It's so easy to find the truth...

So why do they bother lying about it so very often?

Here's my favorite by far. I had already read the factcheck.org articles when I saw McCain's new commercial "quoting" factcheck.org. So I knew it was quoted in a completely inaccurate way. And lo and behold, factcheck.org also saw that commercial; and they did not care for their material being used in a nonfactual way. Check it all out here.

And have you seen the McCain-Palin commercial that makes the claim that Obama wants to teach sex in kindergarten? Yeah, that's not true either. Teaching something other than abstinence in school? Yes. Teaching sex in KG? No. The bill that's being referenced does call for education to start in KG. But it would be age-appropriate information -- things such as bad touching -- in the hopes of helping kids to protect themselves or at the very least to report anyone who dares to abuse them. You can read about this one here.

Did you watch McCain's acceptance speech at the RNC's convention? If so, did you wonder from time to time what he was talking about? Yeah, those "mistakes" are laid out here.

Finally, did you happen to catch Palin's speech at the convention? Even if you didn't, you've very likely seen clips of it (and if you haven't even seen clips, then you really need to leave the cave from time to time...). It was a mess. More "nontruths" than truths. You can can read about some of that here.

Obama and his folks have twisted some facts along the way as well. Though it is interesting to note that of the articles posted recently on factcheck.org, the McCain-Palin articles keep piling up, whereas there's been only one about Obama et al. since the DNC's convention. Additionally, there are 3 posts regarding the speeches at the Republican convention and only 1 post regarding the speeches at the Democratic convention. You can check all of this out here.

Before you accuse me of bias...

I'm not a Democrat.

I'm not a Republican either.

I used to call myself an independent; then that actually became a party.

And I'm not an Independent.

I am a registered Democrat. But that is because you must register with a party in order to vote in the primaries here in Ohio, and there was a Democratic primary in which I wanted to vote.

I supported Hillary during the primaries this year. When she lost, I did not get on the Obama bandwagon. I am not a fan of Obama's.

I am not a fan of McCain's either. McCain used to be "the Democrat's friend." He was much more moderate than many in his party. He seemed to have much more sense than our current President.

Then came the 2008 election cycle.

John McCain has gone too far to the right for me. I was stuck. I wouldn't vote for McCain, but I didn't know if I could vote for Obama. I also couldn't imagine not voting. I was stuck. A part of me was waiting to see who McCain picked as his running mate. I thought that if he picked someone who was moderate enough, there was a sliver of a possibility that I would vote for him.

Then he picked Sarah Palin.

And now I'm voting for Obama.

There is not a chance in hell that I would even consider a ticket with Palin's name on it. It seems as though she is against everything I believe in and for everything I abhor. I can't recall hearing her say one thing with which I agree. What's more, the McCain campaign has begun to attack everyone who dares to question her credentials. Somehow the McCain campaign has turned the completely normal process of the media/public vetting a candidate as a sexist act. Putting forth this claim does nothing for women's rights. In fact, if it is allowed to continue, it will actually begin to turn back the clock for women.

So know this: my posts regarding Palin and my posts regarding the extreme nastiness of the McCain campaign have nothing to do with party bias. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the U.S.A. I do not pledge allegiance to a political party.

All about Sarah...

Just a few quotes, thoughts, and links for you to ponder...

The McCain-Palin team has campaigned on media coverage that they describe as excessive or unfair. from CNN

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not the campaign that spent the late spring and early summer whining that it wasn't getting enough coverage? Well, it's getting the coverage now, so stop whining.

Bottom line: You can't have it both ways.

I found a great article on Slate: The Sarah Palin FAQ. It's a definite must read. Here are just a couple of excerpts about some of my "favorite" issues.

Did she oppose the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere"?

When she was running for governor in 2006, Palin said she supported a $223 million federal earmark for the Gravina Island Bridge. Congress eventually killed the earmark after it became a symbol of pork-barrel spending, but Alaska was given the same amount of money to spend on other projects. Last year, Palin put a halt to state support of the project, saying, "We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island." The reversal was hailed by budget hawks, but it irked local politicians like Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein, who said, "[S]he pandered to us by saying, 'I'm for this.' "

So in other words, she was for it, then she was against it, though she took the money anyway.

