Glock21's blog

I think I've probably been more obnoxious and more of jerk lately to our Obama fans.  My disappointment in the candidate has me getting into spirited debates with a lot of Obama supporters here and little quicker on the submit trigger than I probably should be.  Though I've probably deleted more than I've actually posted with second thoughts, I think I've been a bit more than unfair... especially with some of my favorite political sparring partners.

 

I've been too dismissive.  I've been hypercritical.  I've been overly presumptuous.  I've been hypocritical in lumping people together unfairly.  And I've been using way too much hyperbole.

 

So to everyone I've been an obnoxious jerk to lately, I apologize for all of the above.

 

[excludes the anti-McCain conspiracy theorist anonymous poster]

From the Chicago Tribune:

 

Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

 

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."

 

Apparently the atheist was testifying over an issue of whether or not a church should be getting a million dollar grant from the State.

 

Here's the bit from the transcript of the exchange:

 

Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--

 

Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?

 

Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

 

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---

 

Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.

 

As a 2nd Amendment supporting atheist I must be a real threat to society! Apparently I'm a threat to Chicago on multiple dimensional planes! I'm a danger to everything from children to the gods themselves!

 

I feel drunk with power. Mwahahahahaaa!!! We now return you to reality, already in progress...

Obama's current policy on Iraq (as of today, it changes around a lot) is to withdraw our forces to nearby bases outside of the country and run missions into Iraq to aid the Iraqi forces when violence escalates.

As much as the DNC and his campaign are touting McCain's campaign as running for "Bush's 3rd Term" what kind of change is Obama selling here?

As the NY Times even pointed out:

"A rapid transfer of responsibility to Iraqi forces and withdrawal to large bases was attempted in 2005 and 2006, with disastrous results when the Iraqi units proved incapable of halting major attacks, and sectarian violence worsened."

Obama's policy on Iraq is what even left leaning media sources consider one of the Bush Admin's most disastrous tactics.

Obama's Iraq policy doesn't just include one of the Bush Admin's tactical mistakes... Obama's plan makes those tactical mistakes the entire strategy!

McCain may share some of Bush's policies on Iraq, but he shares the ones that worked. Unlike Obama he isn't pushing the failed policies as a grand new strategy and calling that "change."

You add that to Obama's repeated assertions that we would need UN, and thus Chinese/Russion permission, to take action on humanitarian issues, genocide, and regional conflicts he'd give the green light to China to take Taiwan by force, for the genocide in Sudan to continue, for Iran to renew its nuclear weapons program, etc with absolutely no real pressure or worry about it leading to a possible intervention...

Obama is the "change" that tyrants, oppressors, and America's enemies can believe in!

VA Watchdog.org put out a "Call To Action" on a bill in Congress that would expand dental benefits from only the highest rated VA patients to all disabled vets:

 

CALL TO ACTION: BILL WOULD GIVE DENTAL BENEFITS TO

ALL DISABLED VETS -- Have your elected Representative

support H.R. 5595 which would give dental coverage to

all vets with at least a 10% service-connected rating.

Time to get busy Brother and Sister veterans.

H.R. 5595 would give full dental benefits to any veteran with a service-connected disability of at least 10%.

It's about time!

Get hold of your Member of the House and make sure they support this bill.

If this doesn't pass...it's our fault for not pushing it.

 

I'm personally a bit torn on this issue since the bill doesn't seem to address funding to expand the dental services or require that such funding/expansion be addressed if passed. I honestly don't mind the idea of expanding dental care coverage to vets but here's my two big worries:

 

Currently at the local Danville VA hospital the wait times for a dental appointment is often one to two months at current levels.

 

This bill would multiply the number of eligible vets by a factor of 12... from 5,000 to over 60,000. Even if the actual result was only double the dental patients as opposed to 12 times the number of patients... how the heck is anyone going to get timely care? The bill doesn't appear to fund extra staff/equipment/facilities... nor does it expand the fee basis allowances to outsource the work to local dentists to cut back the backlog.

 

This seems to be an extremely well intentioned bill with some really big holes. Whether or not the funding/expansion can be done to do this is a whole other problem... or if this is even the appropriate place to start looking at expanding services versus making sure current services can at least run efficiently first.

 

Nationwide this bill would boost eligibility by a factor of 10, from roughly 250,000 vets to 2.5 million. For a VA consistently getting dogged for it's long wait times, both in claims, and at the hospitals themselves, this seems like really bad timing for an otherwise good idea. I'd rather fix the current problems than add more problems to the heap and hope that somehow those other problems with resolve themselves.

 

The VA needs better funding and management right now. Then add more services once you can meet the current demand for the current services.

 

If you disagree... call your representatives and let them know. What do I know anyways?

 

Here's the related news article:

 

More dental coverage sought for vets
March 28, 2008

Veterans with service-connected disabilities would get expanded dental coverage under bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park.

The "Make Our Veterans Smile Act" (House Resolution 5595) was co-introduced by Kirk and fellow Navy Reserve intelligence officer U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa.

Currently, only 100 percent disabled, homeless or prisoner-of-war veterans are eligible for dental benefits. The bill, if signed into law, expands dental coverage to any service-connected disabled veteran, regardless of disability rating starting Jan. 1, 2009.

