Voices without Votes » Breaking News

The pit-bull is off the leash

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:57:39 +0000

Sarah Palin continues to infuriate and trouble progressive bloggers in Australia. The Vice Presidential debate and her weekend attack on Barack Obama over William Ayers has brought swift responses.

Duckpond is not only concerned with the way Palin is being stage-managed but also what it says about John McCain:

Palin is the ultimate puppet. Lies do not matter to her. She seems to be without compassion. As for intelligence and knowledge - who knows? She is so bizarrely unqualified on any grounds I can think of, as to make her irrelevant.

She is not the joke. McCain is the joke. The odds of McCain-Palin winning the presidential election are less than 50%, but what a disaster it would be if they were successful. The past eight years of madness will seem like a period of comparative sanity.
WHY BOTHER WITH A BIMBO?

Before the VP debate Kim reflected at Larvatus Prodeo on the increasingly odd nature of the presidential race:

… in this increasingly bizarre campaign which in true postmodern style seems to have as fictive a relationship to the real world as all that fictitious capital swirling around Wall Street waiting for the government to buy it, who knows what lies ahead, or even what lies lie ahead.

Welcome to the Palindrome!

As the William Ayers attack shows, lies and smears are well and truly here, with Sarah Palin’s increasing role as head-kicker. It’s ironic that she can’t be attacked for her personal or political record. The pit-bull is off the leash!

Simon Jackman, Australian political scientist currently at Stanford University, called the debate a tie at first:

Everyone was expecting a train wreck: she wasn’t that.
Upon a little post-interview reflection, the unrelenting, content-free vacuity of her answers might have been the more useful thing to point to. My surmise is that she was coached to the point where she could get over the line in terms of filling the 90-120 seconds in response to fairly predictable questions, giving her a few proper nouns and catch phrases to go to, with abundant reservoirs of “Wasilla charm” helping to fill the void. “Goin’”, “mighta”, “shoulda”, “betcha”. But I also thought that this is probably playing very well in many segments of the electorate.
My wife Janet pointed out that if a man had been up on the stage and had performed as Palin did, (a) Biden would have slammed him; (b) the media would be in an uproar in a way that would make the treatment of Palin seem very mild. This “reverse sexism” conjecture is pretty compelling.

Biden was very good. As these things go, his last 20 mins was a nice blend of substance and emotion, particularly the attack on McCain’s “maverick” credentials. Obama could do worse than to take a cue from that part of Biden’s repertoire: a little bit of emotion & passion at moments of the next two debates might not hurt (steering clear of “anger” or “outrage”)…
Palin debate

It’s part of the dominance of personality over policies, spin over substance which aggravates many Australian bloggers. One blogger unimpressed by word-spin was John Surname at GrodsCorp:

Unlike most people here, I didn’t watch/listen to the debate. I started to, but, fatally, decided to play a drinking game. I would take a shot of Vodka everytime Palin used the word “maverick”.

Twenty minutes later I was rushed to hospital with suspected alcohol poisoning. Serious shit. I nearly died.
Nuggets of Palin

Who said satire and bad puns are dead?

Global: Let the financial sector eat cake?

John Liebhardt — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:02:46 +0000

Over in India, Satyameva Jayate debates the suggestion in Time Magazine whether we may be entering a “post-modern” era, where “…politics, something that we have assumed for 200 years was the wellspring of national success or failure, is somehow just not that important..”

It’s a discussion about politics in Japan, where people have seen the election of four Prime Ministers in the past two years, but the article calls “remarkably well-governed” because the professionalism of the so-called professional class, the bureaucrats who actually run the country.

Satyemva Jayate's analysis:

Might such a thing ever happen in India? I doubt it…

What would people say about the United States? Have the regulators, these so-called professional bureaucrats who work above the political fray handled the economy better than the political class?

We will soon find out. In the news, Congressional leaders claim they have finished work on the Wall Street Bailout Bill, an estimated $700 billion outlay intended to put an end to two weeks of turbulence in the United State’s financial and credit sectors. The House of Representatives, where a potential rebellion of conservative Republicans may stall the proposal’s passage, is due to vote Monday, Sept. 29. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the plan shortly thereafter.

