SNL skit

Tee hee hee!

John Perry and the "Obama Problem"

Some douchebag former senior editor of Newsmax named John Perry wrote this darling column the other day (which has now been taken down due to it being INSANE). You can still view it here. In it he suggests that the military will surely want to stage a "bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation." "Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders," he goes on to say, "would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making." omg, wtf....

There has been a rash of this kind of talk lately. There was the facebook poll on whether the president ought to be assassinated. There is Glenn Beck in his schizophrenic entirety. There is the census worker who got killed for being a "Fed". The gun-carrying protesters outside townhalls. There is violence and so much hatred, it is frankly scary. I'll be the first to admit that I couldn't stand George Bush. I wanted him impeached, out of office. I wanted him held legally accountable for his behavior, which included illegal wiretapping of American citizens, lying and using known forged information to start a war in Iraq, and the torturing of detainees. These things, I suggest to you, are in fact unconstitutional. Giving everyone in this country health care is not.

In fact, the constitution, which I have read today in it's entirety, does mention several times the duty of the Congress and of the President to "promote the general welfare", "welfare" being defined as "health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being". That sounds like it includes healthcare to me!

It's not like there aren't legitimate issues to discuss when it comes to health care reform. How will we pay for it, is one good topic. How do we make sure that hospitals and doctors get compensated well (more then they do now from medicare, for example)? Why on earth aren't we figuring out a universal single payer system, is a favorite of mine. But "Obama is a Kenyan socialist, marxist, fascist who wants to kill grandma and is a Muslim" IS NEITHER LEGITIMATE NOR SANE!!!!! While I am on the subject can we just agree that "communist" and "Nazi" CANNOT be used interchangeably? Retards...

Myths about Healthcare

Oh my. I have been working on this annoyingly long post about healthcare reform myths and then I came across this article which is so good and says everything I wanted to say. So there is really no point in my post anymore. So here is the article in its entirety. You can also find it here.

5 Myths About Health Care Around the World

By T.R. Reid
Sunday, August 23, 2009

As Americans search for the cure to what ails our health-care system, we've overlooked an invaluable source of ideas and solutions: the rest of the world. All the other industrialized democracies have faced problems like ours, yet they've found ways to cover everybody -- and still spend far less than we do.

I've traveled the world from Oslo to Osaka to see how other developed democracies provide health care. Instead of dismissing these models as "socialist," we could adapt their solutions to fix our problems. To do that, we first have to dispel a few myths about health care abroad:

1. It's all socialized medicine out there.

Not so. Some countries, such as Britain, New Zealand and Cuba, do provide health care in government hospitals, with the government paying the bills. Others -- for instance, Canada and Taiwan -- rely on private-sector providers, paid for by government-run insurance. But many wealthy countries -- including Germany, the Netherlands, Japan and Switzerland -- provide universal coverage using private doctors, private hospitals and private insurance plans.

In some ways, health care is less "socialized" overseas than in the United States. Almost all Americans sign up for government insurance (Medicare) at age 65. In Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seniors stick with private insurance plans for life. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is one of the planet's purest examples of government-run health care.

2. Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines.

Generally, no. Germans can sign up for any of the nation's 200 private health insurance plans -- a broader choice than any American has. If a German doesn't like her insurance company, she can switch to another, with no increase in premium. The Swiss, too, can choose any insurance plan in the country.

In France and Japan, you don't get a choice of insurance provider; you have to use the one designated for your company or your industry. But patients can go to any doctor, any hospital, any traditional healer. There are no U.S.-style limits such as "in-network" lists of doctors or "pre-authorization" for surgery. You pick any doctor, you get treatment -- and insurance has to pay.

Canadians have their choice of providers. In Austria and Germany, if a doctor diagnoses a person as "stressed," medical insurance pays for weekends at a health spa.

As for those notorious waiting lists, some countries are indeed plagued by them. Canada makes patients wait weeks or months for nonemergency care, as a way to keep costs down. But studies by the Commonwealth Fund and others report that many nations -- Germany, Britain, Austria -- outperform the United States on measures such as waiting times for appointments and for elective surgeries.

In Japan, waiting times are so short that most patients don't bother to make an appointment. One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?"

3. Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies.

