Why in the World Would We Elect A 2-Year Junior Governor as Vice President?

Ask Teddy Roosevelt!

He was an outdoorsman, and a governor for 2 years before being invited to run with William McKinley.

A few fast facts about Teddy:

• He served as governor for only two years before becoming Vice President of the United States of America.
• He was only Vice President for one year before becoming President of the United States.
• He was 43 years old which is one year younger than Gov. Sarah Palin.
  

In reality, Sarah Palin isn't as conservative as was Teddy R. but I think contrasting her with Joe Biden and his career, including gaffs and exaggerated and ill informed opinions, she is a wiser alternative. The truth, to this day, is that I honestly believe Biden would be backing McCain had he not gotten a "better (opportunity)."

It actually seems like Sarah has more experience, AND during that experience she proved that she is (1) a reformer, (2) keeps her word and (3) is absolutely willing to work and appoint individuals not in her party.

Read more here: http://chatterboxchronicles.blogspot.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-vs-teddy-roosevelt.html

Cigarette Tax Cost Trickledown

Hey, I love to eat. I will admit it. I have also been known to smoke a cigar from time to time. it's been a while, but I would be a hypocrite if this was a blog entry on the evils of cigarettes. It is not about that. I won't often be found buying a pack of smokes, but there is a good change you might find me with a pack of skittles rolled up under my sleeves and neither is very good for you. I want to say that, because I don't want to be acused of being irrationally judgemental about smoking, well, any more than I am about my own overeating. But I digress.

In this election there is plent of talk about the people sitting in the 95% of the population being cool with the highest boosting of taxes for the remaining 5% of the population. There is also quite a bit of speculation about how this will affect small businesses. I know a number of small buisness that are not going to bring in $250,000 of income in 2009 or likely soon after that. Most of those business are owned by an individual and don't employ other individuals on a fulltime basis. But what of the ones that do have multiple employees and increased costs of opperation due to having to manage that small business with a reasonable amount of community foot traffic? Well, they get hit and you also likely know a few folks who fit into this category. In New Jersey I frequent a few dinners that will fall into that category.

So what will happen if those taxes go up? We can look at the taxation on cigarettes as a historical example of that. Cigarettes are both state and federally taxed. They are taxed at the company level and at the consumer level. Why? Because we are addicted to the product and that yeilds a steady income for state and federal budgets. I am only partly kidding. There are a number of reasons, of which one factor is the stability of consumption on that market. Currently, automobile gas falls into this same category for many of the same reasons. There is a federal gas tax just like there is a federal cigarette tax.

So as cigarettes have increased in taxes those taxes are passed along to the consumer as an increased price. Take a look below at the price to tax ratio on cigarettes in high-income countries as outlined by the Disease Control Priorities Project.

This is 2:3 ratio meaning that for every $3 you spend on a pack of cigarettes, $2 tax dollars are added to the register-price for the consumer (for an average $5 pack.) In a sense, if you are smoker then the government is feeding and banking on the potential of your addiction. On the topic of oil, Obama is proposing a similar "windfall profits" measure on oil companies that make money based on our American addiction to oil in his words to address our "addiction to oil." The idea here is exactly the same. As profits go up for oil companies the Obama government would crank up taxes on those profits (this would obviously trickle down to consumers, just the same way the Fed taxes consumer cigarette purchases.) As a result he will give $1000 annual to couples and $500 to singles in a reverse-tax check to offset fuel prices. He is also proposing that the Federal government not undo the current gas tax on consumers. In this one example it will increase fuel costs, while attempting to keep us buying fuel by offsetting their cost through a reverse tax, while all along continuing to directly Federally tax you at the pump.

Now... imagine this economic cost trickledown rolling out through the entire economy for every significant business that employees people across the U.S? Companies will do what the Federal government is doing and increase the cost at the register, sharing that tax burden. From oil to a breakfast out with friends, increased taxes affect us on mainstreet. Like McCain said in the third Presidential debate, this is definitely not the time to be talking about raising taxes.

To simplify the idea here: The Federal government adds taxes to the at-the-register cost of cigarettes for the consumer. Business would likely follow-suite, doing the same thing the Federal government does to offset this huge increase in taxes (huge increased for both privately owned successful small busines as well as corporate taxes for large business that make everyday stuff like toiletpaper or socks or package milk.) Remember that "windfall profits" taxes and evil oil companies are the posterchild for the fight against corporate greed, but know that many regular consumer goods producing companies and company owners across America will see their personal and corporate taxes go up in Obamas plan as well.

