Obama the Brand vs. Obama the Man – a Democrat Says It Ain’t Pretty

What follows below is a truly fascinating example of the sort of oddly written article, designed to persuade and to advocate a particular political stance, which starts out in an extremely strong manner, giving a number of intelligent and insightful ideas, along with what might possibly be some astute, independent research, while making numerous points that are very hard to dispute or oppose from any reasonable, intellectually honest standpoint; yet, eventually it devolves, by the end, into a sort of pathetically silly and almost juvenile RANT concerning the idiotic cliché that any hint of "socialism" in American governmental policies will "destroy" our American way of life! I would tend to agree with much of what is contained in the first 75 or 80 percent of this article, but the ridiculous final quarter, or one-fifth of the article spoils it entirely! Nevertheless, it is a fascinating little read.

-------------

October 21, 2008

By Lynette Long

I am a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter and I am voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.

I want to start by saying something about the Democratic Primary. First let me say that I have a Master’s Degree in mathematics and I am the author of 14 math books. [Editor's note: One thing Dr. Long neglects to mention is that the majority of her books seem to be math books for children.] I’m a numbers girl and I naturally calculate and extrapolate numbers in my head, so my analysis of the Democratic primary process spills out of that natural gift.

The primary process consisted of fourteen caucuses and thirty-nine primaries. Obama lost only one out of fourteen caucuses yet he lost twenty-one out of thirty-nine primaries. You don’t have to be a mathematician to realize something smells fishy. I first noticed something was wrong when I watched the returns from Texas come in. Texas is unique in the Primary world because it has both a primary and a caucus - affectionately called the Texas Two-Step. Hillary Clinton won the primary by four points, yet she lost the caucus which was held on the same day by twelve points. That’s a sixteen point swing with the same pool of voters on the same day.

Almost four million people participated in both the primary and the caucuses. In a poll with only 700 participants, the margin of error is usually 3 or 4, then in a primary and a caucus, with millions of participants, a sixteen point swing would be highly unlikely, very highly unlikely. What’s even more astounding is that Obama came out five pledged delegates ahead in a state she won. After questioning the likelihood of the Texas two step results, I decided to analyze the rest of the caucus results.

Washington State, Nebraska, and Idaho also held a primary and a caucus and the results were even more divergent than Texas results. In Washington State, Clinton did thirty-two points better in the primary than the caucus, but all delegates were based on the caucus only. In Nebraska, Clinton did thirty-four points better in the primary than the caucus, but the delegates again were based only on the caucus results. And finally in Idaho, Clinton lost the caucus by 62 points but lost the primary by 19 points. And again delegates were awarded based only on the caucus results. The divergent results in all four of these contests were partially the result of the disenfranchisement that is inherent in the caucus process since the elderly, mothers of school aged children and shift workers are less likely to attend caucuses. But they are also the result of voter fraud intentionally perpetrated by the Obama campaign and voter intimidation by Obama supporters.

The result is that the primary was stolen from Senator Clinton. Even without factoring in the caucus results, Senator Clinton and Senator Obama were only 4 pledged delegates apart at the end of the primary process. Obama, Pelosi, and other senior Democrats paid superdelegates to cast their votes for Obama. Clearly the will of the people was ignored. The Selection of Obama over Hillary Clinton by the Democratic hierarchy was a miscarriage of justice and my reason for my original contact with the McCain Campaign.

After the last Democratic Primary was over and it was clear Senator Clinton was not going to get the Democratic nomination, I and a small group of Clinton supporters met with Senator McCain. I personally explained to Senator McCain that women comprise well over half of the population, yet you will not see a single picture of a woman on paper currency. Women are underrepresented in every branch of government and there has never been a female president or vice president. I personally asked Senator McCain to choose a woman for the Vice Presidential slot and to increase the number of women in the cabinet and on the Supreme Court. Senator McCain listened respectfully to my request. Little did I know then that he heard me and the millions of women of this country who have gone unrepresented in the Executive branch of government for far too long.

When I made similar requests of the Obama campaign, I was laughed at by the canvassers outside my home, told there weren’t enough qualified women by a member of his Finance Committee, and asked by a member of a policy committee why I was making such a stupid request. Gender is the most fundamental human characteristic. The first comment made when a child is born is either, “It’s a girl” or “It’s a boy.” From that second on, boys and girls live in parallel universes in the same culture. You can’t learn what it is to be a woman, unless you are one. You can’t have a government essentially devoid of women that knows what’s best for women. You can’t legislate for women, without women.

