A Warm Welcome for Palin - Or is it?

Well, McCain has picked a running-mate from outside the beltway. Immediately, Joe Biden trounced on her percieved lack of experience and the media began lobbing bias grenades! So who is Palin really? If you listened to her speech, or went to the Alaskan Governor's website, you would know by now. A mother of five, the youngest of which is four months old, she took on beurocracy and corruption everywhere she found it. From the PTA, to the Mayorship of her small town - a nail in her experience coffin if you listen to the press - to the Governorship of the largest state in the Union. When Palin couldn't get the government to pay attention to her, she ran for office. When the next level up didn't listen, she ran for their office too! That is true American politics in the fashion of our forefathers.

Now the liberal media will not tell you about her real record. They want you to know about her neglecting her children, by running for VP instead of being by her four month-old down syndrome baby's side and by not having a 24 hour watch (or a chastity belt) on her 17 year-old daughter who has been engaged for some time now, and is now five months pregnant. They want to hit on the fact that she was "just a mayor of a small town of 7,000" while ignoring the fact that she was the Governor of the State of Alaska. They do not want you to know that she sold the Governor's Jet on E-bay, dismissed her State Trooper security detail, and drives her self to work every day! They also ignore the fact that she drives her children to school nearly every day and is home as much as most working moms.

This brings up an interesting point. Ok, Keith Doberman - you can't have it both ways. Obama was a community organizer for a radical socialist group (that is not a governmental position). Palin started out by taking over the PTA, and then ran for MAYOR (This IS a governmental position). Obama got into the State Senate by short-circuiting the democratic process and disqualifying all of his opponents. It's hard to lose when you run against yourself. Once in, he did not author a single significant piece of legislation - but was well known for swiping others' bills to sponsor when they were certain to pass (part of his grooming by the "good-old-boy network" he condemns). Since taking his office in the US Senate, he has done nothing at all - except run for office. Palin has no foreign policy experience. Not nearly as essential for the VP the first day in office. Obama made a speech in 2002, this makes him more experienced? Obama is running for President. He NEEDS to have this experience on his first day in office, and so far he has shown that he not only doesn't have it, he doesn't posess the good judgment to compensate.

You see, Obama has very little experience in anything that would show us he is the "change" we can believe in. Palin has little experience, but it has all been the deliberate and appropriate attack on those things that really need changing. She reduced her government's budget, she tossed ear-marks back at the Federal government, and she went after corruption. Obama has supported corrupt politicians and radical activists throughout his entire political "career". Palin's politial career has shown that she not only intended to make a difference, but that she succeeded in making signinficant differences in each office she held. As I see it, Obama's use of office was only as a stepping stone to the White House.

Now, the media has crucified Palin for not placing her family first. If it were accurate, I would say they should give it no more consideration than that of the more than 100,000 men and women serving in combat as I write this posting who have also put their contry before family. Why is it that these individuals (rightly so) are heroes for leaving behind their families, who often struggle to make ends meet while they spend months or years in mortal danger, while a woman running for a political office that would place her children within a 10 minute car ride from her office is unfit for command for placing her duty first? Perhaps it is because she has a 17 year-old daughter that is pregnant. This is not the fault of the parents. You cannot hold an adolescent/young adult's hand every minute of every day. Even with the best rules and best encouragement, they sometimes stray. Perhaps it is the four month old baby with down sysdrome. Well, for the first four years, this child will need no more or less parental care than any other infant or toddler, the baby's condition is not relevant. Again, Palin will be even closer to her children than she is now, and will have the best available medical staff at her disposal should the youngest child need additional medical care.

If we want to throw stones on this topic, why is it a woman running as a VP nominee is somehow less responsible than the man running for the highest office in the land, with two children of his own under the age of 10?

The reason is clear. Palin is a strong candidate, with strong experiencial credits, and the Liberal press cannot attack these. If they talk about this, they will have to concede that the Republican VP pick is more qualified for President than the Democrats' Presidential nominee.