McCain wants to repeal the gas tax. He wants to invest in pursuing and rewarding alternative fuel research rather than benefiting from our oil addiction. He doesn't want to grow the government and give out more money only at the expense of increased consumer costs for goods. This is one example of what McCain refers to as "risk" associated with Obama's plans.

Biden's Ignorance Exposed

That is a dramatic title to suck you in. Now that you are reading, please review the following news article about the fact checking the Vice Presidential debate.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html
Isn't it odd that Palin gets deemed completely unqualified by the news to be a Vice President and Biden gets a golden pass, but Biden has less of an actual understanding of that role, confuses historical facts and makes up and exaggerates other facts. People mess up facts all of the time, but he shouldn't get a pass if the press is going to BBQ Palin for also making mistakes. Where is the reasonable justice in that?

Christians Navigating Roe vs Wade In A Day of Uncertainty

Right now in the U.S. Presidential election of 2008 the American public are discussing the topic of Abortion. It seems that nearly everyone is frustrated with this topic for a number of reasons. Whether you feel that the issue is being exploited for political gain or you feel that it is the only issue a Christian can see clearly on in this tumultuous race, many folks are fighting a battleground of the mind to figure out have to come to some comfortable balance within themselves.

I read a comment on a blog recently that brought some very well thought out ideas on the issue of abortion during this current debate. As an admitted Christian the issue of abortion was definitely on the mind of the commenter. At the same time, the individual expressed heartfelt concern with the issues of ministry to the poor and justice against issue like corporate greed. For that writer, it wasn't that they were toiling over supporting abortion (which is complicated enough when you start to think about abortion in it's variations: partial birth, morning after, medical life-saving birth abortion, case of incest and rape, abortion as birth control, etc.) as much as the fact that they were skeptical that it would really be changed under either candidate and whether or not they could see a greater opportunity to make advanced in ministry to the poor and justice with regard to corporate and personal greed. Said another way, nobody could misunderstand their desire to advocate for their spiritual values, rather it was a debate as to which values were going to be the priority in this election.

Honestly, I personally support this writers personal dilemma and I don't want to undervalue it. At the same time I understand how someone could think that maybe this issue is simply being exploited for political gain. To be fair, on either side the candidates are adamantly in support of the opposite end of the issue when it comes to their voting records, speeches and published goals. So it isn't too difficult to build a reasonable case that would demonstrate that both McCain and Obama are pandering to either side for their respective votes. So how do you navigate these waters? If you thought I was going to arrogantly tell you how, then either way you would be making an over investment in my ego. At best I feel like I can put myself out there and explain the road I am walking down.

In this world of information overload no issue seems simple anymore. No matter how many polls you are reading, or scientific journals you are pouring over, or Bible verses you have amassed, it seems that no information is enough information so much that we can feel certain about anything anymore. This feeling is exaggerated by watching old T.V. preachers over-simplify issues. The result of this is a reasonable sentiment against simply adhering to the announced agenda of the “Christian Right,” even if the “Christian Right” is actually as elusive as the “Them” or “The Man.” As a Christians I find myself often being accused of but not always falling into the position of the elusive “Christian Right.” But this is a stereotype like any other, even if there is a measure of truth to it.

