Obama's SOTU Address - what stands out about the reaction ...

It’s a simple way of saying the American right-wing has lost finally control of the overall national debate. 25+ years over the last 40 has finally opened up a lot of eyes and ears across the country to a central point – these conservatives and right-wingers simply cannot govern the United States effectively for its people. And as a direct result of the economic problems of the last two years - they are no longer able to control the overall message. And no amount of help from the corporate media is helping, because people now are seeing them too as fundamentally dishonest. One need only go online and simply search for the media outlet or personality to see the lack of objective journalism, integrity or honestly.

 

The 2008 elections are direct proof of this. The reaction to Obama’s economic stimulus plan is direct proof of this. Governor Jindal’s SOTU response last night is proof that apparently the Republican Party doesn’t get it. And with each type or response like this, the American right-wing are only making themselves less and less relevant in this country.

Darwin's Birthday and American's belief in evolution.

On this day 200 years ago, Charles Darwin was born. (Also, Abraham Lincoln was born on this day in 1809.)
 
On that note, here's a Gallup survey released recently on Darwin's theory of evolution - now the basis for modern biology:
 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
 
I find it both disburbing and troubling that only 39% of those polled actually believe in evolution. 
 
In a day and age where education in sciences, engineering, and biology will be keys to enduring in the 21th Century, this country better start working to improve those numbers. I think its economic future depends on people being properly educated with facts, not indoctrinated by religion.

Why the Republican Party is losing the debate on the economic stimlus.

Here's a really bright statement from a Republican Congressman from Ohio (h/t to Steve Benen).

 

""When Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression.... He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history." "

 

Wow.

 

I wonder how his constituents feel about him getting basic history wrong? To have elected someone who would say something completely at odds with history, reality and fact.

 

I believe recent polls taken show the majority of Americans support the Obama stimlus package.

 

The Republicans have no choice but to act this way and fight Obama on every point.

 

If they agree, they will be seen as 'moderate' or 'centrist', almost Democrats to the right-wing, and will probably be villified. Voters who have a choice between a pretend-Democrat and a real one in the next election will likely choose the real thing. This is because they know that if it passes, it will likely be successful, and voters will reward him and the Democrats, not them.

 

(On a side note, it's quite a turn around from 6-7 years ago, when it seemed as though voters had a choice between Democrats who acted like pretend-Republicans and the real thing. Voters saw it as a sham and voted for the latter, despite all the obvious evidence that it was contrary to their interests).

 

To fight as they are is playing right into (what I suspect is) Obama's real motivation behind his 'bipartisan approach'. That is, to make voters in Republican congressional districts see just how incompetant and useless they really are.

 

Either way, it's a win for Obama, and eventually voters.

An open letter to Charles Gibson of ABC ...

Mr. Gibson,

 

During the 2008 US Presidential Election Campaign, I along with many in the United States tuned into your employer's network to view one of the Presidential Candidate debates.

 

Like many, I was appalled and dismayed by the quality of questions being asked.  Indeed, I wasn't the only one who thought so. Evidently some of your peers in the media drew the same conclusion.

 

With the country in the midst of several gripping financial issues, voters in the election chose to reject the policies of the last 8 years that got us into these messes. They elected someone to come up with plans to clean up these messes.

 

Now, no one is asking you to give the new President preferential treatment. After all, the opposite seems to be the pattern when Democratic Presidential Candidates assume office now, isn't it?

 

And of course, you work for ABC, where it's clear, two of your colleagues, cannot even get the most basic information correct - here and here.

 

 

But after watching how the media has handled coverage of the proposed economic stimulus package - and how the media have largely allowed the Republican Party to dominate the airwaves with their diatribes I've come to one specific conclusion -

 

I've had enough of your broadcasts.

 

So, please do everyone a favor and stop.

 

Retire. Quit. Or just walk off the set and don't come back. Take your pick.

 

 

Someone on your Wikipedia entry claimed you to be 'very affable', but frankly I have never bought into that. Indeed, you never ever seem to be happy at all.

 

I'm sick of your smug arrogance, and your inability to get over the fact that the Republican Party lost the 2008 elections, and that for whatever reason, ABC won't let you leave.

