"The reality is, governors every day have to make decisions for better or for worse. That's part of the job. It's an executive position. And it's a position that is like what you're going to do when you're president. Legislators, they do different things. They debate and they pass their bills back and forth," he said.
"But governors make decisions, and I think it's a tactical mistake for the Democrats to question Gov. Palin's experience when she's been a governor of a state," he said. "I don't think the size of the state is relevant. It's the kinds of decisions you have to make as governor.
via Chicago Tribune
Monday, September 15, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Suck It, BYU Haters
After beating Washington on the road, BYU actually dropped in one poll. That was largely because pundits thought BYU should have beaten Washington by more than one point. "If BYU is so good, why did they barely squeak by a crummy Huskies team?" the line went.
BYU 59 UCLA 0
How do you like me now?
And that strength of schedule "problem" the Cougars are supposed to have, playing in a "lesser" conference like the Mountain West? Well, the MWC went 4-0 against the supposedly superior Pac-10 today.
TCU 31 Stanford 14
New Mexico 36 Arizona 28
UNLV 23 #15 Arizona State 20
BYU 59 UCLA 0
How do you like me now?
And that strength of schedule "problem" the Cougars are supposed to have, playing in a "lesser" conference like the Mountain West? Well, the MWC went 4-0 against the supposedly superior Pac-10 today.
TCU 31 Stanford 14
New Mexico 36 Arizona 28
UNLV 23 #15 Arizona State 20
Friday, September 12, 2008
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel on Governor Sarah Palin
Via wikipedia:
Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel (pronounced /grəˈvɛl/) (born May 13, 1930) is a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska, who served two terms from 1969 to 1981, and a former candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Hat Tip: Adam's Blog
Maurice Robert "Mike" Gravel (pronounced /grəˈvɛl/) (born May 13, 1930) is a former Democratic United States Senator from Alaska, who served two terms from 1969 to 1981, and a former candidate in the 2008 presidential election.
Hat Tip: Adam's Blog
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Mark Daily
Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).
I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.
In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
Mark Daily
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).
I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.
In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
Mark Daily
September 11, 2001
Reposted from last year:
I was on a bus. I was standing in a crowded bus from downtown Salt Lake City heading to the University of Utah campus, and I overheard other students talking about a bomb in Washington. When I arrived at the campus I went to the library to study a bit before class started, and they had a tv set up just outside the computer lab with a pretty big crowd around it. As I walked through the library towards my usual study table I stopped off at a bank of computers to check email. A library worker came by and told us that "because of what happened" there was a lot of traffic that morning and so the internet wouldn't work very well.
The rest of the morning is kind of a blur. I slowly began to get more information as word trickled through about what had happened. I skipped my first class. I later went to my behavioral management class where the professor told us not to be afraid because that's what the terrorists want.
At that time I worked as an intern in the federal building downtown. I got there around 12 or 1 and it was a very somber place. I wasn't there very long before they sent us home. I found out later that shortly after I left someone called in a bomb threat.
I rode the train home and watched the news with my family the rest of the day. I was stunned. It was as if the earth itself had paused in disbelief.
The next days were powerful and emotional. Thousands of people had died at the hands of Middle Eastern terrorists. My boss at the federal building was called to active duty. Before he left, he told us of being on the train with a middle eastern man and noticing everyone was quiet and staring at him uncomfortably. My boss spoke up and told everyone they were being stupid. Others later succumbed to the same stupidity and started a Pakistani restaurant on fire.
The next day, or the day after, the LDS Church held a memorial in the Tabernacle. Most of my office mates and I walked to Temple Square to attend. The First Presidency spoke, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang. We all joined in with the choir to sing "America the Beautiful", and few eyes were dry at the end.
The next days and weeks were unsure ones. Body counts were updated from the Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the passengers' actions on Flight 93 made news. I arrived on campus one morning to find the sidewalks covered in messages from anti-war activists urging no retaliation for the attacks. Radio stations began playing songs with audio clips from that day and the days that followed.
