Empire of the Iguanadons

So here we are. Less than a month to go before we have to pick one of these guys to lead the nation. Which means debates. We already had the first one, which I missed part of, but McCain one that one soundly from all the poll data I've seen on it. His command of foreign policy on that one was dead on, while Obama sounded like a raving radical lunatic wanting to bomb Pakistan.

Fast forward to tonight, where the dominant subject was the economy. I have to say, before getting into anything else, I think Tom Brokaw needs to take a chill pill. The man looked angry, hostile, and came off as extremely rude and arrogant. It almost seemed like he wanted to pick a fight, and I was surprised to see that both candidates refused to take the bait. Maybe that's a good thing, who knows. All I do know is that most people attending and watching these things simply don't care about nitpicky crap like 2 minute responses and 1 minute follow-ups. The issues are too complex for that and the world doesn't live by soundbytes. So please. Stop trying to run debates as though it does!

That being said, both candidates had a tendency to wander. Sometimes not answering the questions posed to them. It might be because they were really crappy questions we've all heard before. I thought a townhall format was supposed to bring us some surprises. Interesting looks into how these guys think. Stuff to throw them off their games. We got none of that, and we should all be sad for it. But it wasn't completely without merit either. For what they did get asked gave us a peek into their policy at least.

The Economy

McCain explained in pretty clear terms that he's in favor of maintaining the current tax policy. He doesn't want to raise taxes on anyone and is advocating further tax cuts, incentives, and other breaks that should be of benefit to everyone. Not just the rich or the middle class. He hit on the one point everyone wanted to hit. Government spending needs to be reigned in, everywhere. Not just in a few select programs while you fatten up the budgets of the others. His $5,000 tax credit for healthcare insurance seems like a reasonable idea. The benefits I had with Behr cost a bit more than $3,500 a year to maintain, so that $5k should be plenty to cover it with. I wish he'd gone more into his Social Security plan though. I got the vague notion he agreed with Bush's idea of privatization but didn't go beyond that. As far as the bailout, since I think all sides were asses about it, I don't give a crap how they want to spin it away. Socialistic policy can't help, ever.

Obama failed to explain exactly what he wants from his cuts for 95% of Americans. He's either unable to, or unwilling to acknowledge that his $250,000 cut-off point will impact far more than he's letting on. Taxing small businesses who make more than $250K seems extremely shortsighted since those companies will pass that expense on to the people. In fact, raising taxes in a downed economy is a sure way to send it spiraling into death. Obama wants to institute $1 Trillion in new spending to pay for all the crap he wants. Universal healthcare the biggest one among them. I guess he figures the rich will gladly fork over their money to pay for it since nobody else can afford it. And WTF?!? You're going to *FINE* non-compliant companies and *INDIVIDUALS* if they don't pony up? Obama's ignorance of Social Security's crisis is disturbing too. I don't recall hearing him say anything about it.

I firmly believe McCain won this one hands down.

Obama played too much blame game with "Bush ruined it all" and we all know by now one man can't possibly do that, right? Obama came off as anti-free market. No surprise. He's an ultra-left, borderline socialist.

Energy

McCain made a lot of talk about alternative fuels, nuclear power, hybrid cars, and green whatever, but I think the most important thing he said is we need to drill. McCain at least demonstrates to me that he's aware we need something for the here and now while we're researching, developing, and deploying all of the cool new stuff of the future. The biggest problem right now is oil. McCain knows this, and I was satisfied with his balanced approach to dealing with it.

Obama on the other hand seems caught up in the whole global warming lunacy. Solar, wind, biofuels, blah blah blah, but seems stubbornly unwilling to concede we need to do something right now, not 20 years from now. His opposition to drilling is disturbing. He can say what he likes when he thinks we're not listening, but his record speaks volumes. And so does where he goes to hang out after the debate. Thinking back, I don't recall what he said about nuclear, if anything. Tsk.

I call a wash. Though Obama is clearly not the answer, McCain just wasn't forceful enough about it and didn't really seem to know specifically what he wanted.