 

Watching you and your network allow yourself and corporate media outlets to get even the most basic issues about the proposed Obama economic stimulus wrong is bad enough. But even after being repeatedly corrected, you still spout falsehoods on your broadcast.

 

No, it goes beyond that, as it this irresponsible behavior on the part of the corporate media is business as usual.

 

I have found you to be completely insufferable - you and your program are neither informative, or entertaining.

 

Honestly the only good thing about your broadcasts, is the pleasure in turning the television off knowing -

 

• it's time to eat dinner
  
• that you are able once again unable to hide your absolute contempt for the new Obama Government or promote honest, objective journalism
  
• that anyone who decides to continue to tune into you will continue to be misinformed about the events that shape our lives
  
• and that I can get more reliable, objective news elsewhere.

The attempt at historical revision and the Bush Administration

As the nation finally looks to January 20th, 2009 as not only the first day of Barack Obama taking office, and a sense of relief from the rest of the nation, one thing that I've been finding quite disturbing over the past few weeks was people in various media outlets attempting to find some positive aspect of the George W. Bush years.

 

Many can find lots of reasons for the opposite -

 

• An unnecessary war being fought in Iraq that has cost billions of dollars, and thousands of lives and hasn't done a thing to actually keep anyone safe
  
• Another war in Afghanistan
  
• A major city being completely flooded in 2005, while both Bush and FEMA did not a whole lot
  
• Several financial crisies in the mortgage, housing, lending industries, plus countless business failures, loan defaults, bankruptices
  
• The politicization of whole government departments like Justice

 

Of course there are so many other things. And likely so many things we don't even know about. But one thing always strikes me as something people forget - 09/11/2001.

 

That will live in my memories for the rest of my days.

 

I was awake at 5 AM PST that day. I had to run some performance tests for our group at work. Fortunately I was able to connect to the network via my home Internet connection. Normally I kicked the test off, monitored it, and occasionally check online to see what was happening in the news.

 

But for some reason that day, it was very hard to get online at all. I kept seeing references to the 'attack'.

 

Turning on the TV, I saw - the first World Trade Center tower had been struck by a jet airliner.

 

Like most people, I was in extreme shock. Never in my life or imagination had I ever thought something like that would ever happen. And yet, there it was live. Then to hear that a second plane had hit the second tower. Needless to say, I was in struck beyond belief.

 

And then to watch as the fires raged, the towers crumbled, the smoke and debris in the air, people running for their lives. It was a nightmare coming true. Truly the most horrific thing I have ever seen in my life.

 

Then to find out later that other planes had been hijacked, and that the Pentegon had been attacked.

 

I think I was like most people that day and afterwards. How could something like this happen? The worst security failure in the history of the nation, more than 3000 people killed, many lives damaged beyond repair, many more shattered. Where was the government, the state, the city, the FBI, the CIA, ...

 

Where the fuck was Donald Rumseld - he certainly failed that day as Secretary of Defense?

 

Only to find out as the days, months and years passed that Bush's actions that day demonstrated that he was unable to function as Chief Executive. This after all that time spent stealing the election that Al Gore won. Then to learn about the rather close relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families, W's insistance that he'd catch Osama 'dead or alive' (spoken like a true faux cowboy).

 

And then ... to find out that various agencies knew something was coming, the August 6th 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that warned that Bin Laden was threatening to attack the US, that the man in charge of terrorism's cabinet position was reduced to next-to-nothing, and that he could not even get time with Bush or Rice or anyone else.

 

Bush's supporters tried to blame the previous Clinton Adminstration (ignoring that this event happened on Bush's watch). Of course it came out they had in fact warned Bush about the threats and Al Qaeda, but somehow these facts seem to always been ignored

 

Why do I bring this up? Why is this relevant today? Shouldn't we be celebrating that America seems to finally have come to its senses and elected not only a Democrat, but a very smart and shrewd one, and that we along with the rest of the world can finally begin to see some hope?

 

Yes this country has lots of problems. And I think the country has a real chance to let go of it's past and really move forward into the 21th Century.