Nine days after the attacks, President Bush addressed the country. He confirmed that the attacks were planned and carried out by a terrorist group called al Queda, with a leader named Osama bin Laden- the same organization responsible for numerous attacks on American, and foreign, targets around the world. He praised the American spirit and resilience shown in the face of the attacks, but also pointed out that the attacks killed hundreds of citizens of other nations. He thanked foreign governments that had shown support, and criticized those that harbored terrorist groups like al Queda's. He singled out Afghanistan, and demanded they turn over all terrorist leadership in their country, but he also spoke out against any and all nations that supported terrorism, saying, "Our war on terror begins with al Queda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
In October, the LDS church held its General Conference. As church prophet Gordon B. Hinckley began to speak, he was handed a note saying the US had begun its attack on Afghanistan. President Hinckley then gave his prepared talk about the times in which we live. He concluded by saying,
"Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him. He has declared, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God.
Let us be prayerful. Let us pray for righteousness. Let us pray for the forces of good. Let us reach out to help men and women of goodwill, whatever their religious persuasion and wherever they live. Let us stand firm against evil, both at home and abroad. Let us live worthy of the blessings of heaven, reforming our lives where necessary and looking to Him, the Father of us all. He has said, "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. 46:10).
Are these perilous times? They are. But there is no need to fear. We can have peace in our hearts and peace in our homes. We can be an influence for good in this world, every one of us."
I was on a bus. I was standing in a crowded bus from downtown Salt Lake City heading to the University of Utah campus, and I overheard other students talking about a bomb in Washington. When I arrived at the campus I went to the library to study a bit before class started, and they had a tv set up just outside the computer lab with a pretty big crowd around it. As I walked through the library towards my usual study table I stopped off at a bank of computers to check email. A library worker came by and told us that "because of what happened" there was a lot of traffic that morning and so the internet wouldn't work very well.
The rest of the morning is kind of a blur. I slowly began to get more information as word trickled through about what had happened. I skipped my first class. I later went to my behavioral management class where the professor told us not to be afraid because that's what the terrorists want.
At that time I worked as an intern in the federal building downtown. I got there around 12 or 1 and it was a very somber place. I wasn't there very long before they sent us home. I found out later that shortly after I left someone called in a bomb threat.
I rode the train home and watched the news with my family the rest of the day. I was stunned. It was as if the earth itself had paused in disbelief.
The next days were powerful and emotional. Thousands of people had died at the hands of Middle Eastern terrorists. My boss at the federal building was called to active duty. Before he left, he told us of being on the train with a middle eastern man and noticing everyone was quiet and staring at him uncomfortably. My boss spoke up and told everyone they were being stupid. Others later succumbed to the same stupidity and started a Pakistani restaurant on fire.
The next day, or the day after, the LDS Church held a memorial in the Tabernacle. Most of my office mates and I walked to Temple Square to attend. The First Presidency spoke, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang. We all joined in with the choir to sing "America the Beautiful", and few eyes were dry at the end.
The next days and weeks were unsure ones. Body counts were updated from the Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the passengers' actions on Flight 93 made news. I arrived on campus one morning to find the sidewalks covered in messages from anti-war activists urging no retaliation for the attacks. Radio stations began playing songs with audio clips from that day and the days that followed.
Nine days after the attacks, President Bush addressed the country. He confirmed that the attacks were planned and carried out by a terrorist group called al Queda, with a leader named Osama bin Laden- the same organization responsible for numerous attacks on American, and foreign, targets around the world. He praised the American spirit and resilience shown in the face of the attacks, but also pointed out that the attacks killed hundreds of citizens of other nations. He thanked foreign governments that had shown support, and criticized those that harbored terrorist groups like al Queda's. He singled out Afghanistan, and demanded they turn over all terrorist leadership in their country, but he also spoke out against any and all nations that supported terrorism, saying, "Our war on terror begins with al Queda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated."
In October, the LDS church held its General Conference. As church prophet Gordon B. Hinckley began to speak, he was handed a note saying the US had begun its attack on Afghanistan. President Hinckley then gave his prepared talk about the times in which we live. He concluded by saying,
"Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him. He has declared, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God.
Let us be prayerful. Let us pray for righteousness. Let us pray for the forces of good. Let us reach out to help men and women of goodwill, whatever their religious persuasion and wherever they live. Let us stand firm against evil, both at home and abroad. Let us live worthy of the blessings of heaven, reforming our lives where necessary and looking to Him, the Father of us all. He has said, "Be still, and know that I am God" (Ps. 46:10).
