Tag: politics

Posted on

More politics…why not?

All the shenanigans around Sarah Palin’s nomination just baffles my mind. There’s a huge double-standard out there coming from the right-wing…check out the following video to see some evidence…

It’s stunning…

(Yeah…”The Daily Show” is getting another Peabody…guaranteed…)

Update: Here’s a nice run-down of some “fact checks” from all the lies from Palin’s speech last night, too… And if you want a less liberally-leaning list of facts that were distorted from the GOP convention, here’s a list from the Associated Press…

Update #2: As was pointed out on another blog today (in a comment…so I can’t cite it…): Jesus was a Community Organizer, and Pontius Pilate was a governor! 😛

Posted on

Genius

“She’s got to. She’s a Democrat. She must prove she loves America, as opposed to Republicans, who everyone knows loves America: they just hate half the people living in it.”

— Jon Stewart; “The Daily Show,” August 26, 2008

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2008 – Michelle Obama’s Patriotism
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Firstly, that whole episode of “The Daily Show” last night was pure genius. They are in Denver for the Democratic National Convention, providing their characteristic “coverage” of the speeches and news surrounding the event. This is the kind of thing the writers/producers of the show win a Peabody, and surely this election cycle will be no different.

Secondly, I have been watching some of the speeches, but at the very least, the “big name” speech of each night, including Michelle Obama (as described in the video above) and Hillary Clinton.

Michelle Obama is a badass and I’d love to see her in a debate with Cindy McCain, ’cause it’d be brutal and sad. I like that she doesn’t take any crap from people, and that she has a mind of her own. Watching Laura Bush speak…very occasionally (what…she talks?)…is very uninspiring, and mostly boring. Michelle wrote her own speech (according to Rep. Harold Ford) and delivered it as well as her husband would have. Beautiful, inspiring words…and yes, she’s patriotic…

Hillary Clinton spoke last night and, while I wasn’t quite as “inspired” as I was by Michelle Obama’s, it was still an excellent speech that held the tone of party unity admirably. From the outset, she expressed her support for Obama and the party as a whole, discussed her accomplishments in the campaign, and even stuck it to McCain as, perhaps, only she could. I’m glad she’s putting this “divided party” thing to bed, thankfully not providing a spectacle for the pundits to tear apart and report on for 25 hours a day (not a typo). Either way, it sounds like most people were very impressed by her words and that she’s a team player, which will probably just make her more powerful within the party than she ever would have been as President.

Only a few months left!

Posted on

I'm Paris Hilton and I approve this message.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Yeah…Paris Hilton isn’t exactly the smartest person around, and is quite frankly kinda annoying, but I applaud her for sticking it to McCain for using her in his campaign ad against Obama. Even though her parents had donated to the McCain campaign.

I get the feeling I’m going to get tired of the election(s) in the next few months…

Posted on

I’m Paris Hilton and I approve this message.

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

Yeah…Paris Hilton isn’t exactly the smartest person around, and is quite frankly kinda annoying, but I applaud her for sticking it to McCain for using her in his campaign ad against Obama. Even though her parents had donated to the McCain campaign.

I get the feeling I’m going to get tired of the election(s) in the next few months…

Posted on

Where do I go for stem cell treatments? China!

So, I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR this morning when they had this article about stem-cell treatments offered by Beike Biotechnology – in China… The article specifically highlights how Americans with little hope of curing ailments (like a family’s blind 7-month-old daughter) are going to China to give these treatments a try. The company uses stem-cells harvested from umbilical cords, so they aren’t embryonic in nature (i.e. somewhat less controversial…). It’ll set you back upwards of $10,000-$20,000 (less the cost of actually getting to China to try it!).

I guess the problem I have with this is on two fronts:

1). There are a variety of ethical concerns from a scientific standpoint, in that (according to the article) there is little research in the field to suggest that implantation of these stem cells should yield any beneficial effect. And by “little research,” I mean in cell culture, rats, mice, etc. Essentially, it seems to me that these people are being given experimental treatments that shouldn’t be given to humans yet. It would be one thing if there was a great deal of promising data to suggest moving forward with human trials, but it seems like this company kind of decided to skip that part and just jump right in on people.

2). What does it say about American policy when people are willing to go to a different country to get these treatments (ethical or not…). According to the article, over 600 foreigners (not necessarily all Americans…) have gone to this company to get the treatment, which thereby means that there are people here in the US and other countries that want the option. However, there are so many restrictions here in the US on experimentation (let alone human trials) that these individuals are forced to go to countries that have “skipped” over the, perhaps, more proper procedures.

Perhaps if the US provided more funding and support for stem cell research, we wouldn’t have Americans traveling overseas to get experimental treatments for their 7-month-old children? I’m not even saying embryonic stem cells (although I’d still like to see more research on them), but even on umbilical cells – without proper funding and support, researchers can’t get the work done, thereby risking other, less ethical, groups coming forward with these treatments and offering them to the public.

Where exactly is the morality of denying money and support for stem cell research when it forces families to go overseas to get treatments that we could have developed ourselves?

Posted on

"C" is for cookie…


So, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, did a little blurb for a site called TrueMajority.org. It seems to be mostly a liberal-leaning website, but I think they’re trying to bring a more moderate message to issues relevant to our time.

In the Flash animation (linked to above, if you click on the image…), you get him talking for a few minutes about what the site is, but mostly about his “Oreo Analogy”…which is why you should spend a minute and watch it. He breaks it down by saying one Oreo equals $10 billion, and the Dept. of Defense gets 40 Oreos. Then he describes how much our social programs get (Head Start, Education, etc.) and how much is going to the defenses of other nations that could hurt us (i.e. Russia, China, etc.).