In a country where political acronyms have become an artform, the 106-page bill creates another: TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, interpreted by the Washington Post as:

“empower[ing] the [Treasury] secretary to buy “toxic” assets from financial institutions with taxpayer money. By removing such assets from the balance sheets of crippled companies, the bill's architects hope to reduce pressures on the credit market, thereby making it easier for Americans to get mortgages and other types of loans.”

The Post story quotes Republican Senator Judd Gregg that once the plan jump starts the American economy, U.S. taxpayers will make money from the measure.

Ian Welsh from Fire Dog Lake in Australia has a great explainer on the components of the bill. Short take: 90 percent of the suck you were expecting.

A skeleton version of the long take:

- The $700 billion will be staggered, giving U.S. Treasury Secretary $350 upfront, another $350 released in January.

- No change in bankruptcy laws: “Yes, banks will be helped not to go bankrupt, but if you go bankrupt judges won't be able to allow you to keep your house.”
- “Treasury to help people avoid foreclosures if it owns their mortgages.”
- “Treasury has the authority to issue insurance.”
- “If it doesn't pay back in 5 years, Treasury to levy fees on the financial industry to get the money back.”

Here’s his explainer:

…[W]hile this plan is an improvement on the original Paulson plan, which is saying, well, almost nothing. It's still a plan that, at the end of the day, won't work. That doesn't mean we won't see some short term benefits. Throw 700 billion bucks at the economy and the financial sector and it will do something. That's still a ton of money. But it won't fix the problem permanently, it will only patch it for a time and even during that time, things will continue to get worse. (For example, expect this to cause oil inflation.)
It's a bad plan that won't fix the economy or the financial sector. So we'll be revisiting this issue in 6 to 9 months or so when it becomes clear that the problem hasn't been solved, and that not solving it is costing a hell of a lot of money which could have been used to actually fix things.

With Congressional leaders — and presidential candidates — in both parties at least mildly supporting the bill, the odds are in favor of the bailout passing. Let's be snarky for a second and imagine what happens if it doesn’t pass. Here’s an interesting explainer intended to counter the do-nothing rhetoric (let the cake-eaters eat cake?) coming from certain corners. But Katz, a commenter on the Australian blog Larvatus Prodeo is having none of that argument. Warning: upcoming War on Terror analogy.

Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have proven the efficacy of suicide bombing.

“Give us what we want or we’ll take all of you with us.”

Memo to suicide bombers everywhere: you need bigger bombs.

So, where, exactly, is this bailout money going to come from? Darryl Mason writing in Your New Reality in Australia claims the buyers of American debt will be the very institutions who already own the country: The governments of Japan and China.

The message is clear. BushCo. will secure China's holdings of American debt, by staking the financial future, and health and education, of American children as collateral. Or China will drop the hammer. In case BushCo. didn't get the message, queen takes knight :

…The Federal Reserve and the Treasury do not really need to ride to the rescue of its debt-savaged financial institutions if only they really believed in their own shattered mantras of “Free Market Forever” and “Let The Market Decide.” China, the Saudis, the Russians are all eager to snap up some huge chunks of America at bargain basement prices. In a truly globalised, free market world, all these financial institutions should be up for sale to the highest bidder (with a few restrictions).

But they won't be doing that. So instead its a betrayal by BushCo. of almost everything principle claimed to stand for, and preached, and it's America Fleeced.

From Kuwait, Kill That Damn Patient, has a second option: buy up toxic debt through legalizing marijuana. Before you spill your bong water, wait. It makes medical sense — the author works in hospital — and legal marijuana will certainly help patients by creating mass markets for less expensive, natural pain relief. The economic benefits are obvious:

…[Y]ou see weed is (for the time being and for a long time coming) considered an illegal substance which may be harmful and because it’s an illegal substance law enforcers have to find the people who trade in it and erm …. arrest them.

Hiring people to do this costs money …. about $34,433,700,162 (this figure is the amount of money spent on the war on drugs, not weed specifically) a fair portion (about 7.7 billion annually) of which could have been put to better use.

Legalizing weed would also bring in an estimated 6.2 billion in tax revenue (raking in a grand total of 13.9 billion); it would also mean that organised crime would loose a fair chunk of their cash-flow (and for that matter so would big tobacco).