Are these perilous times? They are. But there is no need to fear. We can have peace in our hearts and peace in our homes. We can be an influence for good in this world, every one of us."
Friday, September 05, 2008
MoveOn.Org Tells Me What to Write
I'm on MoveOn.org's email list. They really don't like Governor Palin, and they want me to write my newspaper and tell them all about it. They've even told me what to write. (Now I see where you get your talking points from, DL) Their sources for their assertions? Why, MoveOn.org of course. Oh, and that other bastion of honest reporting and impartiality, ThinkProgress. At least it wasn't DailyKos.
And they're right to be worried.
Dear MoveOn member,Not only does this email give me my talking points for a letter that will hopefully "help sway the editorial board", but it's noteworthy in that after almost a week of unrelenting criticism and rumor mongering about Governor Palin, it finally gives grudging respect to Senator McCain's choice as our next Vice President. Not that the rumor mongering will end, mind you. The talking points in this email are evidence of that. But it does reveal that Democrats are beginning to understand that Palin has completely changed this race.
Did you watch Sarah Palin's speech last night? The speech told us a lot about her.
It told us that she can distort the facts and deliver mean-spirited zingers with the best of them. It told us that if Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter ever need a stand-in, she'd be a great pick.
It told us that she can be condescending and dismissive of the real work Barack Obama did helping real people on the South Side of Chicago. It told us that she can uphold the long Republican tradition of lying about Democratic tax cuts—even though Obama's plan would give Americans a bigger break than McCain's.
But the speech—written by one of President Bush's speechwriters—didn't tell us the truth about Sarah Palin's extremist positions. And the more that people know her far-right views, the less they support her. (There's a partial list below.)
One of the best ways to get the word out about Palin is to write a letter to the editor of your local paper. Today's a great day to write because this is very relevant—it just happened last night. Plus, our online tool makes it easy and has great tips. Please take a few minutes to write a quick letter to the editor now:
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10140364-Fu9Y_Hx&t=3
Palin's speech and the reaction to it also made clear why McCain picked her. It wasn't a decision about who's most qualified to serve a heart-beat away from the presidency—it was a political decision about pleasing the far-right base of the Republican party.
Writing a letter to your local paper is a great way to make sure voters understand that. The opinion pages are the most widely-read pages of the newspaper. Write today, and your letter's a lot more likely to get published because it's so topical. It'll help sway the editorial board too.
Here are a bunch of points you might want to include in your letter:
* Palin recently said that the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq." 1, 2
* Palin has actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'" 3
* Palin wants to teach creationism in public schools. She hasn't made clear whether she thinks evolution is a fact.4
* Palin doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade." 5
* Palin has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP. 6
* Palin is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest. 7
* Palin opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches. 8
* As mayor, Palin tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor." 9
* She DID support the Bridge to Nowhere (before she opposed it). Palin claimed that she said "thanks, but no thanks" to the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. But in 2006, Palin supported the project repeatedly, saying that Alaska should take advantage of earmarks "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." 10
The plain fact of the matter is that Sarah Palin did a bang-up job delivering a Karl Rove-style political attack speech last night. That makes her a skilled politician but it doesn't make her views any more palatable for voters. Americans don't really want another far-right, anti-science ideologue in the White House.
Please help get the word out about where Sarah Palin really stands on the issues.
http://pol.moveon.org/lte?campaign_id=95&id=13709-10140364-Fu9Y_Hx&t=4
Thanks for all you do.
–Nita, Ilyse, Wes, Karin and the rest of the team
And they're right to be worried.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Governor Palin Was A Brilliant Choice
Governor Sarah Palin's nomination as Senator McCain's vice president has gotten the liberal blogosphere in an uproar. The very first talking point I saw was that Gov. Palin's nomination takes away Sen. McCain's ability to use Sen. Obama's inexperience against him in the campaign. To which I say, hogwash.
First, that liberal bloggers claim this reveals that they know this is a major weakness of their candidate. The fact that Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate reveals that he knows this as well.