As a result of a crippling exhaustion to consider all of the complication of any real world issue, in the end people say stuff like “clarity is overrated.” In the Christian world a gentleman by the name of Brian McLaren stated this notion the most clearly in one of his books. What he said specifically is that clarity is difficult hence overrated, and at the same time we are completely underrating the mystery that is Christianity. McLaren is not a fan of propositional theology, meaning he doesn't support the idea that we can look at the Bible and infer some values. In his writing, this is cause of the clarity obsession. I agree with McLaren and believe that there is a beautiful mystery in the Christian faith. This mystery is how Jesus could make such an amazing decision to trade his earthly life for ours as an ultimate gift of personal sacrifice. I think many Christians feel the same way and want to focus on this as by far the major Christian issue. Having said that, here is where the issue of underrating clarity kind of breaks down. In the book following McLaren previous books where he endorsed underrating clarity he said, “In one of my previous books, is said that clarity is sometimes overrated and that intrigue is correspondingly undervalued. But here I want to say – clearly ...” and McLaren went on to craft a statement using modern systematic theological techniques. I think McLaren nailed the point. Let's unpack it a bit. In some cases we struggle to gain a clear view of how to feel about an issue that is absent from the Bible. I think there are plenty of issues that do exist that fall into that category and the fact that some Christian folks get crazy pulling scriptures out of context to craft goofy support for some hard-edged religious dogma has resulted in many jaded Christians. But surely, like McLaren is showing here, clarity or truth or rightness isn't wrong and we shouldn't be afraid of stating it or believing it in cases where it is more clearly outlined in the Bible. David in the Old Testament talked about loving God's law and went on to say in the Psalms that there is blessing intended by God for us in knowing it and following it. Jesus talked about the law being made for us, not so that we can mistreat or ignore it, but so that we can learn from it and be blessed by it. Said another way, the word of God is “for us” and is made to bring blessing into our lives in a very New Testament context and we should avoid bending it by either disregarding it because “clarity is overrated” or abusing it through proof-texting by cherry-picking a number of scriptures out of context to create some convoluted or overstated view.

So I am thinking about this stuff. And I want to know what or if the Bible says anything about the issues the blog commenter above wrote about. Not as a matter of heartless adherence like some “Christian Right” atomaton. As a friend of Jesus, I want to know what the Bible says is His heart on the matter. There is also this issue of the Kingdom of God. This metaphor is where the concept of the “Lordship of Christ” comes from. Being around the faith for a long time, sometimes the phrase “Lord Jesus” just becomes a jumble of words. But the Bible explains the meaning of this concept of Lordship as a reference to the role of Jesus as “King” in that “Kingdom.” So, again Jesus my friend is speaking to my heart (and the hearts of Christians who are making it a point to listen, likely including you if you fall into that group) about these matters. As well, I am going to naturally subordinate my goals and purposes to Jesus my King, as I find them both in His Word and in His heart.

So now I have taken you through my completely internal process on this stuff. It's isn't really much more complicated than that. Basically it has be going back to the Bible and talking with the Lord about it. What about my external process? Well, this is a really sensitive issue, in that people can get quite cranked up about this. In some cases people get angry with each other when they disagree. Personally, I think it is the responsibility of the Lord to look into a persons heart and not my responsibility. On a practical level that means there is no reason to get mad at someone for what they think. What they think is up to them and not up to me. Having said that the Bible says we should “reason together.” This is cool. It means we should feed into each others process. Obviously the risk is that people want more influence than “feeding in” should allow them. From proof-texting T.V. pastors to parents to friends to hollywood, I've found that the influence of my mind is a battle ground. Whether you have wrapped your brain around an issue, pursuing Biblical clarity and finding it or if you are still searching, it is important that we pursue the kind of clarity that McLaren seems to value. But I am definitely not stopping short of searching for it or rejecting the biblical notion of “reasoning together” with people, trading in clarity for the idea that we shouldn't even be looking. David asked God to change his heart and God is in the business of doing this on a host of issues. If someone claims that this is not important, then I would challenge them to find a Biblical justification for choosing to imagine the world is completely gray (not that it is all black or white.)

So next I decided see if I could find some good example about these important Christian issues, and man there are a lot of scriptures, so I will only share a few inspirational ones.

On the topic of the poor, Jesus drew a cool parallel between himself and the poor and downtrodden. He said, “What you do to the least of these, you do to me.” This is like a protective older sibling on one hand and a friend appealing to another friend to take up His values on the other. It is clear that Jesus cares about the poor. Most of these scriptures in the New Testament are directed at the believers and not specifically the government, but then again the Bible was written for believers and not specifically for government officials. Obviously, if you are a government official and a believer then it would influence your desire to mobilize those values from your empowered position. Having said that, there are plenty of scriptures that outline that Jesus cares about the poor and helping out the poor is a Kingdom priority. On a personal note, and I think many Christians would agree, at the minimum -at the minimum- Jesus is holding Christians accountable for what we “do to the least of these.” This is first and foremost personal before it would ever be governmental. Our hearts would naturally motivate us to help people out in every responsible way we can.