Foreign Policy

Really, I don't know what more to add here since nothing changed. They both more or less regurgitated what they've said before. McCain wants a surge in Afghanistan to help with crushing the Taliban. Good idea, and since Petraeus seems to be getting involved there, it's likely to happen. Obama says he wants to bomb Pakistan. Not in those exact words, but you know, if bin Laden is there we should get him. Even if it means bombing Pakistan. Obama claims that's not what he wants to do, but it seemed pretty obvious to me. The basics are there though. Finish up in Iraq. Finish up in Afghanistan. Then decide where the next war would be. The two simply disagree on whether finishing means winning, or surrendering.

There seemed to be an awful lot of noise made about Rwadna, Darfur, Somalia, etc. Really people. After all the bitching and crying over going to war with sworn enemies who want us dead, you now want to go marching in to clean up all of Africa? On this I think both candidates sensibly sidestepped the issue. We really don't need to be getting involved in something that's not threatening our security. Unless those countries ask for our help. Which to my knowledge they have not, other than Somalia.

On Iran, both candidates say no way in hell they should be allowed to get nukes. The only problem is, when Obama says it, I don't believe he'll actually do what's going to be necessary to stop them. His words ring hollow on the subject. Maybe he still wants to bomb Pakistan.

On Israel, McCain answered exactly as I hope he would. No, we will not wait for UN approval to come to Israel's aid. If they are attacked, we will intervene. Which is as it should be. Obama neatly dodged answering the question, so I'll have to assume he's going to abandon them to their fate since he's clearly an anti-war Democrat.

On Russia, neither candidate gave an acceptable answer. Putin should be put down. As in assassinated. There, I said it. Since neither of them was willing to call Russia the Evil Empire we all know it is. McCain came close by pointing out Putin and the KGB are joined at the hip. Neither of them answered the real question of what to do about them.

Obama kept pointing out that Bush policy is a failure and that our reputations were ruined, our aliiances in shambles, blah blah blah. Senator, *NOT* true, so take your defeatist attitude and go back to Illinos, please.

Over all, McCain wins on foreign policy. Perhaps not by a very large margin, but still.

I'm sure the media spinmeisters have been out in force claiming that McCain failed to provide the miracle that would have blown it wide open. That Obama was clear, articulate, knowledgeable, and answered all the hard questions. I say this without really having watched the post-debate coverage, but if I'm wrong someone please tell me. Because the description fits McCain, not Obama. The debate I watched, Obama sidestepped many questions. Brokaw failed to call him on it. NBC? Obama? Coincidence? We don't think so.
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/

Time for some state politics. Oh joy! I can hear the screams already. As some of you may or may not know, California has several ways that things can get enacted into law. The traditional method of proposal by one house of the legislature, creating a bill, voting on it, the other house getting it, amending it, voting on it, and getting it signed by the governor. Then you have legislation that is brought up by the same legislature, but instead of being passed to the governor, a measure is put on the ballot for the voters to decide. The third method comes directly from the people. An initiative written by the people, circulated by petition for inclusion on the ballot, and then voted for by the people. It is from the second and third methods that we get our propositions, and usually the third method is done by the people when the state congress simply refuses to act.

The system for the most part works, but as you can imagine it also leads to a bit of chaos and sometimes some really whacked out stuff makes it on to the ballot. But more often than not, the will of the people is spoken and executed. Though, sometimes not, and due to activist judges and the like, we sometimes end up voting for the same things again because some bastard on the bench decided his singular judgment was superior to that of millions of people.

[Yes, I know the picture is old - blame Google]

So with that in mind, here's a quick run down of what's coming in November and my quick take on whether or not I'll be voting for it.

Proposition 1A - "Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act"

This one sounds good in principle by the title, yes? Proports to give us a good working commuter rail system, saving gas money, creating jobs, lowering pollution, saving the planet and all that, right? The hitch here is this. It's a $9.95 billion bond measure. That means the state wants permission to borrow more money. We already have a massive deficit. We don't need a bigger one, no matter how good the cause might be. So this is a no vote on principle. No more debt. No bond measures. We can't pay back what we have now.

Proposition 2 - "Standards For Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute."

An initiative statute is one of the things conceived of and placed on the ballot by the people. Apparently the PETA guys don't like the way certain animals are kept as livestock. And since they've been unable to convince us through stupid TV commercials and other frankly aggressive and invasive means, they've now wasted the state's time with a ballot initiative. Guys, we have real problems to solve here in California. This isn't one of them. Go sacrifice a cob of corn to your pagan gods or something, but please just go away. Voting no because this is lunacy.

