Barack O'Copy

So it is week number two and I am sweating on an elliptical trainer at the gym over lunch. To pass the 30+ minutes I typically listen to my iPod and watch the news on mute and read the closed captioning.

Today, once again, I saw Barack follow after John McCain, pretending yet again that he is a pioneer. About a week ago today during the debate John McCain was undermined by both Obama and later the press for suggesting that the government should specifically bail out mainstreet by specifically addressing the fact that many Americans are struggling under mortgages that many can't afford. Regardless of what you think about any of the bailout plans there has been a hort-load of speculation about how expensive or unreasonable or redundant a specific mainstreet bailout would be. Now, John McCain is talking about the federal government buying up those mortgages and then, over time, the government makes its money back from the value of those mortgages. The idea is that the U.S. government can wait out a very long term investment a lot easier than banks or home owners.

Now take a look at Barack O'Copy's plan. His answer for mainstreet is to simulate the market and create jobs, assuming that a lack of employment is what is responsible for people defaulting on loans. Next, he wants to block foreclosures on homes where the owner only owns one home, for three months. Next, he wants to give tax-breaks to companies that create jobs here in America. Let's look at what this will do for home owners. Employment might be one reason for defaulting home loans, but we know it is not to blame for variable rate loans from predatory lenders. The three month delay on foreclosures will do just that: delay the foreclosure for three months. If renegotiating loans can't get done in time (this is incredible pressure on a currently stressed out banking system) and jobs are not to blame, or people cannot get jobs quickly enough, then three months is too little too late. Finally, giving companies a tax break sure sounds like John McCain. I think the distinction is that O'Copy only wants to give those breaks to mid-sized companies (not the evil large corporations) ... why????? Oh... My.... Goodness....! Wait for it!? Because tax breaks for companies mean simulating the economy toward growth! Whaaaaat? Wait? Obama said that this is the very exact "failed policy of Bush and the Republicans." Obama!? Isn't this basically the same trickle-down policy by another name? Isn't the net effect the same (lowered tax burden for everyone equaling more jobs!?)

But the bottom line is that companies don't just create jobs so they can get a tax break. There has to be work for those new employees to do. And if those companies could create jobs, and Obama is promising them tax-burden relief for two years, how would that really work? Two years means this whole job creation thing wouldn't kick in quick enough to solve the mainstreet mortgage issue in reality.

Obama is a stinker! But we don't have to be! He is showing his true colors. Taxing the rich isn't our duty. He isn't about justice through taxation, or fairness through taxation, or duty or patriotism! He is simply holding a federal fundraiser for his expensive programs. But once again, in true form, Obama is taking a lesson from the guy who should be president, John McCain, but somehow the ignorant public are thinking that if Obama says it, well... it must be his idea, right?

Better off Entertained

Well no matter the political stress and economic downturn, there always seem to be at least two ways to reduce the effect of pressure:

1. Exercise: (Yeah right?)
2. Entertainment (OK, sign me up.)

Actually I am always ready for entertainment and recently I signed up to get back to working out, which is going well. But this takes us back to point number one: Entertainment.

And what is more entertaining than an movie from the 1980s which I recently received in the mail from blockbuster:

Go Plow-Don-key, Go Plow-Donkey, Go Plow-Donkey, Go-Go-Go!

(sung to the tune of "Go Speedracer!")

For some time now I have enjoyed the iconic pixelart of eBoy. So naturally I am a fan of this new pixel art. Go Plow-Donkey, Go!


OK, one more for your viewing pleasure:

A Broken Clock is Still Right Twice A Day

Anyone can give good advice. Like the old saying says, “A broken clock is still right twice a day.” Generally, however, I don't think I would consult a known broken clock it what I am looking for is an accurate account of the time. If you are looking for expert understanding then you look for an expert. Ok, forget clocks. We are talking about humans.

I would like to introduce you to one of the most well known broken clocks that actually received a world renown award for sounding off an alarm as if from an expert perspective. Everyone, please put your hands together for Al Gore.

Ok, this is a pretty dramatic lead-in on the issue of Al Gore presenting the topic of Global Warming. And I am not going to go into the validity of Global Warming (and more importantly the discussion surrounding the relative importance of human causes.) All of the minutia on that topic will be addressed in my book, “Global Warming and Other Trends and Movements As Pioneered By Politics and Popular Opinion.” I am kidding, and I digress. The full scope of this short topic can be summed up in the question, “Is Al Gore a well educated champion of Global Warming?” Let me drop a few facts down on you.