Much less so than here. It may seem to Americans that U.S.-style free enterprise -- private-sector, for-profit health insurance -- is naturally the most cost-effective way to pay for health care. But in fact, all the other payment systems are more efficient than ours.

U.S. health insurance companies have the highest administrative costs in the world; they spend roughly 20 cents of every dollar for nonmedical costs, such as paperwork, reviewing claims and marketing. France's health insurance industry, in contrast, covers everybody and spends about 4 percent on administration. Canada's universal insurance system, run by government bureaucrats, spends 6 percent on administration. In Taiwan, a leaner version of the Canadian model has administrative costs of 1.5 percent; one year, this figure ballooned to 2 percent, and the opposition parties savaged the government for wasting money.

The world champion at controlling medical costs is Japan, even though its aging population is a profligate consumer of medical care. On average, the Japanese go to the doctor 15 times a year, three times the U.S. rate. They have twice as many MRI scans and X-rays. Quality is high; life expectancy and recovery rates for major diseases are better than in the United States. And yet Japan spends about $3,400 per person annually on health care; the United States spends more than $7,000.

4. Cost controls stifle innovation.

False. The United States is home to groundbreaking medical research, but so are other countries with much lower cost structures. Any American who's had a hip or knee replacement is standing on French innovation. Deep-brain stimulation to treat depression is a Canadian breakthrough. Many of the wonder drugs promoted endlessly on American television, including Viagra, come from British, Swiss or Japanese labs.

Overseas, strict cost controls actually drive innovation. In the United States, an MRI scan of the neck region costs about $1,500. In Japan, the identical scan costs $98. Under the pressure of cost controls, Japanese researchers found ways to perform the same diagnostic technique for one-fifteenth the American price. (And Japanese labs still make a profit.)

5. Health insurance has to be cruel.

Not really. American health insurance companies routinely reject applicants with a "preexisting condition" -- precisely the people most likely to need the insurers' service. They employ armies of adjusters to deny claims. If a customer is hit by a truck and faces big medical bills, the insurer's "rescission department" digs through the records looking for grounds to cancel the policy, often while the victim is still in the hospital. The companies say they have to do this stuff to survive in a tough business.

Foreign health insurance companies, in contrast, must accept all applicants, and they can't cancel as long as you pay your premiums. The plans are required to pay any claim submitted by a doctor or hospital (or health spa), usually within tight time limits. The big Swiss insurer Groupe Mutuel promises to pay all claims within five days. "Our customers love it," the group's chief executive told me. The corollary is that everyone is mandated to buy insurance, to give the plans an adequate pool of rate-payers.

The key difference is that foreign health insurance plans exist only to pay people's medical bills, not to make a profit. The United States is the only developed country that lets insurance companies profit from basic health coverage.

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.

This fragmentation is another reason that we spend more than anybody else and still leave millions without coverage. All the other developed countries have settled on one model for health-care delivery and finance; we've blended them all into a costly, confusing bureaucratic mess.

Which, in turn, punctures the most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

Given our remarkable medical assets -- the best-educated doctors and nurses, the most advanced hospitals, world-class research -- the United States could be, and should be, the best in the world. To get there, though, we have to be willing to learn some lessons about health-care administration from the other industrialized democracies.

T.R. Reid, a former Washington Post reporter, is the author of "The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care," to be published Monday.

My Political Spectrum Quiz results

Like any of you had any doubts...



My Political Views
I am a left moderate social libertarian
Left: 6.55, Libertarian: 2.99




My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -6.33




My Culture War Stance
Score: -8.76

Let's Compare Your Results to the Average

Average of All Quiz-Takers:




You can take the quiz here: Political Spectrum Quiz

My take on healthcare

I have been quiet on the subject, not because I don't care, but because frankly I care too much. Healthcare reform is something that I have very strong feelings about. I was pleasantly surprised when it suddenly became such a big deal. Supporters say Obama ran on a healthcare platform. That is of course not true. Obama ran on an anti-war, anti-Bush platform, and it was Hilary who had a stronger stance on healthcare. Nevertheless, healthcare suddenly exploded onto the national stage, and I was tickled pink. So why have I been keeping mum? Because I don't believe that the US is able to pass something as humanistic as universal healthcare and I didn't want to get my hopes up. I have not been disappointed in my pessimism, as single payer was taken off the table, now public option is going the way of the dinosaur, and the fight against healthcare reform has turned so dirty it would be funny (if it weren't so sad).

