The Issues: Iran, plus my Daily Show addiction and OMIGOD, I've entered the 21st century.

I really, really didn't mean to start talking about all the issues where I disagree with both candidates, but it happens. And even with this issue, Obama leans more toward my view. I think that although he is not a pacifist, he is less likely to invade Iran than John McCain.

And in the long run, I think there are enough other, important issues on the table that I will not waste my vote by voting 3rd party for someone who is in line with a larger percentage of my views.

Reference: Wikipedia

Me	Obama	McCain
There's a t-shirt that says "I'm against the next war." I think that sums up my position on this nicely.	Obama stated he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table. Sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."[84]	John McCain has called the crisis with Iran "the most serious crisis we have faced - outside of the entire war on terror - since the end of the Cold War." "Nuclear capability in Iran is unacceptable," said McCain. McCain has criticized Russia and China for causing "gridlock" in the UN Security Council and preventing the sanctioning of Iran as well as other areas of conflict such as Darfur and Burma. If elected, McCain pledges to create a "league of democracies" with the purpose of addressing those conflicts without the approval of China and Russia.[82][83]

But when I was watched The Daily Show this morning, and I saw this clip, I also realized why I love the Daily Show so much. It's funny, of course. It tells so many truths. But best, it makes me realize that even I, as much of a "left wing liberal commie agitator" that I am, sometimes needs to be reminded that my government only tells me what it wants me to believe.

I never wanted the U.S. to invade Iran simply because I truly am against war, pure and simple. But it never struck me that maybe we are encouraged to not learn about the people we're gong to bomb. Here's the clip:

And that brings me to the last of my thoughts for today. I realized I keep posting videos. I never used to. I can remember when computers first got sound and I hate it. I still prefer to only have it when I need it rather than all the time, but I never thought I'd find myself posting so many. But there really is information in the visual.

For example, right-wing Newsmax posted an article, Bill Clinton has high praise for John McCain after McCain spoke at Clinton's Global Initiative. But I watched that speech. Bill Clinton was polite and, as always, a decent human being. But he is also a very physically expressive person. It was obvious from his body language he he shook hands with McCain at the end of the speech, that he did not like the man.

So, I have been brought into the 21st century of multi-media publishing by this election. Seeing contradictions in words and words can be done verbally. Seeing contradictions in words versus visual can't. And it's likely I'll continue to post videos to help make my points. The times they are a changin' even for me.

Suffering

I disagree with both candidates on this one, and there's some other issues to work into this one, so I'm not going to call it "talking about the issues". This one, the bailout, has taken on a life of its own.

First, thank you the 228 Congressmen who at least in part remembered what they were elected to do, represent their constituents. The Senate has always had some leeway in voting its conscience, but the House of Representatives was supposed to be just that, representative government. They are supposed to vote for what their constituents want, not what they think is the best idea. And I don't personally know ANYONE, Democrat or Republican, who wants this bailout funded.

So that brings us to the second issue. Even if the Bush is telling the truth about what is going on, I still think we have a right to find out, and endure the suffering that comes with it if necessary.

I know I post wayyy too many The Daily Show clips but this rather points out the scare tactics that have been thrown at us before, and as Jon Stewart points out, even the wording is scarily similar:


Congressmen, and I'm ashamed to say, more Democrats than Republicans, seem to think they know better than the people they represent. But even knowing that there could possibly be devastating effects on the world markets, I think we need to take that chance. I think we need to be allowed to suffer the consequences of allowing our businesses to bloat themselves and then explode. And what's more, I think we can handle it.

And that brings me to the other part of this and the title of the post. Suffering. Suffering is not always a bad thing. Much can be learned from suffering, and much can be gained from it. We have lived to long in a society that thinks huge debt, which puts off suffering to another generation, is better than doing the necessary suffering now. Problems are overcome by suffering, discipline and hard work. I don't see any of those traits represented by what this bill is intended to do. It is intended to minimize suffering, reward a lack of discipline and put the hard work of paying it back onto the taxpayers and our descendants.

I remember the suffering that the American people endured during WWII because my parents told me about rationing, victory gardens and collecting metals to be used in the war effort. I think we need to let the businesses fall and go about the work of rebuilding.