Bottom line: She took her pork and grilled it instead of frying it.

Cindy McCain and others have asserted that Alaska's proximity to Russia has contributed to Palin's foreign-policy knowledge. What dealings has she had with Russia?

The campaign has not come up with any. Palin has never been to Russia.

Yeah, there's no substance here. I just think it's funny.

Was she ever a member of the Alaskan Independence Party?

Public records indicate [] that Palin has been a lifelong Republican since she first registered to vote in Alaska.... According to the New York Times, Gov. Palin recorded a video segment for the party's convention this year, wishing the AIP "good luck on a successful and inspiring convention."

Bottom line: Why does anyone care about this? Because the AIP wants Alaska to secede from the U.S.

Did she want to ban books from the public library as mayor of Wasilla?

Yes, at least according to John Stein, the town's former mayor. Stein says Palin asked the Wasilla library "how she could go about banning books" with offensive language. It's not clear whether any book was ever banned.

Banning books is just not a good idea. Ever. Even the McCain-Palin website admits that she asked the librarian about it twice. They claim she didn't want to ban books though. Unclear on why she was asking if she wasn't interested.

Bottom line: From all reports, she had an unusual and unexplained interest in banning books.

Does she oppose federal earmarks?

Alaska has long been the recipient of astounding amounts of federal funding. While Palin slashed pork requests in half during her tenure, the state still requested $550 million in Palin's first year in office. This year she has requested about $198 million—$295 per person—which is still the highest amount per-capita in the country, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. And when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired an Anchorage-based firm to secure $27 million in federal earmarks for the town.

Bottom line: No, she does not oppose federal earmarks.

What are Palin's views on abortion?

[S]he... has also indicated her preference for abstinence education over "explicit sex-ed programs." She would permit abortion in cases where the mother's life was endangered, but not in the case of rape or incest.

Bottom line: No woman (or girl) should be forced to become a mother. Especially in the cases of rape and incest.

Education. It's not going so well. Alaska's graduation rate for the last school year was 59.6%. Their Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate for 2004 (so this looks to the kids who were freshman in 2004 and graduated this past June; it's supposed to be a more reliable number for comparing across states) was 67.2%; the national rate for the same kids was 75%. The national average was You can see more here.

It's been said that Palin increased funding to education. Here's to hoping she's done something other than throw money at a system that doesn't appear to be in the best working order at the moment. Of course, given the short amount of time Palin has been governor, it's difficult to assess the success or failure of anything she's done.

Bottom line: That's the point.

eBay. Palin stated in her convention speech -- and both she and McCain have made sure to mention this several times since then -- that she put the governor's jet on eBay as she thought it was a waste of money. That much of the story is true. Unfortunately, they don't stop there. Nope. Instead, they go on to say that it was posted on eBay, where it sold at a profit. Not true. The jet did not sell on eBay. It was removed and sold via a broker. What's more, it was sold at a loss.

Bottom line: An outright lie that is so easy to check out that it really makes you wonder how very stupid the McCain campaign thinks the public as a whole is....

For those who have read the Anne Kilkenny letter, it is real.

Some other interesting articles/reports: Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics and Sarah Palin’s abysmal environmental record.

I'll add some more citations in the days to come. And I'll post more interesting links as I come upon them.

Bottom line: Sarah Palin is a great speaker with a strong presence. But please don't let that sway you. Learn about her and her positions. And then cast your vote for whichever pair of candidates you believe would be the best for our country.

Someone should try it. Really.

Someone should run for office honestly and -- if not exactly nicely -- without the nastiness. I know they say you have to sling mud with the opponents if you want to get anywhere. But do you really? Things have gotten so very ugly; it really seems as though someone with a less nasty (or, you know, not at all nasty!) campaign could really get somewhere. Pointing to the other guy's record can be legitimate. But how about doing as a comparison rather than a slam? Wouldn't that be nice and refreshing?