Anyway, it’s amusing and enlightening. Working in science, I’m very aware of the NIH budget, where most science dollars in health research comes from. The NIH budget is $35 billion and hasn’t increased with inflation in years (meaning that we’ve effectively got decreases in funding progressively).

One Oreo cookie shaved off the top of that defense budget could help cure a lot of people. And help education. And feed the hungry.

And no, shaving a few cookies off the top of that stack won’t “let the terrorists win”…

Posted on

“C” is for cookie…


So, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, did a little blurb for a site called TrueMajority.org. It seems to be mostly a liberal-leaning website, but I think they’re trying to bring a more moderate message to issues relevant to our time.

In the Flash animation (linked to above, if you click on the image…), you get him talking for a few minutes about what the site is, but mostly about his “Oreo Analogy”…which is why you should spend a minute and watch it. He breaks it down by saying one Oreo equals $10 billion, and the Dept. of Defense gets 40 Oreos. Then he describes how much our social programs get (Head Start, Education, etc.) and how much is going to the defenses of other nations that could hurt us (i.e. Russia, China, etc.).

Anyway, it’s amusing and enlightening. Working in science, I’m very aware of the NIH budget, where most science dollars in health research comes from. The NIH budget is $35 billion and hasn’t increased with inflation in years (meaning that we’ve effectively got decreases in funding progressively).

One Oreo cookie shaved off the top of that defense budget could help cure a lot of people. And help education. And feed the hungry.

And no, shaving a few cookies off the top of that stack won’t “let the terrorists win”…

Posted on

Oba-mania?

“The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think fairly, has claimed that she’s got the experience on ‘day 1’ and part of the argument that I’m making in this campaign is that it is important to be right on ‘day 1’ and that the judgment that I’ve presented on this issue [Iraq] and some other issues is relevant to how we’re gonna make decisions in the future. It’s not just a function of looking backwards, it’s a function of looking forwards, and how are we going to be able to make serious decisions in a dangerous world?”

— Barack Obama; Democratic Primary Debate, Hollywood, CA; Jan 31, 2008

So, I’m honestly not sure I’m even registered for the Primary, and still not completely sure which way I’d swing. I mean, I’m voting for a Democrat regardless of who the nominee, but I think I’d still lean Obama, were I to actually vote on Feb 5th. Listening to tonight’s “debate” on CNN tonight, they really agreed on nearly every issue except for a few relatively slight differences. The entire debate was more of a “conversation,” as there weren’t all that many barbs exchanged (with the possible exception of the quote above, which I kinda liked…).

At this point, I’m thinking more strategically for who I want to win the nomination. If Mitt Romney is the nominee for the Republicans, then either Obama or Clinton will win (providing there aren’t any major screw-ups by their respective campaigns). If McCain is the nominee, however, I think Obama would have a better chance competing against him – and if it came down to McCain vs Clinton, I really don’t think I’d mind him winning as much as I minded Bush winning in 2000/2004. McCain and Clinton both voted for the same war, come from the same generation, and arguably have comparable experience – but Obama represents a much clearer distinction between the two potential Presidential candidates. I think Romney would get hammered, but McCain would stand a fighting, if not good, chance to go all the way.

So, this raises two questions: (1) Would I rather have McCain win the nomination and have a tougher time getting a Democrat in to the White House, or would I rather risk having Romney be the nominee and have the Democrats screw up this election like 2004, perhaps actually having Romney win?, and (2) As with the first question, do I rather have Obama get the nomination, but perhaps not hold his own against McCain’s “experience,” or have Clinton go against the Republicans and energize the Christian Right to come back to the polls?

It’s a complicated election year, and it’s proving to be fascinating.

I’m just glad “A Daily Show” and “The ColberT ReporT” are back… 😛

Edit: My voter registration card arrived. I get to vote in the Primary. 🙂

Posted on

A bit on the disturbing side…

Dr. Macarthur alerted me to this blurb at The Washington Monthly, a liberal-leaning blog, that highlights another blog posting at Time Magazine regarding the most recent Republican debate.

Essentially, they took 30 Republican “base” voters from St. Petersburg, FL and gave them a dial device to record their reactions in “real-time” to what was said during the debate. For example, if Romney was speaking and you agreed, you’d turn your dial up toward “100,” and if you disagreed you’d turn it down toward “0.” In this way, you can generally gauge the reactions for anything said by a given candidate. Now, keep in mind, these are a sample of people and may not (or may?) represent the general feelings of Republican “base” voters around the country. Honestly, I hope these aren’t the general feelings of the “base”…

Many of the reactions were to be expected (i.e. no one liked Ron Paul’s Iraq stance, most liked Romney…), but there were a few responses that surprised even me… From the article:

“In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, ‘After all, these are children of God,’ the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s).”

And secondly:

“When John McCain started talking about torture–specifically, about waterboarding–the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. ‘I don’t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,’ said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.”

Now, I can’t say I was only slightly surprised by the reaction to McCain’s stance against torture by the “base,” but I was a flabbergasted by their response to Huckabee.

I guess I think it really says something when the majority of your base of voters say they are God-fearing, church-going people…and yet they don’t agree that the children of illegal immigrants are not “God’s children” and that torture is perfectly fine. That, or anything to help impoverished people. Seriously. I mean, I would have thought that an ordained minister would have a pretty good shot at the nomination, if you just look at “base” voters, but…I guess not?

Just sounds a bit hypocritical…perhaps I’m mistaken…

Note: I read the Time blog posting first, then wrote this up…then read through the comments below the Time posting…you may wanna flip through those, as they call the source of the data into question and the blogger in general. I dunno who’s right, of course, but it’s still rather frightening…