...

According to the Veterans Administration, 258,000 veterans currently are eligible for dental benefits. More than 2.5 million additional disabled veterans would receive coverage under the Kirk-Carney bill.

In Illinois, coverage would expand from nearly 5,000 veterans to more than 60,000 veterans, according to the Congressional Research Service.

 

You make the call.

I've heard time and time again that Obama will "unite the country" or that he is somehow a "uniting figure" or other such unity blather.

While some folks seem to truly believe this, it baffles the imagination exactly how he or anyone can claim anything of the sort.

Even Democrats can't even seem to agree he's the man for the job. In one of the most dragged out primaries I can ever remember the public has nearly forgotten the brief moment when the two remaining candidates appeared to be cozying up to one another at the debates. Now the race has devolved down to the usual ugliness of a general election campaign that some describe as a "civil war."

Looking at the results so far:

Hillary and Obama are nearly tied in the primary votes so far at roughly 47% each.

Obama is ahead in the caucus and total delegate counts.

Regional divides seem to be emerging as the results are filled in on the map (from Dave Leip's election atlas):

And with the current polling, this doesn't appear to be looking to improve any time soon (from Real Clear Politics):

Hillary is looking to pick up Pennsylvania, and Obama is looking to pick up North Carolina... and the Democratic Primary still seems to be on a crash course for a convention battle.

Surely this could change in the coming months, but so far, McCain is looking to have a fairly free ride for a while longer.

Perhaps this wouldn't discourage any unity believers if they felt that the Hillary supporters would unite around Obama if and when she drops out.

Unfortunately for them, that neither appears to be the case nor does the situation appear likely to improve since just as many Democrats polled think Obama should drop out as Hillary - 22%.

Even worse is that many Democrats are thinking about defecting and voting for McCain if their preferred candidate does not win. This is true for both Hillary and Obama supporters and spans the spectrum of Democratic voters:

Is this unity? A significant minority of Hillary supporters would rather vote for John McCain than Barack Obama. As Gallup notes:

The average "defection rate" of Clinton-supporting Democrats away from Obama and to McCain in the general-election matchup is 28%. The two groups of Clinton-supporting Democrats who are significantly above this average in defection to McCain are independents who lean Democratic and conservative Democrats.

Unity?

He can't even unite his own party, let alone the country.

His favorable/unfavorable ratings seem relatively unscathed after the Wright affair when the country learned that the unity candidate had a long time association with an extremely divisive figure.

His wobbles on defending then denouncing, and what exactly he was or wasn't denouncing and which rhetoric he found particularly versus only somewhat controversial... and why he would have maintained such a relationship when he realized long ago that it was probably going to cause problems... left many with questions on whether or not he was too green to run a smart campaign against the Republicans on the big stage.

And the Wright controversy, while mostly over in the media is still stewing in conservatives circles, waiting in the crock pot for the general campaign later with little tid bits like this:

“It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks’ greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That’s the world! On which hope sits!”

This quote from the sermon "Audacity to Hope" can be found in Barack Obama's book "Dreams of my Father" which notes that this sermon is what led him to join the church and even became the basis of the book that would open up his Presidential campaign, "The Audacity of Hope."

While McCain may continue his good-guy campaign, the conservatives and others who oppose Obama's Hillary-cloned policies, are sure to keep reminding everyone that this guy is probably as big a fraud as Hillary is.

And what are the favorable/unfavorable ratings for the "unity" candidate among the general public?

Obama:
50% Favorable, 48% Unfavorable.

Of that Unfavorable: 29% is Very Unfavorable.

That's right, even with the Bush legacy, even with the all the effort to paint McCain has Bush 2.0 and lie about him supporting endless wars... even though he's older than dirt and has more scars than Frankenstein McCain is ahead here:

McCain:
53% Favorable, 44% Unfavorable.

Of that Unfavorable: 18% is Very Unfavorable.

More people detest the unity candidate than the guy his supporters are claiming is an evil war mongering menace!

If this is their idea of a uniter or unity I'd hate to see their definition of divisive. The last time I checked the "big change" Obama is pushing is the status quo Democratic platform... on the issues he's barely distinguishable from Hillary. How is he going to swoon the rest of us into following him? So we can brag that we worked to support a guy with less experience than Dan Quayle?

The only people Obama unites are Obama supporters. The rest think he's an overly ambitious newbie who couldn't pull off unity to save his life beyond his own rallies... according to Democrats and Republicans alike.

But but but, they hope he can!

The endless debate on evolution and/or intelligent design being taught in schools as part of science curriculum once again pulled me into some long discussions on the topic and in an attempt to organize my own thoughts and views on the subject, I wrote the following.  Unlike some of my other posts here I haven't shortened it down to a few paragraphs.  I figure I've been good enough to finally post at least one long post!  In this case it got quite a few Kudos from some anti-evolutionists who absolutely disagree with me on ID and creationist views over at RedState, so I figured I'd share here to get some feed back from folks who know I'm one of those derned drity shaven apes (in my opinion) or atheist, if you prefer:

 

Definintions:

In such discussions it seems to help to get the potential semantical disagreements out of the way first, otherwise one finds themselves into the frustrating circular discussions that keep coming right back to what a word or words mean... or in this case which meaning of the word is being used.