Proposition 3 - "Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute."

Someone out there apparently wants the state to issue $980,000,000 in bonds to finance the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of "eligible" children's hospitals throughout the state. It's a bond measure, so despite it being "for the children" I'm voting no. Because the debt will also be "for the children".

Proposition 4 - "Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

Right off the bat, one might wonder why we need to amend our state constitution for this. This is one of those instances where the issue has been voted on TWICE before, and TWICE approved by the voters, and TWICE shot down by aforementioned activist judges. Religious, moral, and "reproductive rights" arguments aside. This seems like a no-brainer to me. An abortion is a medical procedure. It's already the law that you require parental consent, for example, to amputate a kid's leg. Or to authorize having that broken arm fixed. Or to sew someone up in the trauma unit after an accident. So why then should aborting a child be any different considering what needs to be done to accomplish that? I think it's absolute lunacy that we even had to come to the point of this after having twice voted in favor of this, but for some reason the judges won't listen. So now we have to take it to a level they can't strike down later. I'm voting yes on this one. Again. For the third time now.

Proposition 5 - "Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole, and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute."

On the surface, described as a funding initiative to expand on treatment programs for drug users. A bit ironic when you consider the state's fascination with marijuana smokers. But if you dig in just a little bit, into the 21 pages of 8 point italic type in the voter's guide, you'll find the real story. This is a blindsided attempt at instituting "restorative justice" in California. If you don't know what that means, think Vermont. Think sentencing child rapists to 60 days in jail and then sending them to a rehab camp on taxpayer money. That sort of thing, only for supposedly non-violent drug users. This is how Vermonts get made. I will be voting no on this one.

Proposition 6 - "Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statue."

Provides a maximum of $965,000,000 in state funding every year for the cops. On the surface this is a great idea. Cops need money, yes? So then why are we tying this together with 30 revisions to the California Penal Code? Is there something wrong with the 30 revisions that they couldn't stand on their own, with either a separate initiative to carry them or as separate issues for the congress to deal with? I haven't had a chance to dig into the meat here, but my gut says this looks like your typical rider tacked on to an otherwise good thing. Reluctantly therefore, I'll have to vote no on this.

Proposition 7 - "Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute."

Essentially requires government-owned utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, 40% by 2020, and 50% by 2025. All well and good, right? After all, shouldn't the LA Department of Water and Power be subject to the same rules that Edison, PG&E, and the other companies are subject to? Well, apparently Edison and PG&E don't think so. A rather strange alliance between them and several environmental groups are behind the no vote movement. Normally such an alliance would have me thinking there must be something good about the measure. The problem is, the measure is backed by radical enviro-nazi types. You know, the kind who claim that "experts agree" when making blanket statements that you know to be false. The ones who say global warming is man's fault entirely and therefore only man can fix it. AKA morons. So because of who supports it, I will be voting no, even though I have no great love of SCE or PG&E.

Proposition 8 - "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples To Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

Right. The political hot potato of our time apparently. So hot the legislature passed a law banning it. Activist judge shot it down. We passed a ballot measure re-instating it. Another activist judge shot it down again. We re-passed it one more time. Yet another activist judge shot it down again, and then went further to legislate from the bench claiming gays have the right to marry. So as with Prop 4, we're now forced to attempt to amend the constitution of the state, with this simple one line change: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." That's it. That's literally the entire text of the proposition. Don't let the title of this initiative fool you either. Gays never had the right to marry in this state, therefore we cannot be eliminating it. They don't have it to be eliminated. But once again, the result of activist judges forcing their will by judicial fiat got us this one with the deliberately deceptive title it now bears. Frankly this to me is no longer about the moral issues, biological stupidity of it, junk science to back it, or the militant gay rights movement. This is about stopping activist judges from believing they are above the law. Every time we've passed it, it's been by an overwhelming majority. Every time the media portrays it as a completely lost cause claiming polls are against it. They may be true in San Francisco and West Hollywood but the rest of the state is not in favor of gay marriage. Neither are John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden. So not even the presidential candidates go along with the agenda. Enough is enough. Give it up. I will be voting an emphatic yes on Proposition 8.

Proposition 9 - "Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute."

