Glock21 Op/Ed

Signs of the Time

2008-11-16T11:46:00.001-06:00

From the NY Times (via drudge):

AUSTIN, Minn. — The economy is in tatters and, for millions of people, the future is uncertain. But for some employees at the Hormel Foods Corporation plant here, times have never been better. They are working at a furious pace and piling up all the overtime they want.

The workers make Spam, perhaps the emblematic hard-times food in the American pantry.

Through war and recession, Americans have turned to the glistening canned product from Hormel as a way to save money while still putting something that resembles meat on the table. Now, in a sign of the times, it is happening again, and Hormel is cranking out as much Spam as its workers can produce.

...

Invented during the Great Depression by Jay Hormel, the son of the company’s founder, Spam is a combination of ham, pork, sugar, salt, water, potato starch and a “hint” of sodium nitrate “to help Spam keep its gorgeous pink color,” according to Hormel’s Web site for the product.

Resembles meat... Nummy!

And who can forget this classic Monty Python skit (even if they want to)?

War on Christmas Update

2008-11-15T05:55:00.000-06:00

First it was some humanist group putting out ads suggesting that one could be good without god, and shamefully doing so with imagery of Santa!

Now it appears the Colorado Coalition of Reason is planning similar activities during the Holidays. Soon the god fearing children of Colorado will be tempted by the Devil's greatest trick:

No, not tricking the world he doesn't exist. Allowing atheists to reach out to fellow doubters and disbelievers during the Christmas season! Next up, God's wrath. Beware residents of D.C. and Colorado... or should I say Sodorado and The District of Gomorrah! Hell hath no fury like a deity scorned!

The Denver Channel has more here. An excerpt of the vile motivations behind this ad campaign and the apocalypse the poor fools are helping usher in:

Ten billboards will pepper metro Denver, while one will be put up in Colorado Springs.

"And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot," said Joel Guttormson, with Metro State Atheists. "To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."

Pastor Willard Johnson of Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church called the billboards a desperate effort to discredit Christianity.

"The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said.

It goes on to quote him and other religious officials chastising atheists for accepting the fact that creation still remains a mystery and people should trust the expertise of religion to explain it... after all religions of every stripe have been making up extravagant and conflicting tales of how it all began since the beginning of recorded time. Of course they were also doing that for why the sun comes up or why bad shellfish must be cursed... but hey, it's progress.

So for all you damned dirty we-came-from-apes theorists, take heed in bringing down the wrath of eons of mythology that has allowed humanity throughout history to avoid having to say those three Satanic words: "I don't know."

[/sarcastic_rant]

Pentagon Disorder Update

2008-11-14T07:19:00.001-06:00

Apparently the rusted gears of bureaucracy are at least starting to turn on the issue (see below for the posts this is following up on):

Crackdown begins on 'personality disorder' separations
By Tom Philpott, Special to Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Friday, November 14, 2008

Under pressure from Congress and following the Army’s lead, the Department of Defense has imposed a more rigorous screening process on the services for separating troubled members due to “personality disorder.”

The intent is to ensure that, in the future, no members who suffer from wartime stress get tagged with having a pre-existing personality disorder which leaves them ineligible for service disability compensation.

Since the attacks of 9/11, more than 22,600 service members have been discharged for personality disorder. Nearly 3400 of them, or 15 percent, had served in combat or imminent danger zones.

Advocates for these veterans contend that at least some of them were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury but it was easier and less costly to separate them for personality disorder. By definition, personality disorders existed before a member entered service so they do not deemed a service-related disability rating. A disability rating of 30 percent or higher, which most PTSD sufferers receive, can mean lifelong access to military health care and on-base shopping...

Progress... slowly but unsurely.

(h/t: VA Watchdog.org)

Following up on these older posts:

Pentagon Disorder: Part II: More of the personality disorder scam stories and a PBS special giving the issue more public attention. Still no action.

Shhh...afting Veterans: VA employee caught red handed suggesting that her staff misdiagnose PTSD patience in order to save money.

What's More Disgraceful?: New stories of the military misdiagnosing service connected ailments as a pre-existing Personality Disorder, and the denial of benefits that result.

Psychological "Friendly" Fire: Veterans struggling with the VA claims backlog and bureaucracy and how the misconceptions and deceptions pushed by the Pentagon are making it even harder for returning veterans to deal with the VA bureaucracy.

Pentagon Disorder: The Personality Disorder Scam. The DoD takes service connected disabled vets and says they have pre-existing mental problems that get the government off the hook for paying for benefits for their war time and service connected disabilities. A real travesty.

More Vet Funding But...: Some good improvements on Vet funding, but still no movement on the Personality Disorder scam being used to deny benefits to veterans.

From the Mouths of Babes

2008-11-14T06:34:00.001-06:00

An excerpt that could have come from many an on-line forum during the elections:

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain's name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

"People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn't be wearing it," Catherine said.

Then it got worse.

"One person told me to go die. It was a lot of dying. A lot of comments about how I should be killed," Catherine said, of the tolerance in Oak Park.

...

"He said, 'You should be crucifixed.' It was kind of funny because, I was like, don't you mean 'crucified?' " Catherine said.

Other entries in her notebook involved suggestions by classmates that she be "burned with her shirt on" for "being a filthy-rich Republican."

Some said that because she supported McCain, by extension she supported a plan by deranged skinheads to kill Obama before the election.

Sound similar to any blog, forum, or chat channel conversations witnessed in the last few months?

And who was this diabolical racist and uncaring oppressor?

A kid doing a class project on her school's environment. The Chicago Tribune has the full story here.

Sadly, this childish behavior was seen, though sometimes more or even less restrained by adults across the nation... usually more dramatically as anonymous chatters on the internet, where the inhibitions that normally promote their civility left them as ruthless as a schoolyard bully.

Only a few times did anyone say anything remotely positive about her McCain shirt. One girl pulled her aside in a corner, out of earshot of other students, and whispered, "I really like your shirt."

That's when you know America is truly supportive of diversity of opinion, when children must whisper for fear of being ostracized, heckled and crucifixed.