 

I'll be using the following definitions:

Philosophy:

2 a: pursuit of wisdom b: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c: an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs

Science:

3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

Scientific Method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Evolution:

a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory

Intelligent Design:

the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Theory:

a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

All definitions I'm using here are from Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary as they are likely to be both generally accepted, easily verified, and of course scrutinized if need be.

 

Theories in Philosophy and Science:

Both philosophy and science have their theories. Some theories are used by both philosophers and scientists without much conflict at all while others create contradictions from one school of thought to another. The bigger difference is in the way such theories are vetted through either school of thought. Where philosophers tend to rely on speculative and logical processes of scrutinizing theories, scientists use the scientific method based on what we can observe and test in a manner that is repeatable and open to scrutiny.

 

To put it simply, a philosophical theory is only as good as its reasoning whereas a scientific theory is only as good as it fits observations throughout time.

 

A good analogy would be between a political philosophy and political science. The former stands on its reasoning and logic and will often be accepted with little to no available proof. Political science deals with how such theories play out in the real world with observable data such as voting results, polling results, criminal statistics, etc.

 

Evolution:

Like many other theories, evolution hypothesizes on something much larger than what can generally be observed or tested. As with the problem with being able to go back in time to observe the Big Bang or any means to replicate it, we cannot go back in time and observe if or how one species mutated over generations to become new species.

 

Doesn't this put all theories, including ID, on par with these generally accepted, so-called "scientific" theories?

 

The answer is, of course, yes!

 

Before evolution fans start grabbing their pitchforks and torches... yeah you, I see the torch... put it away. Thanks.

 

Before anyone gets too upset or happy over evolution and ID being put on par with one another, a pesky problem must be addressed, this is at the very beginning of the scientific process... which has a very systematic way of scrutinizing any theory before it is ever recognized as having any legitimacy. Without at least some observations that seem to fit the theory the theory is on par with a Lord Xenu explanation. The big moment for a scientific theory is when observations don't just fit the theory, but when the theory accurately predicts observations we haven't even made yet. Relativity being one of the greatest examples.

 

The more observations and tests that seem to confirm the theory, the far more accepted the theory becomes, even if there are parts of the theory that may or may not ever be confirmed. It's in the parts that haven't been confirmed that exists the possibility that further scrutiny could blow the whole theory out of the water or require modifications to it. This has happened time and time again with theories dealing with subatomic structure/energy, probably most notably with the black body observations that defied current theories... eventually giving birth to quantum theory.

 

Evolution theories have endured through similar observations, sticking points, corrections, etc. Not because every aspect has been vetted yet, but because our observations have generally fit within it. While scientists, philosophers, and others will scrutinize the yet unconfirmed portions of the theory and further scrutinize any observations that appear to conflict with the theory, that is all part of the scientific process.

 

As with many theories, finding holes in it typically necessitates adapting the theory or making the theory more comprehensive. It's rarely as dramatic as when the theory of Ether got tossed which got so blown full of holes to be almost completely relegated to the trash bin of scientific understanding.

 

While many young earth scientists believe there is ample evidence to do the same with Evolution, their conflict isn't just with evolutionists, whose theories depend on much larger time frames, but also geologists whose theories often require even longer time frames, astronomers with even longer time frames than them... right down to chemists and physicists with various theories with long time frames being needed for the substances we find on earth, space, etc.

 

Worse their proof tends to rely on observations that are in conflict with other observations, not simply the theory itself. With the development of quantum theory and the death knell of the theory of Ether as a medium for radiation in empty space... the observations made did not contradict other observations, but instead they merely showed the theory itself did not fit for all observations. It's one thing to say a theory isn't comprehensive enough or isn't an accurate description of how things work... it is a whole other ballgame to contradict the litany of prior observations themselves.

 

One example of this mentioned in my discussions was the alleged set of human footprints near dinosaur footprints in a highly weathered area of a dinosaur park. This of course would be a serious discovery if anyone could actually verify this to be the case, something the weathering prevented. Further it contradicts all other observations, outside of confirmed hoaxes, on top of being unverifiable. Unfortunately this particular example is typical of young earth "evidence" and as such most scientists pushing it come off more like conspiracy theorists than anyone credible. There are some out there who attempt to observe and test phenomenon that may back their theory who do not rely on such weak evidence as incontrovertible substantiation of the theory.

 

In my mind they're just as bad as scientists who push the yet unconfirmed and untested portions of any scientific theory as beyond scrutiny because it successfully explains other observations. Such an arrogant view of science comes closer to concepts of faith and religion most such proponents claim to despise as ignorant. Science, as a rule, demands scrutiny and doubt, especially of that which cannot be confirmed through observation... even within longstanding theories.

 

 

Intelligent Design:

As a philosophical theory, ID stands as a fairly credible and worthwhile topic. It can be argued in various ways and applications and with varying degrees of reliance on speculation versus logical argumentation. Similarly many scientific and even religious concepts can find a welcome home in the endless philosophical debates of our time.

