Mr T’s rants and ravings

I am sorry to say that I sat out yesterday’s primary. I just could not figure out what was truth and what was lies and what was half truths. So I could not even pick “lessor of two evils.” I grow more and more disenchanted with the whole process. I will clearly have to do more research before November.

Related to research I took a questionnaire at http://www.votehelp.org/ today. It gives me about an 85% match with McCain and a 74% match with Obama. Actually though I agree with Obama on slightly more things than with McCain but the weight I put on the various issues tilts the balance toward McCain. Even with about 30+ questions some things I worry about did not make their list so as unclear as this result is things are worse in real life.

My tiebreaker issue in recent elections has been the Supreme Court. As unhappy as I have been with very much of what Bush has done I think he’s done ok by me with Supreme Court selections. The recent decision on the DC gun ban case was huge in my opinion.

The VP choice is not such a big deal for me. I am cynical enough to believe that both choices were more about political expediency than real serious thought about who would be the best person to take over as President. Candidates just don’t think they’ll die in office. Even still we have a choice between one person who may not be experienced enough to get things done and another who is experienced enough but who would do things that scare me. Not a great option either way.

Listening to Democratic people on Twitter and in a few blogs since yesterday has not been a good thing. Why? Because it is very hard not to respond the the vile talk without a knee jerk reaction which could prevent clear thinking. You have to understand that honesty is not something I automatically associate with Democrats. Now I am suspicious of any politician but when it comes to private citizens Democrats just go off the deep end a lot. They call my target rifle an “assault weapon” for example. They call supporting vouchers and charter schools and getting rid of bad teachers “anti-education.” And on and on.

But I do try hard to keep an open mind as much as possible. Much of what Democrats were saying was as positive to me and it was negative to them. Things like her stance on abortion and gun control. The ethics issues they brought up were disturbing but looking closer at them they don’t seem so bad. Especially when compared to other national political figures. <cough> Bill Clinton <cough> Even if they are completely true which there seems to be some doubt about.

I have some concern about her energy policy still. I have some concern about her lack of experience. She doesn’t have a whole lot of it. It is executive experience though so what she has is more directly applicable to the job than some other candidates. If she were running for president I’d be a lot more concerned. But anyone who can live with Obama’s experience in a presidential candidate should not reasonably have an issue with Palin as VP.

All in all she gives me a better opinion of McCain in much the same way Biden makes me think a lot less of Obama. Really I would have trouble voting for Biden for anything. The idea of a less experienced Palin being a heart beat away from the presidency scares me a lot less than having Biden being a heart beat away. I know where Biden stands on a lot of issues and shudder to think about a Biden presidency. So in effect Obama’s pick for VP makes it easier for me to overlook flaws in McCain’s pick.

I’ve been hearing quite a lot of whining from Democratic women about Palin. They are upset because they believe that Republicans think that women who supported Hilary will automatically vote for Palin because she is a women. Well that would be crazy if true but I don’t think it is. Well not completely. I do think that for some nut cases who are wildly upset about Clinton losing Palin will make it a little easier for them to vote for McCain. But it will not be a deciding factor and very few Clinton supporters will actually vote for McCain when push comes to shove.

But history shows that a lot of people, men and women, vote for people for reasons other than issues. Sometimes it is name – Kennedy. Sometimes it is looks – Kennedy. Well others too. Sometimes it is race or gender. Will Palin help pick up some women who just want to vote for a women? Perhaps. She might pick up a few men who vote for her just because she is attractive. Anyone who doesn’t think that Obama picks up a lot of votes just on looks is clearly not paying attention so it works both ways.

When Obama picked Biden I thought he was throwing the election. Biden has high negatives and conservatives will be able to use him as a “bogey man” to raise lots and lots of money. Palin may serve the same purpose on the liberal side so it may balance out. Or maybe she will turn out to be a huge liability and cost McCain the election. There is no doubt that selecting her was/is a huge risk. The willingness to take a risk says something about McCain.