 

Well ... it's because there are some in this country would prefer to forget, to remember things differently. They would have me and others think that Bush's term really started on 9/12/2001, that he and his government have kept the nation safe since (conveniently forgetting the anthrax attacks that occured shortly afterwards). That it doesn't matter that Bin Laden hasn't been captured, that we invaded two sovereign nations and haven't accomplished anything useful.

 

Well my memory of the event of September 11th, 2001 will not let me forget.

 

And I will never forget that it was Bush and his cronies that were in charge of the federal government on that day. 

 

BUSH AND HIS GOVERNMENT FAILED TO PROTECT US ON 09/11/2001.

BUSH AND HIS ADMINSTRATION FAILED TO BRING THOSE RESPONSIBLE WHO ATTACKED US TO JUSTICE.

 

People who try to whitewash history must be corrected.

 

Those of us who remember must never forget. People who survived must continue to tell their story. People who lost loved ones or had their lives shattered must continue to insist on finding out the truth about the Bush Government's failures.

 

Because, if we fail to tell, if we fail to fight, if we fail to insist on finding out, we fail to learn. We become prone having this repeat itself. We become ignorant. We become paranoid and delusional. We become distrustful of one another. We surrender our will to live.

 

And doing so will let those who terrorize us rule. And that includes those who wish to not shed light on the Bush government failures on that day, and every day afterwards.

 

We must learn from our past, if we are to live today, and plan for tomorrow.

 

 

Wanna fly AirTran?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28467263

 

I'm not inclined to believe a word the airline's spokesperson says ...

 

"At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane, and other people heard them," (AirTran spokesman Tad) Hutcheson said. "Other people heard them, misconstrued them."

 

I like this -

 

"It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions."

 

I like the tacit assumption in the statement - 'comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane'. Was Tad even there? I wonder why this person takes the word of two passengers over this group?

 

Or perhaps this is the reason ...

 

" (Kashif) Irfan said he and the others think they were profiled because of their appearance. He said five of the six adults in the party are of South Asian descent, and all six are traditionally Muslim in appearance, with the men wearing beards and the women in headscarves. Irfan, 34, is an anesthesiologist. His brother, 29, is a lawyer. Both live in Alexandria with their families, and both were born in Detroit. They were traveling with their wives, Kashif Irfan's sister-in-law, a friend and Kashif Irfan's three sons, ages 7, 4 and 2. "

... ?

 

I bet the airline spokeman believes there really were WMDs in Iraq just before the US invasion in 2003, or that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

 

"WASHINGTON - Officials ordered nine Muslim passengers, including three young children, off an AirTran flight headed to Orlando from Reagan National Airport yesterday afternoon after two other passengers overheard what they thought was a suspicious remark. "

 

(emphasis in bold mine) ...

 

To be fair, it's not just the airline. Airport security officials make the ultimate call.

 

But keep in mind, it's usually at the behest of the airline.

 

And ultimately, I look at the airline as just another player in a game visible minorities have to play at American airports all the time. And often things are stacked up against us.

 

As someone who's been pulled aside to be 'checked' (and by remarkable coincidence, I was the only brown-skinned person in line) while waiting to board a commercial airflight, I know that feeling of being singled out, under the guise of 'safety'.

 

Often times people in authority abuse it to remind those of us who are visible minorities that we must be on guard at all times, and that we can be pulled aside, violated, embarrassed, kicked off of flights, or have our lives thoroughly screwed up and over just for looking at someone or something in a way others may deem unacceptable. I see many similarities between this and racial profiling that local police departments do on city streets. Of course, the safety of all is usually cited, or 'we're just doing our jobs', or something to that effect. Other times, I think it's just to humiliate, or bring people like us down a notch.

 

But in almost all cases, such things always happen because those in authority know they can get away with it.

 

And it's never funny that it's always those who do not appear like everyone else are always left with the short-end of the stick in such situations. It's not funny how we find ourselves to always be the ones left having to pick up our belongings that have been randomly tossed aside by security officials, only to sprint to catch a flight because we are now late. It's not funny or amusing to have to pay to rebook another flight, or miss a connecting flight, disrupt our schedules, our lives, miss important events, just because someone thought they heard something suspicious.