Yemen: Sixteen People Killed in US Embassy Attack

Amira Al Hussaini — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:49:05 +0000

Sixteen people were killed when the US Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, was attacked with a car bomb and rockets today. One blogger was minutes away from the explosions.

Carpetblogger, an American who lives in Turkey but was travelling in Yemen, writes:

Sitting in the lobby of the Burj al Salam hotel about an hour ago,we heard two explosions, but thought little about them. They were close enough to shake the windows a little. About 30 minutes later, reports started coming in that the US Embassy was under attack. Current reports on Yemeni TV say that there was an intial car bomb followed by some shooting. Injuries are reported. Right now, reports attribute the attacks to Al Qaeda, which has been increasingly active in the country. The US Embassy is located near the Sheraton hotel. Reports confirm that it was the Embassy and not the compound.

Her next report says:

Local news is reporting that the embassy is being evacuated by helicopter. I just watched a helicopter head out there. Have photos, no time to load.

From Saudi Arabia, American Stilettos in the Sand rules out Yemen as a ‘good holiday destination' following the attack. She writes:

Not that we were considering heading to Yemen in the near future, but… This means that for SURE we won't be considering Yemen as a vacation destination. Ever. It is not the first time this year that the Westerners have been targeted. And, after reading this article in Gulfnews, I just think it would be best for us to consider
other more inviting countries to head to for short vacations.

Jane Novak, writing at Armies of Liberation has more on the attack here. She adds:

Notably, Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden and the U.S. Embassy has previously been targeted for attacks […]

The last time we heard from Yemeni Islamic Jihad was last month when they claimed credit for a suicide car bombing in Hadramout, and threatened a future attack in the capital.

Novak, who covers Yemen in her blog, also lists previous suicide car bombings in the country:

September 2006 synchronized attacks on oil facilities in Marib and Hadramout

July 2007 car bombing at tourist facility in Marib killed eight Spanish tourists

July 2008 car bombing a police station in Sayoun Hadrmaout, one killed and 18 wounded

Early in 2008, mortar attacks were launched in Sana’a against western targets including the US embassy, Italian embassy and a western housing complex. After the July 2008 suicide bombing killed one policeman and injured 18 in Sayoun in the southeastern province of Hadramout, authorities rounded up over fifty suspected militants including AAIA leader Khalid Abdul Nabi and Saudi Muhammad bin Nayif al-Qahtani. After the arrests, Yemen announced that it had thwarted an attack in Saudi Arabia targeting oil industries. For history and analysis of al-Qaeda in Yemen, check my al-Qaeda category.

The Credit Crisis

Aggregated from: The Strong Conservative — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:31:00 +0000

Today was a historic day for the markets as Bank of America purchased Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy. These moves highlight the deep problems associated with the credit crisis and tightening lending conditions in America and throughout the world.

Many, including Senator Barack Obama, are calling on stricter regulation of the financial markets and the housing/mortgage markets. This may seem sensible, but regulation is not really the problem. The real problem is accountability. Lenders were encouraged by government, including the notorious Senator Chuck Schumer, to extend mortgages to lower income individuals who really could not afford to buy a house.

In 2002, the NY Times reported "To help address that problem, Senator Schumer recently asked Fannie Mae to adjust its eligibility requirements for the company's low-interest rate, low-down-payment Community Lending programs. ''I told Fannie Mae they should be reaching out to the suburbs,'' Mr. Schumer said."

So while the Democrats are touting more central planning, being the good socialists they are, the better option would be to allow the markets to be more accountable. Really, firms were deprived of the true risk in the market because of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs which shifted risk to government and government run corporations. Deprived of the true risk, investors were "sloppy" with their investments until the bubble burst.

Joseph Calhoun argues, "The prescription offered by these idealistic, if misguided, individuals is a familiar refrain. Raise taxes on the rich to reduce inequality. Increase regulatory oversight in all areas of the economy. Increase government spending on infrastructure. Increase government directed investment in favored industries. Protect American jobs by raising tariffs against low wage countries. Increase union membership and raise the minimum wage through legislative action. Increase healthcare coverage through mandates and direct government spending. Increase taxes on “bad” industries and transfer the revenue to “good” industries or consumers."