 

But the big question here is whether or not it could also fit into a science curriculum. It's a theory that has some popularity in our society, but science isn't supposed to be about popularity (as much as many politicians seem to think otherwise on almost every issue). Science curriculum are based on theories that have had at least some confirmation through scientific testing. The exception to the rule seems to be advanced college courses specializing in topics where research is done towards confirming such things. And even then such research is based on observable phenomenon.

 

The central premise of ID is that everything was created by a designing intelligence... so how does one confirm that? In the realm of scientific testing, any observation/testing that can be repeated by other scientists would be a good start. Short of finding a "Made in Higher Plane" label on quarks, it's a rather puzzling problem. Humanity has been attempting to prove or disprove a higher intelligence forever and a day it seems with little luck. Neither side has much to sell scientifically as neither faith or the absence of evidence constitutes confirmation in science.

 

With the Big Bang theory there is at least astronomical observations that can be made today that seem to confirm what the aftereffects of such an incident would seem to be. Some may treat it as gospel inappropriately when other more comprehensive theories and alternative theories are still being debated and scrutinized (Super String Theories) to explain observed phenomenon and mathematical issues associated with Big Bang theory. Those folks would be misrepresenting the current scientific understanding of the theory. But this hurts the case of people who want to show the Big Bang to be indisputable fact, not that it isn't a valid scientific theory with some confirmation of observable phenomenon that seems to fit the theory and more comprehensive theories that also include the Big Bang concept.

 

ID is still left with its philosophical and logical arguments that are worth consideration in philosophical studies, but nothing to observe or test that would bring it into the realm of scientific credibility.

 

People will cry "No! No! Look at this proof geological theories are wrong!" or "No! No! Look at this proof that evolution is wrong!" and never provide any scientific testing/data that has anything to do with showing whether or not intelligent designer is behind the creation of everything. Worse, their evidence tends to be of the conspiracy theory sort... it directly contradicts numerous other observations as opposed to being something that hasn't been tested or observed before that makes the theories they're contradicting look wrong. If scientists are supposed to take their word that their theory is sound based on a few shreds how are you supposed to convince them other theories are wrong in spite of far more overwhelming evidence? It just doesn't make any sense.

 

The Compromise:

Keep ID in philosophy courses. Keep evolution in science courses as long as it withstands scientific scrutiny.

 

ID is a philosophical theory attempting to understand the underlying truth behind the universe based on speculation and logic.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory attempting to explain and predict how things work based on the things we can observe.

 

Keep them where they belong. If you want public schools to teach ID push to make philosophy required course for high school graduation.

 

Everybody wins.

 

The Rub:

With this compromise, people who want to teach young Earth theory as science will probably face an even bigger uphill challenge to do so. They will be fired for pushing the conspiracy theories that are supposed to make us believe that some intelligent designer set things in motion exactly right so that the light from distant objects was set into motion just right so that they seemed to be there long before the universe, according to them, even existed... instead of popping up over time.

 

For those who want to promote science as some sort of new religion, they're going to have to face the fact that philosophy is an important and complimentary part of human understanding and the contradictions between what may be and what may be observed can not, and will not ever necessarily negate the other.

 

People will either have to accept the fact that science is not religion and religion is not science, or they will have to accept that they will have to beat their heads against the brick wall of what both are.

 

And of course: The Disclaimer:

The writer is a liberal (classical, not neo-marxist, Democrat, etc) Constitutionalist with a strong belief in limited central government, federalism, and liberty... including a strong support of religious liberty to believe, not believe, and most importantly to do so as freely as possible. I don't need a nanny state overseeing how I live, let alone how or what I believe or choose not to believe.

Obama wants us to ignore the Wright controversy to stop the divisive racial discussions going on (not to sweep an extremely embarrassing association under the rug, of course) and to move on to the important issues facing America!

No problem, I say! While remaining so closely associated with Wright is probably the most baffling political move Obama could have made, it's mostly an appearance problem than a substantive one unless someone finds evidence he actually agrees as opposed to doing a lot of mind boggling things that might give the appearance that he does.

...

What's Left After Wright?

Ambition, dishonesty, status quo Democratic Party policies, status quo foreign policies, a reliance on hope instead of convincing arguments to defend any of these policies, less overall relevant experience than George Bush had back in 2000, and like Bush roughly no experience with foreign policy issues to base related policy on... but if we can get him a time machine he can defend those foreign policy decisions with something other than "hoping" he's right.

The alternatives for Democrats are unfortunately not all that encouraging either. It makes me wonder if they'd appreciate the opportunity to bring Richardson back in for a second interview:

I may not have agreed with Richardson on many issues, but for a Democrat, he was the prize bass. They threw him back and kept the minnows.

 

Long version here.

This was brought up in a separate thread but I thought it may deserve its own.  I've heard a lot of racial nomenclature thrown around lately, the title of the post are just the ones used to describe Barack Obama.  While I'm pretty sure that "African-American" is probably the most accepted term I've seen interviews of black civil rights leaders say that one was even inappropriate for Obama since his ancestry didn't come from slaves.  I've also seen the term used in such an absurdly politically correct way that black Frenchmen were referred to as French African-Americans.

 

Black seems to be the term that average folks use, regardless of their backgrounds... at least when they don't feel under the microscope of racial tension.  This use of the word seems pretty uncontroversial for this usage as even Merriam-Webster lists it as one of the definitions (it similarly offers a definition of white for racial nomenclature).  This is the term that makes the most sense to me since it doesn't assume that everyone views their genetic characteristics through the prism of national/regional ancestry.