1. Al Gore went to Harvard, and this is where he was introduced to issues of Global Warming.
2. Al Gore received a grade of “D” in Natural Sciences.
3. Al Gore received a score of 488(out of 800) in Physics.
4. Al Gore received a score of 519 in Chemistry.
5. In his senior year Al Gore raised his Natural Sciences to a grade of “C-”
   

Now, to repeat, I am not addressing the issue of human causes of Global Warming. But I am thinking that this makes for an incredibly bizarre story. Any of us who had to take science classes in college likely did better than Al Gore. And how many of you understand the details of the complex equations, graphs and trends involved in the U.N. report on Global Warming? For the record, I only read the summary of that report, and for the record I did better than a “C” in my college science classes and it took me days to get through that summary.

With grades this low, Al Gore is completely in someone else's pocket on this topic. Someone is spoon-feeding him the summary and likely what to think about it. In all likelihood he knows how to give his presentation but there is almost no chance he can speak intelligently on the topic in reality. At best, he is like a reporter on the nightly news reading the TelePrompter.

“Stay classy, San Diego,” if you know what I mean. Stay classy, Al Gore.

Full Disclosure: I am a believer in responsible living. I recycle, drive a full efficient car, turn off and unplug electronic devices that typically use phantom power, go digital rather than waste a lot of paper, etc. My personal goal is to reduce my "waste" footprint, but having read a number of reports from all sides of the argument, I honestly struggle with the concept of the "carbon footprint." But at the same time, mark my words, Federal politics will likely find a way to create a tax based on some over-simplified calculation for "personal carbon footprint" which will require Americans to pay a tax-penalty on something they don't really understand. But we will do it because people like Al Gore and Leonardo DeCaprio and Matt Damon have done their part to bring us PBS specials straight from the TelePrompter.

Good political art

I was sent this link from the world magazine. Funny stuff. I put a few image captions below the pictures. Leave comments and tell me what captions you would put under the drawing!

^ a veritable who's who of scandalous associations

^ A typical CBS News fact-check session

Does Obama Denounce and Reject Farrikhan?

Honestly, so far I haven't been a fan of imagining that Obama really supports Farrakhan. I really have imagined that he is not in support of that dude. In fact, I think if he was really in support of Farrakhan it would be a game-changer for him. So I was thinking back to the Tim Russert challenge on this topic during the Obama / Hillary fight for the democrat nomination and how Obama said that he both "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Farrakhan. Naturally, I am crazy about researching this stuff and I wanted to be sure I have a clear understand.

Now, I want to be reasonable and imagine that Obama himself doesn't support him, based on his words. And I was able to quickly find his words. I also did some research to find out what Farrakhan really said about Obama and the fact is that he calls him the "Messiah", and specifically calls him "the stone that the builders rejected" and the "chief cornerstone" (both New Testament references to Jesus, basically calling Obama the second coming.) Farrakhan is mobilizing his followers to vote for Obama under this rhetoric. That is pretty scarry stuff. But in response to that Obama has said that he doesn't want nor has he solicited Farrakhan's support and more specifically he says that he rejects and denounces the things Farrakhan is saying.

To be fair and reasonable, I tend to believe that candidates do in fact believe the last thing they have said, but I temper my trust in that by examining what they said previously on the same issue. Now, I cannot find any previous statements about Farrakhan from Obama except for what he has said on this topic. It only seems at best that Obama moved from saying that his pastor's award to Farrakhan was for something specific and had nothing to do with anti-semetic statements, and then within a short period moved over to rejecting and denouncing. Some might look at that history and say that Obama minimized Farrakhan perspective and then later denounced it (showing yet another flip-flop once revealed.) At the minimum, it seems that Obama has never said anything directly supportive of Farrakhan. But really, that is not what this blog post is about.

I am writing this blog post because I have bumped into the same rhetorric of support for Obama despite various revelations of his contraditory opinions.

A few weeks ago I wrote about a conversation I had with a friend who felt that Obama isn't like McCain with regard to war and strategy, even though he is currently pandering toward McCain's perspective over the weeks gone bye. More importantly, he said that even though Obama sounds more and more like McCain, he is convinced Obama will end up being the Obama that he liked at some previous point during the campaign. he feels that the current tougher version of Obama is just pandering and that inevitably Obama will return to the version that my friend liked the most.

Jump over to the Chicago Sun-Times. With all of this rejecting and denouncing of Farrakhan, it seems like Obama is poised to lose the support of Farrakhan supporters. Surprisingly that is not the case. Why you might ask, like me? You would think that if Obama is seriously rejecting and denouncing Farrakhan then both Farrakhan and his supporters would be up in arms and definitely not supporting him. Check out this quote from Sun-Times Columnist Mary Mitchell.