Unlike their adult counterparts though, there was a lesson involved where their behavior was put on the spot. Even one of the teachers that talked down to her for a political opinion was forced to face her embarrassing and unprofessional behavior. After completing the second part of her study, wearing the Obama t-shirt, she had the opportunity, along with her teacher to make the students reflect on the hypocrisy of their actions:

We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.

"That's what we discussed," Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. "I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you've done? The students were kind of like, 'Oh, yeah.' I think they got it."

I fear that many adults who behaved in much the same way or worse, will never 'get it,' regardless of which candidate or party or ideology or religion, etc they happen to be doing it over. Sadly, the behavior of the children may be a reflection of the behaviors they're learning at home.

War on Christmas!!!

2008-11-13T06:46:00.000-06:00

The first foray into what is sure to be a fun Christmas season as the social conservatives, already feeling a bit beat down after this election cycle, both in the primary and general, will now be facing off with a highly energized opposition...

The ads, paid for by the American Humanist Association, lead people to one of their websites explaining their take on what humanism is and offers information to get involved in activities in the Washington D.C. area where the ads are being run. Here's their description from that website:

Many people imagine that the only way to be good in this world is through belief in a god. But is that really necessary? Must we be bound by moral dictates set down in “sacred” texts written hundreds, if not thousands of years ago? Must we accept the authority and judgments of “spiritual” leaders and religious hierarchy? Does religious faith offer the only lens through which to judge life’s events?

The answer to these questions is no! There is another way for us to approach life. We can have ethics and values that aren't set in stone. Our ideals and principles can evolve over time to reflect our ever-changing and increasingly complex world. Yet, we can be confident of the decisions that we make, not because someone told us what to do but because we relied on our own careful reasoning and emotional reflection. We can live a life that accepts and appreciates the world as it is, without needing to see supernatural explanations behind every event. This is a positive and uplifting way to live.

This way of life is called humanism. Humanists use reason and the tools of science to better understand our world and the best way to live in it. Humanists understand that compassion for fellow human beings, as well as an acknowledgement of their inherent dignity and worth, must form the basis of our interactions with each other. Humanists are free of belief in any god or afterlife. We must make the best of this one life that we have.

As this FoxNews article points out (as well as their cable coverage) there are elements of the religious right that consider his ad campaign to be a direct assault to 'take religion away from people' and proclaim their alternative view that the concept of 'good' is dependent on 'god.' From the same article it appears that the religious right intends to shake things up this year as well:

In Washington, the humanists' campaign comes as conservative Christian groups gear up their efforts to keep Christ in Christmas. In the past five years, groups such as the American Family Association and the Catholic League have criticized or threatened boycotts of retailers who use generic "holiday" greetings.

In mid-October, the American Family Association started selling buttons that say "It's OK to say Merry Christmas." The humanists' entry into the marketplace of ideas did not impress AFA president Tim Wildmon.

"It's a stupid ad," he said. "How do we define 'good' if we don't believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what's good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what's good, it's going to be a crazy world."

Now to the atheist, this little excerpt makes for great humor. The suggestion that 'good' is dependent on his point of view, while promoting a campaign to stop people from using the inclusive term 'holidays' (which literally means holy days) instead of giving his religion sole consideration by retailers whose customers generally include people of varying faiths, or lack there of.

Similar absurd controversies emerge every holiday season as Christians rail against 'x-mas' which is a Christian abbreviation: Who put the X in X-mas?

The fact of the matter is that merely espousing another point of view isn't forcing them to abandon their faith. Being tolerant of religions other than theirs isn't a 'War on Christmas!' For as much as they seem to think they're being persecuted, they need to climb out of that lion's den of their over-defensive projection and stop trying to silence anyone and everyone who dares to suggest that they're point of view isn't the only one acceptable in our society.

I don't see that happening any time soon, so back to the war!

Ho... ho... ho...

Thanking the Vets

2008-11-11T01:01:00.001-06:00

Of course saying thanks is just a start. We're in two wars and both the prior vets, the returning veterans, and active duty armed forces personnel, as well as their families, need our support. From an older post:

Here's more ways to give thanks:

Anysoldier.com.

USO

Toys for Troops

And ways to demand thanks:

Contact your US Rep and Senators (you might want to tell them to have a pen and paper handy):

Demand that they stop the military branches from discharging soldiers for purely pre-existing conditions when they have service connected injuries and ailments... cutting them off from their earned benefits and often resulting in them getting a bill for their earned bonuses.
Demand they review cases where this is believed to have already occurred.
Demand that they standardize the DoD disability rating system so that service connected injuries deserving of retaining military benefits earn at least a 30% rating so our wounded vets get them.
Demand that they do more to staff the VA bureaucracy so that claims of disabled vets can be decided faster and more accurately... no more skimming do to meet quotas while short on staff.
Demand they address States with historically low ratings for veterans claims to ensure no more vets get told their shrapnel isn't service connected or other absurd excuses for low ratings.
Demand they make mental health care more accessible to vets with appropriate staffing and allowing private care when VA facilities aren't nearby.
Demand they do more to facilitate claims by homeless veterans with a claims process that is almost entirely done through the mail and taking a more pro-active role with shelters and other homeless advocates to ensure they are both aware of and able to get to the services available to them.
Demand that if they're going to continue our operations in Iraq, whether they support it or not, that they increase the size of the military so our men and women in uniform do not have to endure extended and multiple tours with little leave. For both them and their families.
Demand they thank the troops in more than words... but with actual support.

Don't just say thanks. Give thanks. Demand thanks.

The elections are over, but work still has to be done to make it happen. One good way to do that is happening right here in our local community:

Toys for Troops, run by a local blogger and soldier mom, is getting ready for Thanksgiving Day care packages and Christmas gifts. From a recent mailing:

Holiday Care Packages Good Day!

I have only 2 items on the agenda today: a quick reminder, and update on our Christmas event.

1

The THANKSGIVING CARE PACKAGES FOR SOLDIERS will be packed at Lincoln Trail Elementary School next Tuesday, November 11, and mailed the next day. If you're interested in making a donation of care package items, cards, or homemade cookies, now is the time to do it...

