Palin on earmarks

Sarah Palin apparently is not in agreement with John McCain when it comes to earmarks. She demonstated this during the Charlie Gibson interview.

Watch the clip here.

According to Palin, as long as the public know about the earmarks it doesn't equal wasteful government spending.

McCain's Web site states: 

John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets. 

Sarah Palin:For country or for state?

As we start to learn more about Alaskan governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, I find myself asking "Who is she in this for?" "Which does she care more about? Alaska or the US?"

The more I read and hear, the more it appears Palin accepted the veep nomination to help further Alaska.

She would favor a war with Russia. Smart move. That would eliminate Alaska's biggest foreign threat.

Soon after it was announced Plain was John McCain's choice for veep a video surfaced of Palin stating "What exactly is it the vp does everyday?" You can watch the clip of that interview on CNBC here.

While that remark shocked me, what really caught my interest was what followed that comment.

"We want to make sure that  vp slot is a fruitful type position, especially for Alaskans and for the things we are trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US",Palin said.

Her energy policy even favors Alaska.

"There have been a lot of misperceptions and misconceptions about what ANWR is all about,"she explained. "You see pictures, visual, from the naysayers, the critics, of the idea of opening ANWR and the pictures they are showing are of mountains, polar bears. Lost of different wildlife. They'll show moose in the streams and mountains in the background. That is not ANWR."

Here's a video of Palin talking about energy.

According to ANWR.org,

"Each-year thousands of waterfowl and other birds nest and reproduce the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk fields and a healthy and increasing caribou herd migrates through these areas to calve and seek respite from annoying pests. Oil field facilities have been located and designed to accommodate wildlife and utilize the least amount of tundra surface."

Keep in mind, ANWR.org appears to support drilling in the wildlife reserve to liberate "billions of barrels and trillions of cubic feet of recoverable gas."

Again I have to ask myself if Palin cares more about Alaska than the United States.

In the video where she talks about energy she states "drill, drill, drill" and talks a lot about cutting foreign dependence on oil by using domestic oil instead.

She does mention renewable sources of energy but never lays out a plan to cut the US dependence on oil.

Again, I would only assume drilling in Alaska would bring money to the large state up north.

She seems to love Alaska a little too much.

McCain: The Agent of Change

During his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention presidential hopeful John McCain said he was going to  bring change to Washington.

His remarks were eerily similar to another senator running for president.

Sen. barack Obama, at a recent rally in Indiana, challegned those remarks McCain made about being an agent of change.

Interestingly enough, McCain started out as a politician to change Washington. However, once he lost the primary to George W. Bush in 2000 McCain changed and not for the better.

McCain reversed his position on every major issue. He went from a more moderate/liberal view of an issue to a far right conservative stance on an issue. 

Here are two examples.

In 2000 McCain said if Roe v. Wade was repealed thousands of women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations. 

2008 comes along and he states "I do not support Roe v. Wade."

McCain made an appearance on Meet the Press in 2004 and said "I would clearly support not extending (the Bush) tax cuts."

Fast forward to a 2008 McCain radio address. "I would make the Bush tax cuts permanent."

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart illustrates this point perfectly.

While many people criticized this metamorphosis it was actually a smart play.

McCain took the values he was unable to win with during the 2000 primary, change them to the ones he could win with, add eight years of George W. Bush and presto! McCain wins the republican nomination.

Enter Sarah Palin.

Palin, who encompasses the far right, could allow 2008 McCain to drift back to 2000 McCain all the while keeping his campaign on the conservative track.

She would allow McCain to return to his former "maverick" status. The maverick who wants to work with democrats, the guy who thinks the Bush tax cuts are bad. A return to a more moderate John McCain. 

He's already starting to move that way.

Today on "Face the Nation," McCain said, if elected, he would appoint democrats to his cabinet.

McCain might already be changing his view on a lot of issues.

Also, check this out. 

After a week of gaing ground on the McCain campagin, Obama's lead has shruken to two points in the most recent poll.

What Palin's speech needs to convey.

According to the CNN countdown clock we are less than an hour away from Gov. Sarah Palin's veep speech.

Ever since Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain selected the Alaskan governor as his running mate , there have been criticisms from both sides. Most of that criticism has come because of her lack of economic and foreign policy experience. But that's what advisers are for right?

Thus far, the Palin selection has amped up a lot of Republicans who have been upset with McCain coming out as the front runner on the Republican side.  

So what does Palin have to do tonight?

She has been criticized for not having enough experience in the realm of politics to be a "heartbeat" away from the presidency. 

Her political career started in 1996 when she was elected to Wasilla city council and then became mayor of the town in 1996. Palin became governor in 2006.

It is pretty evident that she does not have a lot of foreign policy experience. Then again not many governors do. 

Our past two presidents have been governors. Our next president will be a senator. I digress.

Palin needs to prove to the American people that she has what it takes to be second in command. And possibly the "big cheese"

Palin is a self-proclaimed "hockey mom" and that should work to her advantage.

Looking at excerpts from her speech, Palin sees not having an illustrious political career as a positive.

"I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone."

And.....

"Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a 'community organizer,' except that you have actual responsibilities."

Defending her experience is first and foremost.

Next, I would expect her to tout her strong conservative viewpoints on social issues. Second amendment, abortion, etc. This will be huge with social value voters. 

I'm anxious to see if she mentions gay marriage.

Of course Palin will touch on energy and oil independence.

Interesting enough, Palin supports drilling in ANWAR. McCain does not.

Ill try to post a wrap up once the speech is over.

Outsourcing the media?