Second, Palin's pick in no way means that McCain can't use Obama's inexperience in the campaign. Obama's responses to the Palin nomination reveal exactly why.
This is his response immediately following the announcement:
And it ensures that Obama will continue to have to field reporters' questions regarding his own inexperience. For instance, CNN asked him about his experience vs Gov. Palin's and this is what he said,
Again, all Obama's attacks on Palin do is serve to highlight the fact that the man running for president barely has the experience of the vice president he is attacking.
But does this create problems with McCain's ability to showcase Obama's inexperience to be president? The beauty of this pick is that McCain doesn't have to be the one to do it.
Let his running mate Joe Biden do it for him:
Or have Hillary Clinton do it:
Or Bill Clinton:
Or Hillary, Bill, Biden, Dodd, and even Obama himself:
First, that liberal bloggers claim this reveals that they know this is a major weakness of their candidate. The fact that Obama picked Senator Joe Biden as his running mate reveals that he knows this as well.
Second, Palin's pick in no way means that McCain can't use Obama's inexperience in the campaign. Obama's responses to the Palin nomination reveal exactly why.
This is his response immediately following the announcement:
"Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency."Mr. Community Organizer will be sure to highlight Governor Palin's experience as a small town mayor while conveniently forgetting her other experience (you know, like being a governor), but all it does is serve to keep the inexperience topic in the headlines.
And it ensures that Obama will continue to have to field reporters' questions regarding his own inexperience. For instance, CNN asked him about his experience vs Gov. Palin's and this is what he said,
"My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We've got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,"So Obama thinks that running a campaign for president qualifies one to be president. Ok then.
Again, all Obama's attacks on Palin do is serve to highlight the fact that the man running for president barely has the experience of the vice president he is attacking.
But does this create problems with McCain's ability to showcase Obama's inexperience to be president? The beauty of this pick is that McCain doesn't have to be the one to do it.
Let his running mate Joe Biden do it for him:
Or have Hillary Clinton do it:
Or Bill Clinton:
Or Hillary, Bill, Biden, Dodd, and even Obama himself:
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin Was Born In Idaho
...and graduated from the University of Idaho. It's not Boise St, but it'll do.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Note From Rep. Matheson on Oil Speculation
Dear Cameron,
A newspaper story in the Salt Lake Tribune this week supports my concern about price manipulation occurring in the oil trading markets. I read the headline "Just a Few Speculators Fueling the Volatility in the Oil Market" about the discovery by U.S. market regulators of how one financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market--without regulators' knowledge.
Other data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) shows how active trading by a single futures trader in June coincided with the rapid rise in the per-barrel oil price.
The potential for price manipulation in the oil futures trading market is troublesome. Providing the CFTC with more oversight authority is one aspect of a comprehensive energy bill I have written in response to high gas prices. I believe my bill is the right approach as we pursue an energy policy that delivers secure, affordable, clean energy to consumers.
We must end our dependence on foreign oil. To reach that goal, we must pursue every available avenue such as more domestic production from off-shore areas; exploration of oil shale and tar sands leasing in the West; more investment in research and development of alternatives, such as plug-in hybrids; more efficiency from existing supply and more private-sector innovation to take us to the next technological level.
As someone who worked in the energy industry for 13 years before being elected to Congress, I know how vital energy is to every sector of our economy and every aspect of our lives. I am optimistic we can meet our energy independence challenge, as long as we recognize that what we do now will bridge the span between our current energy needs and new resources for the future.
Sincerely,
U.S. Representative
2nd District of Utah
A newspaper story in the Salt Lake Tribune this week supports my concern about price manipulation occurring in the oil trading markets. I read the headline "Just a Few Speculators Fueling the Volatility in the Oil Market" about the discovery by U.S. market regulators of how one financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market--without regulators' knowledge.
Other data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) shows how active trading by a single futures trader in June coincided with the rapid rise in the per-barrel oil price.
The potential for price manipulation in the oil futures trading market is troublesome. Providing the CFTC with more oversight authority is one aspect of a comprehensive energy bill I have written in response to high gas prices. I believe my bill is the right approach as we pursue an energy policy that delivers secure, affordable, clean energy to consumers.