From McCain himself...

So far -- and it's only been a few minutes -- he's actually said something nice about Obama and his supporters.

However, he then went on to say -- after he was interrupted by a demonstrator -- that the American people just want us to stop yelling at each other. Um... did he listen to her speech last night? How was that not an example of yelling at each other.

How on Earth can McCain stand up there and talk about the "me first, do nothing crowd" in reference to Congress when he is part of the do nothing crowd?! Though the RNC is trying to sell a different line, the Republicans are the ones who have introduced a record number of filibusters in the last two years. Yes, the Republicans, not the Democrats.

And again, he's talking about being the man of change. Really. This from a man who has proudly stated that he's voted with GWBush 90% of the time; more, he said, than any of his colleagues. How, I ask you, is that a candidate for change?

Now he's talking about pork barrel spending, and last night Palin was eager and proud to point out that she said no to the bridge to nowhere. However, she failed to mention that she started out for that bridge. She also failed to mention that though she turned down the bridge, she still took the money.

Who knows how he'll continue this speech, but so far he is doing a better job of talking about himself rather than punching the opponents.

Now he's taking credit for the "victory" in Iraq. Saying that to have given up and left before we achieved victory would have led to a wider war. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but did I not read today that US troops are in Pakistan? And I'm certain they're not there for a rousing game of Uno.

I'm sorry, but...

You know, I'm terribly sorry that John McCain was a POW. I'm terribly sorry that he was tortured and was sick and had to suffer so. I truly am sorry that he had to endure that. And I admire him for coming through it a reasonably sane, stable individual.

However, I don't think we need to pay him back or reward him or thank him by handing him the White House.

Based on the clip that was just shown to introduce him, that appears to be what all the talk about him being a POW is about. Given that living in a box and being tortured is totally and completely irrelevant to one's qualifications for the office on Pennsylvania Avenue, I do wish they'd cut out the POW lectures and instead tell me what he actually stands for and believes in.

And no, "America" is not an acceptable answer to the what does he believe in question. I need to know his political positions. I need to know how he plans to raise our country up and move us forward. I need to know that voting with GWBush 90% of the time is a thing of the past. Because if it is not, then he is all about 4 more of the same, not change. Though if you define change as Sarah Palin apparently does...

Can we really afford more of the same...

Divisive.

It occurred to me that that is much of what upset me the most about Sarah Palin's speech last night: it was horribly divisive.

She claims to be able to bring people together, to be able to work across party lines. However, if last night is an indication of what she calls "unity", I'm going to need to return my dictionary because it has a very, very different definition for that word.

It was also politics as usual, from a ticket that has recently begun to claim to be the party of change. Again, if that divisive, nasty, sarcastic, substance-less speech is what she calls "change"... well, I really need to upgrade my dictionary.

Are you kidding me...

There were buttons in the crowd during Palin's speech at the Repub's convention that were for "the hottest VP from the coolest state."

Disgusting.

That was just nasty...

I admit that I watched only one speech during the Dem's convention. I watched Hillary. That was it. She gave what I thought was a great speech with little to no mud slinging. Her speech seemed to be more focused on bringing the Dems together and backing Obama than anything else.

I heard a lot of the post-game talk about the DNC speeches, though. And I didn't hear anything about them being nasty or full of attacks or sarcastic. I didn't even hear that from the super-right Republicans.

But tonight at the RNC? Very nasty. All of the speeches. And based on the post-game that I've heard so far -- from the left and the right -- the Repub's convention has been not about substance and plans, but rather jabs and attacks.

This is just such nasty politics that I am quite literally sick to my stomach.

And the real rub here is that the Democrats will have to be very careful in any response. Harry Reid was personally attacked in Palin's speech. When he responded via an aide and used the word "shrill", Campbell Brown and some of her brethren seemed to think he was being sexist.

Ridiculous.