But by choosing Governor Palin as his running mate, Senator McCain acknowledged that men never can fully know what it is like to be a woman, a mother, a daughter, a sister - things Governor Palin knows all too well. Senator McCain chose the second only bi-gender ticket in American history reinforcing his image as a maverick. Choosing a Vice-President was the first significant decision Senator McCain and Senator Obama had to make. Senator Obama talks about change but picked a running mate who is part of the Washington establishment. Senator McCain’s choice speaks for itself.

Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every election. Obama the brand is for women’s rights while Obama the man pays the women in his office 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. And Joe Biden pays women 73 cents on the dollar. [Editor's note: As Wikipedia would be wont to say at this point, "citations needed!"] Obama the brand is pro-Israel, Obama the man is not. Obama the brand touts leadership while Obama the man voted present 130 times in the US Senate. [Editor's note: Actually, it was in the Illinois State Senate where Obama voted "present" 130 times, NOT in the U.S. Senate.] Obama the Brand claims change, while Obama the man picks a Washington Insider as his running mate. Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listens for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. [Editor's note: This list of charity recipients is hardly complete.] Obama the man and Obama the brand are not one in the same.

I have given my loyalty to the Democratic Party for decades. My party, which is comprised primarily of women, has not put a woman on a presidential ticket for 24 years. My party was disrespectful to all women when they refused to nominate my candidate, Hillary Clinton, for president or vice president, even though she received more votes than any other Democratic or Republican candidate in history. My party stood silently by as Hillary Clinton was eviscerated by the sexist attacks of the mainstream media. My party’s candidate was mute when Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Pfleger openly mocked Senator Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ. My party’s candidate was silent when the rapper Ludacris released a new song calling Hillary a bitch. My party’s candidate chose Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard, who said women can’t do science and math. Well here I am Mr. Summers, let’s talk. [Editor's note: One and one-half years as Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton hardly makes Mr. Summers a leading figure in the Democratic Party. And plenty of people make stupid remarks. That fact should not entirely eliminate them from consideration for public service.] Neither my party nor its candidate has demonstrated in this election that they hold women in high esteem.

When it comes to women, sixteen is a special number. Did you ever hear the song 16 candles? Or the phrase “Sweet sixteen and never been kissed”? Eight plus Eight is sixteen, four times four is sixteen, and 2 x 2 x 2 x 2. But sixteen is special for other reasons.

• Guess what percentage of the members of the House of Representatives are women?
• Guess what percentage of the members of the Senate are women?
• Guess what percentage of the governors are women?
• Guess what percentage of equity partners in Law Firms are women?
• Guess what percentage of Science Professors at MIT are women?
• And guess what percentage of US Presidents or Vice-presidents were women?
• Not 16. [Editor's note: Are we to assume that the answer to all but the final question, is "16" in each case?]
  

How can having a country composed of 52% women with only 16% representation be fair? How can it accurately represent the will of the people? In fact, the United States ranks 69^th in the world with regard to women in government.

Sarah Palin is good for women. She has kept the debate about women in government and feminism alive. She is helping us define a new brand of feminism that unites both Republican and Democratic women. She has a chance to put a sledge hammer to the ceiling that Hillary Clinton put eighteen million cracks in. I happened to be on an Alaskan Cruise when Governor Palin was nominated for Vice-President. When we docked in Ketchikan my Blackberry was buzzing away with emails shouting, “It’s a girl.” I thought, “Who is a girl?” My friends are too old to be pregnant and I didn’t think my daughter would hold out on me. As soon as I stepped on-shore, my tour guide told me their governor, Sarah Palin was the VP pick. I can testify here today, that every person I met in Alaska loved her. Alaskans are proud of their Governor.

I heard many people say they don’t think Sarah Palin is ready to be one heartbeat away from the presidency since Alaska has only 750,000 people. Let’s get this straight. Sarah Palin is only one of only fifty governors in the entire country. If Alaska were a country, it would be the twentieth largest country in the world. [Editor's note: This is a prime example of specious juxtaposition in writing. It seems to imply, based on the 750,000 number given almost immediately before, that Alaska would be the twentieth largest country in the world based on its population; whereas, in fact, there would be somewhere over 160 countries that are actually larger, population-wise. So, obviously, Dr, Long must be referring solely to the size of Alaska's land mass.] The unique topography, economy, population, and climate of Alaska all make Alaska a challenging state to govern. Home of the Alaska pipeline, Alaska hosts the majority of our oil resources and some of the largest fiscal projects in the country. Alaska is home to indigenous peoples and remote towns that are not on the electrical grid. Alaska is the only state in the Arctic climate zone and is profoundly impacted by global warming. Alaska is home to diverse wildlife and, consequently, management issues. International relations are a major issue in Alaska and I’m not talking about cab drivers. Alaska shares a border with Canada and ten miles across the Bearing Strait is Russia. Consequently it has a standing National Guard. I don’t want to hear Sarah Palin is only the Governor of Alaska. There is nothing “only” about Alaska.