 

But what really gets me, is that there is never any accountability for these actions. Those pesky visible minorities - it's okay for their rights and liberties to be violated or disrupted?

 

 

UPDATE -

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/02/nine-muslim-passengers-ki_n_154750.html

 

It appears the airline has made an about-face regarding the tickets on the other airline Mr. Ifran and party had to make -

"In a statement Friday, Orlando-based AirTran says it refunded the air fare for the nine passengers and planned to reimburse them for replacement tickets they bought on another airline."

One has to wonder if their shoddy treatment of these individuals in this day and age will continue, given how quickly this has become a very bad amount of publicity for them.

End of 2008 ... some thoughts.

As 2008 draws to a close, I find myself thinking about this same time last year.

 

What's really odd is, despite all the turmoil in the economy, the deteriorating wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan ... I actually look forward to 2009.

 

Last year-end was quite depressing for me for a number of reasons ...

We had a lot of political instability and uncertainty. I seriously was considering the prospect of relocating the family outside the US should John McCain had won the upcoming election. I even thought the same thing if Hilary Clinton had won.

I had taken on a consultant job, and though the contract appeared to be secure, as is always the case, I had this suspicion that it would eventually end. This after spending all that time, energy and money to relocate.

Our house back in the Seattle area had been on the market for 6 months, with no end in sight. Watching all the equity we had built into it slowly disappear due to the impacts of the market, and realizing we'd entrusted selling our house to a person who had no business being in the industry any longer made the holidays very hard to bear. I think I aged 10 years in the process.

Since my daughter was born, and my son was still sleeping in our bed, my wife and I had been doing shifts on a regular basis. Of course I haven't had a decent night sleep since September 2005, so what else was new?

This isn't to say life is all rosy and perfect. The struggle to achieve my goals and dreams still remains. But at least I have some things to look forward to -

 

For one thing, I'm seeing signs that the American public is finally coming to its senses. It seems it takes the country being brought to its financial knees to finally see the light - that installing right-wingers into public office is a really bad idea. I for one am looking forward to Barack Obama taking office on January 20, 2009. I suspect many in the country and world feel the same way.

 

I landed in a nice company. I finally tired of consulting and all the politics of it, I finally landed at a place with some degree of sanity. It's a much smaller company, but they put out a great set of products, people are great to work with, and are open to my ideas. I consider myself really fortunate here, considering the rising unemployment rates.

 

Our house sold, and we've settled, at least for the next few years. We live in a nice house, and the neighborhood is far more calmer than the ghetto of Lombard St. and Interstate Ave.

 

Of course I've still got a laundry list of things to accomplish. But given how trying a year 2008 has been, I'm very grateful and thankful I haven't lost the things important to me. I'm here, and the family is doing well.

 

And 2009 will hopefully be the year I move closer to achieving my goals and dreams.

 

 

Fighting in Professional Hockey - and the proponents who make false arguments.

I recently came across an article on a Sports site where an alleged writer (Al Strachan) proceeded to present a variety of 'arguments' against fighting in pro hockey. He then spends the rest of the article debunking these 'arguments' to make that point that there is a place for fighting in pro hockey.

 

Upon reading the article (titled 'Tips for winning the fighting argument'),  it became clear to me that many of his so-called 'arguments' against NHL brawling were strawmen at best, and patently false at worst.

 

Evidently Mr. Strachan is more interested in fighting rather than the game of hockey.

 

Below are the supposed "arguments", his reactions, and why it's wrong But before I do, I had to insert one quote from his article that needs and immediate response -