It is simply unacceptable that she can so thoroughly tear up her opponents and then those opponents get ripped for being sexist when they use "shrill" as an adjective to describe her speech. Her speech was all slam and no substance. "Shrill" is actually about the nicest thing that could be said about it.

Men and women cannot compete on an equal footing if this is the level to which the post-game insists on going.

So that you don't think I just don't like her and am just being mean to her, I'll give you that she is a great speaker. Her speech was fluid and she has great timing. She can read and pronounce the words she's reading. She has fantastic presence and, again, a great sense of timing. For the actual technical points of public speaking, I readily give her an A+. But for content?

Well, there was no content. Again, she didn't talk about plans, she just slammed the opponents.

What's more, after spending the last few days telling us through the McCain campaign that we must leave her family out of this, they were used throughout the speech as political props. I found that distasteful, disrespectful, and insulting.

It's not about the ovaries...

People keep talking about Palin pulling in disenchanted and "bitter" Hillary supporters.

What are they talking about??

Palin and Hillary are polar opposites. They both have ovaries, that is their biggest similarity. And people who are voting for ovaries are just... well... silly. No true Hillary supporter would ever vote for Palin.

Palin is pro-drilling, pro-war, anti-choice, anti-sex, anti-useful sex education, anti-Constitution, anti-same sex marriage, and on and on. Hillary's none of those things. Anyone who supports Hillary because of her positions on issues will not, cannot, vote for Palin.

It's just not about the ovaries.

Palin at the Republican Convention

What exactly does being a POW have to do with being President of the US? How is that relevant? Some speaker who was up tonight was going on about that. Per this speaker, being a POW is much more relevant experience than is being a community organizer. How? I truly don't understand the connection.

Palin is speaking now. It was interesting that she began her speech by accepting a nomination she has not yet received. See, she won't be officially nominated until tomorrow.

So apparently she's not waiting, she's being ugly from the beginning. Nothing quite like a giving a speech to introduce yourself to the Nation and using that time to trash your opponent rather than to tell us about yourself and what you believe in. How many minutes in and so far she has slung more mud than anything else. She hasn't talked at all about what she wants to do. There are no plans. No substance. It's all empty sound bites and slams against her opponents.

More interesting: she didn't bother to mention that she was originally for that bridge to nowhere. Nope. Of course not.

Apparently her opponents are not for alternate forms of energy. Okay, that's an outright lie.

And again she's back to trashing her opponent rather than talking about anything real, anything substantive.

This is ugly. This is exactly the kind of politics I don't like. This is exactly the kind of politics that completely undermines the entire system.

Oh good, she's now also trashed the Constitution. Wow. This woman is unreal.

Reading some about her political past is concerning. She appears to be incredibly politically astute. She appears to be very good at reading the winds of change... and changing with them. Though it's certainly true people grow and change over the years, it's troubling that she appears to change her stance on issues depending on what is politically advantageous for her at the moment.

The current "do nothing Senate." Interesting how it's the Republicans in the Senate who continue to block any real change, and yet the Democrats who are blamed for it.

Oh goody, she also believes in the idea of ruling via fear. Nothing like a little fear mongering to really get yourself some votes.

And back to him being a veteran and a POW. Again, how is that relevant?

I hope she's almost finished because I really can't stomach much more of this.

I'm now incredibly curious as to what the commentators and analysts will have to say about this speech.

Yes, it is... and yes, we can...

So the big argument at the moment is whether or not the media and the voters should talk about Bristol Palin's pregnancy. The right argues that it is a complete nonissue and that families are off limits. The left argues that the discussion isn't about Bristol, it's about Bristol's mother -- who happens to be on the Republican ticket as their VP pick -- and as such is completely relevant and in bounds.

To be fair -- and complete -- Obama did respond to questions from the press about Bristol's pregnancy by saying the candidate's families are out of bounds. Of course, what else could he possibly have said? To respond in any other way leaves his own family open to attack. To respond in any other way also goes against what both he and Senator McCain have been saying about their wives throughout the entire campaign: spouses are off limits. Of course, that hasn't stopped anyone on the right -- including McCain himself -- from going after a comment of Michelle Obama's regarding patriotism. Nor did it stop anyone from McCain's or Obama's camps from going after Mr. Clinton.

