You’re wrong on both counts. Barack Obama and family actually live in a house they purchased for $1.65 million in June of 2005, though it is unclear whether cash was paid or if it was mortgaged.  I assume this ‘wealthy fundraiser’ you’re referring to is Tony Rezko, a housing developer. If that’s the case, then you’re wrong again, as Obama purchased his home from a doctor, not a housing developer. The only Rezko connection here is that Tony’s wife, Rita, bought the empty lot next door to the Obama’s new home, one-sixth of which the Obamas then purchased in December of 2005 at a price of $104,500.

As for the ‘how,’ have you ever heard of The Audacity of Hope? How about Dreams From My Father? They’re both best-selling books authored by Barack Obama. The audiobook versions of both of them, spoken by Obama himself, each won a Grammy with Dreams winning in 2006 and Audacity winning in 2008. How much do you think all of this success was worth? How about $1.2 million just for paperback sales of Dreams? Follow that up with a $1.9 million advance in 2006 from the hardcover-publisher of Audacity for a three-book deal, not to mention whatever royalties he earned from sales of those books.  Interestingly, Obama’s books have outsold those authored by McCain so far in 2008.  So as of 2006, he had likely earned in excess of $3 million just from book sales, and when he bought his house, he had already pocketed $1.2 million of that.

Claim #9: He ‘worked’ as a civil rights activist in Chicago .

I realize that this post is getting a bit long, so in the interest of concision, read this and then take comedian Ron White’s advice: the next time you have a thought…let it go.  Implying that what activists do isn’t work, or that Civil Rights isn’t a worthwhile cause, or whatever agenda you’re pushing with this claim, is simply astounding.

Claim #10: He has never held a productive job or received a pay check that was not government-funded and/or taxpayer supported.

First, go back and read my response to Claim #9, and read the linked page.  In there, you will find that the organization he worked for as a Community Organizer was run by the Catholic Church (which is most certainly not government-funded).  Prior to that, he worked as a research analyst for a consulting company.  During his time at Harvard Law he worked for a prestigious law firm in Chicago.  Upon graduating magna cum laude, he chose a low-paying position as a public-interest lawyer in Chicago where he “…worked on cases involving voting rights, employment discrimination and low-income housing.”  Obama also used to lecture at the University of Chicago Law School.  Whether or not any of those jobs were ‘productive’ is decidedly subjective, though I think it is fair to assume that he was not compensated with taxpayer funds.

Claim #11: The presidency is not a civil rights position, nor is it subject to affirmative action set asides; on-the-job training won’t cut i t.

First, I have yet to hear anyone say that Obama should win the Presidency based solely upon his race, which is what I think you’re alluding to with this statement.

Second, “on-the-job training” is really the only training there is for the job of President.  The required qualifications to become President, as laid out in Article Two of the Constitution, are: 1) be a natural-born citizen of the United States, 2) be at least thirty-five years old and 3) have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.  That’s it, though there are some things that can occur in a person’s life that will disqualify them, none of which apply to either Barack Obama or John McCain.  Apparently, our Founding Fathers and those who have come after them with the power to make changes to this policy have thought that “on-the-job training” would most certainly cut it, otherwise more would be required of our President prior to taking office.

Claim #12: He entered politics at the state level and then the national level where he has minimal experience.

This depends upon your definition of ‘minimal experience,’ but it is, for the most part, true.

Claims #13 – #15: He is proud of his ‘african heritage’ (a father who got a white girl pregnant and deserted her).  Where is the pride in his ‘white heritage’? (a mother who flaunted convention and did not believe in god).  Some might think there was not much to be proud of either way.

I already offered evidence that essentially disproves the ‘desert[ion]‘ statement back in Claim #5.  As for his mother, she was a child who came of age in the 1960s. I suggest you read more about that time in American history, because you clearly do not understand that almost nothing was ‘conventional’ during those years. I’ve already offered evidence that her daughter disputed the atheist claims back in Claim #3, but even if she hadn’t, so what? Is it not the right of every American to make their own choices about faith, including the choice to not have any?  As for your thoughts on pride, some might also think that your entire note, one filled with intolerance for those of differing races and religious beliefs, is un-American.