I do not agree with Senator McCain and Governor Palin on all the issues, but I don’t agree with any candidate on all the issues. I am emphatically pro-choice. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean I am pro-abortion. I would not want to trade places with any woman trying to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy or any mother trying to advise her teenage daughter on the same issue. It is not a choice most women make lightly. But even though I will defend a woman’s right to choose, I will not surrender by vote to the Democratic Party out of fear of losing that choice. I will not vote for a Democratic candidate I feel is unfit to lead, just to protect Roe V. Wade. The Democratic Party has blackmailed and bludgeoned women with Roe v. Wade for decades nullifying their power. [Editor's note: It is hardly JUST the Roe vs. Wade decision that would be at risk were McCain to be elected and to subsequently appoint two or three highly Conservative candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court!] Women’s votes cannot belong to a single party, because if they do we are hostage to that party. Women make up 52% of the population and 56% of the electorate. If Democratic and Republican women ban together we can elect any candidate or pass any bill. We can change the world. [Editor's note: There are scores of reason why women make up a majority of the Democratic Party. To suggest there is only ONE reason is just plain dopey!]

No one knows what is going to happen during the next four years. In the recent past, the challenges to each President have been enormous.

When he took office, Harry Truman did not know that he would have to decide whether or not to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

Lyndon Baines Johnson didn’t know that on April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King would be assassinated, propelling the country into racial unrest.

George Walker Bush didn’t know that on September 11, 2001, terrorists would wage the greatest attack on US soil.

We need a President who is prepared to lead on day one - ready to handle any attack, any crisis, any financial emergency.

[Editor's note: Okay, it is right here that this article begins to come entirely unhinged and quickly turns totally demented!] I cannot vote based on POLITICAL PROMISES and POLITICAL PANDERING. But I can vote based on PRICIPLES and PATRIOTISM. In Senator McCain and Governor Palin, I find two people with personal integrity [Editor's note: John McCain's extensive list of documented lies and over-the-top distortions in his campaign speeches and his TV ads certainly suggests a man with the highest level of personal integrity.... NOT!] and a love of their county --- individuals who not only talk the talk but walk the walk. I can work with that. I will vote for McCain-Palin. In fact, I’ve decided to try to win one vote a day for the McCain-Palin ticket. My new personal mantra is, “A vote a day keeps Obama away.” [Editor's note: Did I happen to mention that the majority of Dr. Long's books appear to have been math books for children?]

Make no mistake about it, we are in a war. I am not talking about the Korean conflict where our soldiers literally stand shoulder to shoulder with the troops from South Korea starring at the demilitarized zone - the most heavily armed strip of land in the world. I am not talking about Afghanistan where our troops search for Osama Bin Laden and the other terrorists who perpetrated nine-eleven. I am not talking about Iraq, where over 100,000 of our young men and women are embroiled in a war.

I am talking about a war on our own soil, a fight for our way of life. This war pits socialism against capitalism. Barack Obama may call it “income redistribution” but socialism by any other name does not smell sweet. If we lose this war, what we know as our way of life will disappear. This is a war between Barack Obama and John McCain. You are the foot soldiers in this war. Are you willing to fight for economic freedom or do you want to live in a socialist country? [Editor's note: Dr. Long might be reasonably good at mathematics, but she is clearly ignorant and/or sadly misinformed in the fields of economics and history. There is nothing particularly scary or destructive about most of the ideas at the heart of "socialism." In fact, it was McCain's preferred style of rampant, unfettered Capitalism that FOSTERED and CREATED the massive economic catastrophe we are now experiencing on an accelerating daily basis! If anything "saves" us from this impending global disaster, it will be elements of socialist-style interventions by all of the large industrialized nation's Federal governments!]

Our country needs you. Join me on Election Day and save our country.

Family Security Matters Contributor Dr. Lynette Long is a feminist, a mother, a Democrat and an ardent Hillary Clinton supporter who is voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin on November 4.