Congressmen, please remember your job. Represent your consitituents. Do not pass this bill.

time for a mulligan on the VP picks...

Maybe Thursday night will prove me wrong, but I am unhappy with both parties picks for VP. I believe both VPs were picked with good reasons. But I don't think it's working out in either case, and its time for a divorce before it's too late. King Gaffe and Pander, and Queen Deer in Headlights need to both admit they've overstepped boundaries where they should never have gone, step down as VP picks and let the parties have a couple of decent VPs.

Let's pick on my own party first. Why did Biden get picked?

Joe Biden is a foreign policy veteran, currenlty the chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. He is a long-time party standard bearer, currently serving his sixth term in Congress. He's run for President himself, in 1988 and this year.

Also, "Biden is a long-time member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, which he chaired from 1987 until 1995 and on which he served as ranking minority member from 1981 until 1987 and again from 1995 until 1997. In this capacity, he dealt with issues related to drug policy, crime prevention, and civil liberties."

Why isn't it working? We can start with the one that makes me cringe the most:

And just in case there's anyone else besides Biden who doesn't know, Roosevelt was not President in 1929, and THERE WAS NO TELEVISION!!

And then there's this one of Joe "Omigod, please tell me he didn't say this" Biden:


To me, what this shows is that he is, as Obama tried to portray McCain in the debate, a "20th century politician" that just doesn't come off right in the 21st century.

Palin was also picked for what seemed like good reasons. She's a woman, and that might entice Hillary supporters. She's a far right wing conservative and that migh entice the right wing, not really happy with McCain, back into the fold. But I gotta say, she truly scares me. So here's a few cringe/clueless moments from her.


And she didn't even know what the Bush Doctrine was:


and she doesn't even know McCain's views on regulating industry:


There have been rumors from both sides that the other side is planning to replace their VP pick. For everyone's sake, I hope they're all right. I'll end with this video from my all time favorite tv show "The Daily Show". It pokes at all four candidates, but as you'll see the two VPs come off the worst, Biden with pandering and Palin as clueless as ever.

no debate over the debate

I watched the debate last night but wanted to wait out the pundits and polls to add weight to my own personal opinion, which I know is influenced by the fact that I want Obama to win the election. But it wasn't just me. It was the people.

Of course, as Politico.com said in this article, the pundits are split. From right wing pundit Christopher Ruddy, CEO of NewsMax, who of course declared McCain the victor to left wing MoveOn.org who of course declared Obama the victor.

And for me, in my pseud0-pundit/Obama supporter role, thought Obama won. It was good to see Obama show that he has knowledge, if not experience, in foreign policy. And it was good to see him directly address McCain at Jim Lehrer's suggestion. McCain never once looked at Obama while speaking, let alone address him.

McCain didn't do a bad job, but he didn't show that Obama is not Presidential material nor that he is not a Bush clone, having voted with him 90% of the time as Obama said in the debate and was confirmed by the fact checkers.

On the other hand, Obama did not succeed in what he seemed to be doing either, trying to put McCain into a "20th century" government and himself into a "21st century" one. Although I thought it was clever and apparent, the fact that I couldn't find that mentioned in any of the "debate reviews" means that there were not many who noticed it.

But I was not the only one watching. And among the people who watched, the general viewing audience, the people who will be voting in November, one at a time, just as they voted after the debate, the majority declared Obama the victor. Every single poll I could find gave Obama the victory.

And I knew that Obama would take the debate in the polls even as the debate was going on. CNN had a running reaction from an audience of undecided voters, equally mixed between Dems, Reps and Inds. The reaction on the bottom of the screen showed much more positive reaction for Obama than McCain.

And then there are those polls. They do give me optimism, I must admit.

CNN
Fifty-one percent said Obama, the Democrat, did a better job in Friday night’s faceoff while 38 percent preferred the Republican McCain, according to a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. survey of adults.

NBC
A whopping 78.9% of respondents to this poll gave Obama the win!

CBS
"In a CBS News poll of people not committed to a candidate, 39 percent said Obama won the debate, 24 percent said McCain and 37 percent called it a tie. Twice as many said Obama understands their needs than said so about McCain."