The Bible has to say a bit about greed. Jesus actually doesn't talk too much about money but he did in a few parables and when he spoke to few people. Jesus said that the older woman who gave an offering at the synagogue gave more than everyone else. This isn't directly about greed. You have to get a little bit “propositional” to come to any conclusions about this, but it seems a lesson might be that she was an example about how not to be greedy, maybe. That is a stretch obviously. Jesus talked to the “rich young ruler” who will remain nameless to protect him from our judgment of him (I guess, I don't know.) In this situation Jesus helped the man see that it is harder for a rich person to get into heaven. Now, Jesus didn't say that all rich men to go to hell, which would be a stretch. I think (and this is propositional) that Jesus could be talking about replacing Kingdom priorities with wealth-oriented priorities. In the New Testament there is a story about someone who tried to lie about money issues and it inevitably killed the couple. It is also a common Biblical quote that “the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.” This often gets misquoted as “money is the root of evil.” I think that the issue is a love for money being the root cause of all kinds of evil on the planet. Clearly the Bible has something to say about greed even if it is mostly determined by making a few propositional inferences from the Bible. McLaren might be uncomfortable about that and say that since it is mostly propositionally based that clarity on this point is overrated. I might be oversimplifying but I think the Bible cares that we advocate against greed.

Abortion is really an apples to oranges debate. The apples say it is about respecting and protecting the rights of the unborn. The oranges say that it is about respecting and protecting the rights of the mother to make decisions about her pregnant body. This is an oversimplification but I am not really writing this blog entry to come to some better understanding about a definition of the abortion debate. I am interested in what the Bible might have to say about it. Now, naturally as an “orange” here, I am thinking about the issue of conception. So here is a verse or two on the topic:

Psalms 139:13-18

13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

17 How precious to [a] me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!

18 Were I to count them,
they would outnumber the grains of sand.
When I awake,
I am still with you.

As a Christian it is clear that God is at work on that baby in the womb. This isn't really even a propositional assertion. Contextually, David knew that he was valued by God and with an eye to that valuation God crafted him intentionally. It is scriptures like this that remind us that God is completely in our corner, believing in us and rooting for us and wanting us to experience “wonderful(ness)” as David said. It seems clear that God cares about us from the moment of conception.

So back to the blog commenters dilemma.

Since this entry is about Roe vs. Wade in a time of uncertainty, I am going to talk a little about the candidates and their relationship to this case.

If Obama is championing relief to the poor and justice against greed, and McCain is championing pro-life causes, then one has a very serious and personal decision to make. In the third Presidential debate when discussing the issue of abortion Obama said that the next President will likely appoint at least one or more judges to the Supreme Court and as a result it will either affirm or overturn Roe vs Wade. Obama affirmed his illinois and Federal senatorial record having spoken out against overturning Roe vs. Wade and that when he was given a chance to vote for or against any pro-life legislation with regard to abortion he opted out of voting, even though he spoke out against the legislation. McCain and Obama both agreed that whomever they recommend as judges, these judges would be experienced and professional people. McCain confirmed his position as a advocate of rights for the unborn. It is clear that while they are interested in appointing skilled people and we can be happy about that, I don't think anyone feels that we don't understand both the histories of these candidates and the direction of their future Supreme Court appointments.

The bigger question for me as a person Biblically called to “reason together” with others would be, which of these values might be poised for the most change? Well, to answer that, I am reflecting on some big things that have happened this year on the Supreme Court.

In 2008 the Supreme Court added to their agenda a desire to review the impact of Roe vs. Wade on the last 30 years of it's history. A part of that review has been the opportunity for women with very personal stories being asked to bravely share their experiences as individuals who have undergone abortions. Specifically their testimonies are being used to supplement a study reviewing the devastating psychological health issues related to abortion. A part of such information going before the Supreme Court is the need to review new technology that can tell us much more about babies in the womb. Back in the early 1970s they didn't have the technology or understanding about how babies can writhe in pain in the womb. There has been a reasonable amount of speculation about how such evidence would overturn this antiquated case and demand a new set of constraints on abortion based on reasonable information about what is going on in terms of child development in all trimesters. So this process has already started.