We must end our dependence on foreign oil. To reach that goal, we must pursue every available avenue such as more domestic production from off-shore areas; exploration of oil shale and tar sands leasing in the West; more investment in research and development of alternatives, such as plug-in hybrids; more efficiency from existing supply and more private-sector innovation to take us to the next technological level.
As someone who worked in the energy industry for 13 years before being elected to Congress, I know how vital energy is to every sector of our economy and every aspect of our lives. I am optimistic we can meet our energy independence challenge, as long as we recognize that what we do now will bridge the span between our current energy needs and new resources for the future.
Sincerely,
U.S. Representative
2nd District of Utah
Minor Leaguer Should Sue For Giambi's Spot?
Rick Reilly thinks so.
Jones played in the Yankees' farm system from 2000 to 2006 as a corner outfielder and first baseman. He hit 39 HRs in a season, and nobody in the Bronx even blinked. That's because the Yankees had Jason Giambi at first and Gary Sheffield in right. And guess who were both cited in the Mitchell Report? Giambi and Sheffield.
More Fun With Newspaper Story Comments
In the comments to this Senator Orrin Hatch editorial in the Salt Lake Tribune, comes this gem:
Orson Scott Card recently wrote about the energy issues we're facing, and how every alternative has been opposed at one time or another by environmental groups who proclaim that the only real alternative is to have fewer humans. He astutely pointed out that "I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere."
Which is only mostly correct. Well, the heroes not bicycling is completely true, but the other part about not volunteering to lessen the population themselves is only partially so. I haven't yet heard of any "save the planet" mass suicides, but last year the UK's Daily Mail reported how some men and women are sterilizing themselves so as not to harm the planet by reproducing. Some choice quotes from that story include,
But guess what? These moral crusaders are flat out wrong.
My inaugural post on this blog concerned the myth of overpopulation. Once again there had been a letter printed in the Deseret News that furthered the myth, claiming that "enlightened observers" knew that overpopulation was the real culprit behind all of the world's problems. So I responded with a letter of my own. In it I included the following information:
-Half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility
-The population of 51 countries or areas is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005
-It is widely believed that there will be an underpopulation crisis in Japan by 2014
-The US Census Bureau predicts the level of fertility for the world as a whole will drop below replacement level before 2050
-Today, 20% of developed nations’ population is 60 years old or over. By 2050 the proportion will be 32%.
These are facts conveniently left out during the "overpopulation" section in school. We have been consistently bombarded with humankind-as-the-enemy messages, and those chickens are coming home to roost.
ImpeachBushNow: 8/23/2008 11:19:00 AMI have noticed this sentiment expressed for some time now. For instance, there's this comment to my letter about biofuels printed in the Deseret News:
Who cares anymore. With idiots reproducing up to eight kids and demanding that they are "right" because there are more of them gives little chance for rational humans to exist on this planet knowing that there are limited resources available.
Gone ahead with your god-given right to have large families and take your state deductions. I'll keep paying for your little monsters to go to school and I definitely feed them at lunch time.
Do you really think we can just continue to flood the world with more people, who will need more food, more water, more resources to survive, and oh yeah... more energy, which with the current trend, means more pollution (something Orrin doesn't mention in his letters).
I can tell that Utah in particular is proud of their education system, because we seem to be creating some incredible problems for them to solve. HINT: you could stop rubbing stamping liars like Hatch.
You want to take a realistic aproach to solving any of our resourse needs, you might want to address the fact that some families choose to tax our resources more than others.
liberal larry | 7:34 a.m. Mar. 15, 2008No glimpse of population control in sight? Holy cow.
The writer is correct that the production of befouls is distorting the price of global food commodities. In fact, almost all commodities are increasing in price because of the increasing consumption of nations like China and India. This is a natural out growth of the planets over population, there will continue to be a competition for the worlds scarce resourses, you better get used to it because there are limited amounts of the earth's oil, water, precious metals, wilderness etc. and no glimpse of population control in sight.
Orson Scott Card recently wrote about the energy issues we're facing, and how every alternative has been opposed at one time or another by environmental groups who proclaim that the only real alternative is to have fewer humans. He astutely pointed out that "I haven't noticed them volunteering to lessen the population starting with themselves; nor have I seen their heroes bicycling everywhere."