Claim #16: He belongs, and has belonged for over 20 years, to an ‘afro-centric’ church in Chicago that hates whites, hates jews, and blames america for all the world’s perceived faults (including the creation of the aids virus in order to inflict it on Africans).

Due to the inherent impossibility of disproving a negative, I was unable to find a single source that refutes these claims.  Instead, I’ll follow the accepted American tradition and let the burden of proof lie on those making the accusations.

It is interesting, though, to consider the logic, if this claim were true, of someone like the Obama that is described.  This would be a person who follows the teachings of a church that hates whites, even though he’s half-white; that hates Jews even though he spent his days working with Jews as a Community Organizer; that he wants to lead a country which he has been taught to despise.

Claim #17: He could not confront his pastor but he wants us to believe he can confront North korea and Iran ? Right…

Um…what?  Confront his Pastor about what?  Why would he be confronting either North Korea or Iran?

Claim #18: During his very brief time in the united states senate he has managed to amass the number one ultra liberal voting record out of the one hundred members.

True.  He’s a Democrat, they tend to vote in favor of liberal issues.  You want to know some other words and phrases that are synonymous with ‘liberal?’  Try ‘progressive,’ ‘open-minded,’ ‘advanced,’ ‘unconventional,’ ‘nontraditional,’ ‘unbiased,’ or ‘tolerant.’  Liberals were the ones who started, fought and won the American Revolution.  Liberals ended slavery.  Liberals allowed women the right to vote.  ‘Liberal’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘Democrat,’ and I urge you to remember that.

Claim #19: He has voted consistently for bigger government and higher taxes.

I like to think that all politicians want to appease their constituents, which inevitably costs money.  The primary source of income for government entities comes in the form of taxes.  If more is spent, more has to be collected.  John McCain wants to spend $300 billion buying so-called ‘bad’ mortgages, you think that won’t cost anything?  Bear in mind, that only helps out people who were stupid enough to enter into mortgages they couldn’t afford, and lenders who were stupid enough to fund the doomed venture.  You know what it’s called when government privatizes formerly-public industries and markets, like the housing market?  Socialism.  Obama isn’t the only one guilty of leaning that way.

Claim #20: He has voted for big entitlements and legislation that would severely curtail america ’s ability to fight terrorism and to protect our borders and our national interests around the world.

Just like Claim #16, I can’t prove that something didn’t happen, it’s up to the accuser to prove that something did happen.  Until such time that this claim gains any merit, I’m calling your bullshit.

Claim #21 – #24: But, he is a good orator. Isn’t that a comfort? Yeah, i think i see how well he could unite the country. I think the truth is that he hopes no one will put the pieces together.

As the polls show, most people seem to have already put those pieces together.

Claim #25: Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to our new chief pilot. He has never flown an airplane, in fact he has never even sat in the cockpit, but he says he has ridden on planes before. We are sure he will guide us safely through the storms we may encounter on this flight.

I see your point…Barack Obama will be a shitty President because he lacks ATP Certification.

Claim #26: People what are you thinking? Have you never heard the story about the wolf hiding in sheep’s clothing so he can destroy them from with-in ? The hand writing is on the wall, do you not have eyes to see it ?

What am I thinking?  I’m thinking that Sarah Palin is a complete moron who shouldn’t be allowed out of Alaska, let alone anywhere near the Oval Office.  I have heard the story about the wolf who hides in the skin of a sheep.  You know what’s most interesting about that story?  It never fucking happened.  It’s a fable.  Perhaps you should use logic, reasoning and verifiable evidence the next time you decide to make an argument instead of endless rhetoric and blatant racism, which is all that my eyes see in this note.

