Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s performance at the Vice Presidential debate last night concerned me. I have always believed she was a smart choice for VP (see “McCain-Palin is a Winning Ticket”), but last night the “pit-bull with lipstick” I had grown to love during the RNC had too much bark and not enough bite.
I don’t want to criticize without offering some possible solutions, so Governor Palin, here are a few ways you can win back my confidence:
1. Get the facts straight. Fast-talking rhetoric and charm are impressive during a debate, but in this technology-driven world the facts will catch up with you in the morning (probably even sooner). That doesn’t mean you should change your style of speaking, just make sure you have rock-solid facts to back you up. Here’s an example from the debate last night when you could have used a fact-checker:
Palin: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air-raiding villages and killing civilians. And such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment, again, hurts our cause.”
In August 2007 Obama did say that American troops in Afghanistan were killing civilians (“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.”). Unfortunately, that’s because it was true. At the time, 286 civilians had been killed by US troops, according to the Associated Press; Afghan insurgents had killed 231.
I hate that he said it too, but the facts are pretty damning.
2. Keep up on current events. When Sen. Joe Biden claimed that our commanding officer in Afghanistan said the surge principles we applied in Iraq will not work there, you admirably tried to call him on it. Unfortunately, Biden’s information was more current. Tuesday’s Washington Post reported that Gen. David McKiernan “stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict [in Afghanistan].”
Here’s the link.
Along those same lines, our commanding general in Afghanistan is McKiernan, not McClellan. I hate to nit-pick, but this is the kind of blunder that made our current president an international laughing stock. Let’s not give Tina Fey any more fodder for SNL.
3. Learn phonics. It’s pronounced NUCLEAR, not “nu-cu-ler.” Way to sound exactly like Bush.
Since you’ve been governor for less than two years, I’m inclined to give you a second chance. My confidence is wavering but not lost. A few simple changes could bring it back in full force.
A Note to Sen. Joe Biden: McCain didn’t vote against funding alternative energy 20 times, it was 11. Stop exaggerating. Also, McCain didn’t refuse to meet with the government of Spain, his simply declined to commit to any meetings during an interview.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
On Wall Street, who is paying the piper?
Taxpayers should not be funding corporate mistakes.
Yesterday, members of the House of Representatives shot down a $700 billion Wall Street bailout deal. They made the right decision , or at least a plurality of them did.
Fiscally irresponsible businesses should not be artificially resuscitated.
I have a hard time feeling bad for financial institutions who are struggling because they made risky, and in many cases irresponsible, investments. It’s their prerogative to take risks if they chose, but if those investments don’t pan out they need to take responsibility for the consequences.
Not surprisingly, companies who have been reckless with their money over the past five or ten years are now struggling, flat-out crumbling in fact. That is as it should be. Bad businesses should go out of business. It’s the economic version of natural selection, or Economic Darwinism, if you will.
By bailing out companies who engaged in high-risk behavior, the government is sending a message that other corporations can screw up and taxpayers will just bail them out. We cannot be a society that rewards that kind of behavior. If you’re reckless with your money, eventually you’ll have to pay the piper. I’m not going to pay him for you.
Personal moral objections aside, the bailout is just bad policy.
It’s a simple law of supply and demand that when the market falls, prices will follow. Intervention like this, however, could prevent prices from keeping up (or in this case going down) with the market. And the market won’t recover fast enough to make up for the disparity. So prices will stay the same but we’ll still be hurting from the market’s decline. I think we used to call that stagflation, although this may be a milder case.
I always see a little red flag go up whenever politicians, on either side of the liberal/conservative fence, advocate plans that defy their party’s core beliefs. Republicans, theoretically, believe in smaller government and less interference. So shame on President Bush for acting like such a liberal. It should send up an even larger red flag when a Republican president can’t get members of his own party to support his legislation. That alone is not enough to disprove the quality of the proposal, but in my opinion it warrants a closer look.
America has never been a nation that likes to sit back and watch things happen, but allowing the market to self-correct will be the smoothest solution to this temporary financial crisis.
Yesterday, members of the House of Representatives shot down a $700 billion Wall Street bailout deal. They made the right decision , or at least a plurality of them did.