So here is where I stand. I think every country that is able, and that definitely includes the US, should make sure that every single on of the people in it, regardless of financial, legal, and even citizenship status, should have full and complete and good health care. Period. Are you a bum living on the street? Are you an illegal alien? Are you Donald Trump? Are you feeling off color? Go to the doctor and be made better. It's that simple. No exceptions. Not to mention that the care should be so fucking awesome that even Donald Trump will have nothing to complain about.

Who pays for it? Everyone who can. As with any tax I think the rich should pay a bit more, and the poor less. Those who can't pay anything, don't. So will my tax dollars go to pay for someone who has never worked an honest day in their life? Yes! And I am bloody fine with it, and I don't understand those who aren't. (As an aside, a huge number of Americans claim to be Christians, but are in my opinion greedy selfish bastards when it comes to taking care of their neighbor).

To those misinformation bastards out there who say that we don't have enough money to make this work, consider that we already spend out of our own pocket (or our employers pocket which really means less wages for us) more on healthcare than other countries, and we are so shitty even Colombia and Singapore (and 34 other countries) are better that us. You are telling me this country that is supposedly so great can't make something so basic happen?

And what irks me even more is how many people DON'T want universal healthcare. I have my doubts about their understanding of the subject. All these seniors who are being riled up, told that their Medicare will suffer (duh you stupid old buggers, Medicare is universal healthcare for you lot!!!). Don't you understand that you are being used by the sneaky powers behind healthcare companies and conservative think tanks? Probably not... (incidentally did you know that the average Fox viewer is over 65, white and doesn't have a college degree? - for more interesting demographic knowledge stuff check this out). Now the same nitwits who brought you teabagging are bussing in "concerned constituents" (who are probably birthers to boot) to disrupt town hall meetings.

As you can see, my feelings run high on this subject matter, and I have probably offended a bunch of you by questioning your intelligence, but so be it. It was all for naught anyway, because as I said before, the US won't have universal healthcare for a long time still. Whatever it is that will be passed this year will be something lame and watered down, and I am not even holding my breath. I probably wouldn't be so buggered if they didn't keep calling themselves "the greatest country in the world". As fucking if.

Shatner reading Palin

tee hee hee

Here is William Shatner, reading word for word Palin's farewell speech. I have to say, it is kind of beautiful that way. Enjoy!

Crazy Birther Lady

she and her lot have some serious issues....

White House Correspondence Dinner 2009

OMG!!! Obama was hilarious!!!







If you can't see these videos, go here.

Brazil Adventure 2008: Week 1

Totally yeah! I have now joined Husband in sunny beautiful Brazil. Since the first week of my visit was mostly uneventful I will simply summarize it for you. I arrived in Sao Paulo after about 22 hours on the road. A lot of that time was spent hanging out in the US airport as I arrived their quicker than expected. It wasn't all bad though because I had some nice food (weird in an airport) and bought a book to read, "Son of a Witch" by Gregory Maquire, which proved quite entertaining. During the ~9 hour overnight flight I was sandwiched between a businessman who slept literally the entire time (oh how I envy him), and a strange fella about my age who was going to Iponema and who was "self employed" and had "business" in Sao Paulo, though he adamantly refused to discuss any of this and just gave me meaningful looks. He probably thought I was a nutcase though, for the closer we got to Husband, the more restless I became, until my nerves gave out completely. I was in such a state I had to ask to cut the line at customs claiming I did not feel well. Still not sure what that was all about - the anticipation of the reunion, jet lag...?
Anyway, now I have been here for over a week, mostly chilling, or rather sweating as the case may be. The temperature is in the nineties (Fahrenheit) and though it thunderstorms occasionally, it is not much relief. The big thing going on here is the wall Husband has been building. I must say I am very impressed with what he has done, because he had never built a wall before.

This is before...


... and after.

The wall is 10 meters by 2.5 meters, with a 1.5 meter deep cement and steel foundation. It has further protection in the form of glass on top and a steel door not pictured.