Last note, I have long believed that the first woman president would be a Republican. I thought the same about the first black president. I may be wrong about the first black president. Obama might be the guy.  On the other hand, imagine VP Palin running for president in a few years. And wouldn’t a Clinton/Palin race be an interesting thing some day?

Well isn’t that interesting. McCain has picked Sarah Palin as his VP nominee. I heard an NPR reporter say that she didn’t see what Palin brought to the ticket. Say what?

Personally I think she brings a number of things. One is that she should help with some of the Republicans who worry that McCain isn’t far enough to the right. Also she brings a strong and recent record for fighting both corruption and pork barrel spending. And there is also the little fact of being a woman. McCain needs help winning over women and Palin can help there a lot. A lot of those women who are upset about Clinton being “pushed aside” are going to see Palin as a real excuse to vote Republican.

There is some concern in some parts about her stands on energy and I can understand that. But being in Alaska and being a hunter she has to be concerned about the environment so I can see some good potential there as she moves from an Alaska (oil producer) centric role to a national centric role.

All in all I think the campaign just got a whole lot more interesting.

So I have watched some of the Democratic convention tonight. I heard a speech on energy that made a lot of sense though I think it was less than completely honest about McCain’s position. McCain would like to include nuclear power as well as more drilling. It was poorly delivered as well.

I heard some of Biden’s speech as well. The parts I heard were very well done. But I also watched a lot of commentary by Democrats on Twitter. That really ticked me off. Oh not because they loved it all or even because they disagree with me. No what bothers me is these seemingly intelligent people (most are in education) do not appear to have the least understanding of the people who disagree with them. They are too caught up in the emotion of the event to understand any of the politics either. Scary.

Now to be fair a lot of Republicans don’t understand Democrats either. But I expect more from educators. When I hear people say that pro-life people are anti-women I want to scream. That is one of the stupidest things in the world to say. It is a gross admission that one doesn’t even try to understand the objection to abortion. Anyone who says that is either too stupid closed-minded or too dishonest to be elected to public office. Oh it gets me so upset. Pro-choice is pro-women in the same way that pro-slavery is pro-African-American. At least it is to pro-life people. Actually if you look at how abortion is used in China and India you’d have to be blind not to see pro-choice as seriously anti-women. I admit that I do not understand why the Democratic party is not violently pro-life. I mean I understand why some people are pro-choice but if any party on earth should be pro-life it is the Democrats.

But I digress. One person on Twitter didn’t understand why Biden wasn’t hitting on the issue of the Supreme Court in his speech. The obvious answer is because Biden is not a complete idiot. For a lot of people the Supreme Court is a defining issue. It is the main reason I voted in the last two presidential elections and probably the only reason I will vote (if I vote) this time around. During the convention a lot of people who are undecided are listening. Why would Biden use that platform to say “we’ll make sure baby killing stays legal and take away all your guns?” The Supreme Court is an issue to take up with your supporters to get out the vote not a platform to win votes.

A week ago I was pretty sure Obama would win. Now I’m not so sure. I think Biden was really a bad choice. If people were starting to believe that Obama wasn’t too far to the left the choice of Biden will likely convince them otherwise. You have to run to the middle to win. Of course McCain could similarly blow his choice of a running mate so it is still too early by far to place bets. This one is going to the wire I think.

Well the Supreme Court released the Heller Decision today. The short version is that the Second Amendment is about an individual right to keep and carry weapons that is not tied to the militia. Use for self-defense as well as hunting are permitted and expected uses. The DC Gun law has been struck down.

Now I could ask for a little more (striking down the machine gun restrictions) but none of that was part of this case. I don’t think that anyone who believes in reasonable gun laws will be upset either. People who believe in unreasonable restrictions will of course be disappointed. There are a lot of loose ends though. What is reasonable in licencing? What are reasonable places and circumstances to not permit guns? Oh yeah the courts are going to be busy with this one for a while.

The interesting thing is that if someone does decide to overturn some gun restrictions, like the one on machine guns, they will use the dissenting argument more than the majority one. That will be fun to watch.