Fiscally irresponsible businesses should not be artificially resuscitated.
I have a hard time feeling bad for financial institutions who are struggling because they made risky, and in many cases irresponsible, investments. It’s their prerogative to take risks if they chose, but if those investments don’t pan out they need to take responsibility for the consequences.
Not surprisingly, companies who have been reckless with their money over the past five or ten years are now struggling, flat-out crumbling in fact. That is as it should be. Bad businesses should go out of business. It’s the economic version of natural selection, or Economic Darwinism, if you will.
By bailing out companies who engaged in high-risk behavior, the government is sending a message that other corporations can screw up and taxpayers will just bail them out. We cannot be a society that rewards that kind of behavior. If you’re reckless with your money, eventually you’ll have to pay the piper. I’m not going to pay him for you.
Personal moral objections aside, the bailout is just bad policy.
It’s a simple law of supply and demand that when the market falls, prices will follow. Intervention like this, however, could prevent prices from keeping up (or in this case going down) with the market. And the market won’t recover fast enough to make up for the disparity. So prices will stay the same but we’ll still be hurting from the market’s decline. I think we used to call that stagflation, although this may be a milder case.
I always see a little red flag go up whenever politicians, on either side of the liberal/conservative fence, advocate plans that defy their party’s core beliefs. Republicans, theoretically, believe in smaller government and less interference. So shame on President Bush for acting like such a liberal. It should send up an even larger red flag when a Republican president can’t get members of his own party to support his legislation. That alone is not enough to disprove the quality of the proposal, but in my opinion it warrants a closer look.
America has never been a nation that likes to sit back and watch things happen, but allowing the market to self-correct will be the smoothest solution to this temporary financial crisis.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
McCain-Palin is a winning ticket
John McCain is brilliant. Some have called the GOP presidential candidate crazy in the wake of his VP selection, but Alaska Governor Sarah Palin fills a void in the Republican ticket that only a socially conservative, small town hockey mom could.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Palin both balances the ticket and shakes it up. McCain was smart to chose a woman: whoever wins the election in November, it will be a red letter day in American history. If Obama wins, he’ll be the first black president. If McCain wins, Palin will become the first female vice president. He couldn’t choose another old white guy (although Obama was smart to add one to his ticket), and a female candidate adds variety without competing with the diversity on the Democratic ticket.
Luke warm feelings about McCain and his pseudo-conservative views have recently left Republicans with little to rally for, save a mutual dislike for Barack Obama. But Palin has sparked excitement in the party. She’ll draw votes from Bible Belt conservatives who, when it comes down to it, choose their candidates based more on shared social beliefs than political experience.
She’s the LBJ to McCain’s JFK.
Palin’s sharp wit is exactly what Republicans need to counter Obama’s epic rhetoric. While Democrats are swooning over Obama, I’m betting the Republican faithful will be lining up around the block to listen to one of Palin’s speeches. She’s a natural in a way that McCain, for all his Washington experience, could never hope to be. Her speech at the Republican National Convention last night proved it.
Of course, Palin can’t hope to draw Clinton supporters to vote Republican, as has been recently suggested. But I don’t think that was ever McCain’s plan. It’s insulting to both liberal and conservative voters to argue that they will vote for a candidate because she has the same gender as someone they supported in the primary election. McCain is a maverick in part because he doesn’t really follow the conservative philosophy of his party. If the GOP ticket failed to appeal to social conservatives (a significant and sizable demographic), McCain risked losing those votes, and probably the election. Adding Palin to the ticket helps voters forget, if only temporarily, that McCain is barely a Republican by traditional standards.
Palin’s dysfunctional family only adds to her appeal. It’s been proven again and again that Americans are endlessly forgiving of personal or social indiscretions (as long as you don’t do it with their money or lie about it later). Having a pregnant, unwed daughter only serves to humanize the vice presidential candidate and makes her a champion not only for pro-life ideals but family values as well. The Democratic ticket will have a hard time competing with that.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Scandalmongers: Round 2
I’m adding to this post because I recently read on The Huffington Post that retired General Wesley Clark is also claiming that John McCain’s military experience is not enough for a commander-in-chief.