One of the reasons for building the wall was to protect all the delicious fruit goodness that grows in their yard from hungry passerbys. Among the trees is a cashew. I had never seen one before. The nut is hanging out below the fruit, how odd! I can't say I am a big fan though. It sucks to be a picky eater.


The other big news is that my sister got engaged on Halloween. It's still sinking in a bit. My baby sister! Her fiance made the ring himself and it has a black diamond in it, but that's all the details I know at the moment.

Also I have caught a cold. It is a weird one, just a cough right now and a very unproductive one at at that. Mãe (my mother-in-law) made me some sort of native draught, a tea from local plant life, garlic, ginger, honey and lime. It's dreadful but perhaps it will help. Tonight we will be heading out on our small adventure to explore Southern Brazil. Tonight is also a very important occasion - THE ELECTIONS!!!! I will not know the results until tomorrow morning, because our bus leaves at 2am and with the time difference the polls on the Pacific coast will just be closing. I suspect you all know who I am supporting so here is hoping Obama licks McCain.

Jon Stewart on Palin's interview with Gibson and Crab Porn

Palinguage

Here are some of my favorite "Palinguage" vocabulary definitions. For more go here.

If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “token hire.”
If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a “game changer.”

If you live in an Urban area and you get a girl pregnant you’re a “baby daddy.”
If you’re the same in Alaska you’re a “teen father.”

Black teen pregnancies? A “crisis” in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A “blessed event.”

If you grow up in Hawaii you’re “exotic.”
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential “American story.”

Similarly, if you name you kid Barack you’re “unpatriotic.”
Name your kid Track, you’re “colorful.”

If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fulling vetting the individual you’re “reckless.”
A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a “maverick.”

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an "arrogant celebrity."
If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are "energizing the base."

If you manage a multi-million dollar nation-wide campaign you are an "empty suit."
If you are part-time mayor of town of 9000 people, you are an "experienced executive."

If you go to a Southside Chicago church your beliefs are "extremist."
If you believe in creationism and don't believe global warming is man-made you are "strongly principled."

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month you are a "Christian."
If you've been married to the same woman for nineteen years raising two beautiful children, you are "risky."

If you say that for the “first time in my adult lifetime I’m really proud of my country” it makes you “unfit” to be First Lady.
If you are a registered member of a fringe political group that advocates secession that makes you “First Dude.”

If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you’re a “phoney.”
Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you’re “well loved.”

If you give your wife a dap on stage, it’s actually a “terrorist fist jab.”
If your daughter licks her palm so that she can slick down your youngest child’s hair on national TV it’s an “adorable moment.”

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of “Change,” it’s just “empty rhetoric.”
If one week before your party’s national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about “Change,” that’s “red meat.”

Did she or didn't she? Palin on special ed and teen mothers

Last week I wrote in my Palin RNC post that Sarah Palin had cut funding to special ed programs and teen mother support groups in Alaska. Then I got a link to this site, which goes through a list of attacks on Palin and marks them as true of false. For the most part nothing on that list was unfamiliar to me but two things did stand out: the fact that she did not cut funds for special ed programs but raised them and that she increased funding for the Covenant House Alaska, a program for unwed teen moms. This was news to me because I had read in the Washington Post that she had actually slashed the funding. Annoyed, and concerned about spreading falsehoods, I began to look into it. After much reading of various posts, news clippings, factcheck.org, Barack Obama's site and even the damned boring budgets themselves, it seems that this story is indeed a misrepresentation. The reason the budget seemed smaller was because it was split into two categories. When added together, the amount is actually larger. The 'slashing' that the post reports on is actually a reduction of the proposed $5 million funding to $3.9 million, which is still an increase over the $1.1 million from the year before.
Since in my research I came across other rumors, which I had not written about but which are not entirely true, I decided to make a new, hopefully more correct list. If you catch any other mistakes, please let me know ASAP. It is very important to me that the Democrats (and myself) maintain their integrity and stick to facts, not fiction. That is a Karl Rove tactic I do not want anything to do with.