2

We have a location for the CHRISTMAS GIFTS TO SOLDIERS event!

Village Inn Pizza Parlor

Corner of Springfield and Mattis, Champaign

Sunday, December 7, 2008

1 p.m. to 4 p.m.

We are hoping to send "gifty" items for Christmas--stuff you'd like to find under your own tree: CDs, DVDs, clothes, games, gourmet foods, gloves, pocket knives, electronics.

This event will be open to the public. Anyone can stop by with a gifts, cards, cookies, candy, and/or sugarplums. Grab some paper and tape, and start wrapping! Bring your kids, your friends, your grandmother, your scouting groops.

Help out in whatever way you can. Locally, nationally, volunteering for the VA, or helping our current soldiers... down to harassing your politicians to do the right thing and not capitulate on the issues that mean the most to our veterans and those still in the fight. Voting is just the first step. The next is demanding action from them and taking action ourselves.

Prop 8

2008-11-10T05:50:00.000-06:00

Before I post another blog post on the subject of gay marriage, I'd like to frame the presentation by starting off with a quote from Fredrick Douglass. Someone who knew the deepest and most vile forms of tyranny against the liberty we held so dear, even as we violated it and allowed it to persist:

I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery-the great sin and shame of America! "I will not equivocate, I will not excuse"; I will use the severest language I can command; and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, shall not confess to be right and just....

In that light, hopefully one can appreciate the scorn and sarcasm blatant in the following post from another local blogger:

Why do conservatives hate history?

Via Pharyngula, I found this conservative nitwit complaining that the Left is being discriminatory because ... they're opposed to discrimination:

Do the Left not understand that the majority of Californians want to keep the definition of marriage as it has been since the beginning of time?

From the Only True Bible(TM), 1 Kings 11:

And [Solomon] had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

"Beginning of time" does not mean what you think it means, dumbass.

For those who consider liberty the ultimate goal of both government and man to defend, with their life if necessary, it is time to abandon the selfish and immoral desires to influence our government to cherish the abolition of liberty of others to defend their morality against those with a differing opinion. Their claims of tradition fall on deaf ears. Their claims of religious righteousness are as corrupt as their dedication to liberty.

To claim that one is an adherent to the Constitution and the limits upon government to which it limits to secure the blessing of the greatest gift that man could ever achieve, by natural law, right, or that of the divine... regardless of where you believe such blessings originate, allow such debates to continue in the Church, in your community, among your fellow man about the propriety of your differences. Stop and look in the mirror on what you hold most dear. Is it the liberty you claim to cherish, or the power to force others to adhere to your point of view?

Shall we be free, or shall we go down the beaten path of authoritarianism, fascism, and theocracy that empower their government to enforce an opinion, antithetical to everything that liberty stands for, that free men have little reason to prohibit, even if they disagree?

Gay men and women are fighting for the right to DIE to defend your liberty. They are crying out for the basic tenets of the Constitution you claim to love, to secure the blessings of LIBERTY, that you claim to so dearly cherish... just so that they may enjoy the same legal protections and entitlements as their peers.

You can fall back on claims of tradition, but they will consistently fall upon deaf ears on the subject of marriage as tradition has often precluded interracial, international, inter-religious, and even inter-tribal marriages depending on when and where one looks. We have shaken loose the chains of oppression on many a tradition long before this current petty debate. All who cherish liberty should quickly see through the semantics being employed to derail the fundamental argument that demands that justice be blind to the circumstances and our prejudice. The blatant favoritism for one tradition over the beliefs of others has absolutely no place in government. And if you cannot bring yourself to end the favoritism of one class, you must share it to all. The slippery slope is your burden, not the burden of gays. You are welcome to repair it, but absolute not welcome to continue it.

For all who gladly exclaimed, "Country First!" I must demand you consider the fact that we are separating dedicated military men for sins as petty as being born or choosing to be attracted to those of the same sex... even if they are vital to our nation's defense.

For all those who rallied against those they believed were trampling upon our Constitution, whose intent put primacy on liberty over all other considerations, why should we enforce our viewpoint on those of others and cry about the injustices being done to us on far less explicit clauses in the document we claim to cherish?

For those seeking a new direction for their battered party, I have one timeless solution: side with liberty... side with liberty fully. Continue to disagree and argue and espouse the values you hold most dear... but put primacy on the value of liberty for those that disagree. Fight for those that are pressing for the right to fight for you. We can disagree to our last breath, but we can all agree on the liberty to disagree and live our lives in disagreement.

If we fail to do so, we have hardly earned the right to claim any love or devotion to that we falsely claim already. The right to say we fought against injustice and fought FOR liberty of all, even those we disagreed with, often passionately. We lose the right to our claim on an ideal that has driven a nation to greatness. We will have lost our claim to that beacon of liberty that we hold so dear.

We will have become irrelevant in a world of self-interest, a purgatory from idealism. I cannot imagine a god so forgiving as to forgive such injustices against our countrymen and allies in the pursuit of liberty. I could not wish a more grievous death upon my enemies than such ideals being opposed in life... only to be regretted upon our death beds.

Gun Run

2008-11-09T21:20:00.000-06:00

Tonight's local news reported that area gun dealers are hitting a supply crunch as demand for semi-auto rifles and other guns suspected of being on Obama's ban plans has skyrocketed across the nation. Distributors are apparently having a hard time keeping up to keep local suppliers stocked.

At least Obama's election is helping to stimulate one part of the economy... even if temporarily.

Obama has recently removed his page on his official transition website that was touting his dedication to banning at least some of my guns, depending on what language they use this time to define "assault weapon" which has always gone after semi-auto firearms and never anything like the AK-47s you see in the movies (which are already regulated under the National Firearms Act).

You can rest assured when this comes back up again though, you'll hear a lot of references to full-auto guns like AK-47s, M-16s, and such, which "assault weapon" bans never included, at least as people know them from tv or movies or even military experience of dealing with these full-auto guns. And plenty of rhetoric using terms like "spray fire," "rapid fire," "military style," and so on... even though the guns they're actually banning aren't machine guns and aren't full-auto firearms that militaries typically use.