So what do we do? Certainly, we should not be copying the Japanese argues Calhoun: "After the collapse of twin stock and real estate bubbles (sound familiar?), the Japanese government propped up failing banks, raised taxes, increased government spending on infrastructure and ultimately reduced interest rates to 0%. The result is an economy that is still struggling and a stock market still less than half its peak value. They’ve only avoided high unemployment because of low growth of the labor force due to aging and low population growth. Furthermore, Japanese government debt is now 180% of GDP. Is this the example we want to emulate?"

John McCain may not be an economist, but Obama the community organizer seems to have an even weaker grasp on free market economics. So how do we get out of this problem?

For one thing, the government should be reducing it's share of the economy rather than increasing it. Both Republicans and Democrat share the blame for the massive increases in government over the past 20 years. President Bush, despite his reassurance that he was conservative, proved himself virtually no different from Democrats like Schumer in regards to government spending.

Calhoun provides a solution to the current credit crisis: "The path to recovery for our economy is well worn and proven. Corporate taxes should be reduced dramatically or preferably eliminated. Individual taxes should not be raised and preferably reduced. Regulation should be limited and effective. Banking reform should include a gradual increase in capital requirements. Trade should be expanded, not limited through tariffs and stealthy “fair” trade laments. Most importantly, the Federal Reserve should be reformed and given one mission – a stable currency. Not a rising dollar, not a falling dollar, but a stable dollar. The best way to accomplish that mission is by stabilizing the price of gold. A stable currency, once again linked to gold, will eliminate inflation and limit government spending."

President Reagan's words are as amazing relevant today as they were in 1981: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price."

Obama can repeat Mr. Greenspan's words all he wants, but he has no solution to the financial problems that currently exist apart from increasing government, the very source of the problem we are now encountering.

The Election Debate

Aggregated from: About A Nurse — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:29:23 +0000

I am among very apolitical people. I am serious. Most of the people I work with, or know, looked at me like I had three eyes when I asked them what they thought about Palin’s speech at the RNC. They were like, “Palin who?” They know Obama is African American, McCain is way too old. That’s about it.

I have thought hard about this personally disturbing nonchalance and the possible reasons why.

Is it because I am surrounded by Christians who couldn’t care less about politics and the government because at the end of the day, “God will be in control of everything anyway”?

Or is it because I am surrounded by Filipinos who came here and became US citizens but couldn’t care less about who will become the next president or VP because at the end of the day, they will “retire in the Philippines anyway”?

Or is it because I am just surrounded by people, who, in general, simply do not care?

You know you’re not in the right blog if you are expecting some political facts and rants. I know guys who are good and are passionate about that. Shrimplate is one, wounded healer is another. But not me. So if you thought you are in here for a good political opinion read, believe me, you are better off checking the right guys.

I’m just here to let you know, that unlike many of those around me, I have registered to vote, and I intend to be heard, no matter how small my voice is. I have nothing against my friends/family/coworkers who will not vote, because I know they have reasons. I may find those reasons questionable, and I may violently/silently question their apathy, but I think they have the right not to vote if that is their decision. Also, in some sense, I do know where they’re coming from with their decision not to dive into the chaos that is politics..

For the record, I don’t want you to take this as a declaration that I know way more than everyone around me when it comes to politics. Let’s just say that I have the desire to know as much as I can, as opposed to being completely or outwardly uninvolved.

Anyway, does this mean I’m already done with the Palin-Biden, Obama-McCain debate in my head? NO.

I know some people who are republicans or democrats find that fact very aggravating. I mean, they all think there is nothing to think about. I can lie to please those people, but I won’t, because even if it is totally stupid, the truth is, I have not decided yet.

I know there are promises being made right now. As candidates are expected to do, they promise the moon, the stars, and even mars as they go on with their campaign. I have nothing against that, but I know for a fact that one can’t really tell if these people will have that so called word of honor. Let’s face it, making a promise is easy, and it gets easier each time the applause gets stronger.

Let’s put it in perspective that I have only been here for over 6 years, and to be honest, I still have no concrete idea what the real difference between a republican and a democrat is. What I should focus on is what these candidates have done in the past and what is it that they have that will make them the best leaders in the future? And that, I just do not have time to do yet. I am getting into it, and will eventually make a decision. I have basic concepts, but I think having lived here in the past few years with a republican president is not enough to make me jump to conclusion that all republicans are evil and that it doesn’t make sense to vote anyone who is republican. Or that all democrats are heaven sent and it is a no brainer to even think against them.