What Bothers Me Most About Sarah Palin

The most difficult part about listing off the things I dislike about the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate is a toss-up between where to begin and where to stop.  Seriously, I’ve been struggling with it all day.  I don’t like most of the things that everyone has already heard about, such as her inexperience in every political scenario that doesn’t solely involve Alaska.  I don’t like her voice.  I don’t like her view on religion and how she intends to apply it to American foreign policy if elected.  I don’t like that she portrays herself as a typical American when her net worth exceeds $1 million.  I don’t like that despite her wealth, she managed to get her political party to fund an extravagant and expensive shopping spree.  I don’t like her insistence that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gives her meaningful foreign policy experience.  I don’t like her views on abortion.  I don’t like her insinuation that urban centers are breeding grounds for un-American sentiment, and that only people who live next door to livestock are ‘real’ Americans.  I don’t trust her to make the right decision in the event of an ethical dilemma (think: ‘Troopergate’).  I don’t like that when faced with the outcome of the initial Troopergate investigation, she lied about the findings.  I don’t like her inability to speak in coherent sentences, as showcased during her interview on CBS with Katie Couric.  I don’t like her ignorance of American politics as she displayed during her interview on ABC with Charlie Gibson.  I don’t like the McCain-Palin campaign’s supposed belief that she is ready and able to serve as a competent President if McCain were to die on January 21st, 2008.  As I said, choosing where to stop is tough…

I didn’t particularly like Bill Clinton, and I certainly don’t care for George W. Bush, but their existence doesn’t anger me.  Clinton may have under-funded the military, and Bush may have made some decisions that turned out to be wrong in the long run.  Despite that, I like to think that Bush made the best decision he could at the time, and I respect him for having the balls to make a tough call.  Joe Biden has a tendency to say things he probably shouldn’t say in a political arena, but he’s got a ton of foreign policy experience that is an asset to this country regardless of his political leanings.  I’m annoyed by John McCain’s constant ‘my friends’ and ‘Joe the Plumber’ statements, and I don’t buy his ‘I know how to do it’ claims regarding finding Osama bin Laden and fixing the economy, but I still respect the guy.  I don’t like either major-party candidates’ plans for America, though I think Barack Obama’s vision is more realistic and will leave the country better off than McCain’s.  It feels like Hillary Clinton is just a bit too eager to prove herself capable of being President, which is unsettling enough that I do not want to see her in office.  Oddly, this is one of the things that worries me about the prospect of a McCain Presidency.

However, what bothers me most about Sarah Palin is her lack of redeeming qualities.  All of the other politicians mentioned in this post, despite their drawbacks, have several good things going for them, especially Barack Obama.  But what positives, politically-speaking, does Palin offer?  What could she possibly bring to the White House that nobody else in this race can, besides a hyperactive uterus and critical-thinking skills on par with those of the average third-grader?  Being attractive, being a good mother, being governor of a state that contains only 0.22% of the total American population and being devoutly religious are all completely irrelevant in the arena of global politics.

So why is the reality of this situation, that within the next few years we could be using the phrase, *gulp*, President Sarah Palin, outside the context of a joke, apparently not sinking in with a vast majority of American pollees?  Is there something I’m missing about Palin’s appeal?

Dear Joe: Shut Your Hole

Dear Joe Biden-

I understand that you are trying to help Barack Obama win the 2008 Presidential Election.  I assume that you are doing so not only because Senator Obama chose you as his running mate, but also because you believe that he is the right man for this job.  However, when you say things like this, you may be doing more harm than good.

I get what you meant, that following a change in power other countries may be inclined to test the mettle of the new leaders, and that it may happen regardless of who is elected.  I’m also sure that you were attempting to build faith in the electorate by verbalizing your confidence in Obama’s ability to lead our nation through that sort of crisis with his bionic vertebrae.

As expected, your opponent, Oldie McCrankypants, decided to slice up your words and insert them into some typical negative campaign ads like this one.  I get that it’s tough to speak on the record as frequently as you do without saying something that can be used against your campaign, but due to the importance of this election, perhaps you could stick to a pre-written and pre-approved speech.

It is with that thought in mind that I ask, nay beg, of you: please shut your fucking hole.  Let me discuss the unknowable and drone on endlessly about ‘what-if’ scenarios, and you can stick to focusing on not losing this election.

Regards,

-Kyle, writing on behalf of ‘All Americans That Don’t Want You To Fuck Up This Election For Us’

The Politician’s Take on Personal Freedom

Anyone can and likely will tell you that ‘personal freedom for all’ was the central theme surrounding the creation of the United States. But like most great ideas it exists only in theory and has never truly been tested. Merriam-Webster defines freedom as “…the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” While a society that offers that level of freedom to its citizens wouldn’t likely last very long, it is a goal towards which America should strive to align its policies as close as possible.