The gun grabbers are already pushing for bans and Obama and Congress seem to have no qualms about obliging them, regardless of the historical forgetfulness required to believe that a mandate on economic issues is somehow a mandate to violate the Bill of Rights. More on the Brady Bunch declaring victory here.

Time to stock up and pray for grandfather clauses before the bans drive up prices to insane levels again while doing absolutely nothing to address the real problems behind the violence.

United Purple States

2008-11-06T19:57:00.001-06:00

The maps of the counties supporting McCain or Obama... with purple being at 50% and extremes of Red or Blue for full support of either candidate:

And with the extremes of red/blue representing 70% (or more) instead:

And the same Maps from 2004:

and...

A definite shift there, but not one that shows the enormity of the moment. It does however lend credence to Obama's long touted notion of there not being a Red America or Blue America, but a United States of America. To show any divisions at all one must cleave off 30% of Americans who live peacefully among those they often strongly disagree with, but continue to live among as neighbors.

On the flip-side the 70% maps help more clearly identify the regional trends and though the population cartographs help show the population discrepancies a bit better, the issue of the Electoral College helping to ensure that a candidate both have wide popular and wide regional support to win seems to continue to work to ensure that the candidate does not merely appeal to just the strong population centers. I can only hope that the last couple elections have helped to alleviate the knee-jerk reaction of those wanting to destroy an institution so important to ensuring that the Executive be the leader of our States, not merely a super-represenative or prime minister of our popularly elected Congress.

As much as they may find the idea repugnant on a purely one-man/one-vote allegiance to bumperstickers... they cannot deny that smaller states often have an equal stake on whether we go to war, our trade agreements, etc. The urbanites may look down their noses at us country bumpkins, but seem to have no problem in celebrating their devotion to their nation when they risk all to fight for it. Their ideological differences may continue to be the basis of many a political fight in the future, but a move to drive one or the other into irrelevance in presidential elections is neither appropriate or logical. The Electoral College must stand.

Brady Bunch Claims Victory

2008-11-06T18:24:00.001-06:00

...on an issue that got almost zero focus throughout the entire election process:

Meanwhile exit polls show that voters from gun owning households made up 42% of the electorate and voted against Obama by wide margins in spite of little focus on guns throughout this election. Imagine the margins if Obama, congressional dems, or the Brady Bunch try to make it an issue...

Say if they suddenly started pushing big headline grabbing gun control measures shortly after getting a candidate into office mainly on economic issues... let's call him Bill Clinton. Say they have some early successes due to congressional leaders supportive of the idea even though their constituents generally oppose it and just didn't see it as a major issue in the prior election.

Remember how that worked out? The early successes turned into a steady loss of congress, and then the White House, and eventually a reversal of their successes into irrelevance. Then as now they initially won primarily on the economic issues of the day and the people turned on them when they shifted their focus in office to measures that had nothing to do with the economy. Measures that conflicted with views that are strongly held by many, though tend to lose their attention when other issues keep such matters in the shadows or generally off the radar.

The Brady Bunch seems content to piss away any influence they may have had all over again by overplaying a faux mandate for their pet project. Will the rest of the Democratic Party feel so inclined? Will they stick to the issues that voters put them in office to deal with? Or will they go down the path of exploiting their new-found power to 'stick it' to the people who thought they'd actually be 'reasonable' this time around and stick to the issues they found so critical to prioritize them over others.

I fear that in the next four years we're going to have a hell of a fight on our hands, with the word 'mandate' misused to defend the unpopular stances of special interest groups, as if the Bill of Rights was subject to the slim ebb and and flow election cycles as opposed to the widespread super-majorities throughout the nation required to Amend the constitution.

In the long run they may only be shooting themselves in the foot... but I'd prefer to limit any unfriendly fire against the Constitution in the mean time. But I'm the nut... supposedly.

A New Beginning

2008-11-05T14:38:00.001-06:00

From the final statements of the candidates, and reactions:

From McCain:

Remarks from Senator John McCain
November 4, 2008

Thank you. Thank you, my friends. Thank you for coming here on this beautiful Arizona evening.

My friends, we have -- we have come to the end of a long journey. The American people have spoken, and they have spoken clearly. A little while ago, I had the honor of calling Senator Barack Obama to congratulate him on being elected the next president of the country that we both love.

In a contest as long and difficult as this campaign has been, his success alone commands my respect for his ability and perseverance. But that he managed to do so by inspiring the hopes of so many millions of Americans who had once wrongly believed that they had little at stake or little influence in the election of an American president is something I deeply admire and commend him for achieving.

This is an historic election, and I recognize the special significance it has for African-Americans and for the special pride that must be theirs tonight.

I've always believed that America offers opportunities to all who have the industry and will to seize it. Senator Obama believes that, too. But we both recognize that though we have come a long way from the old injustices that once stained our nation's reputation and denied some Americans the full blessings of American citizenship, the memory of them still had the power to wound.

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt's invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth.

Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country. I applaud him for it, and offer in my sincere sympathy that his beloved grandmother did not live to see this day, though our faith assures us she is at rest in the presence of her creator and so very proud of the good man she helped raise.

Senator Obama and I have had and argued our differences, and he has prevailed. No doubt many of those differences remain. These are difficult times for our country, and I pledge to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face.

I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together, to find the necessary compromises, to bridge our differences, and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.

Full text here. Video here:

From Obama:

The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.

There will be setbacks and false starts. There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way it’s been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years – block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

What began twenty-one months ago in the depths of winter must not end on this autumn night. This victory alone is not the change we seek – it is only the chance for us to make that change. And that cannot happen if we go back to the way things were. It cannot happen without you.

So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism; of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other. Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people.

Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. Let us remember that it was a man from this state who first carried the banner of the Republican Party to the White House – a party founded on the values of self-reliance, individual liberty, and national unity. Those are values we all share, and while the Democratic Party has won a great victory tonight, we do so with a measure of humility and determination to heal the divides that have held back our progress. As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, “We are not enemies, but friends…though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.” And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn – I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.