Again, Obama said the next President will likely appoint people who will either affirm or overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Finally, both the Democrat National Convention as well as the RNC have acknowledged a need to solve issues around abortion. Over the last 30 years Americans have aborted 50 million babies. Both camps agree, whether you are thinking of the mother or the child, that 50 million babies is too large a number. At the same time, America continues to have 3000 abortions per day. Again, everyone agrees that this number is too large. Contextually it is deemed too large when considering the fact that only 2-3% of those 3000 abortions per day are related to pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Everyone also feels that 100 pregnancies per day caused by rape or incest is too large a number. Something is definitely wrong and abortion in the context of Roe vs Wade is a part of creating problems for our country, not just by killing babies, but by negatively affecting the mental health of a huge portion of our country. Most of the country agrees that we aren't living in a gray issue here. If there is a gray then the gray has more to do with how to undo Roe vs. Wade yet still allow cases for abortions in life threatening or other reasonable situations.

I don't personally think that there is a better time to consider fixing a big problem with abortion in America. Agreeing with both McCain and Obama, who both said it in different ways, the real problem is a cultural one. But having said that, if we have an opportunity to correct a legal problem that has facilitated 50 million abortions in our country by undoing a broken and antiquated law, then we force America to start talking about taking a more reasonable and educated approach with a responsible view of abortion. We need this change. For me, I do believe that like Jesus said, “the poor will always be with us” and Jesus will be personally validating His word making me responsible for how I treat and help out the poor. As well, I believe Jesus wants me to be very careful about my attitude toward money and avoid attitudes of greed as well as to fight for justice with regard to greed. At the same time I don't believe that government entitlement programs are about to go away or that private sector philanthropy or justice initiatives will go away any time soon. But who knows when we will have a clearer opportunity to address the problems obviously and inherently found in Roe vs Wade. By the opinion of Obama himself, this will be a product of this current election.

The Record: Breaking An American Addiction To Oil

There is a lot of talk in this campaign about breaking America's addiction to oil. This is one of those areas of the campaign where Obama and McCain are not too awfully far apart in terms of having a verbalized goal, it would seem. This goal enters their speach when they say phrases like "break our dependance" or "break our addiction." The techniques they want to employ to achieve those goals, however, are quite different.

Introduction: I have heard a number of Obama supporters say that they would be fine paying higher gas / oil prices if it meant breaking an American addiction to oil. If that is your goal, then you are actually more in line with the goals and plans of John McCain when you look at the details, which we will do by reviewing an article by the Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14755/

Let's a take a look through these independently researched facts:

Obama-

The core of his plan to deal with our addiction has everything to do with the windfall profits tax he would like to apply to oil companies. This is how this would work. A windfall profit tax would be applied to those companies and as a result the proceeds would be turned into “tax rebates” ($1000/yr for couples and $500/yr for singles.) The idea here is that if oil companies are making windfall profits (this is vague, as in not yet defined as to what a windfall profit is exactly) then the tax would help offset the cost at the pump. Assuming windfall profits go away, so would the tax rebates (this part is a little more unclear.)

My analysis: tax rebates fall into the category of entitlements. This means that once the rebates are voted on, then the money has to come from somewhere to pay for them. In a sense, we would need windfall profits to pay for these rebates. In that sense, if the rebates pass congress then Congress is counting on the windfall “fundraiser” to follow successfully. Folks like McCain are saying that this plan actually creates a federal addiction to oil through planning on and needing the tax proceeds of big oil companies. Imagine how unfulfilling this plan might feel if we were talking about a drug addiction. Taxing a drug dealer to reduce the cost of the drugs we are addicted to. I am not sure how this solves the problem.

Next Obama in august of 2008 Obama said he “supports the sale of 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "for less expensive crude, which in the past has lowered gas prices within two weeks." This statement signaled a shift of position for Obama, who in July 2008 said he did not believe the United States should use that reserve supply.

My analysis: It keeps us in oil, and aims to provide cheaper oil.

Obama said he would close loopholes that jack up oil prices.

My analysis: Still talking about making oil cheaper.

Next Obama said we need to use less oil as a country.

My Analysis: Honestly, this sounds like Gov. Palin but more importantly every candidate is saying this and I think it is a good goal. However, it will take some advances in technology to make this more possible. I am glad he says this is what he wants, but hopefully we as a country will move toward this technologically.