ABORTION THOUGHTS -- Who Says That "No One Is Pro-Abortion"? I Think That Abortions Should Be Applied Retroactively To All Current Republicans!

Recently, on another blog, I happened to witness an exchange of comments attached to an original post with the title, "No one is pro-abortion." One of the comment writers was coming from the typical point of view of the "pro-life," anti-abortion, one-issue, political camps that have sprung up from the Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian churches in the USA. Under the nom de plume I happen to use for comments on that blog, I posted the following longish reply to the existing string of others' remarks. While portions of my comments may be a tad too vitriolic for the taste of some readers, I think that the substance of my major points more than justifies republishing that reply in its entirety here. This reply was addressed to the author of that blog.

.....just who, exactly, is that dimwit with "bird-droppings-for-brains" who has, for all the world to see, now "anonymously" posted on your blog indisputable evidence of his astounding and absolute ignorance regarding not only the facts involved in the science of human biology, but also regarding the most basic conclusions of all modern, high-level, academically sophisticated, hermeneutical studies of the Judeo-Christian scriptures?

It never ceases to amaze me how the most rabid of the would-be "Christian," holier-than-thou, extreme right-wing, anti-abortion crusaders are also the same people who totally FAIL to understand the first thing regarding the true import of the Bible! As authority for their strident, unyielding, absolutist views, they simplemindedly attempt to quote a handful of pointless passages, almost randomly plucked from the Bible, that are meaningless and ridiculous when taken out of context and which, literally, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the complexities of either the moral or the scientific aspects of the one issue they claim so troubles and concerns them!

This current anonymous commenter is not only pusillanimous and, intellectually, a limp dildo, he also presents the perfect example of someone who has ZERO comprehension of what the Bible actually says, of what its verses actually mean, of what the Bible actually represents, of who actually wrote the Bible, of who or what "God" actually is, of who Jesus actually was, or of virtually anything else in such a vein! And this is not to even mention his abject ignorance in the scientific area of human biology!

Indeed, such people as this anonymous commenter virtually always function at approximately the same level as the least educated of the Islamic jihadist terrorists who are consumed by a single-theme, one-track view of life and the world. But such sad people as this present anonymous twit also tend to LACK the dedicated conviction and the (for want of a better word) "courage" of those jihadists, as these anti-abortion maniacs hurl only stilted, simplistic, hypocritical, fundamentalist platitudes, rather than themselves, into the breach!

To even imply that the mere instance of a single-cell microgamete penetrating the outer wall of a single-cell macrogamete somehow constitutes, in human terms, a viable, self-sustaining organism that is capable of being "murdered" by the premature termination of the progress of its developmental process is laughably ridiculous! That sort of non-logic is tantamount to asserting that "coitus interuptus" constitutes the "murder" of the human being who MIGHT have been conceived and then subsequently carried to term and successfully delivered! And any clown who attempts to suggest that the story of Onan in the Bible somehow addresses THIS issue, clearly doesn't understand the import of that story, either!

An embryonic zygote, in it's earlier stages, absolutely DOES NOT constitute a viable, self-sustaining "human being" who is capable of being "murdered." Such a tiny, tenuously situated, frequently not-yet-implanted, globule of protoplasm most certainly IS NOT equivalent to a human "baby!" In fact, the majority of such zygotes never become viable and end up being expelled from the woman's body without her ever realizing that any "fertilization" had even occurred!

To assert that such a microscopic union of cells is a "human being" capable of being "murdered," is basically equivalent to asserting that removing tissue during a cancer biopsy potentially constitutes some similar form of "mass murder" because a certain percentage of the contiguously surrounding healthy cells, that usually are also removed during such a procedure, could conceivably (pun intended) be used to clone dozens or even hundreds of new human entities!

So, when does an embryonic zygote transform into a self-sustaining, viable "human being" capable of being "murdered"? The irrefutably correct answer to that question, logically, would be, "immediately AFTER a successful, live-birth delivery." But intelligent people are usually willing to concede that, more likely, such a "transformation" should probably be recognized as occurring an imprecise number of weeks earlier than AT the conclusion of a successful live-birth delivery. In any case, however, the definition of WHEN an early term embryonic zygote technically transforms into a self-sustaining, viable "human being" possessing anything even approximating the same "rights" as other human beings, is CERTAINLY NOT at any time in the first trimester, and probably not at any time in the first 19 or 20 weeks, and maybe not even at any time within the first 26 weeks!