Full remarks here. Video here:

A historic day. But not the end of history:

From here we must continue to fight for the best of American ideals and not let our guard down against the dangers that could turn back the clock on what we hold most dear. I read someone today claiming that this moment proved some of the long struggles of our domestic liberty are over, I must strongly disagree...

If anything this election helped put a spotlight on many of the elements within our society, and within both parties, that are still deeply behind the times on racism and xenophobia. It also helped illuminate the level of progress made since such backwards thinking was the dominant viewpoint. But that progress shouldn't suggest abandonment of trying to further limit the negative influence and backwards thinking that still prevails within many circles of our society. While I hope such progress can continue, I fear that we may, at the very least, see some of the last gasps of those who'd prefer to see such things dominate once again. It could get very ugly before it gets better, but it must get better regardless.

A couple of the responding comments pointed out that one of the biggest dangers in this rather revolutionary moment... a possible mix of complacency among those who feel we've finally 'made it' matched with a rebound of passion by those who seek to 'reverse it' that could be expressed in all sorts of gawdawful ways. With any hope their methods will be self-destructive. But in a tinderbox of complacency, a spark of hatred could make things very crappy, even if only temporarily. I'm wary about how it may rear its historically ugly head in the current environment. If the local diner talk is any indication, I think it may be wise to stay on guard and eternally vigilant than declare victory before the dust has even settled.

A first step, a giant leap, even, has been made. Now is not the time to falter on our dedication to see it through.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

History!

2008-11-04T20:54:00.006-06:00

Congrats to his supporters (*grumble* *grumble*)...

But yet another peaceful transition of power where words, not violence, chose the direction of our nation towards what we may not agree on, but certainly agree on how we must eventually do things to get there.

And more importantly I'll have a lot to complain about, and I love to complain! :D

E-Day

2008-11-04T07:16:00.002-06:00

It's almost over...

More Bird Watching

2008-11-03T13:21:00.000-06:00

Drudge Report has an interesting headline today, "Obama Congratulates McCain," with this little pic:

Apparently scrounged from this youtube video:

Bird watchers from earlier in the campaign season are already suggesting this is a repeat of the Hillary bird that youtubers analyzed to no end:

One can only take solace in the fact that this silly-season is almost over. Tomorrow is E-Day... and I think everyone is looking for a reprieve.

Truth Stranger than... Onion?

2008-11-01T21:33:00.000-05:00

From the interwebs:

Roy the Forklift driver...

Perhaps Joe the Plumber's long lost imaginary friend?

YouCampaign

2008-10-30T14:35:00.000-05:00

One of the more unique parts of this general election is the ever-evolving access the common voter has to spread his own take on things, spread it to the ends of the earth, and with enough attention from the right places, it'll get more viewership than a high dollar campaign ad, with people actually seeking it out. The Drudge Report linked to this story about one such example:

The film, titled Dear Mr Obama, is the most-viewed election-related video on the YouTube website, attracting more than 11 million hits.

Made by an Iraq war returnee, it's an example of how ordinary Americans have used the website to get their voice heard.

Both campaigns have embraced the popularity and accessibility of YouTube as well, both for a cheap way to spread campaign ads via news coverage of them, or simply to boost the viewership beyond the tv markets. But some of the more compelling videos were made by individuals outside of the campaigns who have either put out personal videos like the one above, or simply called bullshit on some odious claim by stringing together prior statements contrasted with revisionist claims.

One of my favorite examples I dug back up when I was regularly dealing with Obama supporters who seemed to believe their preferred candidate was somehow not being hypocritical with accusations of dishonest smears. From a post earlier this year:

Meet the New Politics...
...Same as the Old Politics.

"Barack Obama stands for a new kind of politics -- a politics without partisan bickering and smear tactics.

You can help push back on the petty and divisive methods of our opponents." - Obama Campaign

(Hat Tip to California Yankee at RedState for many of the links)

Lying about the lies just seems to make this even worse.

If you fell for Obama's and the Howard Dean/DNC's smear campaign against McCain on this 100 years war nonsense, feel free to read the factcheck.org links above, or at Politifact, the NY Times, the NY Times again, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Washington Post fact checker, the Washington Post Again, or even CNN:

"Now, what both the candidates did was go after McCain. Barack Obama, after McCain's policy in Iraq, accusing McCain of wanting to be in Iraq for another 100 years. As you know, John, that is a distortion of what McCain said, and they push back very hard in the McCain campaign when they hear this."

It is, of course, nothing new to anybody who has been paying attention that Obama dropped the ruse of being a new kind of politician early on. As the NY Times reported last summer...

And while among Obama supporters it has become a sort of 'knownfact' that their candidate has run some sort of strikingly honest and new campaign, the facts show otherwise, and a long dig into the factcheck.org archives reveals that the DNC, Obama, and the Obama campaign have been throwing out debunked smears since well before the general election campaign began and continued to do so with false allegations that McCain attempted to cut Social Security checks in half (scare them old ladies!) and debunked accusations that McCain's opposition to one version of a GI Bill was based on some absurd notion that he didn't care about veterans enough.

As the NY Times link above points out, this behavior began between the Democratic candidates over a year before his supporters demanded he 'take the gloves off' with McCain, who he had been smearing with false allegations for most of the year by that point, using false or misleading attacks to paint him as anti-veteran, a warmonger, a threat to old ladies living on SS checks, gross distortions of numerous economy quotes ripped out of context, and sometimes hacked out of a single sentence, to depict the opposite of what McCain was saying. And while Obama and his supporters love to point to factcheck.org when it suits them, they've somehow missed all this crap on the same cite for the last year and a half. One can only assume intentionally at this point.

McCain has consistently faced opponents in this election who have had massive financial advantages and put those advantages to work with a deluge of negative ads on top of those merely touting themselves. As factcheck.org notes, none of the candidates has been a saint when it comes to accuracy or their claims adding up 100%. But to hear the Obama side of it, and strangely their hyper-sensitive supporters, it's McCain who is solely offering the deluge of negativity.