Neither of the major right wing news services, Fox or NewsMax ran a poll, but both posted the results of others' polls declaring Obama the victor.

the debate is on...

At least McCain has some sort of sanity left. Maybe he realized that backing out of debates doesn't win him anything as when he backed out of a debate with W in 2000. Maybe he realized that giving Obama a $5 million stage setting for two hours by himself might not be a good idea. Or maybe he was bolstered by the fact that he leads in the Zogby poll, one out of five major polls taken in the last three days that's hit the news in today. He does have a tendency to look at only one issue at a time, so if he only focuses on this one poll maybe he can pretend he's really in the lead.

For the rest of us who are capable of multitasking, let's take a look at five polls and then the CNN "Poll of Polls".

Zogby puts McCain ahead 46-44%
CBS/NY Times poll puts Obama ahead 47-42%
Marist College puts Obama ahead 47-43%
The Diageo/Hotline poll even puts Obama out of statistical error reach with 49-42%
And even the right wing Fox News puts Obama ahead 46-42%

The CNN "Poll of Polls" takes all of these polls, and others, into account on a daily basis. Currently, Obama leads there 48-43%.

The even better news comes when you look at the Electoral College breakdown using polls state by state rather than nationally. Today, CNN changed the state of Michigan from Undecided to "Leaning toward Obama" giving Obama a 240-200 electoral vote lead, with 270 needed to take the Presidency.

It makes me want to move to Ohio. This is a year I want to live in a battleground state and I think Ohio is more to my liking than Florida. Between the two of them they have enough electoral votes to make or break this election. Living in one of the states would certainly make for entertaining politics.

being president

John McCain always struck me as a responsible and honest person, until now. Even the "lipstick on a pig" controversy just struck me as politics as usual. But this last political move is just plain stupid. If this is an example of what he will do as President, I hope anyone thinking of voting for him will take another look.

A President needs to be capable of dealing with more than one important issue at a time. And who is going to be our next President, who is going to lead us through this financial woes brought on by nonregulation of business, is as important as the current crisis.

In other words, John McCain is not suspending his campaign. He is trying to manipulate his way into a "free campaign", getting his air time by spending all of his time on this one issue. Though considering he has missed every other issue in Congress for the past five months, maybe it will take all of his time to remember how to deal with even one issue.

But he is still campaigning. In his speech at the Clinton Global Initiative this morning he worked into his speech that he is "the agent of change", turning parts of his stump speech into what was supposed to be a nonpolitical speech.

In fact, his whole handling of this reminds me of Steve Kelly, a then young man I worked with at Texas Instruments in 1980. I was fresh out of college and when, afraid to call a superior on an error in their code in front of the group, I went to Steve. I told him about the error and he said he would handle it. Unfortunately, I heard his handling of it. He took credit for finding and lorded it over our boss that the code was wrong.

So, what does this have to do with the way McCain handled this? Obama called McCain early yesterday morning and suggested they put out a joint statement. He did this privately, assuming that it would be handled privately. Then McCain comes out publicly, saying that the two of them needed to work together, and then went on to suspend his campaign and suggest that it would be wrong to debate during this crisis.

And yeah, he is running chicken from the debates. As Obama said, Americans need this debate. They need to see many things in this debate. They need to see that American is "running as usual". They need to see their future President in action in this scenario as much as his spending time working on a issue for which he can have NO EFFECT other than working his fellow Republican Senators to vote for a bill they do not want. They need to see the contrasts between the two people from whom they must choose to lead our nation through what it is going to be hard times no matter what route is taken to try to minimalize this disaster.

So, is John McCain going to stand up and act like a President, or is he only going to play one on tv?

I agree with two Republicans!

What an amazing world.

First, on NPR yesterday, I heard a piece about Presidential polls. Republican political consultant William Greener said polling results are "entirely comparable to where we were in 2004 ... And more important than that, if you look at some of the questions, you can see that all the movement is favorable toward Senator McCain."

Well, if having the polls slowly moving back in Obama's direction after McCain's postConvention boost is "favorable towards Senator McCain" then more power to the movement because they are certainly moving in the direction that I want! If you check of the CNN's poll of polls you'll see that the gap between Obama and McCain has steadily grown since Sep 1 and no has Obama up by 5 percentage point. They claim no margin of error but I can't imagine any poll having none. But even so, if that movement is "favorable toward Senator McCain" then Senator McCain must favor voting for Obama!