Why is it so that this "transformation" does NOT occur until at some nebulous point approximately mid-term (or later) in the course of the woman's pregnancy? Because for that "transformation" to occur, the embryo MUST be viable enough to survive "on its own" (or with only limited medical assistance) outside of the mother's body, in order to be considered "alive enough" to be capable of being "murdered." After all, you cannot "murder" someone who is not technically and actually "alive." And a "self-sustaining independence" is the PARAMOUNT determining factor when defining what is, and what is not, a "living entity." Granted, an elderly, seriously ill, or gravely injured adult person who survives only through the use of life support systems in a hospital also does not possess a true "self-sustaining independence," but we are not discussing at what exact point a person CEASES to be a living entity, but rather, at what point an embryonic zygote first BECOMES a living person!

Why must the embryo be viable enough to survive "on it's own," independently of the mother? Because through the use of highly sophisticated medical technology, it is theoretically possible to create a "test tube" zygote that could be nurtured along entirely outside of a woman's body to the point of a self-sustaining viability; yet even THAT rather "sci-fi" scenario would STILL contain the conundrum of exactly at what point that independent viability was achieved! One imagines that through simple trial and error techniques, in the case of this "sci-fi" scenario, researchers might be able to eventually establish with relatively high accuracy a reasonably certain earliest date for this transformation, but thankfully we are not yet functioning, as a society, in such as manner as to be "farming" human infants!

To understand this concept of how a microscopic lump of protoplasm such as a freshly formed zygote is NOT originally a "human being," but can eventually "transform" into a self-sustaining, viable "human being," one merely needs to look at either an apple seed or at a fertilized hen's egg. The former is neither an apple tree, nor is it an apple, yet it contains the FULL potential, over time, and under the totally correct set of circumstances, to eventually become an apple tree that produces many apples! The latter example of the fertilized hen's egg is clearly NOT a "chicken," but it has the FULL potential, over time, and under the exactly right set of circumstances, to eventually transform into one!

And so it is, precisely, with newly formed human zygote cells! Originally, and for some number of weeks thereafter, they are NOT yet human beings, but they contain the POTENTIAL, over time, and under the totally correct set of circumstances, to eventually become a viable human being. Thus, just as it is logically impossible to KILL a future (but presently nonexistent) apple tree, or to KILL a future (but presently nonexistent) chicken by destroying the apple seed, or by destroying the fertilized hen's egg, it is likewise totally IMPOSSIBLE to "murder" a future (but presently nonexistent) human being by destroying the as-yet-nonviable protoplasm that makes up an early term embryonic zygote!


-

Chicago Tribune Endorses Obama!

For the very first time in its 161-year history, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed a Democrat for President of the United States. In a lead editorial to be published tomorrow, Barack Obama earns the paper's support.

Well, Duh! It's a Chicago paper, and Obama's a Chicago boy! Plus, even Christopher Taylor Buckley, the (now former) columnist for, and one of the owners of, the highly conservative magazine and website, National Review, founded by his late father, William F. Buckley, Jr., felt the need to endorse Barack Obama for President this year! He did so in print, but NOT anywhere in the pages of National Review magazine; and yet, that publication's main editor still accepted his resignation as a columnist which he offered more for the sake of "good form" (in reaction to the e-mailed outrage from the magazine's core subscriber base over his endorsement) than because of any REAL desire on his part to stop writing for the magazine he partly owns!

This year has seen (and will continue to see) a great many strange things happen! The collapse of the housing/real estate market in the USA, and of the related collapse of the global financial industry, and of the global stock markets, and the nature of the Presidential election in the USA, are all just bizarre aspects of these "end of days" times that we find ourselves living in! Thank God we have Sarah Palin to lead us toward, and otherwise further, the coming of "the Rapture!"

-

Or How About This One?

* But what if you *DON'T* lose in the voting? What if you actually WIN the election against that virtual carbon copy of the most unpopular U.S. President in all of history, only to ultimately get your dumbass, arrogant, fool head blown off by some psycho redneck follower of McCain's who was whipped into a rabid frenzy of hatred and bigotry by the vicious, mean-spirited speeches given at the campaign appearances of Big Bad John and Barracuda Sarah prior to the election-- in a situation of history basically repeating itself (in so MANY ways) from the JFK years-- does that make you brilliant? Does that make you a hero? Does that make you "the next JFK"? Or does that just make you and Oprah Winfrey a couple of the stupidest people on Earth?


-

How About This One?