"Still the members of the ballet-on-ice brigade emerged in full force and, as even Don Cherry was forced to concede, appear to be winning the battle. "
The game of hockey is a sport. Ballet is entertainment for some. Kind of like pro wrestling is entertainment for others. I'd say ballet has more in common with pro wrestling than hockey, as they are both staged for entertainment purposes.
Evidently Mr. Strachan seems to confuse the two. And Don Cherry is no authority on the subject - How many Stanley Cups did he win?
But anyways, on I go  ...
1.
" ·  "I don't want my children to watch a game in which I have to tell them that fighting is acceptable."
First of all, most fights are a response to a perceived wrong. Do you really want your kid to turn the other cheek to everyone he meets in life who tries to take advantage of him and his friends?
More importantly, this is professional sport. If your kid watches NASCAR, does he expect to drive bumper-to-bumper at 200 mph down a city street? If he watches wrestling, does he expect to be allowed to deliver forearm shivers and body slams? Professional sports operate under a specific set of rules.
Response:
Note the word ‘perceived’ wrong. According to Al, if I were a professional hockey player, and someone roughs me up, I should go after them and beat their ass. Or vice-versa.  I figure a better response to such people who challenge one to a fight in a hockey game is to answer them by putting the puck in his team’s net. It’s called scoring goals. Apparently that’s really how a team wins the contest known as a hockey game.
And in a professional sport run by say the National Hockey League, athletes are typically paid to do just that – win the game. And evidently, if a team wins enough games, they eventually will draw more fans (something about people liking a winner), and thereby more revenue.
BTW- it IS important to tell kids who watch fighting in hockey that it is wrong. More importantly, explain to them why it’s not winning the game, and how that a waste of time, especially theirs.
 
2.
" ·  "That fight last week probably cost Todd Fedoruk his career."
If it weren't for fighting, Fedoruk wouldn't have had a career.

Response:
Which basically means he should never have been allowed on the ice with other players. I have an idea, since all these goons do is fight, why not just take their sticks, skates, and gloves away? They can still stand around on the ice, while all the other players actually play the game I pay money to see. 
3.
" ·  "Hockey is the only sport that allows fighting."
It's also the only sport that uses a puck. Baseball is the only one that uses bases. Each sport has its own peculiarities and fighting has always been a part of hockey.
Response:
This is a sad attempt to equate the tools used in the game (i.e. a puck for hockey, bases for baseball) with fighting. By that argument, slavery should still be around be around in America. I can see people like him making that argument –
'Each civilization has its own peculiarities and slavery has always been a part of it.'
Except see, slavery was wrong. It treats one person as less than another. That’s why enough people thought it should be eliminated from society. Heck it tore this country apart for some years.
 
4.
" ·  "The NHL Players' Association should step in to curb fighting in order to prevent injuries to its members."
The fighters are PA members, too. How can the PA follow a course of action that would deprive them of their jobs?  
Response:
Very circular. Because fighting is so ingrained in hockey, the goon is now considered a part of the game (according to Al). That means it's a job, one the NHLPA has to defend.
This is the heart of the issue I have with views from people like Al, and people who support fighting in NHL hockey. Have you ever wondered why you don't see too many fights in Olympic Games matches, or for that matter the Canada Cup?  Perhaps it's because those players, coaches, trainers, sponsors, and fans are more interesting in dedicating their time, energies, and resources to winning things like Olympic Gold Medals, or the Canada Cup for playing hockey.
5.
" ·  "This is 2007. These barbaric acts belong in the past."
Then watch figure skating. There's no constitutional requirement to watch hockey. The people who attend games, and the people who play the game, are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping fighting.
The fact is that the vast majority of people who complain about fighting in hockey don't watch the games. Furthermore, there's no evidence that they'd watch if fighting were eliminated.
Response:
Figure skating doesn’t involve sticks, a puck, a net, and teams trying to win by putting pucks into each other team’s nets. It’s called hockey Al, look into it.

I note that he seems to be implying by the figure skating comments that people who don't believe in that point should watch figure skating instead of his brand of hockey.

I've never advocated removing bodychecks, or players grinding for a puck. What I object to is the intentional runs at the head, the high sticking. What is a fight, other than a set of intentional blows to the head?