They point to ads with out of context quotes (a common tactic in Obama ads that got far more play in wider markets)

...and to ads that question his questionable associations (a tactic that both Obama and the DNC started long before the general election began)

...and of course distraction (a tactic they've employed constantly and dishonestly with some of McCain's gaffes long after factcheck.org noted that Obama had absolutely no economic experience to speak of while McCain has been a senior member of the commerce committee and sitting on its technology subcommittee).

One must appreciate the glaring irony in the accusations of 'distraction' when anyone uses his past associations to suggest he might be far more radical than his current rhetoric lets on, especially in light of an extremely short and flimsy record being used to assure voters on how he'll govern. The guy whining and moaning about guilt by association tactics who has made the bedrock of his campaign trying to equate McCain with Bush... a pretty stunning 180 from what Democrats generally argued as late as last year. Obama's VP pick in particular has done probably the most stunning and dramatic 180 out of political expedience from his comments earlier in the primary where he said he'd be proud to run on the same ticket with him.

Further one must truly wonder how Obama could condone his party attempting to tie McCain to the Abramoff scandal, a man who is now in prison greatly due to McCain's inquisition against him that also took down some corrupt members of his own party. Obama similarly has run ads doing the same before McCain ever started pointing to Obama's past associations casting doubt on his claims of centrism.

But at least the YouTubers are out there to help shine some light on this scam known as the 'new kind of politics' since the media seems to have adopted the Obama perspective on what counts or doesn't count when it comes to negative campaigning. As Obama said... you can pull up the video on YouTube, and on all of these matters, you can see how he's just another politician, lying and misleading his way to the pinnacle of our government, with less of a record than Dan Quayle. For Halloween maybe he'll go as a new kind of politician... it'd be nice to see, even if for a day.

Debate and Switch

2008-10-30T06:17:00.000-05:00

An interesting find from another local blog showing how absolutely worthless the so-called presidential "debates" are:

Free mutual 90 minute ads for the candidates to regurgitate their talking points with little to no actual moderation or any real challenging of their BS. Even the criticisms from their respective opponents tends to be more talking points which tend to be as dubious as the claims they attempt to shoot down.

The candidates have little to no incentive to make these things intellectually worthwhile since talking-points-often-loudly-repeat works so well, and the media sure as hell isn't going to endanger their cash cow with the ad revenue by shaking things up. Sadly it seems that these things just get more and more dumbed down as time goes on... and only look to get even dumber in the future.

Who do I blame more than anyone for this? The voters in general. Until being spoon-fed bumperstickers stops working on them, there will never be any reason for the candidates not to appeal to their target audience in tv-zombieland. Unfortunately those voters who actually scrutinize both candidates on their bogus claims throughout the campaigns, let alone the debates specifically, are the exception, not the rule. Otherwise neither candidate could claim with a straight face that they'd balance the budget and still promise all the crap that every factchecker notes would only put us more in the red... let alone all the other BS they throw out there with cherry-picked quotes, distorted paraphrases, and blatant factual inaccuracies.

The fact that both candidates pull this nonsense geared towards dunderheads only helps prove that neither party has a monopoly on dunderheads in their ranks and undecided voters who aren't dunderheads are merely more exceptions, and certainly not the rule. Candidates on both sides act accordingly, regurgitating long debunked BS without any fear of it coming back to bite them in the ass. Their ideological supporters rationalize it as a necessity while the target audience is too disinterested to worry about silly things like being blatantly lied to.

What a sad state of affairs.

NRA Recruits Chuck the Kicker

2008-10-28T07:04:00.000-05:00

Latest ad (oddly in a similar style to the Huckabee Huck-Chuck Facts ad):

The NRA has dedicated an entire website to pointing out Obama's rhetoric over the years and his short but revealing record on the subject that is anything but a pro-2nd Amendment history. Factcheck.org has taken some exception to their depictions, while the NRA has taken issue with their arguments and potential bias. Interestingly factcheck.org has also taken issue with Obama's deception over his own record on the subject as well.

As usual the truth is somewhere in between Obama's claims of 2nd Amendment defending and the NRA painting him as the ultimate gun grabber. The facts are that Obama's rhetoric and issue positions over the years have included banning every gun I own, but finding actual votes in this regard is elusive in his short career. But many of these statements or issue statements are years old and gleaned from issue position questionnaires while he was pandering to his south side constituency... an area that generally favors strict gun control due to the constant violence hope/change seems unable to deter.

In his current quest for national office the rhetoric has become more nuanced, though still supportive of banning every gun I own. Even without needing to pander to a generally anti-gun district, and even though he's supposedly attempting to avoid any focus on the subject as he believes it is a distraction from things people really care about (Bill of Rights, a distraction?). While claiming to support the 2nd Amendment, he also supports what every gun banner likes to refer to as "reasonable restrictions" since the media parrots that kind of talk without scrutiny it seems. So what are these "reasonable restrictions" that "support the 2nd Amendment?"

Two words: gun bans

Every rifle I've owned has cosmetic features that, while changing nothing about the fact that they fire like any other semi-auto rifle, magically turn them into 'assault weapons' according to the proponents of such bans. Obama and Biden being such proponents for years and reaffirming their support of such bans in this campaign.

Every handgun I've ever owned is also potentially on the chopping block according to Obama's rhetoric in this campaign as well as his prior affirmation in supporting the ban of all handguns that he strangely disputes in spite of his continued support for local/state bans of them. "Reasonable" in Obama's description included banning everything down to my grandma's wheelgun a la DC handgun ban standards that he defended during this campaign.