Which is only mostly correct. Well, the heroes not bicycling is completely true, but the other part about not volunteering to lessen the population themselves is only partially so. I haven't yet heard of any "save the planet" mass suicides, but last year the UK's Daily Mail reported how some men and women are sterilizing themselves so as not to harm the planet by reproducing. Some choice quotes from that story include,
"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."Sigh. We seem to be reaping the consequences of Al Gore's "it's a moral issue" global warming/environmentalist crusade.
"Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. "We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. "In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. "That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth.
But guess what? These moral crusaders are flat out wrong.
My inaugural post on this blog concerned the myth of overpopulation. Once again there had been a letter printed in the Deseret News that furthered the myth, claiming that "enlightened observers" knew that overpopulation was the real culprit behind all of the world's problems. So I responded with a letter of my own. In it I included the following information:
-Half the world lives in nations with sub-replacement fertility
-The population of 51 countries or areas is expected to be lower in 2050 than in 2005
-It is widely believed that there will be an underpopulation crisis in Japan by 2014
-The US Census Bureau predicts the level of fertility for the world as a whole will drop below replacement level before 2050
-Today, 20% of developed nations’ population is 60 years old or over. By 2050 the proportion will be 32%.
These are facts conveniently left out during the "overpopulation" section in school. We have been consistently bombarded with humankind-as-the-enemy messages, and those chickens are coming home to roost.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Repeat After Me: The Poor Pay No Tax
In the comments to this Deseret News letter criticizing Senator McCain for being rich, comes another oft-repeated misconception. I'm quite certain it won't be the last time I hear it between now and November, so let's get it out of the way early on.
In fact, if we give that mother just one dependent child and have her take the standard deduction, then she not only owes zero tax, but she'll also get back $3,850 through the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit. With two children that number jumps to $6,710.
See here and here for previous posts on taxes.
"Yes we would like to see the super wealthy CEO pay more percentage of their pay in taxes than the struggling mother earning minimum wage."A "struggling mother earning minimum wage" pays ZERO income tax.
In fact, if we give that mother just one dependent child and have her take the standard deduction, then she not only owes zero tax, but she'll also get back $3,850 through the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit. With two children that number jumps to $6,710.
See here and here for previous posts on taxes.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Best Sports Story Comment of the Day
A comment from the Deseret News' story today on BYU getting dissed by national media:
The Rock | 8:49 a.m. Aug. 22, 2008
I live in Washington State. I worked with several 'Huskies' (here after called 'fluffy puppies') the year after BYU won the national championship. When the 'fluffy puppies' discovered that I had attended BYU they were unmerciful. They were so abusive that they would have been fired for harassment had it happened in today's environment.
Their refrain was always; "BYU should not even be considered for the national championship; they don't play anybody."
It was always the same; "They don't play anybody."
When it was learned the BYU was playing the 'Fluffy Puppies' that year it only got worse.
BYU kicked the puppies from one end of the field to the other. It was sweet!
Monday morning at work there was not a 'Fluffy Puppy' to be found. They had stuck their tail between their legs and hid.
I finally found the one with the biggest mouth sitting at his desk. I put both my hands on his desk, leaned over and whispered; "You were right, BYU doesn't play anybody."
His silence said it all...
Make sure your words are sweet and tender you never know when you will have to eat them.
I enjoyed serving them to the Fluffy Puppies.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Olympic Champ and Chump
Throughout his 8 gold medals, at times dominating and other times .01 seconds "how did that just happen" amazing, Michael Phelps has been everything you want an Olympic champion to be - gracious, humble and confident.
Usain Bolt, on the other hand, hammed it up before his race was even over,
Usain Bolt, on the other hand, hammed it up before his race was even over,
"With a full seven strides to go, he dropped his arms and let them fall outstretched to his sides, appearing almost to run sideways as he played to the sold-out crowd of 91,000 at the Bird's Nest. Just before the finish line, he started high-stepping and, for good measure, executed a chest-thump."A shameful, idiotic display of athletic arrogance. The man is fast, too bad he's also an Olympic-sized chump.
Not Sure If This Is Good or Bad...