So back to the Palins. Sarah Palin is the Republican party's pick for VP. And she has accepted this invitation. As such, her life is now an open book. There is nothing new or different about that. That's how it works when you're on the shortlist for the big office.

The right likes to say that Palin "walks her talk." This is generally said right before or after a statement that Palin recently had a special needs baby. Palin discovered during her pregnancy that the baby would have Downs and choose to carry him to term regardless. Palin is anti-choice to the extent that she also opposes such a choice even in cases of rape and incest. Imminent death of the mother is the only circumstance under which Palin believes that abortion is an option. Therefore, having her own special needs baby is seen as her walking her talk.

Okay, great.

Palin is also a supporter of abstinence only education in the schools and is against pre-marital sex. However, it appears that her eldest was born less than 9 months after her marriage, which was an elopement. Granted it is possible that the baby was early. However, the child's birthdate has been removed from Wikipedia and there are several reports online that the child was indeed conceived out of wedlock. This doesn't look like her walking her talk. Perhaps it was the folly of youth (though I believe she was in her mid-20s) or perhaps she has changed her stance. But it's fair to look at and consider and weigh while considering her for Vice President of this nation.

Palin is also supposedly an ethics reformer. And yet she herself is caught up in what is being called Troopergate. She is being accused of having her ex-brother-in-law fired. She says she didn't do this and reports are that it's all been blown out of proportion. And yet she's just recently hired an attorney to represent her. It's fair and relevant to talk about ethics charges that have been leveled against a potential Vice President of this nation.

Sarah Palin is the mother of 5. One is about to deploy to Iraq. One is a pregnant teenager. And one is a 4 month old with Down Syndrome. These facts in and of themselves are absolutely relevant. The time and concern and stress that each one of these facts place on a parent are understandably great. But all three together?

The job of vice president is incredibly time-consuming and stressful. And let's not forget that she would be second in command to the oldest president in US history, one who has also had several bouts with a dangerous skin cancer. She would be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency. With the present concerns in her family, would Palin really be able to put country before family? I don't think it's any kind of secret that those in the big offices generally put the family second during their tenure. And the party that espouses family values has just chosen the mother of a special needs baby to be in such an office for the most formative and important and challenging years of his life. Do we really want to elect someone who would volunteer to do such a thing?

I've known parents of children with Downs. The struggle to balance a "regular job" with their children's needs have been quite difficult and stressful for them. Vice President of the United States is not a "regular job."

Now back to Bristol's pregnancy. How did that happen, one has to wonder. Was this the case of a rebel teenager doing what she likes regardless of what mom and dad say and believe? Bristol doesn't appear to be a rebel, but either way, if this is the case then it's none of our business. Was this about teenage hormones and runaway passion? If so, though it doesn't say much for the chances of the upcoming marriage, it's none of our business. Was this about parents who were always at work rather than at home; parents who put work before their children; parents who kept a closer eye on their Blackberries than their children? If so, then it's absolutely our business and it's absolutely appropriate to discuss it. Because if this is the case, then it says something about the kind of person Sarah Palin is and what kind of person she is is absolutely relevant to the kind of VP she would be. Another option, is the reality that Governor Palin says what is necessary to get votes, while believing something different and raising her children under a different standard? If so, then Bristol's pregnancy is absolutely relevant to this race and is an absolutely appropriate talking point.

And notice that in the paragraph above, Bristol herself is not the topic. Bristol herself should not be judged by the masses. Bristol should not be badgered by the press about this. But so far, I haven't seen anyone approach Bristol. I've seen this discussed only in terms of Governor Sarah Palin and what it says about her. And again, that is absolutely relevant.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that I wouldn't be saying these things, wouldn't be having these concerns, if it were Todd Palin being put forth as a VP candidate. But you're wrong. I absolutely would be. Infants and very young children need whatever parents they have to be there for them. If Obama or McCain had an infant at home, I would have the same concerns about that infant's father being missing in action for the most formative years of his/her young life.