- Palin did not cut funding for special needs programs.
- Palin did not ban books from the library. Apparently there is a list of books making the rounds which Sarah allegedly asked the Wasilla library to remove, some of which weren't even published at the time. What really happened was that she asked the librarian a hypothetical question about what she would do if asked to remove some books, to which the librarian said that she wouldn't. The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, did get fired along with four other major department heads as part of what Palin called a 'loyalty test', but was then rehired the following day. Odd, yes, but that's the facts...
- Palin was never a member of the Alaska Independence Party. It was her husband who was a member for years, and she only attended the conventions and spoke via video message to the 2008 convention.
- In 2000, Palin supported Steve Forbes, not Pat Buchanan. The story started because she wore a Pat Buchanan pin when welcoming him to the town.
- Palin supports teaching creationism alongside evolution but has not attempted any legislation to force the point.
- Palin supported bridge to nowhere until Congress killed it off.
- For a comprehensive list of Palin's vetoes please check out this blog. I wash my hands of the blasted budget. What a bore!
- For a complete list of what falsehoods Palin, Giuliani and Huckabee actually said, go to factcheck.org.

Palin, oh my!

Well I am still not over the news, and I am still not sure if this will be good or bad for the GOP. Part of me hopes that enough of the Republican base will be turned off by McCain's choice, but another part of me is very annoyed with Democrats (and some Republicans alike) for using what are in my opinion unfair or even sexist criteria for why Palin is a bad pick. Why the sudden, and apparently untrue, nude picture scandal? I think it's because Sarah Palin is a very obvious hot babe. Why do we worry about how many kids she has and whether or not she can take care of them - isn't that a very sexist attitude? She has been Governor for a while, I am sure she has the family thing working in some way or another. Maybe her husband can stay home with the kids. I say if we are going to attack Palin, do it on her politics. In the end, she believes and votes for all those things that I disagree with. Here are a few of her stated positions:
- anti abortion, even in case of rape and incest
- pro contraception
- abstinence-only schooling (interestingly, both she and her daughter will have had a shot-gun wedding)
- global warming is not caused by humans
- drilling in Alaska is ok
- polar bears are not endangered
- supports constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and benefits to same sex partners
- creationism ok to be taught in public schools
I am still looking to understand her position on Iraq, foreign policy and the economy.

Palin, Oh Shit!

Totally unexpected, in my opinion, was McCain's pick today of Alaska governor Sarah Palin for his VP. I actually thought it was a joke at first. My uneducated opinion - he is trying to get Hilary's supporters.
I know very little about her, and look forward to finding out more, but she seems to be popular, have a decent grasp of financial issues, and is abysmal on abortion, creationism and gay rights. So if the Republicans win, she'll be our next president, because let's face it, McCain isn't long for this world.

Hillary Supporters for McCain

One of my new pet peeves are former Hillary supporters who are planning to vote for McCain (around 20% of them, last I heard). Here is a John McCain ad featuring one such supporters, Debra Bartoshevich, not an actress by the way.



Yesterday in Denver, where the Democratic Convention is taking place, the McCain camp brought Debra out for a press conference, so she could explain her decision to others. Debra, a pro-choicer, was asked if she was concerned about McCain's pro-life voting record, to which she replied:

"Going back to 1999, John McCain did an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle saying that overturning Roe v. Wade would not make any sense, because then women would have to have illegal abortions."

Well, that is in fact true. "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in 1999. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." Adding to the confusion, Carly Fiorina, top McCain surrogate, said earlier this year: "[McCain] has never signed on to efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade."

And yet, during the South Carolina primaries McCain stated “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned" and his campaign website says



I am an ardent pro choicer. As far as I am concerned, if you think an unborn baby should not be killed, by all means, CHOOSE life. I strongly suspect that I would not be able to kill my unborn baby, though never say never (consider rape, incest, genetic defect). And Hillary supporters who are planning to vote for McCain make me mad.

Obama says American kids should learn Spanish

So I will start of with this bit of old news. Back in July Obama gave a speech in Georgia, during which he mentioned that Americans should worry less about immigrants learning English then making sure that their kids spoke Spanish. Sounds very inflammatory right? Sounds like Obama would like Spanish to take over the states, forcing everyone to learn to speak Spanish, adopt it as a second language, that sort of thing. So lets put this statement in context.