A few weeks ago the NYT reported that CBS and CNN were discussing the possibility to "share resources."
There are a couple reasons off the top of my head why this could be a bad thing.
Essentially CNN and CBS would be sharing stories, reporters and anything else. This would just be like using a wire service and I believe it would severely diminish the news industry.
Don't misinterpret my statement, I do not hate wire service. I believe the AP is great and really help the news industries. But relying on a wire service will diminish the end product. Granted many of the MSM (mainstream media) carry the same stories, but each is covered slightly different.
If CNN and CBS somewhat merge we the people would lose a different perspective. Even though the media is supposed to be unbiased, bias does show through one way or another. Some more apparent than others FoxNews
A slew of media outlets can cover one event and each one will be will put out a different story with a different angle.
Wire services are used several ways. The Reuters or AP service stories made be run in their entirety because the a media outlet may not have been able to get a reporter to the story. Or the wire service may be used as a starting point but the media outlet weens itself off the wire service story and develops its own.
But if every news outlet runs the same exact story, what does the public gain?
Then again maybe this is the way the news industry is going. Maybe there only needs to be one large, super television news station.
Look at the newspaper industry.
Newspapers in general are suffering. However, the larger papers are suffering more in my opinion. The larger papers are covering the same stories the television news stations are covering. But the newspapers are losing because of the timeliness and the publics laziness to pick up a paper and read it.
Now, look at smaller newspapers. The Lebanon Daily's, the Press And Journal's and the Patriot News's.
Each paper has a smaller audience and a narrower focus. The LDN and PN are daily newspapers therefore have the opportunity to compete with TV news.
The P&J which is a weekly does not have less of an opportunity to compete with television news so the staff has to work harder to scoop TV and other daily papers.
However, lets look at what makes the three papers (which cover the same regions) are successful.
The LDN covers all of Lebanon County and is liked by its readers because of the "gossip" factor.
The PN is a larger circulation and covers most of Central Pennsylvania.
The P&J covers the Middletown area.
Now, one would assume the PN would be able to crush the LDN and P&J because it has more money and a larger staff ergo better stories.
However, the LDN and P&J with their narrow focus are able to successfully compete with the PN.

What's the deal with genocide?

Ignoring the fact the I titled my first blog Jerry Seinfeld-esque this is a very serious topic, genocide that is. Also, ignore the fact that I started this post last year and am only finishing/posting it now.
Last year I read "A Problem from Hell": American and the Age of Genocide by Samantha Powers. As I write this blog I am only about halfway through the book, but nonetheless I have already been able to see patterns develop with U.S. foreign policy, mainly when it comes to dealing with genocide. Put simply, the U.S. likes to not use the word genocide. One reason being that if the U.S. did deem something a genocide then it would have to get involved in some way, shape, or form to stop it.
From what I gathered from my reading is that the U.S. does not like to get involved 1) the thought of sending troops to stop a genocide does not bode well for public opinion and 2) usually if the U.S. would have decided to step in during a genocide it would somehow end up hurting itself. Examples of this can be seen during the Cold War period.
One specific example is the Kurdish genocide in Iraq. This genocide was enforced by Ali Hassan al-Majid, Saddam Hussein's cousin and secretary-general of the Northern Bureau. The reason for the genocide against the Kurds was because of a ongoing war with Iran. The certain Kurds were allied with Iran and were considered "rebels" in Iraq, therefore, Iraq justified removing the Kurdish "rebels" saying that they were trying to bring down the government. The problem was that the "rebels" that the Iraqis were removing were not only men but women and children and then systematically destroying villages. The whole Kurdish genocide is much more complicated than that.
The reason the U.S. did not want to get involved was because the U.S. did not like Iran, therefore, the U.S. supported the Iraqi government. The U.S. feared that if they spoke up that they would lose an ally in the war with Iran.
Now fast forward 20 years and we are faced with another genocide. This time it is happening in the Darfur region of Sudan. So far 400,000 have been killed and more than 2 million people have been displaced. Repeatedly the U.S. and the world community has said "never again" would a genocide occur. In reality, countries continue to turn a blind eye to these types of atrocities. This time the U.S. is afraid to act because the Sudanese government gives the U.S. "valuable" intelligence in the war on terror. If the U.S. were to stand up to the Sudanese government they may lose that support for the war on terror, therefore, the janjaweed militias and government forces are able to continue killing Darfuris.

Go 2008 Beijing Olympics

Today the Olympic torch made it to France.
The relay was run in a traditional fashion -- the runner, a torch, roller blading police officers and eventually the torch had to be taken to the next leg via bus.
Why?
Because of protesters and demonstrators, OH MY!! As seen here in the New York Times article.
And don't forget the photos.
They were protesting China's persistent suppression of Tibet -- especially after the most recent outbreak of violence which only occured last month.
While the most recent protests to the 2008 Olympics have focused on the Chinese government violently putting down the Tibetan protests, let's not forget people have been protesting because of China's ah-mazing human rights record.
Thousands (possibly millions) of people have called for China to stop supporting the Sudanese government's genocide in Darfur. China investment in the Sudanese oil fields.
A rally was held in October 2007 in Philadelphia where former Olympian Joey Cheek spoke out against the genocide in Darfur and China's involvement. The photos from that event are here.
Steven Spielberg was the creative consultant for the opening ceremonies until Mia Farrow called for his resignation on Nov. 8 2007. He resigned in February 2008.
A Save Darfur facebook group has already called on its members to protest the relay when it makes the only stop in the United States on April 9 in San Francisco.
Pres. Bush even said "not on our watch" would another genocide occur. Unfortunatly, not much is being done on the federal level. However, on the state level. governments are slowly but surly divesting from Sudan.
According to the NYT, Pres. Bush plans on attending the opening ceremonies.
So, much for not on our watch. Then again I guess it's only appropriate for the POTUS to pay respect to the country that lends us billions of dollars.