Perhaps someone is finally learning to game the system by not wasting time on amending the constitution. In any case, this one requires notification to victims and provides them an opportunity for input at the following: bail hearings, pleas, sentencing, and parole. Victim safety will be established as a consideration in granting bail or parole. All in all, a pretty solid piece of victims' rights law here. Unless I've missed something really obscure here, I'm voting yes.

Proposition 10 - "Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy Bonds."

There's that word again. Bonds. This time they want $5 billion from the general fund to use for the purpose of providing incentives for people to buy more efficient cars, and to provide research funding for renewable energy vehicles. I dunno. Nice idea. But borrowing money from yourself? How exactly does that work? Regardless, automatic no vote. Bonds are bad for the budget.

Proposition 11 - "Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute."

Oh boy, where to begin on this hornet's nest. If you've ever seen one of those redistricting maps with the really funny squiggly lines that wrap around in strange ways along geographically senseless boundaries, you're familiar with what California's congressional district borders look like. The reason they look this way, and often intertwine around each other, is because the jack-offs in Sacramento in power now have drawn them that way. Yep. You're letting the foxes guard the henhouse. Otherwise known as Gerrymandering. What Prop 11 proposes to do is take that power away from the legislators who have it now and hand it over to a commission of 14 people comprised of voters in the state. There are restrictions in the language to prevent politicians, lobbyists, and large donaters from serving on the commission. This is one of the group of initiatives Arnold sponsored a couple of years back and tried to get passed by ballot once before. I was quite surprised to see it on the ballot again, so we're getting another shot after the last one got voted down. Perhaps people are finally waking up and realizing that those dolts in Sacramento shouldn't be deciding their own district lines. Definite yes vote from me on this.

Proposition 12 - "Veterans' Bond Act of 2008."

$900,000,000 to provide farm and home aid for veterans living in California. As much as I support our troops and the veterans they come home as, I'm sorry. Bond act. The words of death. Voting no.
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/

Before we get to ye olde quiz, which is interesting, we had ourselves another lovely debate tonight. Think what you want about Palin, but she came out tonite and laid it into Biden exactly the way I'd hoped for. She came across knowledgeable, tough, determined, and ready to take on the responsibility she's been tasked with. Biden on the other hand seems pathological in his claims and came across weak, smug, and elitist. Almost like he felt Palin didn't deserve to be in the same room as him.

Now then. I don't even remember now how I came across this quiz, but I figured I'd go ahead and take it. As with many of these sorts of things, the questions being asked are loaded in a biased way but if you can filter your way through what they want, you'll still be able to answer honestly. Please people, can we start asking poll style questions that aren't push-polls and get back to simple shit? The descriptions of some of the things they wanted you to respond to appeared to deliberately paint someone as pro-military, pro-defense, pro-America as an evil imperialistic bastard. Perhaps that's what being a Neocon is supposed to be. I don't know. I do know it seems about as useful as comparing G W to Hitler. Anyway, I took the quiz and my outcome was:

"Based on your answers, you are most likely a realist. Read below to learn more about each foreign policy perspective."

They define that as being:

Realist
Realists…

* Are guided more by practical considerations than ideological vision
* Believe US power is crucial to successful diplomacy - and vice versa
* Don't want US policy options unduly limited by world opinion or ethical considerations
* Believe strong alliances are important to US interests
* Weigh the political costs of foreign action
* Believe foreign intervention must be dictated by compelling national interest

Historical realist: President Dwight D. Eisenhower
Modern realist: Secretary of State Colin Powell

You decide if their assessment is right: http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/quiz/neoconQuiz.html and then post your results too :)
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/

I'm sure you guys were hoping I'd have posted about the debate by now. I don't know that I will be, but we'll see. Super quickly, McCain beat the snot out of Obama on the foreign policy side. I missed the first 40 minutes and didn't bother to go look it up.

Anyway... on to today's big mess. Nancy Pelosi. Left wing two faced partisan hag. Today was the big bailout vote that so many of us didn't want to begin with. Now I only caught bits and pieces of it, but apparently she came out right before the floor vote in the House today and delivered a blistering partisan hack speech that served no other purpose but to enrage the Republicans and rally them against her. The portions I saw were full of bitterness and hatred for George W. Bush in particular. Why that man continues to try and work with her is beyond me. Her disgusting attacks aside, the floor vote in the House went down solidly against the bill. With 95 of her own democrats failing to vote for it.