And for those of you who can't see the video, here is the transcript, word for word:

[I don’t understand… when people go around worrying about “we need to have English only”. They want to pass a law “we want just, we want English only”. Now I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that. But… but understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English – they’ll learn English – you need to make sure that your child can speak Spanish. You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language. You know, it’s embarrassing, it’s embarrassing, when… when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is “Merci beaucoup.” Right?]

Well, after watching what he actually is talking about, which is not that every child should learn Spanish but that every child should study a foreign language, I think he is completely right. Please note, that he does not say that every child should be forced to learn a foreign language, nor that that the US has to become a bilingual state, but that an American's education should include an appreciation and understanding of foreign cultures. And this goes back to my earlier point of America being woefully lacking in knowledge of much beyond it's borders.

Interestingly, while looking for this video I came across a number of blogs etc that cut off the speech after 30 seconds, just where Barack says "you need to make sure that your child can speak Spanish." And I can see how that would get a lot of people upset.

Why, oh why, is McCain doing so well???

I have been all atwitter this past week, terrified at the notion that McCain could actually win the election this year (and by that I mean legally, and not through election fraud as happened the last two times). I am not exaggerating, the thought actually scares me. More than the prospect of four more years of neo-con rule, what really bothers me is the reality of more than half of Americans actually voting for him. If McCain wins, I promise you, I will loose what's left of my faith in this country and it's people.
Not that I ever really had much to begin with. Most Americans, I am sorry to say, are simple, selfish, poorly educated, blindly patriotic, and remarkably ill-informed when it comes to anything of importance outside it's borders (and frequently within the borders as well). Naturally, for my own well being, I make a point of staying far away from these fools, and try to keep in my circle of acquaintances people who will not drive me up the wall with their ignorance. And as most human beings, I prefer to be around those who share my core values. There are some exceptions, such as a few deeply religious people that have made it on my list of friends, whose faith I am willing to overlook just as long as we don't discuss it too much and their other values don't contradict mine. Yet I have recently become aware that at least two of my closer friends, are planning to vote for McCain. AAAAAAAAh!!!
What? How? Whyyyyyy?????? Well, that is precisely what I asked one of them (the one that I can hope to remain friends with even if we disagree on politics, because thankfully, we agree on most everything else). So I have decided that from now on I will dedicate a few posts to topics that my friend has brought up as of importance to her (and reasons for choosing McCain over Obama), and so as not to single her out, I will also draw from the general pro-McCain and anti-Obama opinions and give my take on them. This being my blog, I think I am perfectly entitled.
Some of the things I plan to write about are clarifications/information about Obama's stance on an issue, others will refute blatant lies of the opposition, and others still will simply point out what I think is bad about McCain. Naturally my hope is that some of my readers (all 5 of you or whatever) might be swayed either by facts or my fervor. Mostly, however, I need to vent.
First and foremost, however, a disclaimer. The following is a list of things I believe to be right and moral and the best way of doing things. If you truly think that the opposite way is better, and this is your honest opinion, and not an uninformed or brain washed one, then you have my respect in that at least you use your head for something. It is perhaps better, however, if we never meet, as we are sure to dislike each other immensely. Anyway, I believe ...
... that the USA is not the greatest country on Earth but just a country that happens to be big and rich and currently influential. It will pass, just like the British, the Ottoman and the Romans before them. For now we are capable of doing great harm but might be able to do a little bit of good too
... other countries and people who live in them are just as entitled to their opinions and a chance at expressing them as we are, providing they are not trying to kill us or too many others
... diplomacy and not military force should be used to solve problems
... when butting into other countries problems, we must do so because it is for the good of it's people, and not because we can gain something economically (OIL!!!)
... people get the government they deserve
... the best thing about America is the promise of freedom
... I believe in the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom FROM religion
... America is not a Christian nation, there just happen to be a lot of Christians around
... being a Muslim is not bad, and it certainly does not make you evil
... every woman should have the right to choose whether to keep or get rid of (kill, if you'd like) the embryo/fetus inside of her
... every single person in this country should have excellent and affordable medical coverage; EVERY SINGLE ONE!!!!
... taxes are good and necessary but the less you make the more tax break you should get
... corporations are not people, they are not entitled to the same rights, and should not get benefits people do not
... if you want to stop illegal immigrations, try to work with Mexico and make it better, so that fewer people feel like immigrating
... and on a similar note, every one in this country was once an immigrant
... education should be excellent and free, at least up until Bachelor's level; it should be paid for by taxes
... creationism and other religious nonsense has no place in public schools, unless you are discussing religion as a subject matter
... being homosexual is no different than being heterosexual and all rights including those of getting married (legal in the eyes of the law, not God) must be available to all
... we must all care for the sick and the poor who cannot care for themselves
... and the help to the sick and the poor must be excellent and paid for by taxes
... real unbiased journalism should make it's way back into every day media (television)
... anchors and talk show hosts who blatantly lie should be fired
... politicians who are found to be blatantly lying, stealing or cheating should be fired
... this planet is precious, global warming and pollution are a problem, and no country and no people are special enough that they can't be inconvenienced for the sake of keeping the planet around for a little while longer, SUCK IT UP and recycle etc
... who you have sex with is none of my business unless you are hurting them or me