Then, when Karl got home from work, he said words I never would have believed would come from his mouth, something to the effect of, "I really agree with Newt Gingrich on the Wall Street bailout." And when he told me what Gingrich had said, I had to agree too. And this one is SERIOUS, not a "political doublespeak" jab as I did above.

In an NPR interview, Gingrich said it was all a "very, very bad idea [and] very un-Republican." He urged Congress to "ask a lot of questions." ... On the National Review blog he wrote "If this were a Democratic administration the Republicans in the House and Senate would be demanding answers and would be organizing for a 'no' vote".

And truly, I agree!

a sure sign of fall...

Bill and I are in the car driving at about 10 a.m. on Sunday.

He says, "Why do you have the air conditioning on?"

I say, "I don't."

Victoria Woodhull

A break from my issues posts. On the way home from school today, listening to WNPR, the host of the talk show was interviewing a novelist about a historical novel. Boring fare to say the least but my mind was elsewhere so I let it ride. Then I heard the name "Victoria Woodhull", which I know from the suffrage movement and of course, we share a first name.

Then I heard something about her that I did not know, or once knew and had long forgotten that I thought was worth passing on here. Technically, Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States:

Excerpted from Wikipedia

Woodhull was nominated for President of the United States by the newly formed Equal Rights Party on May 10, 1872, at Apollo Hall, New York City. Her nomination was ratified at convention on June 6, 1872. ... While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States, some people have questioned the legality of her run, usually citing one of the following reasons:

• The government declined to print her name on the ballot.
• She was under the constitutionally mandated age of 35.
• She did not receive any electoral and/or popular votes. While it is true that Woodhull received no electoral votes, there's evidence that Woodhull did receive popular votes that were not counted. Official election returns also show about 2,000 "scattering votes." The first woman to receive an electoral vote was Libertarian Tonie Nathan, who received a vote for Vice President in 1972.
• Women could not legally vote until August 1920.
• She was a woman. This was the most cited legal impediment in the 19th century. Some of Woodhull's contemporaries believed that because she was a woman she was not a citizen and, therefore, not entitled to vote.

And let's remember that. It was LESS THAN 100 YEARS AGO THAT WOMEN WON THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

So, no matter who you are voting for this year, get out there and use that right!!!

The Issues: Abortion

I really wanted to pick on the economy today, considering the issues with Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and the possibility of the same happening to AIG. But that issue would take major research and Billy informed me that I am supposed to be at his school at 7 p.m. tonight for Parent/Teacher night, and I have 50 Algebra exams to grade to boot. So, I'm going to pick an easy one... abortion. So, first, here is my, and the candidates views.

My reference for the candidates’ views on this is Wikipedia's Comparison of United States Presidential Candidates, 2008

Me	Obama	McCain
Keep abortion safe and legal. Roe v. Wade is fine as is. However, I do not believe any doctor should be forced to perform abortions is s/he is not comfortable with doing it.	In his write-in response to a 1998 survey, Obama stated his abortion position as: "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade."[134] While serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama multiple times did not vote against Partial Birth Abortion bills, and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council[135]	On February 18, 2007, John McCain stated, "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."[133] McCain believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that the issue of abortion should be returned to the states.

I really think my sister Bonnie expressed this issue eloquently in her blog entry Pro-choice/anti-abortion. In part, she said,

I am an anti-abortion pro-choice person. I know that sounds like an oxymoron and may very well be, but to me it makes sense and maybe after hearing my views you will understand where I stand on the issue. I would never have an abortion. It would never even be a consideration. BUT I don't feel my choices and decisions should affect every woman in the country or the world for that matter. These are personal choices and should remain as such. I would never condemn another woman for having an abortion as I don't know what is going on in their life at that time and it has to be one of the hardest decisions a woman would ever have to make.

... I am truly pro-choice. However, from my end, I would never want to force someone to HAVE an abortion, as is done in some countries such as China. To overturn Roe v. Wade and put the decision back in the hands of the states, would create chaos, as well as make that decision even more difficult for women.