So what did she do? Admit they were wrong and promise to go back and try again? Uh, no. She trots herself out in front of her media darlings and flat out accuses the Republicans of sabotaging the floor vote for partisan reasons. More or less attempting to pin blame on 12 of them in particular. Then she had the audacity to whine and complain that they're playing partisan politics with the earlier press conference the Republicans had immediately following that vote. Maybe she's senile. It's the only logical explanation. Again, remember, not an hour before she was on the floor of the House delivering a blistering hate speech right before the vote. There's plenty of blame to go around you disgusting piece of left wing crap. Have you forgotten you idiots are in the majority? Is it somehow part of that big right wing conspiracy that 95 of your own people voted against your golden parachute bill? Did you fail 3rd grade math? Do you even know what it means to hold a majority?

Well personally I think it was something more sinister. She torpedoed the bill on purpose for political gain. The left wing lunatics are so desperate to get back into the White House that I believe Pelosi was acting on behalf of the Obama campaign and deliberately stirred up a partisan shitstorm to deliver on a poll shift for Obama and to try and make McCain look like an idiot when the bill failed. She quite obviously knew it wasn't going to pass because she had to know her own people were against it. But when political opportunity strikes, you can damn well bet the hard left will take it even when it's a complete bold faced lie. That bill died because she killed it, along with the Democrats. Every last Republican in the House could have opposed it and still seen it go through if the Dems had wanted it to.

So no way Pelosi. This blame game isn't flying today. You deliberately sabotaged the entire proceeding for political gain. And we're supposed to be the partisan hacks after that little speech you gave? No. Go pin this one on the person it belongs with. YOU. You damn two faced hag.
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/

Jerry Shaw is an ordinary person with a more or less ordinary life. All of that changes one afternoon when he hits up the ATM machine, notices he has $750,000 in the account, then returns home to find an apartment full of chemicals and top secret flight manuals and a mysterious woman on the phone telling him the FBI will be there in 30 seconds. Jerry initially balks at the notion and is quickly arrested. When he finally gets what he figures is his one phone call, the mysterious woman is back on the line telling him to duck because they're planning his escape. What follows from here is an intricate web of deceit, mind gaming, and suspenseful plot twists as Jerry begins to work out what's going on, who's behind it, and what the mysterious woman wants from him.

If you're at all into mind gaming, then you cannot miss this movie. It has everything you could possibly want. A bizarre scenario. Shadowy people. The FBI and the CIA. The US Military. Fast cars, unknown conspirators and conspiracies, you name it. The movie keeps you guessing left and right about who the mysterious woman is and why she wants Jerry to do as he's told or be killed. Just when you think you might have it figured out, a new twist comes flying at you and you're back to square one. I'm normally fairly good at figuring these things out but until the secrets were revealed, I had no idea.

There's not a lot of overly excessive violence, no nudity, and a more or less normal level of cursing and such. Basically nothing more outrageous than you'd find on a fast paced TV cop show. There's some mild politics injected into the movie but it's not entirely out of place given the subject matter. I could have done without the left leaning interpretations though. Fortunately it didn't impact on the overall enjoyment of the movie.

One interesting note for the record. About halfway through the movie some numbskull got cute and pulled the fire alarm. The timing was rather weird and seemed like it might have even been planned as part of the feature but the ushers soon told us to evacuate the building only to be told at the door that it was a false alarm. Irritating for pretty much everyone except the bastard who pulled the alarm. Kudos to the theater though. Upon leaving the movie the manager was standing at the door handing out free passes to make up for it. Nobody had even asked for that. They just took it upon themselves and the gesture left me with a very good impression of their service.

So if you're into spy flicks, action flicks, suspense flicks, thrillers, tech flicks, or mind game flick, this one has something for that part in all of us. Go see it. Go see it now.

Looking ahead for the next movie, I'm not seeing much hope. All of today's previews were so blah they got no comments one way or the other from the audience. So we turn to imdb.com to look even further out. So far I'm seeing jack squat other than the Keanu Reeves/Jennifer Connelly remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. I saw an ad for that on regular TV the other day and was impressed enough by it that I'll probably go see it now that the theater has already given me a free ticket :)
.........................
McCain-Palin 2008
http://www.johnmccain.com/