There are probably a few others but these are just a few that come to mind. Anyway, today's post is just a kind of introduction to my future theme. If any of you have any suggestions of topics/points I should discuss, drop me a comment.

Russia, Georgia, US and South Ossetia

I've been meaning to write about this for a few days now, ever since I got into a disagreement with a cousin about Russian/American politics. Although the South Ossetia conflict is old news at this point, having been overshadowed from the beginning by the Olympics, Bigfoot, and John Edward's infidelity, and only getting more coverage than the latest news of how Bush and his peeps forged intelligence that justified the attack on Iraq (more on that later), I think it is important to properly digest the situation. Not that all of the information is clear, available, or correct for that matter. We may not know for a while still what exactly happened and why, since this is just another conniving power play on the parts of the Bush and Putin administrations.

First, a little history. When Georgia asked to become part of the USSR (mainly to get protection from Turkey), Ossetia, among others, was one of the little mountainous countries that got engulfed as well. And when Georgia broke away from Russia in 1991, Ossetia was divided in two. North Ossetia stuck with Russia. South Ossetia was given to Georgia. Displeased as they were, South Ossetians kept starting rebellions and passing legislations declaring its sovereignty, which were not accepted by anyone. A ceasefire was put into effect in 1992 but South Ossetia was still Georgian. Then there was another crack down on S. Ossetia in 2004, followed once again by a ceasefire, though not a very effective one. Russia in the meantime was stirring trouble of its own in the region, aiding the Ossetians and giving Russian citizenship to anyone who wanted it. And in Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili came to power after a brief "Rose Revolution", aided in all probability by the Americans. He certainly remains a US "puppet" and is at this point highly unpopular among his electorate.



Starting on August 2nd, 2008 the fire on South Ossetia from the Georgian side seemed to intensify (allegedly in response to S. Ossetia's provocation). Some began to flee into North Ossetia and Saakashvili announced that a ceasefire will begin. Instead, in the night of August 7th, Georgia began shelling the city of Tskhinvali (South Ossetia), with some 2000 people "reported" dead. I say "reported" because independent human right groups say the casualties were far lower, as few as 44 dead the first night. Certainly there were no attempts to decrease civilian casualties. Human Rights Watch reports evidence of firing directly into basements, which is where civilians were hiding, and the weapons used were "inherently indiscriminate". So Russia responds by bombing the hell out of Georgia. They retook Tskhinvali, started a second front in Abkhazia (disputed fact), a small region in a very similar boat as South Ossetia, and carried out multiple strikes on military installations in Georgia. Russian troops seemed to at least partially occupy the Georgian cities of Gori and Poti. They also carried out a very successful cyber attack, shutting down news and government websites, putting pictures of dictators on the national bank website, etc. They even attacked the president's site, which was hosted by that time in Georgia - Atlanta, GA, that is. So Georgia basically got their ass handed to them by the Russians. No surprise there.