Perhaps that’s why hockey attendance has been in decline the last few years. If people had to tune in to bench-clearing brawls in football, baseball, and basketball, it may draw some attention on ESPN, but after awhile, people who pay an arm and a leg to see it will either start demanding a refund for not getting to see sport being played, or they will simply not come back.
6.
" ·  "Too many fights are staged. They're not part of the game, just two guys who agree to go after each other."
There's some truth to that. But hockey is, above all, entertainment. When the fights — even the staged fights — occur, the rink comes alive. Fans love it. These two guys are willing co-combatants.
What's the problem?
Response:
Wow, notice how Al conceded a very major point. Yeah it's staged. Kind of like when watching managers in baseball come out of the dugout and kick dust in the umpire's face over a disputed call. All high-drama, accomplishes nothing but a diversion from the game.
And people who get fired up from that? I have a theory they'd also get fired up by a great body-check, a fantastic save, or an amazing goal.
Hockey is a sport. The NHL is a business. People pay money to see a hockey game, not boxers on ice. When I see a ‘gathering of the clan’ as Dick Irwin described it, it’s a waste of my money and time.
7.
" ·  "Too many players are getting hurt in hockey fights."
The problem is much more complex than that. Too many players are getting hurt. Period. Some of it has to do with equipment. Some of it has to do with the fact that hockey is a high-contact sport and injuries are inevitable.
The game is such these days that a lot of players don't care whether there's a puck on the ice or not
They're just out there to run other players. And they're causing injuries.
In an earlier era, those players would have been held accountable. But with the instigator rule, and the low-scoring games that put a premium on power plays, they're left alone. If the league scraps the instigator rule and keeps the fighters, those guys would think twice. And there would be fewer injuries.
Response:
I like how Al tries to equate injuries with fighting. Indeed his straw statement sets up his diatribe about injuries. What is that based on? Note there's a lot of words in that rant, but no facts, stats or evidence to back up his assertions.
I would summerize his views on fighting in the NHL by editing one of his comments -
The game is such these days that a lot of fans like Al don't care whether there's a puck on the ice or not


One last comment from Al -  
In the long run, fighting doesn't cause injuries; it prevents them.
No Al, in the long run, not stopping fighting will spell a permanent decline of NHL popularity.

 

History repeats itself ... in Canada

(My regret it took so long to get this out)

 

It's funny how much of my thoughts about the 2006 Canadian Federal election still hold true today ...

 

"Because the Liberal Party's mess with the whole sponsorship scandal, I think the majority of Canadians didn't think there were any other viable options in this election. While they have some good ideas, the New Democratic Party has never been able to really reach out to folks on a national level, largely due to poor leadership and lack of substance. The Bloq is a non-option, and useless. They don't even care about their own cause (Quebec separation), all they do is suck up federal tax dollars by being in Ottawa.

 

Interesting how after the results, Duceppe (Bloq leader) made all sort of gestures to work with Harper (PM-elect). Funny how history repeats itself but in reverse ...

 

I think it's what Canadians want for now (i.e. a minority government) Until the Liberal Party gets their house in order (i.e. get rid of the corruption that comes with running the country for more than 12 years), and elect a leader that can infuse new blood, we won't see them in power any time soon. "

 

It truly amazes me when a group of voters decides to vote for a party based on one issue. What is truly astounding is how the people of Quebec can vote for the Bloc Québécois party. They exist solely to collect an Federal MP pension. They cannot advocate or empower their cause on a federal level, because they will never be elected to govern the country as a whole.

 

The basic problem I see with the Liberal Party in Canada is similar to what happened to the Democratic Party in the US over the last 10 years. Right now the Liberals have neither a coherent strategy or plan that addresses the basic issues that affect the entire nation, nor is there an effective communcator able to reach the country as a whole.

 

Both of those don't just spring up overnight - Barack Obama didn't just spring up out of no where. It takes years of thinking, planning, and execution in order to make that happen. My guess is it's going to be some time before that comes about.

Alert 2

See how the Right-wing is trying to steal the election?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/03/rachel-maddow-decries-lon_n_140455.html 

 

Be aware of this when you vote.

Quote of the day

"... I had to chuckle as I paged through The Way to Win for the first time since it was published in 2006. The book is about the blueprint for taking the White House and which politicians were positioning themselves for victory in 2008. I laughed because there was one name that did not appear anywhere in the book about the upcoming campaign, one name Halperin and Harris left out of the index: "Obama, Barack." "

 

Well said Eric.

 

To understand read this - http://mediamatters.org/columns/200810210005

 

 

ALERT - Republicans already trying to steal the election

When you go into the voting booth, be sure to get confirmation that who you actually select to vote, actually gets selected correctly.

 

This almost sounds like the opening to Treehouse of Horror XIX.