Last week Obama said "And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." He got in some hot water for that. Some are saying that is proof that he doesn’t understand rural voters. He replies that he just explained the truth poorly. Personally I think he is largely right.

I think he does understand rural voters at least as well as Clinton does. The big problem, and it is a problem for both of them, is that they are on the wrong side of issues that are important to rural voters.

Clinton said "Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right" and I have no doubt that Obama understands that as well. But the fact is that both candidates want to seriously abridge that right in ways that go against rural values. Clinton is just less honest about it.

Religion is another area where both candidates are weak. Personally I think Obama is more credible as a Christian (as one who really believes what they say about what they believe) to me but Clinton is the better politician about it. Her show is better. Obama gets hurt because people, especially in rural areas, are being fed a lot of misinformation on one hand and on the other hand there is his whole wrong stand on abortion. It’s hard for people to understand a religious person standing for abortion when their own religion sees it as so abhorrent.

And immigration is just such a mess I’m not sure there is a right side to be on. Trade is an area that hits rural areas differently than urban ones. Its complex to solve but easy to pick a simplified side.

It’s a mess. I understand what the man was trying to say. I think he is largely right. Economics are not deep ingrained "values" though it is a huge concern. Plus it is a complex concern with complex "fixes." Religion, guns and even immigration are issues that are more easily simplified as reasons to vote. Right or wrong it is easier to say "she’s different" or "his stand on guns is wrong" or "they’re more interested in immigration as a way to get the ethnic vote" then to really take a look at the greater economic issues and suggested solutions.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama loses some votes in rural areas because of his skin color. No doubt at all. It may not be so much that he is black as it is that he looks different. I suspect that a white candidate who looked too upper class or too different in some other way would lose some votes for that. As much as Obama loses for being black? In some areas yes and in other areas no. Racism is still stronger in rural areas than in urban ones. Denying it may win some votes but that doesn’t make it right.

I don’t think this makes Obama less electable than Clinton though. When push comes to shove and voters have a choice between a woman and a man as many people are going to vote for the man as would vote for the white in a white versos black election. Not the same people but about the same numbers. Sexism still exists to! But in both cases I think that the issues will be the deciding factor more than the "they look different" factor. None of the sexism and racism is near as bad as it once was.

In my own case, between Clinton and Obama I see little differences in issues. But Clinton is not a nice person (in my perception) and Obama is. Obama seems sincere in his Christianity and Clinton does not. Sincerity is more important than the specific religion BTW. At least in a political candidate I am evaluating. I feel better after listening to Obama and somewhat slimy after listening to Clinton. So I’d vote for Obama over Clinton without a second thought.

McCain over Clinton without a second thought. McCain against Obama? That requires some thought.

So I found this interesting.

Campaigning in Indianapolis for her mother, Chelsea Clinton had a quick retort when asked a question she had never had before. When a male student asked her if her mother’s credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton quickly responded.
"Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question, in the, maybe 70 college campuses that I’ve been to," Clinton bitterly said at Butler University.  "And I don’t think that’s any of your business."

The comments at the MSDN article range from anger at the student who asked the question to "what’s wrong with the question?" from others.

Now to be honest I think this was a fair question. A little rough; a little unkind; a little difficult to answer but in the end isn’t the credibility of a person something to take into account when electing a president. I can think of a lot better ways she could have answered that. For example "that was a very difficult time in my life and the life of my family and I’d really rather not talk about it." Now that I could have lived with.

Credibility is more and more an issue for Clinton. So soon after the exaggerated version of her Africa trip you’d think her whole team would be more sensitive about that sort of question. More and more I have to wonder why anyone supports Clinton for president.

There are some things you just can’t say. Not because they are not true but because they are just too politically incorrect. I’m worried that we are missing out on solving some problems just because it is unacceptable to speak about them.