Don’t get me wrong, I do not support the war in Iraq. I strongly disagree with it, even though I support those courageous men and women who put their lives in danger for the sake of their country. I am grateful to them, but I want the war to end. I know the democrats claim that the war will definitely be over as soon as Obama steps in. And on the other hand, they ask me sarcastically “so YOU want the war in Iraq to continue?” If I tell them I am still undecided. I won’t start a debate, but let’s be realistic here. A war is not ended by mere words. Or, taxes and healthcare issues are not addressed my shallow promises.

Anyway, this is getting really long. I suppose I should end this by asking you to blatantly sell your candidates to me. By doing that, I get first hand information that I will never get from the news, and you get to convince one undecided voter.

It’s a win win situation, right?

Travails in the US - Palin an inspired choice

Aggregated from: Ambit Gambit — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:52:30 +0000

Post by Graham Young

We went to visit Pearl Harbour yesterday. Can you imagine doing a guided tour of the War Memorial in Canberra and being instructed to stay silent because this is a solemn place? When you visit the memorial to the Arizona which was the pride of the fleet destroyed at Pearl Harbour, that is exactly what you are told. Unlike the Australian War Memorial, the Arizona is not just a memorial but a graveyard. It is built over the wreck of the ship which still contains most of the bodies of the men who died in her. Yet even so, it was eerie to have a crowd of 100 moving around it in almost total silence - very un-Australian.Which reminds me of how seriously the US takes it manifestation as a military power, and how seriously it views the sacrifices of its armed service-men. This is one reason I disagree with my fellow blogger's assessment of the choice of Sarah Palin to be John McCain's running mate.

We polled Australians earlier this year on who they wanted as Democrat nominee, and in the analysis that I did I wondered about how substantial Obama (the “West Wing” candidate) was. Substance has always been his weakness, and Palin underlines the weakness brilliantly.

In terms of substance it is a no contest between McCain and Obama. McCain embodies the American patriot. He has partaken of that collective US military sacrament, and because of his particular history as not just a “warrior”, but a noble one, is above question. You have to metaphorically hold your tongue in his presence, just like you do on The Arizona memorial. Watching him on TV he has the assuredness that comes from a life built on that personal capital - of being beyond reproach.

There is no way that Obama can match that, so he has turned the conversation to other things. His appeal hasn't been based on substance, but on hopes and fancies. As the fantasy is always, at least iniitally, more enticing than the reality he's ahead. McCain knows that, and knows that he has to play “catch-up”. That means taking some risks.

We know about the “audacity of hope”, but Obama has no policies that can match his rhetoric, showing just how “audacious” his campaign is. Instead of substance he is trading on rhetoric, and the American belief that “all men are created equal”. His is a human rights campaign based around the symbolism of voting for a member of a minority for president.

Palin is a risk, but as her performance yesterday shows, not as big a risk as those who don't know her might have thought. She mightn't be able to match Obama on rhetoric, but she can more than match him on “cut through”.

More importantly she turns his narrative on its head, shifting the debate from one about human rights and symbolic firsts into one about substance. She does this in a number of ways.

The fact that compared to McCain she is quite insubstantial underscores just how flimsy Obama's story is in this regard, particularly if she can be shown to be just as substantial as Obama. It blunts the Democrats' attack.

McCain's choice of her also undermines Obama's anti-establishment credentials. While Obama may have been the outsider, that is a status that he lost as soon as he became the Democrat favourite. But he could still claim to speak from outside the Beltway. The choices of running mates changes all that. Obama tried to shore up his substance by choosing Biden, a beltway insider - he knows where his weakness is. McCain underscores that weakness by declaring that he has no need of additional substance, and chooses from about as far away from the beltway as you can get and still be on the North American continent and involved in politics.

But at the same time as it underlines McCain's substance it also adds to his outsider status allowing him to put a black man in the unlikely position of the establishment darling. With politicians so much on the nose, if McCain is to win he has to be a non-politician politician. Palin helps him here. Like McCain, she is a rebel, and as a woman she is a member of a “minority” (if you can call slightly more than 50% of the population a minority). She is also a “redneck”, albeit an acceptable one, and will resonate with southern voters. Despite what I might think about creationism for example, it is probably a majority belief in many parts of the US, particularly in the south, an area where Obama was already behind with many voters for racial reasons.