But FoxSports.com thinks BYU's Bronco Mendenhall is the #1 college football "coach on the rise".
For what it's worth, I agree with some of the commenters to that story - Boise St.'s Chris Petersen belongs near the top of that list.
But here's hoping neither one of them leave their schools.
For what it's worth, I agree with some of the commenters to that story - Boise St.'s Chris Petersen belongs near the top of that list.
But here's hoping neither one of them leave their schools.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Lowering Your Gasoline Bill Is Really Expensive
So gas prices have skyrocketed, making the daily commute more expensive. As market forces demand, many people, in an effort to lower their gas bill, are shopping for and buying hybrid cars. It seems reasonable, as hybrids get better than 40 mpg. As a consequence, hybrid manufacturers can't keep up with demand, and hybrids' share of the auto market steadily increases even as overall vehicle sales plummet in a slowing economy.
But does buying a hybrid save money?
I did some online research to find out how much it would cost me to buy a hybrid vehicle. A quick search of large area new and used car lots found seven hybrids. Most are the Toyota Prius, which is by far the highest seller in the hybrid market. But I also found a Lexus and a couple Honda Civic hybrids. The price tag? Anywhere from $26,000 all the way to $37,000 for the used Lexus.
Now, to break that down to a monthly bill depends on a variety of factors like down payment amount, trade in value, and credit score. Not to mention any fees and taxes added to the advertised sale price.
You might argue that an owner of an SUV or truck easily paid the $26-28k it would take to buy a hybrid, so trading it in makes sense. That's quite correct. Unfortunately, SUV's don't hold value very well, so the vast majority of owners are upside down when it comes to how much it's worth vs. how much they owe. In fact, gas prices have made that scenario worse, as SUVs have taken an even larger hit to their resale value.
What does all that mean? Depending on how far in the red you are in that SUV, you may have to tack on a few (or five or seven) thousand dollars to the price of the hybrid if you want the dealer to take your vehicle as a trade-in.
But what about all that gas savings with the hybrid? That can be quite significant, depending on the vehicle you're replacing. For instance, if you average 1000 miles driven a month, and your SUV got 15 mpg vs. the 45 mpg the hybrid gets, at $4 a gallon you'd save almost $180 a month. The savings increase as gas prices rise, and decrease as they fall. However, if your current vehicle gets the more average 20 mpg, then your savings falls to $110. If you're getting 30 mpg, then the hybrid only saves you $44. In reality, the gas savings a hybrid represents still means a few years before it begins to offset its cost.
In fact, one of the biggest weaknesses of hybrids is their cost. They are generally a few thousand dollars more expensive than their non-hybrid equivalent. And the gas savings between a 35 mpg Honda Accord and a 45 mpg Accord hybrid isn't much. Exacerbating the problem is that there really aren't many used hybrids to be found, meaning you can't buy an older model to save some money. It actually could be much more prudent to buy a regular car that's a few years old and still gets 30 mpg. You could get it for half (or even less) than the cost of a hybrid, and you'd save $130 a month in gas over your 15 mpg SUV.
But Cameron, you say, aren't there tax incentives to buying a hybrid? The answer is...sort of.
Yes, the federal government gives a non-refundable tax credit for buying a hybrid. However, there are multiple catches. First, it's non-refundable, which means if you don't owe any tax (which, surprise! a lot of people don't, particularly the people most worried about gas prices), then the credit does you no good. Second, the credit amount varies with the hybrid you buy, so be sure to check that out first. Most average around $2,000. Third, the credits phase out over time as more hybrids are sold. Once a certain sales threshold is met, the credit is gone. Because of this, the Toyota Prius no longer has a federal tax credit. The Honda Civic hybrid's credit has been cut in half and will soon be gone. Lastly, the credit can only be used by the first owner. If your hybrid is used and was already registered by another owner, no credit for you!
But what about state tax incentives? Utah does not offer one for hybrids. None. They used to, but not any more.
There are, however, some fringe benefits to hybrid ownership. For $15 you can buy a special "clean vehicle" license plate that allows you to drive in the car pool lane even if you're alone. Plus, Salt Lake City lets you park for free at any metered space. So there's that. But these benefits might be tempered somewhat by the fact that your insurance rates could go up with a hybrid.