But I also do not want anti-choice forces to force their opinions onto me, or other women. Each woman needs to be left to make that decision on her own.

As I said above, I do not believe any doctor should be forced to perform abortions is s/he is not comfortable with doing it. But I do believe that if a hospital is to receive federal funding they must employ doctors who ARE willing to do it.

So, once again, I find this to be a very important issue for me. And two out of two, it's the Democrats who share my views.

The Issues: Education

Although this election seems to be about personalities, maverickness, lipstick and smears, let's not forget what it is REALLY about. It's about the issues. So before I write any more pieces defending such issues as whether Barack Obama is black, white, and who he represents, I want to lay out exactly why I am voting for Obama. And why I would have voted for Hillary, or Kucinich, or just about any other Democratic candidate rather than any Republican alternative.

My main, though not only, reference for the candidates’ views on this is Wikipedia's Comparison of United States Presidential Candidates, 2008

Being a public school teacher, education has popped to the top of my list of concerns, so I figured I would talk about that first.

The primary issues that people tend to associate with the politics of education are the most public of public education ones, school vouchers and No Child Left Behind (NCLB). To me, they are very tied together. Here are the two main candidates, and my own, stands on those issues:

	Me	Obama	McCain
School Vouchers	Against	Against	Supports
NCLB	Wants to see it funded and reformed.	Wants to start with funding it (1)	Believes it works as/is (2)

As a private citizen and a product of the public school system, I was against school vouchers. As a public school teacher, I fear them greatly. Vouchers serve an Evangelical base of voters who want public funding for church-run schools. I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state, and this would blur those lines far too much, especially looking at the curriculum of private evangelical schools. For example, in social studies, Christian curriculum stresses that original sin is the basis of all human behavior in the physical world.

No Child Left Behind is worthless as it stands. It leaves public schools teaching to the test, and punishes the schools that need the most help. It would be like fining Freddy-Mac and Fannie-Mae instead of bailing them out, and helping many people keep their housing and mortgages. As far as the program itself, I think my favorite parody of the bill, NCLB the Football Version, put it best. “If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.”

And I do think these two are tied so closely together by an administration who is in favor of vouchers. NCLB, with no funding and no support, is set up to fail. More and more schools will be disenfranchised and lose the government money they currently have. Once this happens, then vouchers become the solution, and the proponents of vouchers will step forward to “fill the gap.” The gap that was caused by an administration also in favor of vouchers.

If I was voting on no other issue, this would be enough to cause me to vote for the Democratic candidate. But it is not the only issue as I will detail in the coming days. And every issue is important.

REFERENCES AND NOTES
(1) from BarackObama.com. Obama will reform NCLB, which starts by funding the law. Obama believes teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them.

“I don't want to send another generation of American children to failing schools. I don't want that future for my daughters. I don't want that future for your sons. I do not want that future for America.” – Barack Obama

(2) from JohnMcCain.com. No Child Left Behind has focused our attention on the realities of how students perform against a common standard. John McCain believes that we can no longer accept low standards for some students and high standards for others. In this age of honest reporting, we finally see what is happening to students who were previously invisible. While that is progress all its own, it compels us to seek and find solutions to the dismal facts before us.

mishandling the quit

Reading Family Circle magazine this morning, I found this article:

How to be a Good Sports Parent

Here is the Letter to the Editor I plan to send in response to it:

Dear Family Circle,

As a longtime black belt who has dragged four children into the martial arts over the past 20 years, I read your article with great interest. I have seen all of the types of parents you describe and I think your advice is right on target for all of your scenarios, except one. I disagree with your advice about "Mishandling the Quit". I think you missed an important aspect to take into consideration when allowing a child to quit a sport.

All four of the children I have guided through the martial arts have wanted to quit at one point or other. I would never think of telling them about the money spent nor my time spent. As you suggest, it is better to talk about the reasons. However, you don't discuss commitment.

For each child, I made them a deal. I told them that they made a commitment to participate for the current school year. I emphasized the importance of commitment and said that they needed to fulfill their commitment. If they chose, after the school year, to not participate for the following school year, that that would be their decision.