In 2007 one month after Obama announced his run for the Presidency, Obama co-authored the Fuel Economy Reform Act, which proposed that automobiles become more fuel efficient.

My analysis: This is yet again less to do with getting ride of oil dependance and more about cheeper. This “bill” never saw the light of day. It wasn't that it was shot down. It was that it was never introduced to be voted on.

Obama said in January 2008 that he would support nuclear if it was safe and the waste was well taken care of.

My analysis: Finally we are done talking about more and cheaper oil. Again, many candidates agree, but the additional speculation here is the apparently uneducated fear around nuclear waste disposal is a slightly more outdated perspective. Obama has caught some flack for simply not understanding issues surrounding advances in nuclear technology.

McCain-

McCain says he supports an "all of the above" approach to energy security, meaning he will "support the development of alcohol-based fuels, establish a permanent research and development tax credit to support energy innovation, and will encourage an even-handed system of tax credits for renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass."

My analysis: This is a long term approach since what he is saying is that we need to focus on seeing technology develop to the degree that we can actually do away with dependence. Recall above that Obama said we need to use less oil. This is how that would happen.

He said he would lift federal restrictions on domestic oil exploration in the United States. At the same time he has stressed the importance of protecting refuges like the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This is what McCain calls the “Lexington project.”

My analysis: Like Obama, this is less about avoiding an oil addiction and more about just making oil cheeper. Speculation here says that oil prospecting takes time and that this would again possibly take a while to see the benefit.

McCain has been a proponent of nuclear power. The Lexington Project includes aggressive goals about running more of the country on nuclear power. That plan has always included safe storage of nuclear waste and included a desire to position America as championing safe storage as a world leader in cooperation with other countries.

My analysis: McCain has given Obama a bit of a hard time about not having a more reasonable understanding of nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Rightly so. Obama entered the conversation quite late for whatever reason. McCain also speaks to the need for America to champion the storage and management of nuclear waste. Obama doesn't speak about nuclear energy on this level.

At about the same time McCain and Leibermann proposed the Climate Stewardship Act and they said it “harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming." Later versions of the McCain-Lieberman legislation included billions of dollars in subsidies for nuclear energy companies. In one felled swoop McCain attempted to reduce oil dependence and work toward protecting the environment. The bill didn't pass.

My analysis: McCain receives a lot of flack for supposedly not backing alternative energy efforts. In this Act he was backing subsidizes support for nuclear American investment and environmental protection. While there have been some bills and acts about alternative fuel that he took objection with, generally the accusation is false.

Again, McCain does not support the windfall profits tax for the above reasons.

My analysis: See my Obama criticism on this talking point.

Finally, McCain promoted the idea of a “clean car challenge” as well as a $300 million challenge to get companies to pursue building an automobile energy storage solution that can out-power modern hybrids.

My analysis: I like these two initiatives because they are proven to work. An example would be the modern “space race” in the form of the private industry “X-Prize” paid out to a company named scaled composites for building a more efficient private sector equivalent to the NASA Space shuttle. It was an amazing success. In the case of being both clean and breaking a dependence on oil, this recommendation again pulls that goal off.

Conclusion:

Obama- grade of C

Obama appears to support energy alternatives, but the large majority of his plans simply make oil cheaper or more abundant rather than provide significant goals toward alternatives. On the upside, Obama has made a number of changes to these plans and might change them again sometime in the next few weeks before the election. Personally, again... my blog, Obama's talk about “change” could be interpreted as him “changing” his mind on stuff, which often makes nailing his goals down a little difficult (example: definition of a “windfall” and how that tax actually breaks our dependence on oil.) Again, in the short term he seems to have a goal of lower gas prices, but the goal of eliminating an American dependence on oil seems to have gone missing almost entirely.

McCain- grade of B

He appears to have supported energy alternatives in form of voting and co-authoring bills, historically, as well as making plans to promote an effort and investment toward the goal of breaking a dependence on oil. Note that this runs contrary to the Obama accusation directed at McCain. On the downside, there doesn't seem to be as many short term goals of lowering the cost of oil which seems to be a priority of Obama.

Intro Review: Again, I have heard a number of Obama supporters say that they would be fine paying higher gas / oil prices if it meant breaking an American Addiction to oil. If that is your goal, then you are actually more in line with the goals and plans of John McCain when you look at the details.