Clinton-Speak in the Land of the Democrats

Well, once again Hillary has "punked" Obama. Only this time, his wife stood there and applauded her while she did it! I would like to say that I was amazed or astounded by Hillary's speech tonight, but what can I say. I wasn't. Hillary did a great job of opining on her reasons for running for office (insert gratuitus Obama parallel somewhere around here) and, if you believe her, scared the bejesus out of anyone dumb enough to vote for "No we can't McCain". Through the entire speech, I heard nothing at all from Mrs. Clinton - nor did I expect to - about what Obama would actually do for us. All-in-all, the tone of her speach, including her tight-lipped demenor, were of begrudging support for Barak, because she has to, rather than because she really beleived him to be the best candidate for the office.

Hillary does not believe this to be the case. She believes she is the best candidate, and while she must offer her support, she hopes that he will not win. If he does, she will have to wait 8 years to take her rightful place as Queen of America.

It isn't just a Hillary problem. It seems that none of the Democrats that I have heard speak really know what to say about Barak that would show us he has any clue what he is doing. I suspect this is probably because they may, somewhere in their muddled heads, remember the economic policies that brought about the great depression and the Carter induced recession of the late 70's and early 80's. We hear grand talk about how Barak is the only hope if we are to survive the next four years, as if McCain is going to somehow destroy the country in his first - possibly only- term in office.

We hear great accolades about how Obama's vision of change brings back warm memories of the Kennedy era (and even positive references to the Carter era). The fact is, Democrats want to re-write history. Kennedy and Carter were both failed Presidents. Carter was one of the most disliked presidents ever.

The Kennedy administration was responsible for the Bay of Pigs, and, in large part, responsible for our failure in Veitnam. As un-PC as it is to say so, what made Kennedy such a great President was the bullet to the back of his head. Had Kennedy not been assassinated, he too would have been remembered for his failed economic and foreign policies. His assassination cut short his ability to really muck things up and left the country mourning over a president that, like Obama, the country still had a school-girl crush on.

Every speech so far, including Michelle Obama's speech, has issued glowing praise but little content. Each speaker has told how McCain will give us more of the same old same old, while Obama will bring us change. I particularly liked the Senator from Montana, whose body language was right out of a car-sales "lot lizard" training video. He even gestured to the audience to come closer, as if he was going to whisper some great secret, only to make a wise crack about McCain, which he then congratulated himself on by saying "this is good stuff"!

True, I am not winnowing through the speeches and providing any great critical analysis of the talking points. The truth is, I haven't found any yet. Basically, all they have said is this:

McCain is going to destroy the country.
Obama is a great American, Leader, and Patriot
and, We are all so spiritual.

Every speech has plugged lines that hit these three points. None of the speeches so far has provided any real evidence of any of the three. The truth is, the way they have interjected faith into this convention makes it look like a hat that is three sizes too small. It is just precariously perched up there, begging the question... How do you get that to stick?

Critical analysis of a Reader's Comment

I have been saying all along that I would be presenting a critical analysis of comments from my readers. Well, so far, we have only one reader comment to work with but it is a comment worthy of analysis. 

AMW Writes by E-mail: 

Ok Kenny, you asked for it - 

As the last election showed, the popular vote is nothing but a facade to make you believe you have some say in your government. We live under a fascist regime controlled by large corporations, and whether or not Obama or McCain or Hillary or Jesus gets elected next won't change a thing. Exercise your right NOT TO VOTE!

"The land of the free? Who ever told you that is your enemy." - Rage Against the Machine

-AWM

This is an interesting assessment. Apparently our government is a fascist regime, according to the beliefs of this particular reader. Let's start by conducting a logical assessment of what a fascist regime is: an authoritarian and nationalistic extreme right-wing system of government and social organization. According to the dictionary in my computer (which history supports) This term was first used to describe the totalitarian regime of Mussolini. The Nazi and Franco regimes were also fascist regimes. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one ethnic or national group, a contempt for democracy, and an insistence in obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach. 