 

Mulatto is a term, that while generally acceptable seems to be used by conservatives who want to point out that Obama is half-white and/or has little claim to any notion of black heritage.  It strikes me as similar to the term mestizo and rubs me the wrong way personally as I've seen it used as a perjorative.  Something about it just reminds me of the racist mixed blood sentiments of America's past as well as other foreign cultures, the Japanese being the one that stands out in my mind at the moment.

 

Person of color, while fairly popular these days among many groups (possibly because it's a term that unites all against white people), reallly hits me as a rearranged throwback to colored people.  Given the history of colonial Europe and imperialism by predominately white nations in history to be a fairly useful expression, it just seems inappropriate generally.

 

I feel pretty comfortable referring to Obama as a black guy, just like I'm comfortable referring to myself as a white guy when the subject of race comes up.  I think it's a bit sad that race comes up so often though.  I'm sure there's some folks out there who want to define Obama by his race as opposed to his positions, but I think that's a far worse throwback to our past..  I think an Obama victory would be a historic moment in our nation's history, finally ending a period of pretty blatant racial similarities of all of our past Presidents.  People who know me closely know, and now all of you, know that I've been tempted to vote for Obama in November just so I can have bragging rights as part of that historic moment.  But I just can't do it.  I disagree with him on fundamental political philosophy, and though in Illinois, which is hands down "Obama country" where a vote to the contrary will probably make a red vote in this blue state even more obviously irrelevant...  I just can't betray my principles like that.

 

But just so we can get this nonsense out of the way?  What do the rest of you prefer?  My racial nomenclature is fairly adaptable,  I'll use the term that the folks I'm talkikng with prefer as long as it isn't a common perjorative/slur. 

A few months ago I pointed out the e-mail smears floating around on the internet about Barack Obama being an extremist Muslim or a racist Christian. Both rumors appeared to be completely unsubstantiated as Factcheck.org pointed out.

Recently, however, a great number of clips of sermons from a Reverend Wright have surfaced which seem to show that there was a much greater anti-white and anti-American sentiment being preached at the Church, and to much applause and cheers by the members.

And what the Factcheck.org folks failed to mention was that this particular pastor that was dismissed as just one controversial one of many was closely associated with Obama, a fact that was reported the previous summer in great detail by the NY Times:

In the 16 years since Mr. Obama returned to Chicago from Harvard, Mr. Wright has presided over his wedding ceremony, baptized his two daughters and dedicated his house, while Mr. Obama has often spoken at Trinity’s panels and debates. Though the Obamas drop in on other congregations, they treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently. The church’s Afrocentric focus makes Mr. Obama a figure of particular authenticity there, because he has the African connections so many members have searched for.

...

He has said that he relies on Mr. Wright to ensure “that I am speaking as truthfully about what I believe as possible.” He tends to turn to his minister at moments of frustration, Mr. Wright said, such as when Mr. Obama felt a Congressional Black Caucus meeting was heavier on entertainment than substance.

...

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

The NY Times notes that Wright strongly influenced Obama's writings, with one of his sermons being the inspiration for the title of the "Audacity of Hope."

It seems a strange person with political aspirations to be so closely associated with, especially since it was obviously no secret that he regularly cursed America and blamed whites for nearly everything up to and including attempting genocide against people of color by creating/disseminating AIDS. It seems even stranger that he remained so closely associated with the conspiratorial anti-American whackjob for so many years while quickly rising through a political career.

While he somewhat distanced himself in the past, saying they didn't agree on everything, with the release of the far more inflammatory rhetoric being plastered all over the web and the media, he's finally firmly and clearly denounced the Reverend's statements. But as was noted last summer by the NY Times, it was something the two had discussed as something that may become necessary as opposed to it being a candid denunciation.

While Obama has been quick to deny, and many of his supporters quick to defend, the occasional incidents which had an appearance of being unpatriotic, including statements by his wife, this association makes it harder to believe that they were all just misstatements or being pragmatically patriotic through action, not shows of patriotism.

I've been quick to defend him on some issues, such as the radical Muslim accusations, the lapel flag pin fiasco, and the idiotic middle name focus. Some of his actions have been confounding for a presidential candidate though, where a deep devotion to one's nation is typically considered a prerequisite, even if it is in the pursuit of improving it with recognition of its flaws. The Pledge of Allegiance issue in particular seemed to show his utter disregard about the importance of appearances, especially in pretty basic ceremonial activities. It means something to people, and disregard of that makes them wonder.

Being so closely associated with someone who was so blatantly unpatriotic and openly anti-white will just help affirm these doubts in the minds of many, and create doubts in the minds of those who might have otherwise dismissed everything else. He could have and should have distanced himself from this loon years ago. Instead he waited until the absolute last minute and after it could easily be depicted by his political opponents as a denunciation of convenience... which even I am starting to see it as.

This is just baffling to see with a presidential candidate. But it's starting to make scenes like this seem less like flukes:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... 2008 is the Dems' to lose, and they're spectacular at doing so.

Today was the special election for the seat of retired former GOP Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert.