Everything from sport/competition rifles, hunting rifles, sport/competition handguns to old revolvers, to defensive handguns that cops normally carry being thrown into the 'assault weapon' category and banned for civilian use, or general bans from locality to locality or state by state that may go even further. But apparently the 2nd Amendment is defended because shotguns generally aren't on the list of guns he opposes the ownership of. A peculiar way of not infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

With an Obama victory looking fairly inevitable at this point, and the congressional dems drooling for new bans ever since their 'assault weapon' baby expired years back with several close votes to reinstate coming short... it seems highly likely they won't be short on votes this time around, and highly likely they'll have an anti-gun ally in the White House and as an anti-gun tie-breaker Vice-President presiding over such votes in the Senate. The real question is whether they'll wait until his 2nd term to avoid any potential fallout or start crapping on the Bill of Rights right away.

Krauthammering the Ship Jumpers

2008-10-24T12:54:00.000-05:00

From his article today in the Washington Post:

I stand athwart the rush of conservative ship-jumpers of every stripe -- neo (Ken Adelman), moderate (Colin Powell), genetic/ironic (Christopher Buckley) and socialist/atheist (Christopher Hitchens) -- yelling "Stop!" I shall have no part of this motley crew. I will go down with the McCain ship. I'd rather lose an election than lose my bearings.

First, I'll have no truck with the phony case ginned up to rationalize voting for the most liberal and inexperienced presidential nominee in living memory. The "erratic" temperament issue, for example. As if McCain's risky and unsuccessful but in no way irrational attempt to tactically maneuver his way through the economic tsunami that came crashing down a month ago renders unfit for office a man who demonstrated the most admirable equanimity and courage in the face of unimaginable pressures as a prisoner of war, and who later steadily navigated innumerable challenges and setbacks, not the least of which was the collapse of his campaign just a year ago.

McCain the "erratic" is a cheap Obama talking point. The 40-year record testifies to McCain the stalwart.

Nor will I countenance the "dirty campaign" pretense. The double standard here is stunning. Obama ran a scurrilous Spanish-language ad falsely associating McCain with anti-Hispanic slurs. Another ad falsely claimed that McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." And for months Democrats insisted that McCain sought 100 years of war in Iraq.

McCain's critics are offended that he raised the issue of William Ayers. What's astonishing is that Obama was himself not offended by William Ayers.

Moreover, the most remarkable of all tactical choices of this election season is the attack that never was. Out of extreme (and unnecessary) conscientiousness, McCain refused to raise the legitimate issue of Obama's most egregious association -- with the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dirty campaigning, indeed.

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

The full rant is worth the read if you got the time, but that's the meat and potatoes of it. The fact of the matter is that Obama might handle the crises that erupt in his term(s) well, and that in spite of his inexperience he'll either have good advice that he takes to heart or will simply luck out that the choices are obvious or he simply makes the right ones. His inexperience wouldn't be such a big deal if it hadn't become so clear over the past few years that only a landslide of criticism from both sides of the aisle pressuring him to put forth some realistic stances on the world we face seem to upend his propensity for the singing-kumbayah approach that somehow assumes that the world's foremost economic power can merely sit back and take little action to defend its interests from those hellbent on thwarting them in their own interests. As if the example of America alone can change the world and make it sing in harmony. Granted, an inherently American vision that is typically rooted in exceptionalism that Obama tends to dismiss and which history shows to have only been a plausible stand, even while ineffective, when our prominence in the world had yet to be achieved and our isolation from other major powers and significant threats protected us from our inability to accept reality. Even then such high-minded views gave way to reality with our interests here, though rationalized in every way conceivable to avoid the inherent contradiction.

Unless the polls are dramatically off due to the unprecedented factors of this elections, it appears that I'll just have to 'hope' that the world we live in makes up for the current political pressures in holding Obama to the more realistic policies he's swung to in the course of this election. His idealism, when left unchecked, reads like a laundry list of American diplomatic disasters where the universality of our beliefs was assumed and even given higher credence than the cold hard calculus of national interest and power that other world leaders often engage in.

The astute reader will hopefully notice this as much a criticism of Obama as it is a criticism of the underlying factors behind Bush's biggest blunders. But as with any political debate the issues are clouded by the inevitable spin to a degree that people complaining about big spending demand even more, that those who criticized lack of experience are now demanding even less, etc. And clearly here we have people who criticized Bush's naive idealism now demanding even more of it... with a guy they know has also refused to take military options off the table, but whom they 'hope' will merely try to enforce such idealism through trade restrictions and other sanctions that have proven virtually ineffective in this new multi-polar world (and often difficult to implement even back in the bi-polar world).

Oddly enough the guy they now denounce as more of the same was the one regularly getting their praise just a few short years ago. Meanwhile they're defending the guy who is embracing some of their most notorious criticisms of the current administration as a change for the better.

Among his long standing wonkish supporters there is everything from gross rationalization of the nuanced Obama since they started supporting him years ago to the full-on disenchantment that he wasn't a more easily marketable Kucinich. It's generally difficult to believe an election-time claim or argument from a candidate as the pressure to appeal to as many voters as possible tends to augment their rhetoric towards more of a sales pitch than an objective and candid detailing of their philosophy and policies, let alone their record that is often spun into whatever the current zeitgeist demands. Unfortunately such obfuscation covers most of Obama's short record given his ambition for higher office appears to have influenced his statements and actions either shortly before or after his Senate seat was claimed.

Voters who have only recently given the candidate a look generally are unaware that his claims of knowing Iraq didn't have WMDs are contradicted by his pre-war rhetoric that they did. They're generally unaware that his claim of 'judgment' against the war was contradicted by the fact that a full year after the war begun he still refused to go on the record on saying how he would have voted on authorizing it. They're generally unaware that his nuanced positions on other foreign policy matters are a distinct swing from his highly criticized (even by his own party and shockingly, his own vp) policy stances. And while the nuanced Obama hardly seems more palatable, is that the version of Obama they're getting come January? Who knows? Not even his supporters can agree what he will or will not be once he's locked in.

I suppose they, like the rest of us, are hoping for the best... whatever we think that may be. And while Obama supporters seem highly gifted at projecting their own take on Obama as what he actually is, they seem wholly incapable of proving why the contradictions don't make such projection a difficult thing to vote for in the ballot box, especially when those projects vary so wildly as to what an Obama admin will actually do on everything from foreign policy to domestic policy.