Take for example saying the Obama is getting so much attention because he is black or that Clinton is getting so much attention because she is a woman. No no you can’t say those things because saying them implies racism or sexism that we wish know does not exist. But honestly do you really think that the reason Edwards got short changed in the media is because he was not a serious candidate? Of course not. The media decided that a race between a black man and a white woman was more interesting, would sell more, and so they left Edwards out. Is that because the media is racist/sexist or just because they think the public is or is it just because people are more interested in seeing something different? Does it even matter? Probably not but I think that saying race and gender had nothing to do with it is intellectually dishonest.

We are closing discussion that might help make things better in the future.

Or take some people saying that 9-11 was a reaction to things America did in the past. What sort of idiot thinks that Moslem extremists are not pissed off at the US for things we have done? Things like supporting Israel or taking advantage of middle eastern oil or being Christians? Who really deep down when they honestly look at history doesn’t understand that Arab Moslems have reasons that in their mind create justifiable anger at the US? But you can’t say that.

That is not to say that the anger or our actions justify (certainly not to us) the actions of 9-11. That day is clearly not a rational response to most sane people. But to deny that there are other people who see the world differently is, again, intellectually dishonest.

We are closing discussion that might help make things better in the future.

And just so I can get a third strike against me, there is the debates about treatment of boys and girls in schools. There are some who get violently upset if you say that some school environments are much more comfortable for girls than for boys. Heaven forbid that you suggest that boys and girls behave differently, learn differently, or respond to teachers differently. Gasp that is sexist. And yet does anyone really believe that boys and girls are the same? Note that no one is saying better or worse, or right and wrong - just different. Demanding that people close their eyes to gender differences in schools is intellectually dishonest.

We are closing discussion that might help make things better in the future.

Without honest open, no holds bared, no topic exclude, no viewpoint unheard discussion how can real problems be fixed? We can’t just ignore facts just because they make the world look differently than we want it to be. And yet, more and more often, that is just what we are doing.

I have long been dissatisfied with reading/hearing second hand or third hand reports of events. Reading a book review or a movie review is not the same as seeing the movie or reading the book. The same is true of newsworthy events. One of the great wonders and joys of the Internet is the ability to get to the source itself. Of sure not everything but at least a lot of things.

It seems like everyone is talking about Barak Obama’s speech on race in America. Most of the reviews I came across where by fawning fans of the man so it was hard to take them too seriously. But this is the Internet age and so I was easily able to find and watch the speech for myself. And a wonderful speech it was. It almost makes me want to vote for the man.

And then there is reporting on other issues. The one review of yesterday’s testimony on the Washington DC handgun ban I was able to find was by someone who is clearly biased in favor of the ban. It was pretty disrespectful of almost all involved. Fortunately the transcript is available and I was able to spend some time reading it. I learned a good deal in that reading. And frankly the transcript reads a lot more reasonably than the review I read would have suggested. If one needed a reason to distrust the main stream media that would do it.

There is this theory that the Internet will result in a more informed populous. That people will be able to seek out and learn from unbiased reporting or at least be able to get unfiltered reading from both (or more than two) sides of the issues. Or maybe they will go to the source and avoid filters completely. It’s a wonderful theory and I believe it is possible. But I wonder if most people just look to the same old biased sources and get their information pre-digested and pre-filtered. It takes some work to find the sources. It takes a lot more time to read 80-100 pages of testimony than to read a one page summary. People have to really care to put in the time. Just because they can doesn’t mean people will.

We run our world (I’m thinking especially of voting) as though we have an informed population. But do we really? I wonder.

Now to be honest I never liked Hilary Clinton so I am predisposed to disagree with her on a lot of things that she does and says. So this flap she is trying to start about Obama "plagiarizing" from Gov. Patrick is something I was skeptical of from the start. After watching a clip of this issue being brought up on the Texas debate I’ve concluded she was way out of line.

Patrick is an Obama advisor and someone who apparently frequently makes suggestions about what Obama should say in speeches. In this case that Clinton is trying to make a big deal of she is more or less accusing Obama of having a speech writer. And if you look at it that way its pretty silly to bring it up at all.

Can Clinton win on substance? Bringing this silly item up makes me wonder if she and her team are afraid that substance is not enough. Interesting.