Even in the face of soaring gas prices, it's wise to be prudent. Buying a hybrid to save money might actually cost you more than you save. It could be wiser to just drive the SUV less in favor of a more fuel efficient second vehicle, or even trade it in for a cheaper, non-hybrid but still very efficient, gas-powered car. Or, you could always start saving your pennies now for a shot at the electric Chevy Volt in 2010.
But does buying a hybrid save money?
I did some online research to find out how much it would cost me to buy a hybrid vehicle. A quick search of large area new and used car lots found seven hybrids. Most are the Toyota Prius, which is by far the highest seller in the hybrid market. But I also found a Lexus and a couple Honda Civic hybrids. The price tag? Anywhere from $26,000 all the way to $37,000 for the used Lexus.
Now, to break that down to a monthly bill depends on a variety of factors like down payment amount, trade in value, and credit score. Not to mention any fees and taxes added to the advertised sale price.
You might argue that an owner of an SUV or truck easily paid the $26-28k it would take to buy a hybrid, so trading it in makes sense. That's quite correct. Unfortunately, SUV's don't hold value very well, so the vast majority of owners are upside down when it comes to how much it's worth vs. how much they owe. In fact, gas prices have made that scenario worse, as SUVs have taken an even larger hit to their resale value.
What does all that mean? Depending on how far in the red you are in that SUV, you may have to tack on a few (or five or seven) thousand dollars to the price of the hybrid if you want the dealer to take your vehicle as a trade-in.
But what about all that gas savings with the hybrid? That can be quite significant, depending on the vehicle you're replacing. For instance, if you average 1000 miles driven a month, and your SUV got 15 mpg vs. the 45 mpg the hybrid gets, at $4 a gallon you'd save almost $180 a month. The savings increase as gas prices rise, and decrease as they fall. However, if your current vehicle gets the more average 20 mpg, then your savings falls to $110. If you're getting 30 mpg, then the hybrid only saves you $44. In reality, the gas savings a hybrid represents still means a few years before it begins to offset its cost.
In fact, one of the biggest weaknesses of hybrids is their cost. They are generally a few thousand dollars more expensive than their non-hybrid equivalent. And the gas savings between a 35 mpg Honda Accord and a 45 mpg Accord hybrid isn't much. Exacerbating the problem is that there really aren't many used hybrids to be found, meaning you can't buy an older model to save some money. It actually could be much more prudent to buy a regular car that's a few years old and still gets 30 mpg. You could get it for half (or even less) than the cost of a hybrid, and you'd save $130 a month in gas over your 15 mpg SUV.
But Cameron, you say, aren't there tax incentives to buying a hybrid? The answer is...sort of.
Yes, the federal government gives a non-refundable tax credit for buying a hybrid. However, there are multiple catches. First, it's non-refundable, which means if you don't owe any tax (which, surprise! a lot of people don't, particularly the people most worried about gas prices), then the credit does you no good. Second, the credit amount varies with the hybrid you buy, so be sure to check that out first. Most average around $2,000. Third, the credits phase out over time as more hybrids are sold. Once a certain sales threshold is met, the credit is gone. Because of this, the Toyota Prius no longer has a federal tax credit. The Honda Civic hybrid's credit has been cut in half and will soon be gone. Lastly, the credit can only be used by the first owner. If your hybrid is used and was already registered by another owner, no credit for you!
But what about state tax incentives? Utah does not offer one for hybrids. None. They used to, but not any more.
There are, however, some fringe benefits to hybrid ownership. For $15 you can buy a special "clean vehicle" license plate that allows you to drive in the car pool lane even if you're alone. Plus, Salt Lake City lets you park for free at any metered space. So there's that. But these benefits might be tempered somewhat by the fact that your insurance rates could go up with a hybrid.
Even in the face of soaring gas prices, it's wise to be prudent. Buying a hybrid to save money might actually cost you more than you save. It could be wiser to just drive the SUV less in favor of a more fuel efficient second vehicle, or even trade it in for a cheaper, non-hybrid but still very efficient, gas-powered car. Or, you could always start saving your pennies now for a shot at the electric Chevy Volt in 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)