Sadly none of that matters at this point in the election. The yahoos that threw out the fascist namecalling in this and prior elections are now whining about other yahoos throwing out socialist namecalling as being a code word for black... even though those same yahoos do this to any candidate, including John McCain in the primaries, who appear to pander to any class conflict notion or support any government policy that even remotely resembles any aspect of socialism, regardless of the overwhelming differences otherwise. It's getting so weird at this point there is pre-emptive race card playing and accusing of playing the race card even when responding to Obama supporters doing it.

The inevitable trainwreck of dumb barreling towards November is even more absurd than even I predicted. And to think that I once had some hope that such a matchup would be a unique diversion from the normal hypocritical and idiotic campaigning on the national stage. Just shows the worth of 'hope' in politics I guess.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

2008-10-15T07:54:00.000-05:00

The painful readjustment of the markets may have finally hit bottom, with a slow and haphazard recovery potentially on the horizon. National polling has the election squarely in Obama's court at this point, and short of another miraculous comeback by McCain we're heading into an Obama administration that is promising tax hikes on those who still have any significant capital left to invest back into the economy and US business. At the same time he seems to be hitting up the Hoover playbook to match that with restrictions on trade while our domestic markets are contracting due to people tightening their belt here... essentially adding insult to injury to US industries that need to sell products to keep US workers employed.

But just which Obama is going to be running the nation? Will it be the die-hard class warfare Robin Hood from the early primary, who paints the rich as some uncaring and unpatriotic generality that must be punished? Will it be the Obama who toned down his rhetoric a bit with nuance and qualifications that implied he might delay many of his anti-rich policies due to the economic conditions... much as he has done with his foreign policy rhetoric?

People looking at his short resume in government are reasonably worried given his actual voting tends to lean towards the Robin Hood absurdities... especially as you go back further and further to his political roots in Chicago that epitomize the concepts of class struggle in America, not just by the company he kept, but by supporting policies that they championed, though with far less of the fiery rhetoric of his extremist cohorts.

People looking at his more recent record may find some hope of such views being tempered by a bit of realism... but surely would have some doubts about whether much of that was out of realism on what it takes to win nation-wide support for a future Presidential run.

It's anyone's guess as to whether or not President Obama will be closer to Primary Obama or General Election Obama when it comes to economic or foreign policy. With Congressional elections appearing to either maintain or expand a future rubber-stamp on almost any of the above, there's little to restrain him from going either direction beyond the courts he will also be in a strong position to influence over time.

The finger pointing will probably continue well into his term of who was really responsible for the current economic crisis. Democrats will surely continue to blame deregulation and Republican control in the federal government, while Republicans will continue to blame Democrats who supported the type of lending and government intervention that helped remove the risk of such lending. Objective observers will probably come to the conclusion that neither party is blameless on the issue since the Democrats, Obama included, supported the very policies that led to it, and while Republicans are on the record, McCain included, in opposition, they did not make any large deal out of it until the problems came to a head... probably due to the sacred cows at the crux of the issue being feverishly defended as pro-minority/poor and opponents being accused of racism or apathy towards the plight of minority/poor Americans. Republicans can blame all they want, but where was their backbone against such godawful policy when it could have made a difference? Sacrificed to dodge the 'race card' apparently.

So now we're looking at a nearly inevitable 'change' administration, whose short record is one of being in bed with the very people whose good intentions for some happily neglected and continue to dismiss the negative ramifications it had on all. Now we're left to 'hope' that another idealist with little relevant experience under his belt will be ready to lead the free world. Worked well the last 8 years. But it'll keep the ideologues on the other side happy until, as can be seen with the other ideologues, realism rears its ugly head and begins screwing with their ideology's prospects for re-election.

With any luck, the more pragmatic Obama from the general election will end up in the Oval Office over his absurdly idealistic self from earlier in his career.

That's the Chicago Way

2008-10-09T12:09:00.000-05:00

The latest McCain ad:

Rehashing stuff from the primary:

Just another baffling association for an aspiring politician. Whether it be people Obama described as a friend who is heading to prison (Rezko), or friends who incite racial hatred with conspiracies on par with organ thieving (Wright), or people like Ayers who Obama said he was friendly with even though for all intents and purposes should be in prison for running a terror organization. Thanks to prosecutor misconduct though he walked off scott free... and now it's apparently fine for everyone in the corrupt Chicago political machine to shrug it off as, 'hey, those crazy 60s, eh?'

But don't worry, I'm sure as president he'll suddenly have the judgment to surround himself with far less disreputable political allies.

And for the title reference:

Of course instead of escalating the anti, Obama drudged up an even older story with the Keating 5 scandal... but the resulting investigation showed that 2 out of the 5, Senator (and former astronaut) John Glenn, and John McCain were found of no wrong doing. Friends with unrepentant domestic terrorists... versus a two decade old dragging through the mud that preceded a career of anti-corruption accomplishments, including most recently, taking down the Abramoff cronies.

Nice comeback.

Comic Relief: Bailouts and Parachutes

2008-10-09T11:30:00.002-05:00

Break Down

2008-10-08T22:32:00.000-05:00

Via Drudge, another sign of the real impact of the financial crisis:

CHICAGO (AP) - Residents of foreclosed properties in Chicago and other parts of Cook County don't have to worry about deputies forcing them out. Sheriff Tom Dart says that starting Thursday his office won't take part in evictions.

Dart says he's concerned that many of the people being evicted are renters who were unaware that their landlords have been failing to pay their mortgages. He says his deputies have no way of knowing whether they're removing someone who has defaulted on a loan or someone who has been faithfully paying rent.

Dart says he thinks he's the first sheriff in a major metropolitan area to stop such evictions during the ongoing foreclosure crisis.

Dart says the number of mortgage foreclosures in Cook County has skyrocketed and will probably keep rising.

Not the kind of news I like to hear since my own landlord is based through a company that lists many of the infamous failed and feared near-failing banks and Freddie Mac prominently on their portfolio as people they generally deal with for their financial end.

Should be an interesting year. And by 'interesting' I do mean 'shitty.'

Ugh.