Out of the four children, only one, my oldest daughter, did not return the following school year. For her it was an issue of sparring. Once she reached a higher rank and the sparring became harder, both technique-wise and literally, with harder punches and kicks thrown at her, she decided that she did not like the contact and pain that sometimes accompany sparring. Of the other three, two went on to earn a black belt, and one is now a black belt apprentice.

I think it is important for children to learn that they need to fulfill commitments whether they may think they want to quit or not. This helps them fulfill commitments made to schoolwork and eventually, to employment. Sometimes completing a commitment isn't pleasant, but the knowledge that you completed what you started is always a good feeling, one every child should be allowed to achieve.

Thank you,

Victoria Rivas

on serendipity, heroes and political endorsements

Running late (as usual) getting ready for Billy's birthday party today (he'll be THIRTEEN tomorrow), I was driving to Toy'r'us to pick up a Star Wars Lego set and I had my radio tuned to NPR (as usual). The program was Bob Edwards Weekend and he was interviewing JOAN BAEZ because she has a new album coming out! That alone was exciting. She was my hero when I was a teen, from her Quaker anti-war stance to her beautiful voice to her willingness to take political stands including civil rights, immigrant rights and of course anti-war.

In all that time, in her 50 years of singing and taking social stands, Joan Baez has NEVER endorsed a political candidate... until now. I know celebrity endorsements aren't worth much, and in this case, Baez is not really still a celebrity, except maybe to me and a few other die hard fans, but it warms my heart and fills my soul to know my hero from then has taken a step she has never taken before, and endorsed the candidate of my choice now. Here is a part of Joan's endorsement of Barack Obama:

If anyone can navigate the contaminated waters of Washington, lift up the poor, and appeal to the rich to share their wealth, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can bring light to the darkened corners of this nation and restore our positive influence in world affairs, it is Barack Obama. If anyone can begin the process of healing and bring unity to a country that has been divided for too long, it is Barack Obama.

It is time to begin a new journey.

Obama and Clinton

My sister Bonnie mentioned I had not posted anything positive about my candidate in a while and I realized that not only was she right, that I'd been pondering doing a post for a while that's positive and here it is.

I keep saying I'm severely disappointed because it was not Clinton/Obama because that would have meant that I had accidentally picked the 2008 ticket on Nov 4, 2004 in this post. (And I've only mentioned and linked to it a few thousands times. LOL.) But in reality, I didn't do so bad, even if the ticket is not my dream ticket.

What I did was still pretty phenomenal. I picked the two people who would be the most dynamic and exciting candidates the Democratic Party has seen since John F. Kennedy. Even if they did not end up on a ticket together, four years ago, no one would have thought that a woman and a black man would be the two front runners this year.

It's an amazing feat for the Democrats and for America and shows that we really are the party of the people, both philosophically and practically. I would have been proud to vote for either candidate. Their stands on the issues are in line with mine, as I will note with Obama in my next post.

And I'm proud of myself for having the foresight to pick a relatively unknown black man, and a woman who would never have had a chance four years ago, as people who would rise to the forefront of the Democratic the political scene. Go Hillary! Go Barack! Go me!

god is on our side

I found it incredible when Karl told me about this video. I had to see it to believe it.



Now, the funny part of this is that of course, it did not rain during Barack Obama's speech. But as we also know, there was a HURRICANE that managed to basically close down the Republican convention a thousand miles away.

Hmmmm, if God has taken sides, what would that make you think?

hypocrites

Although this clip is about Sarah Palin, it is more about the dishonesty and double standards of the Republican Party. It's really worth a watch and a wonder.

maverick

John McCain is a self-proclaimed maverick and is always telling us that that is what he is. As part of that maverickness, he claims that he does not take money from special interests.

First, let's look at the word maverick. What is a maverick? The term originated in the mid-1800's when rancher Samuel Maverick refused to brand his cattle. His reason was that he thought it was cruel to animals. However he used to also stampede his cattle through other ranchers' herds and then claim all unbranded cattle as his own. So is McCain the unbranded cow or the unethical rancher?

So, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's the unbranded cow? Maybe he was at birth, but he has been branded, and branded often as a Senator. No matter how many times he lies and claims otherwise, he DOES take money from special interests.