 

Some early W.Va. voters angry over switched votes

Jackson County touch-screens switched votes, 3 residents say

 

 

By Paul J. Nyden

Staff writer

At least three early voters in Jackson County had a hard time voting for candidates they want to win.

Virginia Matheney and Calvin Thomas said touch-screen machines in the county clerk's office in Ripley kept switching their votes from Democratic to Republican candidates.

"When I touched the screen for Barack Obama, the check mark moved from his box to the box indicating a vote for John McCain," said Matheney, who lives in Kenna.

When she reported the problem, she said, the poll worker in charge "responded that everything was all right. It was just that the screen was sensitive and I was touching the screen too hard. She instructed me to use only my fingernail."

Even after she began using her fingernail, Matheney said, the problem persisted.

...

More details at http://wvgazette.com/News/200810170676?build=yes.

 

 

When people look back ...

... on this election, they'll probably ask what McCain did that caused him to tank with voters. To get all Russert-like -

 

• Some might say he really wasn't going to ever win - I've always suspected that he wasn't the right-wing's first choice.
  
• Some might say that it all went downhill when he picked Palin - for the longest time, I subscribed to this point.

But I suspect much of the analysis will look back at the economic problems that hit at the same time, and how McCain dealt with them.

 

This comment from Steve Benen sums this up nicely -

 

"The conventional wisdom has been that McCain dropped in the polls after the crisis began in earnest because voters' attention shifted to the economy, which is McCain's weakest point. That's largely true, but it's incomplete. McCain dropped because his response to the crisis has been ridiculous. This was an opportunity for McCain to not only show some leadership and a "steady hand," but also that he knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy. He's failed miserably."

 

That being said, I do think there's a larger issue going on.

 

Part of it lies with the idea that the American public is finally seeing the American Right Wing (as housed in the current incarnation of the Republican Party) ideology for what it really is. All those years of scandals, fake issues are insignificant now. What I'm hoping is that this will be the start of the public finally realizing that the American Right should be kept far away from government. They are very good at getting into power, but running government is something that should be left to those who know how to govern for all, not use government as a vehicle to reward a select few.

 

 

Right-wing pundits upset over McCain and Palin ....

Here's one from David Brooks -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/08/david-brooks-sarah-palin_n_133001.html

Here's the thing -

All the polls, voter registration numbers, and momentum are moving towards Senator Obama and the Democratic Party for the coming election. I think Mr. Brooks is looking for someone else on the right-wing to blame besides Senator McCain. Choosing to direct his ire at Sarah Palin is not really going to really accomplish that (that is, if you assume that it was Senator McCain himself who picked Governor Palin as his running mate).

Further, where was he with this kind of piece when Governor Palin was introduced by Senator McCain? It was pretty obvious within an hour of announcing her that she wasn't qualified for any public office, let alone the one she currently occupies.

For that matter, where was he and perhaps others when George W. Bush was running for President back in 1999/2000?

This is why I don't have much respect for conservatives and their movement as it is these days. I can respect someone for having opinions (even if I disagree with them). But Mr. Brooks, and many other of his political stripe who apparently had these types of concerns about Bush, yet chose to keep quiet because they probably saw it as a chance for their movement to dominate all levels of government, as did much of the corporate media (even though we all know Al Gore won in 2000, as did Senator Kerry in 2004). They are now playing a game of CYA with their readers because the country has gone down the tubes thanks to Bush and his cronies, and voters are largely not buying into Senator McCain's ideas, campaign, or judgment (perhaps because it's really similar to Bush).

That these pundits knew and chose not to speak makes them hypocrites to be angry now. That's why I don't respect them.

I think the pending Obama election victory result will be the first salvo in the Republican Party civil war, fought between the three main factions (foreign policy hawks, corporate interests/lobbyists, and religious/social conservatives). These are I think some of the first sets of rumblings.

Pictures of a wedding

No, not mine again, but rather my brother's ...

 

Meet Sonia, my sister-in-law, and George at their engagement and wedding:

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/georgejoseph.pattara0/GeorgeSoniaSMarriagePhotos

 

They got married in India some months back.

 

Enjoy!