Let us consider this. Do we have a totalitarian government? Not that I can tell. In fact, our president is unable to legislate, leaving the responsibility of making laws in the hands of those who are Constitutionally responsible (the legislative branch). This branch is balanced by the executive branch's veto power, and the judicial branch's constitutional scrutiny. True, there has been growing concern about the Judiciary legislating from the bench, with several instances of this taking place over the years - Roe Vs. Wade being a prime example. However, this is an issue that the public, and in return, many members of our federal government have been pushing to correct. At no point in our history, today included, has the executive branch ever passed a single law. 

Is there any indication that the federal government is seizing power from states and localities? Not that I can tell. Other than pork barrel spending and federal taxes, I see little local influence from the federal government at all.

Do we have a government that sponsors ethnic or national group supremacy? Absolutely not. While some would claim that racism is a matter of governmental policy, the facts do not support it. Notwithstanding isolated incidents within certain communities, there is no evidence that racism or any other discriminatory practice is a matter of federal, state, or even local government policy. 

Ok, now lets look at the conspiratorial issue. AWM at least didn't use the term THEY. Instead, he carefully chose a giant entity that is the equivalent of THEY - large corporations. Are large corporations selecting our presidents for us, and perpetuating a grand scale facade in the illusion that our votes actually count? Not a chance. Here is why. In the last 8 years, we have seen the passing of some of the most restricting legislation on US corporations ever. This would be the Sarbanes-Oxley act. This act was passed to regulate the accounting and reporting of earnings (and losses) of corporations and to create a transparency into the business practices of public corporations large and small. I should also point out that the largest corporations are all publicly owned (that's us!). This means that each share of stock has a vote in the polices and practices of the corporation. I receive statements frequently from corporations whose stock I own, providing me the opportunity to vote on issues, board members, etc.. I do vote my stocks, as do many others. Meanwhile, the US government has managed to get in the way of large corporations (often to the disadvantage of the consumer). Two excellent examples of this would be the XM-Sirius merger and the continual stalling of the Pelosi flunkies on the discussion of domestic drilling. The XM-Sirius merger was held up for 18 months until congressmen and women with special interests could castrate the two companies; nearly guaranteeing their failure as a merged company. 

Meanwhile, Pelosi and her cronies have done everything they can to prevent a vote on offshore drilling, which would boost profits of the "Big Oil" companies while increasing supply and driving down prices for the US consumer. If large corporations are in control of the country, why are these corporations constantly fighting bad and overly restrictive legislation, subject to good legislation that is good for the consumer and shareholder, but unwieldy and expensive for the corporation, and at the same time, paying the largest percentage of federal and state taxes of any group in this country?

One must also ask, if we have a fascist regime, what is the purpose of the illusion of democracy, when military might -the political tool of choice for fascists- would be more efficient and productive. 

AWM's statement "Exercise your right not to vote" may sound noble, but it is nothing short of irresponsible. A better quote, AWM, would be. Bad politicians are elected by educated voters who did not vote. 

The pretense that our votes do not count is perpetuated by the Democrats, who, when dissatisfied with the outcome of the last election, requested a re-count as was their right. They received the recount and then issues were identified and carefully worked through regarding the accuracy of the recording of individual votes resulting from problems with aging voting machines. The recount did not take the vote away from the Democrats, it confirmed that they never had it. However, the uninformed are willing to accept the Democratic party's baseless whining that the election was stolen. In fact, they now claim that both the initial Bush election in 2000 and his re-election in 2008 were stolen elections. How they come to that conclusion is beyond me.

The most I can say, is that if you believe that your vote does not count, PLEASE STAY HOME!!!! The only thing worse than not voting is casting an uninformed vote. However, if you do not vote; remember, whoever wins, you are as responsible for their being there as those that voted for them.

Media Reaction to the Born Alive "Mistatement"

I watched Hannity & Colmes this evening and the subject of Obama's mistatement was brought up. The hosts had two speakers on taking sides either pro or con Obama regarding this discussion. What ensued, I can only call a critical thinker's nightmare - or a critical thinking Blogger's cannon fodder! Hannity summarized the same comments I made regarding Obama's claims that he would have voted for the Federal bill had he been in office when it was passed, and the claim that the reason he did not vote for, and later killed the 1095 bill in the Illinois State senate was because it did not contain the same neutrality clause. Sean Hannity was holding copies of both clauses in his hand during this and says "I have both of them right here. They are exactly the same".