* If you bull your way into your political party's Presidential nomination by the use of ruthless, old school politicking techniques, leapfrogging your way over, and cutting in front of, seven or eight candidates who were *ALL* more qualified to be President than you are, while spouting off, the entire time, about the great need for "honest change we can believe in," and then you ultimately LOSE the "one election that couldn't be lost" to a virtual carbon copy of the most unpopular U. S. President in all of history, because you are an arrogant, black, elitist, cold-as-ice snob with an ACTUAL Islamic heritage, does that mean you are guilty of a capital offense?


-

Let Me Get This Straight...

Someone at work posted this in our bathroom stall. I couldn't resist sharing it here.

* If you grow up in Hawaii , raised by your grandparents, you're 'exotic, different.'

* Grow up in Alaska eating moose burgers, yours is a quintessential American story.

* If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.

* Name your kids Willow , Trig and Track, you're a maverick.

* Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.

* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you're well grounded.

* If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive and next in line behind a man in his eighth decade.

* If you have been married to the same woman for 16 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.

* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a true Christian.

* If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.

* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends uppregnant, you're a very responsible parent.

* If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.

* If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

*If you are literate and eloquent, then you're an elitist.

*If you get so angry that you have to speak through clenched teeth, or your running mate talks like she's on speed, then you're inspirational.

*If you're confident and calm, then you're not ready for the presidency.

*If your left eye twitches like you've forgotten to take your thorazine, or your running mate is so manipulative that she thinks winking will win a debate then you were born to be in office.

*And, finally, if you’re famous for your quick temper, you’re the one to have your finger on the red nuclear button.

OK, much clearer now

The Religious Left -- The Christian Left

Almost every individual's life is complicated enough (sometimes even to the point of being more so than he or she can handle) just in terms of the common secular reality we all mutually must deal with. That is to say, we all must constantly face and deal with each area of our "triptych world" including (1) those PHYSICAL THINGS we can all see and touch and believe we "know" (such as furniture, appliances, houses, cars, airplanes, cities, roads, other people, animals, nature, the Earth, etc.); and (2) those IDEAS and CONCEPTS we can all at least partially grasp and comprehend to one degree or another (such as those embodied in physics, mathematics, biology, language, ethics, morality, health and mortality issues, etc.); and (3) those uncountable PERSONAL ACTIONS we are all expected to undertake-- or, alternately, to eschew-- throughout our lives (endeavors/acts involving work, play, education, sexuality, family life, recreation, charity, criminality, revolution, citizenship, and so on).

Thus, it strikes me, in light of this vast complexity inherent in virtually everyone's life, that it is ridiculously foolish to intentionally attempt to add on a FOURTH "panel" to our "triptych world," and especially one that has, for its essence, a jumbled mass of conflicting abstractions regarding "beings" and "realms" which none of us can ever actually see, or touch, or know, nor which any of us can ever fully grasp or comprehend! Plainly, I am talking about RELIGION/FAITH here as that unnecessary, and often very counterproductive, "fourth panel" of our life/world. We all know (or should know) about the undeniable history of GREAT HARM that the organized pursuit of religion, in general, has brought upon the people of the world, regardless of the religions involved. And we all know (or should know) that the totality of that historical GREAT HARM vastly outweighs any potential relative "good" which those religions, arguably, may have brought to the world.

Indeed, virtually all religions were introduced, at their respective beginnings, to the populations which adopted them, merely as a means for one class of people (the more sophisticated priestly class) to be able to exercise control and power over a much larger class of people (the more ignorant commoners) by establishing a broad-based belief in some illusory beings/realms which required the theoretical efficacy that could only be provided by members of that priestly class both in terms of basic instruction, and in actual mediation between the commoners and those illusory beings/realms! Thus, all religions are basically just giant con games with a relatively small number of "grifters" who (whether cynically or sincerely) earn their livings by exploiting a much larger number of "victims." This view is not my "opinion." These are the facts of history and reality!

However, if one feels the absolute, individual NEED to further complicate one's life by adopting the additional complexities involved in attempting to integrate some sort of external religious framework/worldview into the mix of his or her own personal life, and if that person chooses Christianity as the religion, yet wants to adapt those religious views so as to happily coexist with Liberal social and economic political views, there actually ARE a few organizations and churches which can be of help in doing so. For starters, I would recommend these two websites:

http://www.christianalliance.org

http://www.tcpc.org

LisaNova Does Sarah Palin

-
-
Palin Biden Debate
-

-
-
-
Nader and Palin on The Bailout!!!
-

-
-
-
Nader Schools Palin!
-

-
-
-
Sarah Palin Exclusive
-

-
-
-
Is McCain Palin's Bitch?
-

-
-
-

"Sarah Palin, Queen of the Alaskan Frontier"

The Poetry of Sarah Palin

Recent works by the Republican vice presidential candidate.