US and Australian election dynamics are similar. To be sure of winning you have to speak for the voiceless against the elites. That means to some extent persuading majority groups that they have no political influence. Since the beginning of this campaign Obama was the one in front on that score. McCain's choice of Palin takes his advantage away from him. This will be a really fascinating election campaign, and I think McCain might just win, striking a blow for another powerful minority - those over 70.

McCain Accepts GOP Nomination

Aggregated from: The Strong Conservative — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:08:00 +0000

John McCain officially accepted the Republican nomination for President. He delivered his speech to rowdy cheers and applause. He was rudely interrupted by a few code-pink nut jobs who couldn't show a war hero the respect he's earned from 5 years in a POW camp in North Vietnam, but they were drowned out by the patriotism of the crowd.

McCain's speech lacked Palin's energy, but he delivered in character, his vision for America, and his principles on smaller government, lower taxes, a strong military, and transparency in government.

The table is set, it's time to get to the main course.

The Palin rumour cleared up

Aggregated from: Kiwiblog — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 20:28:21 +0000

I caused some consternation on Facebook yesterday when I mused whether the allegations on Daily Kos might be correct, that Sarah Palin’s 5th child was in fact her grandchild.

The photos of Sarah Palin looking very slim at seven months pregnant and her daughter not so slim, did make me wonder. I almost could qualifty for NZ First membership, as I wondered if it was possible.

But no it is not a plot stolen from Desperate Housewives. Daily Kos got it half right. Reuters reports 17 year old Bristol Palin is pregnant - with her own baby though, not her brother Trig.

Tags: 2008 US Presidential Election, Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin, Trig Palin

Will Gustav breach the levies of New Orleans?

Aggregated from: JOTMAN — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:56:00 +0000

A Louisiana State University expert on levies says that Gustav is likely to hit never-tested levies to the South of New Orleans. These levies are of the same build as those that broke in 2005 when Hurricane Katrinia struck. Storm models show that Gustav has the potential to bring about water levels and wave action that could breach these levies. Levy upgrades were not scheduled for completion until 2011.

Another expert noted one positive development since Katrina: pump-houses have been raised onto elevated platforms. "This time we won't have to evacuate the guys who run the pump," he said. Brilliant.

I have posted a beautiful and rare map of the levies of New Orleans here.

Sarah Palin's baby Trig

Aggregated from: JOTMAN — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:20:00 +0000

Unless you have seen it first first-hand, as part of the press scrum or as a campaign staffer, it is almost impossible to imagine how grueling the process of running for national office is. Everybody gets exhausted. The candidates have to answer questions and offer views roughly 18 hours a day, and any misstatement on any topic can get them in trouble.

- James Fallows

Yes, the race for the US presidency in 2008 is one of the toughest jobs in the world. The final stretch of the campaign? Challenging can't be the word for it. In Palin's case, it will be especially tough. Fallows explains, "If someone is campaigning for the presidency or vice presidency, there's an extra twist. That person has to have a line of argument to offer on any conceivable issue." Palin will have the steepest of learning curves. She needs lots of coaching, concerning every issue: from Iraq to China to the ins-and-outs of health insurance.

The final stretch of the race for the presidency sounds even harder than that other marvel of human existance: pulling off what mothers achieve in caring for an infant.

How is it, one wonders, that Sarah Palin has come to the conclusion that she can to do both?

Palin of course, is the mother of a baby named Trig born on 18 April 2008. As every mother knows, it is a tough job -- I think most would say it's more than a full-time job -- taking care of a newborn child. But in the case of Palin's child, Trig, there will be special challenges. Because Trig has Downs Syndrome it is likely little Trig will require some extra attention. It is not as if Palin has prior experience raising such a child.

Tell me, how can Palin do it? The most difficult stretch of the most grueling race on earth, plus the steep learning curve, plus having a newborn, plus addressing the special-needs requirements of Trig? How?

The answer, of course, is that compromises will be made. Today, Palin spoke before a campaign banner that read "Country First." But can Palin -- under the circumstances -- really put Country First? I have some female Jotman readers to thank for raising this question (see this post). Here is what these readers have said:

A female Jotman reader wrote:

Seeing her parade onto the stage with her family struck me as pathetic - who gets to raise that tiny baby? - I can't believe women will react sympathetically to her. Women just don't react well to a woman who sacrifices her family for her career. Bringing up children is hard enough but the challenges of handling a Downs syndrome child is something else again. I am dumbfounded.