Essentially, freedom in this country means that any citizen can do whatever they want, so long as it doesn’t harm any other person. It’s a nice idea, but as I stated earlier, it doesn’t work that way in practice. Why? Because of what I believe is the typical definition of freedom as held by most American politicians: “Citizens can do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else, or if we say otherwise.”

In a perfect representative democracy in a perfect world, legislators would never make any law that would infringe upon the personal freedoms of any member of the populace. That could never happen, though, unless every member of the nation agreed completely on everything. There is always going to be some collateral damage, and we place our collective trust in our elected officials to enact legislation that makes the smallest mess. In doing so, some people will unfortunately have their toes stepped on. Take DUI laws, for example, in which you can and likely will face consequences if caught driving under the influence of alcohol, even if you don’t hurt anyone else. Though preemptive in nature, an attribute of laws that I am usually in opposition of, I agree that these laws are generally a good thing as it only infringes upon the rights of people who wish to drive while intoxicated; an action that has a decent chance of harming innocent people.

But what about laws enacted to prevent behavior that doesn’t affect other people in any respect? The best example that I can think of is gay marriage. I understand that most people who are against it choose their position based upon religious convictions, a topic I’ll leave for another day, but that doesn’t explain the criminalization of marijuana.  In my experience, this substance has never proved to be harmful to anyone, though I have met people who are nauseated by it (talk about irony). Regardless, our government has made it illegal, and the question remains: what right is it of the state to make illegal an action that has no effect on anyone beyond those performing the action?  Why criminalize so-called ‘victimless’ actions?  Does that not go against everything we say that we love about this country?  These examples are indicative of what I think may be the general attitude that most legislators take, which is “Our job is to make their decisions for them because they’re too fucking stupid to be trusted with doing it themselves.” It is in that spirit that I think that most politicians go about performing their duties. When the outcome of any choice is void of any professional gain for the politician, he chooses to work for personal gain, a decision that I think would be made by most people. However, the politician is in a unique position in that he has the ability to work toward making America the kind of place he wants it to be, like the kind of place where the laws of his country and the laws of his religion are in perfect harmony.

Career Politicians

Politics is a word that is considered to be so vile by some people that it borders on profane.  Governmental politics has proved so divisive that it even made its way on to the short list of things people are not supposed to discuss in so-called ‘polite’ conversation.  While there are probably numerous reasons for the demonization of all tiers of American government, I think the real problem can be defined with a single word: corruption.  Our elected officials are supposed to represent, and advocate on behalf of, the majority of their constituents.  However, it seems logical that politicians would be inclined to serve primarily those entities that do the most work in getting them elected, even if that ‘work’ consists solely of writing a check with lots of zeros.  It is this disconnect that is, in my opinion, the corruption of the worst kind.  I can’t fault the politicians, though, as I think that most people are inherently selfish and spend their lives doing what they can to better their own situation with little regard for how it affects other people.  This is a problem because politicians, though they may not always seem like it, are people too.  Because of this, and because of the need for political leaders in our society, the only solution to this broken system is to end the practice of allowing lifelong careers in politics.

We could sign into law regulations that limit people to two terms in any elected office, make those terms last for no more than four years each, and not allow any one person to serve for more than twelve total years.  While this would go a long way toward eliminating corruption, another step could be taken that would help as well, and it deals with campaign finance.  Allow people to spend only public money on their campaigns, meaning the candidates could receive no donations from individuals, corporations or even their own bank accounts.

These regulations would prevent anyone from establishing an exceptionally-long history that lesser-known candidates would have to contend with when pursuing a position in public office.  They would also prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from unfairly influencing those who institute public policy, something that the average American is unable to do.  Most important though, they would remove any incentive on the part of the official to choose any option in any decision other than what they think is the best one for their constituents.  This purity in politics is something that will never be realized unless it is made impossible to do otherwise.

With these laws in place, though, who would bother running for office?  The short answer is “very few people who currently do so.”  It would be limited only to those who truly wanted to serve their country as an elected official.  The Oval Office would no longer be awarded to the most well-connected and well-funded person.  Instead, it would be occupied by accomplished lawyers, doctors, academics, businesspeople and the like; the same people who would run for congressional positions.  I think that this would go a long way toward restoring our confidence in our leaders, and perhaps more importantly, it may alter our country in a way that can only be described as ‘overwhelmingly positive.’