This is the Illinois GOP though, so of course they ran Alan Keyes's twin brother to run for the seat. Here's Oberweis (R) on the left and Foster (D) (the winner of the election) on the right:

Some people may not be able to see the resemblance to Alan Keyes:

The trick is to look real close. Once you look real close you'll see the resemblance as both are nuts, vile, and a sure bet to lose whatever general election he’s running in. They even wear the same color tie.

Meanwhile the Illinois GOP has not only lost another solidly Republican district to the Democrats, giving them an extra House seat, but they suffered yet another humiliating defeat compounding the fact that they lack even a single statewide office and are the minority in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly to the point of having the Illinois Democrats having a supermajority in both.

It really doesn't matter what the Illinois GOP do... their opinion is entirely irrelevant in Illinois and they apparently mean to keep it that way by running these sure-bet losers like Oberweis and Keyes. Meanwhile almost every state office, General Assembly leadership and committee chairs are run by Chicago Democrats who ensure that no piece of legislation or policy isn't Chicago approved prior to passage, in spite of the rest of the State having more voters and population. The downstate Democrats help propagate this entire dismissal of downstate issues by voting to keep the Chicago-centric legislature leadership and committee heads in power.

Amazing. Sad. But in an amazing way.

It's like watching a train wreck. But less fun because you're on it.

The McCain campaign blew it today by allowing talk radio host Bill Cunningham to do an opening speech at a McCain rally. From FoxNews.com:

Cunningham, a radio host at WLW-AM, had warmed up the crowd at Memorial Hall with comments about Obama and Hillary Clinton, likening Obama to a “hack, Chicago-style” politician and saying the Illinois senator would “saddle up next to Hezbollah,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il if elected president.
...
Cunningham had delivered remarks that painted a grim future for America if “Barack Hussein Obama” is elected president. He mentioned Obama’s middle name three times.

“Obama just came back from meeting Ahmadinejad; he’s got a meeting the next week with Kim Jong Il of North Korea. Then he’s going to saddle up next to Hezbollah; they’re going to have a little cookie-and-cream party. All’s going to be right with the world."
...
McCain later took the stage and apologized for the remarks... McCain said he didn’t know who decided to allow Cunningham to speak, but he said he was sure it was in coordination with his campaign.

Soon after, Cunningham, angered over McCain's apology over his remarks, reminded the media in multiple apparances what he has always thought of John McCain: referring to him as a liberal who will destroy conservatism for the next 20 years. He then also gave a nod to Ann Coulter and said he was going to join her in supporting Hillary over the liberal John McCain.

This guy was never a McCain supporter and should have never been used by the Campaign. Some are attacking McCain for distancing himself from his remarks as if these smear campaign tactics would do anything but make McCain look worse. McCain's apology was the only thing that kept this incident from being a total loss.

There are plenty of issues to attack Obama on without resorting to making crap up and trying to bolster smear campaigns. McCain needs to get his campaign better organized to prevent this nonsense. His apology wasn't the problem. It was the best thing to do in order to clean up Cunningham's manure-slinging mess.

All posts of mine have been replaced by "Deleted to boycott tolerating a blatant bigot who advocates executing homosexuals."

 

It's one thing to tolerate other points of view.  It's quite another to put up with someone who constantly advocates bigotry against and literally killing your friends.

 

If everyone else is happy with IP.com becoming an extension of "Godhatesfags.com" so be it.  My stomach can't take it.

 

-- UPDATE --

 

Apologies for overreacting.  Bigots boil my blood.  Part of my upbringing.  Will be restoring the old posts to repair the loss of content/context/etc. 

 

Specifically the Democratic Party's electability curse. Who the party voters think is the most electable often conflicts with who general election voters appear willing to elect.

Today a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll confirms that this trend continues as Democrats polled claim that Hillary has the best chances to beat John McCain in the general election. This idea of Hillary having the best electability against whoever the Republican nominee may be has persisted and stands in stark contrast to how Independents and Republicans view the situation:

Unfortunately their perception appears to be off from that of likely general election voters who have consistently polled Obama to be the stronger of the two against a McCain candidacy (as well as other candidates). From Real Clear Politics:

Now, it's no secret I'm a McCain fan, but it's still baffling that Democrats are once again looking poised to doom themselves to another unelectable "electable" candidate. I suppose for my own interests it's good that most of my readers come from States that have already voted.

VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.

I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).

One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.

Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.

There is a monthly limit on the deductible so if you're there a great deal, 4 or more times a month, then you may start coming out ahead. Otherwise not so much.

This is still an improvement over the earlier rates, but the deductible still throws it off so that disabled veterans aren't fully compensated.

To be fair, I’m not a conservative. I see little value in the status quo unless the status quo is founded upon good principles that make good sense and especially if history affirms that they make good sense.

 

I’m a liberal. I’m a liberal in the classical sense of the term. Not the hijacked Democratic version of neo-marxist democratic-socialist nonsense. I believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document because we can amend it for changing times and changing needs. Not just ignore the parts we don’t like later. If we can do that for provisions we don’t like, are we truly a government of law, or by appointed men (Supreme Court)?