By Hart Seely

Posted Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2008, at 1:25 PM ET

on Slate.com


The poems collected here were compiled verbatim from only three brief interviews. So just imagine the work Sarah Palin could produce over the next four (or eight) years.



"On Good and Evil"

It is obvious to me
Who the good guys are in this one
And who the bad guys are.
The bad guys are the ones
Who say Israel is a stinking corpse,
And should be wiped off
The face of the earth.

That's not a good guy.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)



"You Can't Blink"

You can't blink.
You have to be wired
In a way of being
So committed to the mission,

The mission that we're on,
Reform of this country,
And victory in the war,
You can't blink.

So I didn't blink.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)



"Haiku"

These corporations.
Today it was AIG,
Important call, there.

(To S. Hannity, Fox News, Sept. 18, 2008)



"Befoulers of the Verbiage"

It was an unfair attack on the verbiage
That Senator McCain chose to use,
Because the fundamentals,
As he was having to explain afterwards,
He means our workforce.
He means the ingenuity of the American.
And of course that is strong,
And that is the foundation of our economy.
So that was an unfair attack there,
Again based on verbiage.

(To S. Hannity, Fox News, Sept. 18, 2008)



"Secret Conversation"

I asked President Karzai:

"Is that what you are seeking, also?
"That strategy that has worked in Iraq?
"That John McCain had pushed for?
"More troops?
"A counterinsurgency strategy?"

And he said, "Yes."

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)



"Outside"

I am a Washington outsider.
I mean,
Look at where you are.
I'm a Washington outsider.

I do not have those allegiances
To the power brokers,
To the lobbyists.
We need someone like that.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)



"On the Bailout"

Ultimately,
What the bailout does
Is help those who are concerned
About the health care reform
That is needed
To help shore up our economy,
Helping the—
It's got to be all about job creation, too.

Shoring up our economy
And putting it back on the right track.
So health care reform
And reducing taxes
And reining in spending
Has got to accompany tax reductions
And tax relief for Americans.
And trade.

We've got to see trade
As opportunity
Not as a competitive, scary thing.
But one in five jobs
Being created in the trade sector today,
We've got to look at that
As more opportunity.
All those things.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)



"Challenge to a Cynic"

You are a cynic.
Because show me where
I have ever said
That there's absolute proof
That nothing that man
Has ever conducted
Or engaged in,
Has had any effect,
Or no effect,
On climate change.

(To C. Gibson, ABC News, Sept. 11, 2008)



"On Reporters"

It's funny that
A comment like that
Was kinda made to,
I don't know,
You know ...

Reporters.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 2008)



"Small Mayors"

You know,
Small mayors,
Mayors of small towns—
Quote, unquote—
They're on the front lines.

(To S. Hannity, Fox News, Sept. 19, 2008)

Life of Sarah Palin

"Head of Skate" -- The Movie

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Matt Damon on Sarah Palin

Gina Gershon as Sarah Palin

See more Gina Gershon videos at Funny or Die

Palin/Biden Debate Reviews

timesunion.com


You betcha, the debate is debated


First published: Saturday, October 4, 2008

Make no mistake. Most of the attention put on this debate did not stem from a deep yearning on the part of the American public to hear Sen. Joe Biden, the Democrat, talk about the policies of his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama. No, many viewers wanted to watch Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

... in the last few weeks viewers have watched a string of televised interview clips, most recently with Katie Couric of CBS, in which Gov. Palin seemed to struggle with answers and strangle on her own syntax. She appeared not only uninformed but embarrassingly inarticulate. Because of that, many Democrats were hoping for a clumsy reprise. And many Republicans were probably cheered to see Gov. Palin present a poised, well-briefed demeanor — no rambling vagueness and a confident expression.

Gov. Palin had clearly made good use of her days in seclusion at Sen. John McCain's ranch in Arizona being prepped by campaign advisers. Sen. Joe Biden clearly took to heart the advice from just about everyone to, essentially, put a sock in it and not ramble on until he swallowed his foot.