Update: If I wanted to be more specific about giving them a score, I could award a point for plans that include breaking dependence and a negative point for plans than do not help this goal. I considered this, but in the end McCain would end up with a number that was very positively correlated toward this goal and Obama would have ended up with a negatively correlated score. Do the math for yourself. Even if I had simply awarded a point for items that helped achieve the goal, ignoring those that do not help, McCain would still get a much higher score than Obama.

Palin and the Alaskan Independance Party

A friend of mine let me know about a connection of Palin to the Alaskan Independance Party. Now, you may not know about the Alaskan Independence Party because they never blew anything up, or got involved in real estate scandals or anything like that, but that doesn't mean there might be a connection between the historic activity of the Independence Party and Sarah Palin.

So who is the Alaskan Independence Party? Well they are very much like the other third-political-party groups across America. Namely, they are quite conservative, believe in home schooling, feel that government should be a small institution, and (here is the hum-dinger) wanted to secede from the United States of America (I know, wow?) So that is what I read about them in the press, for example, this L.A. Times article.

Consulting wikipedia, what you can find is that back before 1973 (hey, that was the year that I was born) the party still talked about seceding. In reality they had a couple of options on the table:

1. Remain a territory.
2. Become a separate nation.
3. Accept common wealth status.
4. Become a state.

Did I mention this was on the ballot back in 1958? Well, that is when the group got it's start. So a lot of people feel like maybe there is something un-American about the state of Alaska seceding. Where they not purchased in 1867? Isn't it un-American to suggest leaving America... AS RECENT AS 1958?

Well, context is everything. Alaska become a U.S. State as the result of the 1958 ballot becoming the 49th U.S. State in January of 1959. So, basically, the Alaskan Independence Party has continued to wish they had seceded for the next 13 years. It is now 35 years later and the party still exists, but according to wikipedia, again, they aren't pushing for seceding.

So that is all I know about the Alaskan Independence Party. If you know more, please add a comment on the blog.

So what of Gov. Palin's connection with the party?

Well, ABC News posted a web story a while back stating that Gov. Palin was previously a member of that party, that she had attended a part convention in 1994, that she spoke at a convention in 2006 and that her husband was a party member.

Here is what I've found. In 1994 Sarah Palin attending the party convention with her husband, who was a party member at the time. She was not. In fact she has never been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. According to the Alaskan Division of Elections, she has been a registered republican since 1982.

Sarah Palin did speak at the 2006 AIP convention. She was running for Governor of Alaska as a republican at the time. So again, for the record, she was not an AIP. She was pimping her Republican credentials to AIP members asking them to vote for her, a Republican.

Since the ABC web posting stating that she was an AIP member the McCain / Palin campaign corrected those rumors and called them to task for not doing their homework it seems. People get stuff wrong all of the time. As long as they fix it, that is what is important. Palin and McCain have since reiterated the message that Palin supports the pursuit of appropriate political action from any party, not just her own, and has a proven record of working with people from other parties, including appointing people not in her party to her governatorial administration. I think that this once again bares that reality out.

She is conservative. She is a Republican. She does work with people across party lines, and she doesn't switch hats to pull that off.

As a final note (thus far, I am new to this AIP issue so there might be more to come) I don't hold her husbands affiliation with the AIP against Sarah Palin. Why? Am I giving her a pass? Before you jump to saying yes, let's talk about Michelle Obama. It was during her husband's run for the presidency (2008) that she said that this was the first time in her adult life that she was proud to be an American. I think there are people out there who have been reasonably embarrassed about stuff that had an American stamp on it, but a very small contingent of America says such things. Honestly, I think she was being colloquial. I don't think she was embarrassed her entire adult life with being an American. She was just caught up in the moment and said something just ever so slightly dramatic. I will give her un-American sentiment a pass and absolutely give Obama a pass. Even if she had spent her entire American adulthood embarrassed at this great, amazing, philanthropic nation and decided to spew her anti-American "my husband is the only great thing about America" rhetoric (which I don't think she was doing), I would still give him a pass because... he is not his wife. Likewise, even though being AIP isn't the worst thing in the world (from what I can read so far), Palin is not her husband.

Fall in New Jersey

A photo from the drive to work!