Let's start with the fact everyone forgets, that he was part of the Keating Five. He was one of the five senators accused of corruption. In the end he escaped criminal charges but was "reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee for his "poor judgment" in meeting with federal bank regulators who were investigating Arizona businessman Charles Keating, one of his campaign contributors." (ref)

Let's look at this little fact too: "McCain, R-Ariz., sits on a Senate oversight committee for the telecommunications industry, yet 23 of 66 former and current lobbyists raising campaign funds for him are associated with the same industry, the newspaper said. Eighteen of those 23 are listed major fundraisers, USA Today said." He and his advisors have receives over $4 million from telecom companies since 1999. (ref)

And how about this one: "McCain is also the single largest recipient of campaign contribution by Ion Media Networks — formerly Paxson Communication — receiving $36,000 from the company and employees from 1997 to mid-year 2006. In 2004, as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain reversed a position and took “crucial legislative action” that saved Paxson Communications from “financial ruin.” " (ref)

Or this little tidbit: "In 2001, McCain founded the Alexandria, Va.-based Reform Institute as a vehicle to receive funding from George Soros' Open Society Institute and Teresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation and several other prominent non-profit organizations. McCain used the institute to promote his political agenda and provide compensation to key campaign operatives between elections. In 2006, the Arizona senator was forced to sever his formal ties with the Reform Institute after a controversial $200,000 contribution from Cablevision came to light." (ref)

Or this from the Washington Post: "Aides to Sen. John McCain confronted a telecommunications lobbyist in late 1999 and asked her to distance herself from the senator during the presidential campaign he was about to launch, according to one of McCain's longest-serving political strategists. John Weaver, who was McCain's closest confidant until leaving his current campaign last year, said he met with Vicki Iseman at the Center Cafe at Union Station and urged her to stay away from McCain. Association with a lobbyist would undermine his image as an opponent of special interests, aides had concluded. Members of the senator's small circle of advisers also confronted McCain directly, according to sources, warning him that his continued ties to a lobbyist who had business before the powerful commerce committee he chaired threatened to derail his presidential ambitions." (ref)

And those came from a 10 minute internet search. I wonder what I could accumulate in one place if I had the time.

IPPONE standings

I guess I ought to start a separate political blog, given the amount of ranting I seem to be doing these days but I can't pass up a chance to brag on Bill either. So, I guess my blog will remain a mixed bag and today's post is family!

Billy has made the ranking in IPPONE. IPPONE stands for "Independent Practitioners & Promoters of New England" and runs the tournament circuit Bill competes in. Each tournament has its own divisions but the organization has divisions also. Bill is now the 4th ranked in the IPPONE 10-12 year old forms division!! I'm not sure if they will move him when he turns 13 in a couple weeks, but given his point total, he'll be even higher ranked if they do.

If you want, take a look at the rankings here.

And we're off to karate class. We're actually skipping the next IPPONE tournament in Maine this weekend since we are returning to class after a month vacation. Bill's not quite in "tournament form". But we'll be back for the next one in Vermont on the 20th of the month!

on families, privacy and unwed mothers

Okay, I was wrong. I said that Sarah Palin’s family situations would not appear in my blog and now they are, though not the way you might expect. But it should also teach me to “never say never”.

I have heard over and over in the past few days, that candidates’ personal lives should be just that, personal. I agree. They also say we should not talk about their children. I agree. However, last night I heard Fred Thompson telling the American public about John McCain’s two sons in the military. And I have heard a lot about Sarah Palin’s son about to go to Iraq.

So which is it? Do we not talk about the children, or do we only not talk about them when it’s something we don’t want known? Or is it a boy/girl thing? We only talk about the sons but not the daughters? We rarely hear about W’s daughters but then that would usually fall under the “something we don’t want known” realm too.

But as long as we’re talking about it, I don’t think either thing, the truth or the rumor/maybe truth, are so awful. As the Republicans keep saying now that they are suddenly “In favor of unwed mothers” (I saw a sign last night on the convention floor) rather than condemning them for not abstaining, everyone has problems with teenagers and I am certainly not one to argue that with the 4th child I’ve had a hand in raising about to turn 13.