Hmmm…that’s a good point, especially because his presumptive opponent has such an extensive military background. Oh, wait. I forgot. The presumptive democratic nominee is Barack Obama. Does he have any military experience? At all?
Nope, voting against the war in Iraq does not count. Especially because Obama didn’t. Because he wasn’t in the US Senate for that vote. He was still a state senator in the Land of Lincoln.
If you want to talk about lack of experience, well, bring it on.
Hmmm…that’s a good point, especially because his presumptive opponent has such an extensive military background. Oh, wait. I forgot. The presumptive democratic nominee is Barack Obama. Does he have any military experience? At all?
Nope, voting against the war in Iraq does not count. Especially because Obama didn’t. Because he wasn’t in the US Senate for that vote. He was still a state senator in the Land of Lincoln.
If you want to talk about lack of experience, well, bring it on.
McCain Scandalmongers Should Have Their Mouths Washed Out With Soap
Whoa, you guys went too far.
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Recently, the anti-conservative bloggers (to say they are liberal would be an insult to my many intelligent liberal friends; I’ll just call them morons) at CounterPunch and Americablog questioned Senator John McCain’s accomplishments in the US Navy. One story on Americablog asks “besides being tortured, what did John McCain do to excel in the military?”
I’m amazed the author was allowed to print these unsubstantiated claims with no real evidence to back up his bad-mouthing.
After nearly a year of combat experience, McCain survived five and a half years of brutal imprisonment in North Vietnam. If that’s not enough military clout for you, how about this. McCain reached the rank of captain before his retirement from the Navy and has earned both the Silver Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
After returning from war, McCain became the commanding officer of a training squadron in Florida. Under his command, the previously undistinguished unit went on to win the Meritorious Unit Commendation. He does, in fact, have leadership and command experience in the Navy.
I’m not so much disgusted that the bloggers are trying to taint the reputation of an American hero as I am insulted that they did it without first researching his record.
The counterpunch newsletter draws points from Doug Valentine’s book The Phoenix Program: A Story of Fishing, Fame and Fortune.
If Valentine’s book suggests, as one excerpt implies, that “after three or four days he [McCain] cracked” he should be sued. Seriously, you didn’t want to skim through Wikipedia before writing that? Do a little fact-checking before printing more lies.
McCain was imprisoned for TWO YEARS before agreeing to make an anti-American propaganda video. He was beaten repeatedly the last four days when the North Vietnamese learned his father was named commander of US forces in Vietnam. I would probably have made any kind of video they wanted.
McCain’s injuries left permanent damage. Yeah, it sounds like he totally cooperated with the North Vietnamese. They sure went easy on him.
If you hate facts, or aren’t a fan of logic, check out the stories:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/honestly-besides-being-tortured-what.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04192008.html
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Panty Party Goes Awry
Macrida Patterson, what was your cornea doing so close to your G-string? Underwear does not go on your head.
Patterson recently filed a products liability suit against Victoria's Secret because she allegedly suffered permanent injuries while putting on one of their V-strings (it's a G-string that you buy at VS). The most ludicrous part is that she filed an unlimited civil case, meaning she is seeking damages in excess of $25,000.
But she's not seeking punitive damages, so that $25,000+ is all compensatory. That's a pretty hefty bill for a poke in the eye.
Based on 30-seconds of Internet research, I would estimate that an ER visit, including doctors and nurses fee, some serious meds (like Morphine) for the pain, lab tests and maybe a visit to Radiology just for good measure, will set you back about $4,000 to $5,000.
As for wage losses, that couldn't be more than another $3,000 to $4,000 -- and that's assuming the L.A. DOT employee was out of work for weeks after this tragedy. So Patterson is seeking $16,000 to $18,000 in "general damages", which hopefully covers treatment for her general stupidity.
I can only imagine how a metal staple managed to fly off of a thong and hit someone in the eye. My best guess is that Patterson may have tried to squeeze into a pair that was too small. Unfortunately, the court may find this was reasonably foreseeable on the part of VS. We girls have been trying to squeeze into the next size down for years. If that is the case, VS could potentially be liable for negligence (in a totally ridiculous way).