Some ceasefires have now been signed, many in the international community, the US among them, saying that Russia's response was disproportionate. So hopefully now we can have some sort of diplomacy. But the question is, why the heck did this happen??? On the eve of the Olympics, the little Georgia decides to taunt it's much mightier neighbor and get away with it? My cousin suggested, and I am not sure that he is entirely incorrect, that Saakashvili's desire to get into NATO was behind this attack. How he figured that forcefully subduing South Ossetia would endear him to NATO I do not know. It is, however, likely that he expected his ally, the US, to back him up. Whether he was promised help, if he was egged on into this conflict by Bush and co. or if he was just deluding himself, I do not know. Certainly he had reasons to believe that the US will help him out. We have been supplying him with weapons, money and military training. And it's not a secret that tensions between Russia and the US are far from over. As for Russia's response, could this have been a preview, a kind of message to the US, about what would happen if they attack Iran? After all Russia has long maintained that it will not ignore military actions there. And finally, to add conspiracy to the story, Russia happened to bomb the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, 30% of which is owned by British Petroleum, which interestingly enough is one of the main competitors of Russian oil supply to Europe. I wonder how many wars would never have begun if we had finally learned to stop using oil. Would anyone then even care about the Middle East?

So my conclusion at the moment, is that the US was being passive aggressive, Saakashvili was an idiot, and Russia called the bluff. In the meantime it's the people of South Ossetia, and to some extent Georgia, that are paying the price.


PS: Did anyone catch the fact that John McCain's foreign policy adviser is a former lobbiest for Georgia AND a member of the Project for the New American Century, the group that infamously thought that an attack like 9/11 would be great for the future of neo-cons.

It's Raining McCain and I want an Umbrella!

I seem to be on a video kick lately, sorry about that. But this post is a little political as well. The video that you may have seen or heard of by now is by the "McCain Girls" and is called "It's Raining McCain", basically to the tune of "It's Raining Men" by the Weather Girls. It's not very well sung and has been made constant fun off on my favorite radio station - Air America, but I think it is funny, creative and well done. So even though I cannot think of a scarier future than a McCain presidency, these girls get A for effort (and F- for judgment).



And since we are on the topic, I want to make a few points about the upcoming election. The bickering between Obama and Hillary has become legendary at this point, with many people calling for Hillary to drop out, or for them to get along, and what's worse, with supporters from both camps claiming that they will not for the nominee if it's not the one they support at the moment. I think this is a tragedy. Whatever Hillary's and Obama's perceived shortcomings are, and whatever tactics are being used at the moment, there would be nothing worse than a McCain presidency. I believe in this so strongly, I may be willing to leave the country if he gets elected. At some point in the not too distant past I used to think that along with Colin Powell McCain was one of the only Republicans who had his head and and heart on straight. He had opposed the torture tactics used by the military today, supported a path to citizenship for immigrants, and had at some point even showed vague disagreement with the Bush administration. Now, much like Lieberman and Dean, he is unrecognizable from his former self. He voted against, and supported the president's veto of HR 2082, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which included provisions that would have prevented the CIA from waterboarding prisoners, even though he had stated that waterboarding is torture. He has stated that he does not understand economics, wants to privatize social security, and is completely confused about the Middle East, which he proved over and over again last week when he insisted on stating that Iran was trading Al Qaeda (he 'misspoke at least 5 times, at the very least he is senile!). He jokes about bombing Iran and staying in Iraq for hundreds of years. Not to mention that in all other aspects he is still a Republican, which means that his beliefs and priorities are counter everything that is near and dear to me. So if you are a Democrat, or even a Republican who is sick and tired of the selfish and inapt government we have in power now, you better swallow your pride and stubbornness and vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination.


Update: The McCain Girls videos, it turns out, were created by satirical website 23/6 (www.236.com), which is itself affiliated with the Huffington post. Read more here.

Benazir Bhutto

Here's my tribute. A tragic end to a brave life.
June 21, 1953 - December 27, 2007

the Larry Craig video

Just in case you haven't seen this gem yet.
I am actually fairly upset about what happened but I haven't heard many people talk about what bothers me. The Republicans are mad at Craig because he turned out to be gay and brought bad press to the 'moral values' crowd. The Democrats are so happy to have another Republican caught with his pants down that they are milking it for all its worth. While I have no appreciation for Mr. Craig's politics, I am most upset about the fact that he was arrested in the first place! We should all be outraged that a man can get arrested for what is in essence flirting, simply because the object of his advances happens to be another man. It's not like he was having sex in a public restroom, which could have fallen under indecent exposure. Maybe he was going to take the fella out for a drink or a romantic dinner!
Nevertheless, this video is funny.