Hannity then pointed out that even his campaign spokesperson had come out and said Obama's claim was a mistatement. To which Hannitiy asks his pro-Obama guest; "So, he lied?" The guest replies that no, Alan Keyes lied. and besides, the state of Illinois already had a "botched abortion" law on the books! And also, the Illinois bill did not have the same neutrality clause in it as the Federal bill. Now I am not going to go through the whole exchange, you can probably get transcripts from www.hannity.com if you really wanted to hear the whole mud bath, but I do want to point out some of what got my teeth on edge.

Both Colmes and the pro-Obama guest continue to state emphatically that the two clauses are not the same. Shouting it louder and louder in an attempt to drown out the other guest and Hannity's statement " I have both of them right here. They are IDENTICAL! This is indesputable". When this tactic does not work, the pro-Obama guest says "Come on, do you really think Obama wanted Stanek's baby to die?" Colmes immediately jumps on that wagon with a similar question, which he asks over and over as if saying so would make us believe that this was the opposition's position. Colmes repeatedly asks "Do you really think Obama wants to kill babies?"

The first issue is the claim that two documents which are obviously identical are not. This is an error in observation fallacy known as an inductive hyperbole. The individual is stating a position more strongly than the evidence supports. In this case, the individual is shouting a position that the evidence indisputably contradicts. How hard-headed do you have to be to ignore evidence that was so crystal-clear that Obama's own campaign spokesperson had to come out and issue a statement indicating that Obama's claim the Illinois bill was not the same as the Federal bill was a "mistatement" and that the two were, in fact, identical?

The second issue I have is the clever use of a "post hoc ergo procter hoc" argument that if one believes that these two bills are identical, that one must believe Obama wants babies to die! No one thinks this is the case - Ok, there are probably a few nut-cases that do but not any reasonable person. By posing such an obsurd question, the individual forces the other to concede the point by agreeing that this must not be true. It then stands to reason that the previous is also not true. Therefore, if Obama does not want babies to die, he must not have mistated his reason for not voting for and then later killing this bill. Therefore, Obama did not lie, and anyone who says he did must be the liar. Apparently, no other reason could possibly exist!

The third issue I have was the false statement that Illinois already has laws on the books that make the need for this law irrelevant. First, this is only intended to draw attention away from the argument at hand, which was why Obama "mispoke" regarding his reasons for not voting for this bill. Second, the statement does not prove out as Illinois did not have such laws on the books This is why Christ Hospital was not found not to have committed any illegal act by leaving live babies from induced premature labor (not a "botched abortion", but an actual live birth) in a utility closet to die without any care at all. You may recall the case in California where a girl left her newborn baby in a dumpster to die just hours after birth. She was prosecuted for her acts. Apparently, the same acts performed in an Illinois Hospital are not criminal.

This was the reason for this bill. The individual who stated that laws on the books were already adequate - Oh, Obama has used this line too, when it suited him - is counting on no one being able to call him on this argument. If you do, he will just find another fallacy to divert your attention.

These are the failures in logic that we are inundated with every day by the media and few are ever called out. Hannity did his best to present his case. Part of that case, I believe was that the far Left cannot and will not admit they are wrong, even when the evidence is staring them in the face!

I know, the same can be said of the Right as well, and I welcome my readers - all 4 of you - to provide any example of this you may wish. I am and always will be a Conservative (which puts me on the Right) but that does not mean that I cannot accept the fact that logic fallacies are used by both sides. Provide an objective argument and point out the fallacy I will gladly discuss it here on my site! Remember, use critical thinking and reason in your posting. If you see that I have not done so, by all means, call me on it; right here, where everyone can see it and I will objectively defend my position or admit my fault, which ever the case may require.