... Who won? Gov. Palin exceeded ridiculously low expectations. Sen. Biden sounded substantive and knowledgeable without coming off as stuffy or tedious. The upshot: People who liked Sarah Palin before the debate probably saw nothing to change their minds. The same is likely true of those who back Joe Biden.

—Charlotte Observer

Despite a few weak moments, Palin delivered a strong and sure performance Thursday night. After enduring weeks of derision, Palin didn't just beat the low expectations for her performance; she ran all over them.

... if you were looking for Palin to stumble — and Democrats wouldn't have minded that one bit, despite all their pre-show praise of Palin's debating skills — you just didn't see it onstage Thursday night. Palin emerged from a couple of weeks of misguided Team McCain handling with her Palin-ness intact, and she showed it onstage when it counted.

And that, for a lot of Republicans, was a deeply satisfying turn of events.

—Byron York, National Review

So, who won? On substance, the edge goes to Biden. On style, Palin eked out a close win, enormously magnified by the plain fact that she wasn't chased off the stage.

Did this change the dynamics of the overall race, which is trending toward Obama-Biden? Probably not.

But here's what's key: A Palin collapse Thursday night probably would have ended any chance for the McCain presidential bid. By giving no yardage to a three-decade U.S. senator, she kept her team in the game for another day.

We've still got a race on our hands — and given how poorly things have gone for Team McCain in the last two weeks, goshdarnit, that's an unexpected gift.

—Dallas Morning News

Sarah Palin showed up with folksiness and grit. Joe Biden brought emotion and substance.

The two provided a captivating matchup for Thursday night's vice-presidential candidate debate.

In the end, however, Biden's deep knowledge of domestic and foreign policy easily trumped Palin's often superficial presentations.

Too often Palin, the Republican, retreated to rally language and platitudes about her running mate, John McCain.

Biden, the Democrat, did a better job of providing specifics about how he and his running mate, Barack Obama, would perform in office.

— Kansas City Star

As Americans weigh the vice-presidential candidates, the important question is: Can I see this person as a president? Thursday's debate leaves that question pretty much where it was before the debate.

Few people doubted that Sen. Joe Biden, the vice-presidential pick of Sen. Barack Obama, could step into that role. And nothing in the debate changed that. Biden is substantive and experienced on foreign policy and has thought deeply about the role of the vice president.

But from the time that Sen. John McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the question of her as a potential president has been at the forefront for people of all ideological stripes. On what issues of national importance has Palin given deep, substantive thought? This debate did not answer that.

Palin is smart, a quick study and has the discipline to stay on message, qualities important for the ceremonial role of the vice president as a president's emissary. But she has yet to offer deep insight on any substantive issue or to indicate what she would hope to do as vice president. Her scripted responses Thursday night gave few clues about the qualities she brings as a possible president.

— Sacramento Bee

Palinphobes and Palinphiles alike can breath a sigh of relief. This wasn't the battle of the sexes and it wasn't a full-scale gender disaster. It's just that Tina Fey still looks more qualified.

—Ellen Goodman, columnist

Sarah Palin didn't trip and fall on her way to or from the podium. She didn't go on a nonsensical, grammar-defying journey through the English language while talking about her state's proximity to Russia or the Wall Street bailout. And she didn't demonstrate a moment of shocking ignorance, like failing to know what the Bush Doctrine was or being unable to name a single Supreme Court decision.

And because Sarah Palin didn't implode on the stage last night in St. Louis, her performance was hailed as a success.

...Really? Because she didn't self-destruct on stage, she is a success?

—Michael Bard, Huffington Post

It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, "you betchas" and "darn rights." Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.

With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington. Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden's senatorial seriousness.

Where was this woman during her interview with Katie Couric?

—David Brooks, columnist

In general, there wasn't a car crash of moose-killing proportions. It was just more of the same — someone who was so far out of her league on the issues that she could not help but be as nervous as a baby seal at a polar bear pot luck. This came out when she kept calling General David McKiernan, our commander in Afghanistan, "General McClellan."

...Some things cannot be shrugged off with a snarky wink and a winning smile. Some things, Governor, are just too gosh darned important.

Like not knowing the name of the commander of our troops in the middle of the decisive war of the fight against terrorism.

—Lt. Col. Robert Mackey (Ret.), Huffington Post

"WHAT JUST HAPPENED" -- See If You Can Guess What Is My Favorite Line In This Trailer

On So Many Levels!

Sarah Palin Is The Anti-Christ?

Always hit "pause" on this "auto-start" video if not viewing it!

Click on the "full screen" button to better view this video!

Joe Biden Nails It!