And the rumor. Is Sarah Palin’s youngest son really hers or was it her daughter Bristol’s? Bristol’s current pregnancy does not squelch that rumor in my book since I know how promiscuous teenagers can be. And the four month old baby might really be five months. And the five month pregnancy might really be four months. On the other end of it, downs syndrome babies are born more often to middle-aged mothers than young ones. So, just for discussion's sake... what if it was Bristol’s? Does that make Palin a bad mother, or a bad candidate, in the eyes of anyone except the radical right who once more are the ones condemning teenage sex and not allowing for birth control? Not in mine. If, by some chance it is true, to me, it shows not only her humanity but how much she loves her daughter. How many mothers would be willing to raise another child, claim it as her own, so that her daughter could not only keep her reputation but keep the baby also? I think it was a very selfless act if that's what happened.

But at this point, I can’t help but mention that both situations remind me of Phyllis Schlaffly way back when, when she said the she was against abortion because she didn’t want to deny women the right to be pampered after their child’s birth the way she was. I am thrilled that Bristol Palin has a supportive family and a mother who loves her. Not all pregnant teens do. As noted in this Washington Post article, “Palin reduced funding for Covenant House Alaska by more than 20 percent. … Covenant House is a mix of programs and shelters for troubled youths, including Passage House, which is a transitional home for teenage mothers.”

Now there is where I have my differences with Palin. Good for her for supporting her pregnant daughter. Bad for her for not wanting that support to extend to those who don’t have mothers as caring as her.

ny ren faire

Although it's that time that comes every two or four years when I feel the urge to do political rants on a daily basis, I do still have a real life, and our trip to the NY Ren Faire last Sunday was exceptional.

Billy has always wanted to get picked to "help" the performers but, until now, it has never happened. This year, it not only happened for Bill, but it happened twice. And then at a 3rd show, IAN got picked.

First, was Dextre Tripp's Thrill Show, my one mandatory show there every year. As with all Ren Faire shows it comes with good humor and minorly impressive special effects.

I do have to admit that after a few Cirque du Soleil shows it's hard to be extremely impressed by rope walking. But still, I could never do it, and it's a much more intimate and fun environment than Cirque.

As you can see in the pic, Billy got to sit in a chair while Dextre balanced Bill, two chairs and himself. Look close at the pic. The chair Bill is sitting on is balance on another chair, then Dextre balances on top of that.

Then he got picked to throw things at the Mud Men at the Mud Pit show. The point was that if he could hit the guy on left with the aerobie then that guy got to push the other guy in the mud. The "down side" of this was that if that happened then there was a huge splash of mud the splattered the first four (or so) rows of the audience. Lucky for Bill he wasn't very good at it, but it only made the show all the funnier.

The third show, where Ian got picked, was my friend Daniel Greenwolf's show. He was very good, very fun and still very young.

It's fun to watch people grow up even if they aren't mine. I've known Dan since he was in high school and we were both going to the same karate school and he was coming to the poetry readings I hosted at the local Barnes & Noble. He's now in his mid20's, married and actually making a living as a magician. Of course, his wife is a teacher so they have that DINK economical status too.

Anyway, Ian helped "strangle" Dan for the finale of his show. He has four ropes "around his neck". The four big guys pull and of course the ropes come apart. Having seen Dan do this particular trick before I watched his hands closely and saw the twist that makes it work but it was still fun to watch.

Between shows we walked and shopped. Bill got another anole. I had promised him that if the one he got last year stayed alive until this year he could get another. Well, the original is still alive and has survived a trip to TN as well as the year in Bill's room.

I wanted to get a new green man to add to my green man wall too, but I couldn't find any that were meant for outdoors. At my old house, the wall was well within the confines of the porch and pretty well protected from weather. Here they are on the patio wall and the patio is not covered, so they are exposed to the elements. Some of my favorites just sort of wasted away under the intense rainstorms last year. So now I know to ask if they are weather resistant. And unfortunately, most are not.

And I couldn't help noting once again the similarities between the Ren Faire and Gathering of the Vibes overlapped even more. I saw a girl with a GOTV type hoola hoop, and there was a shoppe selling those stick thingies that you toss back and forth between two other stick thingies. The latter was run by a young man with dreadlocks hidden under a bandana.

Counterculture events are all unique, just like each other. (Only having fun with my own taste in entertainment, I really do enjoy them.)