 

I’ll happily quote founders like Madison right and left (I'm a member of the Federalist Society for crying out loud!), and selectively quote other founders like Jefferson whose aristocracy sometimes lent him to make statements that seem a bit too idealistic. He did trumpet some great ideals… and it is best that he be remembered for the Declaration of Independence more so than advocating “States Rights” at the expense of liberty of States’ inhabitants.

 

I have a mind of my own, but that mind has come to appreciate the principles enshrined in our Constitution and proved through the test of time.

 

McCain is not my ideal. But he is the closest candidate to my ideals in the running given my priorities. One may think that a guy like me who has libertarian leaning views for the central government may lean more strongly to the Ron Paul camp… but I am not so naive that I believe that a foreign policy two centuries out of date and crafted for a runt nation trying to protect its existence should be applied to the super power we’ve become. The Constitution does not so limit our foreign policy in spite of Paul’s rantings.

 

The complaints against McCain have been superficial at best to me. We’re in a time of war and the disagreements seem to distract from that as opposed to embrace that THAT should be our number one priority and the other issues, while important, are secondary.

 

You may very well know my pain. Watching innocent civilians faced with the choice of burning alive in those buildings or jumping to their deaths to escape the inevitable agony. You may very well know my broken heart as one of the most vicious regimes continued to brutalize and oppress his people while we sat on a perfectly valid reason for war against that regime… and the Clinton Administration argued eloquently at the threat posed by Iraq and its WMDs and the possibility that they may arm terrorists and how it was in material breach of the ceasefire agreement. And a limited bombing campaign was all that resulted. You may very well know my pain of watching the wounded and disfigured veterans at the VA hospital here at Danville or in your area proudly proclaim they’d do it again if that’s what it took. You may very well know my pain in watching the country slowly slip towards defeatism as what we fought and bled for is tossed aside as some pointless misadventure that we should abandon.

 

 

You very well may know my pain.

 

But if you know my pain then you can never make the conflicts we’ve undertaken against those regimes that supported our enemies and those regimes that violated our post war agreements while it brutalized its people some second tier importance as those conflicts rage on.

 

All of the GOP candidates with the glaring exception of Ron Paul at least had the right policy for Iraq. John McCain, in spite of his baggage knows, understands, and literally bleeds how I feel about the conflicts right now. His policy stances happen to be more in line with my own than other candidates but the differences hardly disturb me.

 

His views on federal judges alone, which include strict constructionist such as my personal hero, Clarence Thomas, but also recent appointees Roberts and Alito. There is little reason to doubt him even with the "Gang of 14" complaints as he was fighting for a compromise to ensure they got the vote they deserved and fought behind the scenes for them. I see no adverse legacy from McCain beyond the most qualified man to be Commander in Chief at a time of war and continuing to swing the court back to interpreting the Constitution for what it says, not what the public fads of the day wishes it said.

 

I hope the words of one of the most notable conservatives of the modern era may sway you more than I:

 

"Let’s grow up, conservatives! If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." - Barry Goldwater, encouraging his supporters to work for Nixon in 1960.

 

We, as those who care a great deal for the defense of America’s ideals, must come together after the beating that movement got in the last election, and compromise to ensure its survival. Reagan would have won regardless of whether or not Jimmy Carter would have mangled the economy and left us with foreign upheaval that is inching towards becoming nuclear threats to us and our allies later. Being frustrated with your options in an election is one thing… losing hope in American ideals to the point you’d capitulate to enemies of those ideals is unacceptable.

 

Champions of those American ideals will live on to carry on the good fight regardless of who wins in November. If we hand it to those who absolutely oppose them it will only make the battle to reinstate and protect them even harder later. I don’t know about you but I’d rather live on to face the battle of correcting some of McCain’s faults than the laundry list of faults of a Clinton or Obama administration with a Democratic Congress to ensure those faults are enshrined in law with Supreme Court Justices to help set them in stone.

 

But maybe I’m a bit of a maverick.

 

Related:

Why McCain: The Nitty Gritty

 

A point by point examination of what McCain said about Romney's comments on Iraq and timetables and what Romney actually said:

McCain: “Last April, Governor Romney said he supported ‘timetables’ for withdrawing our troops from Iraq and keeping them secret."

Romney responding to this question, "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?": "Well, there's no question but that -- the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement."

I'd say: Accurate.

 

McCain: "Governor Romney also said that there wouldn’t be any real difference on Iraq policy between the Republican nominee and Senator Clinton during the general election."

Romney: "Come the fall of '08, for all of Hillary's rhetoric, she's not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than the Republican nominee will."

I'd say: Misleading.

 

McCain: "I understand if Governor Romney has changed his mind given the obvious success of the surge. But the fact is, like on so many other issues, Governor Romney has hedged, equivocated, ducked, and reversed himself."

Romney initially on the surge: "I'm not going to weigh in. I'm still a governor. I'm not running for national office at this stage. I'm not going to weigh in on specific tactics about whether we should go from 140,000 to 170,000. That's something I expect the President to decide over the next couple of weeks and announce that to the nation. I want to hear what he has to say."

Romney later on the surge: "I don't give that a high probability, I give it a reasonable probability."

I'd say: Accurate.