So don't tell me that Bristol's pregnancy and Sarah Palin's family in general are off limits. Because they're not. No one should be attacking them or hounding them, that is absolutely true. But to discuss these issues in terms of Sarah Palin herself?

Yes, it is relevant, and yes, we can discuss it.

Lyric of the day...

From Madly by Tristan Prettyman:

madly madly madly
well if you really love me,
when you see me leavin' baby, just let me go

Because sometimes letting go is truly the kindest thing you can do. (And because I like the song, which has been in my head all day.)

Clone this...

So have you read the story about the woman who had her dead dog cloned? If not, click here.

Unfortunately, I can't find the story I read originally. The one that included all of the sketchy information on the scientists involved. The one that mentions that this woman sold her house to raise the money to have her dog cloned. But I did find the article that talks about the woman's nutty and possibly criminal background. This one has the bit about her lying even now about who she is and about her handing out fake business cards.

But this nutcase aside, what about the cloning of dogs?

I have to say, I disagree with it. Though I can at least see the argument that's being made about cloning service dogs, I'm still not swayed. And I don't even understand the idea of cloning a pet. It's not your pet. You can't bring your pet back to life.

I could never clone my dog. The clone would look like him, but there's no way his personality could be cloned. He was 3 (at least, that was the "guess") when I adopted him. He'd been in the shelter for nearly a month and had been on the street for who knows how long before that. And then before that, he appears to have been with someone who did actually take good care of him and treated him well. But a clone? I'd have the clone from puppyhood which would mean its first 3 years would be totally and completely different, and so it would not be my Abe. And even if I had had Abe since he was just a pup, my life is so different now than it was 3 years ago and I'm so different than I was 3 years ago that I could not possibly replicate the exact same environment. And what is true for people is true for our dogs as well: much of our personality is shaped by our environment.

So the bottom line is, you're just not getting the same dog.

As for the question about which is more humane, breeding and breeding and breeding trying to get another dog like yours or just cloning yours, well, neither! Go to the darn shelter and get a different dog!

And all of that aside, there's the slippery slope argument. The question of what's next (which actually kind of scares me at this point!).

Finally, the part about the whole situation that I find the most disturbing is the "factory" feel of it that comes from the not particularly friendly competition between the two researchers and their respective labs. Check out their histories. These do not appear to be nice guys who are interested in bettering the world with their scientific skills. Instead they seem to be two dueling scientists with grudges against one another, each trying to top the other. I think it says something that the two men doing this have such shady (and downright illegal) pasts.

Cloning isn't just an issue of accepting new technology. I'm all for it in terms of cloning organs and cells and such in order to help with disease. But whole beings? Besides the fact that it's still too new for us to truly know of any long-term issues (we've gotten way too good at rushing science and technology into the marketplace, only to recall it when it's shown to be harmful in one way or another), it's way too... I can't even think of a word for it! If we keep cloning animals, someone will start working to clone humans (if they're not already...). And that is not a road that we should travel.

Technology is an awesome thing and with it comes an awesome responsibility. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

If/when cloning becomes a normal thing to do, what about all of us "imperfect" specimens ("imperfect" in terms of abilities, intelligence, appearance, health, you name it)? How much value would we have in a world where we could be brushed aside in favor of a more perfect clone? Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I see human cloning being used as a way to "strengthen" mankind; a way to help Darwin out, if you will. After all, why would you clone me, for instance, with my imperfect vision and my allergies and all of my other "weaknesses"? Those "flaws" cost money. It's hard to argue that the more sensible thing to do is to clone, say, my brother (with his perfect vision and lack of allergies, etc., etc). Granted if it's a male/female numbers thing, this example doesn't work. But you get the idea.

And THAT is a path that I think is very, very dangerous. Again, just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we should run with it.

For some reason, we just continue to fail to realize that when our technology and science get to be too powerful, it has a tendency to come back and bite us all in the butt. We are not at all good at keeping our ethics up to date with our science.