"When Sen. Barack Obama "rejected" and "denounced" the support of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan during the MSNBC debate last week, it wasn't his finest hour.

Fortunately for Obama, most black people understand the game."

You can read the entire article here which communicates that while black people are upset at Obama for denouncing and rejecting Farrakhan, that the black population understand the game, implying that Obama must reject Farrakhan to get broader support, but black people really know that Obama is playing a game.

Now I am not agreeing or disagreeing with what she is saying. Rather I am surprised at this common dialog. The shocking piece of this would be that people can't seem to justify the contradictions of Obama. The harder part of the contradictions would be that they go against the fundamental reasons they were originally going to vote for Obama (e.g. His fight against warmongers, timelines for getting out of Iraq, being anti-nuclear power, various entitlement programs that have changed, etc.) So rather than continuing to support Obama's new platform, they, like the author above, have decided that Obama is just playing a game and he will return to an earlier version of himself once he is President.

This is the worst kind of politics and the emptiest hope of all. Here is the miracle of what seems to be Obama's political approach:

1. You say you believe in perspective "A"
2. As a result all perspective "A" voters come running to vote for you
3. Later you say you believe in perspective "B" but sell it as "A+amendment 1"
4. As a result all perspective "B" voters come running to vote for you. They doubt you ever really believed in perspective "A" -- you were only "pandering"
5. As a result all perspective "A" voters still vote for you and they doubt you every really believed in perspective "B" -- you were only "pandering"

The inevitable danger as a voter is... you really don't know who you are voting for. Is this candidate 1-version A or candidate 1-version B?

Frankly I am not sure how to figure this out, but I would rather the American people just demand that the candidates truly speak out a resoundingly consistent message without pandering.

Here is my new definition for pandering: Pandering is not telling the truth. It isn't a game. It isn't a half-truth. It is a lie, and we shouldn't send a signal that we will be OK with seeing them lie if it means they get to be president.

McCain connections versus Obama connections

I watched a couple videos that were sent to me about McCain associations with political "terrorists." As a voting American it warrents examination (especially if I am planning on voting for McCain.)

Having watched those videos and researched the players involved I think there are obvious factor that differentiate McCain’s associations in comparison to Obama's on these talking points. Let's examine them:

1. The Keeting 5: McCain had a connection to the group, but was quickly exonerated for having not actually participated in any poor behavior. It is worth note that other in the group were not exonerated. Only John Glenn (Democrat) and McCain (Republican) were said to have not done anything wrong (so you cannot say that Republicans let him off the hook since a Democrat and a Republican were said to be guiltless.) This happened in 1989. McCain still apologized to Americans for what that group had done. He didn’t take ownership, but he did verbalize sympathy for any harm that group caused.
   
2. His Attendance at the controversial meeting: In this case he was invited to speak but didn’t have a long time association with this group or specifically any tie directly to people who were a part of radical groups. In fact there is no ongoing connect for him with these groups.

So, in that sense he has been around people who have gotten into trouble, but in neither of these examples do we find him teemed up with these people in long-time relationships surrounding a direct connection to goofiness. We all know that politicians from Chicago will always win a contest on "number of objectionable associations through proximity." Obama's list is too long if we are simply going to mention who he sat next to at a meeting. In both of the above examples McCain was either completely peripheral or implicated but exonerated. This isn't quite the case with Obama. Now let's look at Obama:

1. Obama chaired on an “education” committee founded by Ayers that did all sort of goofy experimental education thing that resulted in the undermining of school leadership and the promotion of his campaign. Read the wall street journal expose:
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212856075765367.html
2. The fundraiser meeting McCain attended was a one time thing in 1993 and hardly comparable to the decade or more that Obama has known Ayers and been involved in implementing his radical agenda (according to the Washington Post) / political fundraising. As well it is worth mentioning that the mention of the woman who shot the doctor was noted in a prayer and the Oregon Citizens Alliance is not known for radical involvement. It is simply a grass roots political group that is trying to get legislation passed. Unlike the Weathermen they aren’t responsible for blowing things up or hurting people or disrespecting property. To say they are simply because a woman was mentioned at a meeting in a prayer in 1993 is a huge exaggeration.

The associations on the McCain side are obvious but harmless at best. The Obama side is also obvious, but they are apples to oranges at best. You don’t go to prison or land on the FBI top-ten wanted list for attempting to pass controversial legislation. Give me a break.

NOTE: Ayers is not the only character of ill repute associated with Obama. Click to read more about Obama's poor judgments and associations.