 

McCain: "The only people who are owed an apology are the men and women fighting for our country in Iraq, who have a right to expect their leaders to stand by them and their mission not just when it is easy, but when it matters most — when it is hard."

I'd say: Matter of opinion.

 

McCain's claims were for the most part accurate, but obviously misleading on the claim that Romney's plan didn't differ from Hillary's or the Democrats... he took that statement out of context. On the other issues it was pretty fair and/or matters of opinion.

Romney should respond that the timetables he suggested would have been greatly different than those proposed by Democrats that did not keep them secret nor did they necessarily rely on milestones. Instead he's arguing that he never supported a specific date... something McCain didn't suggest. It just makes Romney look like he can't address the initial claim to me or wants to avoid it. Romney did the same thing when Huckabee brought up the timetable issue in the debates. He denied it, but only in as much as it didn't involve a specific date for withdrawal.

He has never denied, because he can't, that he supported timetables. He always addresses a strawman issue of whether it was public/secret or a specific date(s) were involved.

 

Full article with full references and links/citations: here.

The Real Clear Politics poll averages shows that Obama should hopefully have this in the bag:

We've learned the hard way this primary season that the polling is extremely difficult to apply to this new primary schedule and the new variables in the races affecting turnout though. What we have learned is that the expectations-game has certainly played a role and winning a race you were sure to win isn't as helpful as winning a race you were almost certain to lose. And nothing hurts more than losing a race that you were expected to win... realistically or not.

This seems at first glance to be painfully unfair. If a candidate is what you want does it matter how they did in prior State primaries? Has the candidate changed any since that vote to make another candidate more appealing?

Perhaps not to anyone who is deeply involved in the process and made up their mind long ago on who they feel the best person is to lead the country. But among people who care about who may end up leading the nation, but unsure on who is the most viable to win the nomination versus others and how they feel that may play out against the other party... it could definitely shift their support, if nothing else in donations.

Even among those who are very involved, it can certainly have an effect macroscopically on them whether it is worth sending off more donations when it's starting to look hopeless for their preferred candidate.

My pick? Both? Kind of?

So here's to Obama winning and meeting expectations in South Carolina... if nothing else to keep the Clintons from running away with the nomination and keeping the fight going. I must admit, as much as I like to watch Hillary lose to more genuine candidate, that I think that feeling is shared by many leaning towards the Republicans this year... making her the weaker opponent for the general against our preferred candidates. So do I want to see Clinton lose? Sure. But I'd rather see her lose to McCain than Obama.

We already know how the troops generally feel about Hillary.

 

Somehow I have this funny feeling they could respect Obama a great deal more.

 

I could be wrong...

 

...(glancing at photo again)...

 

...but I doubt it.

So it's not that I mind seeing Clinton lose to Obama. She most certainly deserves to with the crap she's been spouting. Given the Democrats' penchant for picking weak candidates lately over better qualified/electable ones... it's not looking too hot for Obama.

This problem already killed off their two most experienced/qualified candidates. And one who was fairly likable to boot. Perhaps Richardson will end up with another executive appointment instead?

Oh well. nationally it still looks like a good portion of the likely Democratic voters would rather appoint the GOP's nemesis...

At least it'll keep late-night TV Hillarious.

You know it isn't easy admitting to being wrong. But I was wrong. Very wrong.

I had hit my limit with Romney's gun banning, dishonesty, and nasty tactics and got to the point where I would not vote for him in the general election if he won the nomination.

Then I read this response to people saying the same thing about John McCain on RedState:

"There are 160,000 American GIs in Iraq and another 30,000 in Afghanistan, it is unimaginable to believe that Rush, Delay and the others would leave those children in the hands of Obama or HillBill."

Talk about a reality check. I started to violate my own principles on this election: Iraq comes first. Shame on me for letting such petty squabbles come before our nation's security and the needs of our military forces in a time of war.

I couldn't have been more wrong on this. Even with the rationale that my vote probably won't matter being in an overwhelmingly blue state, it would be against every last principled bone in my body if I didn't do everything possible to support the best candidate on these issues, even with my severe doubts on his sincerity. Doubts trump a sure bet for bad policy currently coming from the other side of the aisle right now.

McCain is still my first pick. Rudy is now my second pick with Thompson being out of the game, officially or unofficially. But I will support any of the current GOP candidates except Paul in the general election versus Hillary, Obama, or Edwards who I believe will put our nation and troops in greater danger with naive policies.

To not oppose them isn't a principled stance. It's abandoning our national security and troops to their horrible foreign policy stances. I just can't do that.

Unfortunately IP predicted a narrow victory for McCain yesterday. I say unfortunately because even he admits his predictions rarely pan out. I was hopping he was just going to be wrong on the narrow part... turns out he was wrong on both the narrow and victory part. Drat!

Romney told the people of Michigan exactly what they wanted to hear: a lie, sculpted especially for them. His millions spent on disseminating dishonesty finally paid off for once.

But did he have some help from liberals and Democrats? Absolutely. Though it doesn't appear to be the deciding factor:

Romney pulled a very large amount of the Liberal and Democratic vote considering his current views. It could be that the DailyKos strategy helped solidify his numbers in Michigan. But as I said, it wasn't the deciding factor. He did very well among Republicans and Conservatives with McCain coming in second this time. Compare to