We can only hope that the court recognizes how absurd this suit is, and that the judge laughs in Patterson's permanently-injured face.
Patterson recently filed a products liability suit against Victoria's Secret because she allegedly suffered permanent injuries while putting on one of their V-strings (it's a G-string that you buy at VS). The most ludicrous part is that she filed an unlimited civil case, meaning she is seeking damages in excess of $25,000.
But she's not seeking punitive damages, so that $25,000+ is all compensatory. That's a pretty hefty bill for a poke in the eye.
Based on 30-seconds of Internet research, I would estimate that an ER visit, including doctors and nurses fee, some serious meds (like Morphine) for the pain, lab tests and maybe a visit to Radiology just for good measure, will set you back about $4,000 to $5,000.
As for wage losses, that couldn't be more than another $3,000 to $4,000 -- and that's assuming the L.A. DOT employee was out of work for weeks after this tragedy. So Patterson is seeking $16,000 to $18,000 in "general damages", which hopefully covers treatment for her general stupidity.
I can only imagine how a metal staple managed to fly off of a thong and hit someone in the eye. My best guess is that Patterson may have tried to squeeze into a pair that was too small. Unfortunately, the court may find this was reasonably foreseeable on the part of VS. We girls have been trying to squeeze into the next size down for years. If that is the case, VS could potentially be liable for negligence (in a totally ridiculous way).
We can only hope that the court recognizes how absurd this suit is, and that the judge laughs in Patterson's permanently-injured face.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Random Thoughts
*I believe I stumbled upon the true definition of irony on Feb. 28, the day I got laid off from my reporting gig: I was wearing my underwear that say "most likely to succeed" across the ass. I since found a new job, thank God, but am scared to wear the underwear again. I'm also staying away from the ones that say "USA is #1." The consequences could be dire. (I haven't ever actually seen such underwear, but I'm sure they exist somewhere; perhaps in a back alley Republican Erotica store.)
*Hearing smooth jazz now makes me crave Panera. Seriously. I was sitting in a colleague's office when I heard a trumpet melody floating over some bass, and BAM! I was mentally transported to my local Panera Bread, ready to eat a tasty (albeit overpriced) salad and sandwich. And, of course, bus my own dishes afterward. What a weird Pavlovian response.
*The American economy has seen better days. Things are looking pretty grim right now with skyrocketing oil prices, plummeting home sales, shrinking consumer confidence and oh so many foreclosures. That last one makes me sincerely hope that Americans learn the lesson that I have known since, I dunno, kindergarten: Don't spend money you don't have!!! The same could be screamed at Ben Bernukanakie (too lazy to look up his last name) who continues to throw around federal money that, oh yeah, we don't actually have. Hooray debt!
*On a similar economic note, people of all states and all industries are losing their jobs as of late. I spent the last four weeks unemployed and it was possibly the most depressing month of my life, but I'm soooo grateful I was able to find a new, enjoyable job so quickly. I hope that other people, particularly those with families and homes and more bills, are able to do so as well.
*Hearing smooth jazz now makes me crave Panera. Seriously. I was sitting in a colleague's office when I heard a trumpet melody floating over some bass, and BAM! I was mentally transported to my local Panera Bread, ready to eat a tasty (albeit overpriced) salad and sandwich. And, of course, bus my own dishes afterward. What a weird Pavlovian response.
*The American economy has seen better days. Things are looking pretty grim right now with skyrocketing oil prices, plummeting home sales, shrinking consumer confidence and oh so many foreclosures. That last one makes me sincerely hope that Americans learn the lesson that I have known since, I dunno, kindergarten: Don't spend money you don't have!!! The same could be screamed at Ben Bernukanakie (too lazy to look up his last name) who continues to throw around federal money that, oh yeah, we don't actually have. Hooray debt!
*On a similar economic note, people of all states and all industries are losing their jobs as of late. I spent the last four weeks unemployed and it was possibly the most depressing month of my life, but I'm soooo grateful I was able to find a new, enjoyable job so quickly. I hope that other people, particularly those with families and homes and more bills, are able to do so as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)