Another woman commented:

Running around the country and promoting John McSames outdated, out of touch and unrealistic values and ideals does not speak well of her dedication to raising a special needs child. Isn't she still breast feeding this child?

And then this woman chimed in:

I am so glad someone else feels this way! While with some difficulty I can not comment on the choice to have a child with downs syndrome, I am apalled at this vice-presidential run choice. A child need as much time from both parents as possible during the early years!!! Beeing a commited working mom of two little ones I am beyong stupefied that someone can opt for the campaign trail and yet dream of espousing family values!!!

What do you think? Is Sarah Palin attempting to do too much? Is it ethical? Is Palin's family life and baby really any of our business?

Update: There are new allegations about the baby.

Australia: Palin Counting on Identity Politics

Kevin Rennie — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:06:29 +0000

Progressive bloggers from Australasia have challenged John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.

Do identity politics still count for that much, asks Cam Riley of South Sea Republic:

…there will be another electoral blood-letting in 2008 the same as there was in 2006 with Republicans in the house and senate toppling like dominoes. I expect Obama will win in an electoral-college landslide as well even though the polls don't point to it yet.

The counter-weight is that identity politics still count. Palin is being touted as ‘one of us' by evangelical conservatives who weigh in more on character identity than resumes, competency or merit. It may be that identity to McCain's evangelical message, populist foreign policy, republican party identity and maybe even latent or passive racism against a black president will get McCain across the line.

US Presidential Campaign

Blogocracy’s Tim Dunlop found some rare common ground with the right:

I’m with those American conservatives who think this is an appalling pick, indicative of McCain’s lack of seriousness and his basic contempt for job to which he aspires. This is a trick pick, driven entirely by campaign imperatives and, as James Fallows puts it, “seems to be a choice that looks forward to Election Day, and not one day beyond that.” How could it? How could he spend the last months trying to bring down Obama by highlighting his lack of experience and then choose this person as his running mate? I dare any conservatives to defend this choice.

Weekend Talkback

Duckpond saw the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain’s mate as flawed gender politics. Unlike many in the blogosphere and mass media there was no mention of her being a “looker”:

This stunt by McCain (”he has done it again”) might work in the short term, but it would give serious Republicans pause, and I would be surprised if it would work with women. Now if it did work, McCain could become an even more dangerous and flawed President than Bush. My guess would be, despite the trope about the irrational voter, that the American public will be of a mood to demand economic answers. It is an extraordinary and frightening sight to see a former drunk and a fool roiling around as the US President. We will learn in due course whether “Eight is Enough”.

Special Providence

Homeland Security Says Immigrants Have Nothing to Worry About As They Escape Gustav

Aggregated from: VivirLatino — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:54:14 +0000

Hurricane Dolly, earlier this year, raised fears of just how far the Department of Homeland Security would go in terms of it's mistreatment of immigrants.

Hurricane Gustav is raising those same fears as it heads into the Gulf Region and a mandatory evacuation order is in place.

According to the New Orleans Worker Center for Racial Justice:

We have won an important assurance from DHS. Immigrants evacuating the path of Gustav will not be targeted by immigration checkpoints.
Post extendido - Leer más 'Homeland Security Says Immigrants Have Nothing to Worry About As They Escape Gustav'...

Gustav storm surge

Aggregated from: JOTMAN — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:04:00 +0000

GUSTAV IS A CATEGORY THREE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN STRENGTH IS LIKELY BEFORE LANDFALL...

AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS STORM SURGE OF 10 TO 14 FEET ABOVE NORMAL TIDAL LEVELS IS EXPECTED NEAR AND TO THE EAST OF WHERE THE CENTER OF GUSTAV CROSSES THE COAST.

Storm surge. That is going to be the decisive factor for New Orleans, which will likely find itself to the east of Gustav's eye.

Report was from the 04:00 update. Next full update is at 10:00 AM. And the hurricane is supposed to hit the coast around noon. Updates are here.

What category was Hurricane Katrina?

Aggregated from: JOTMAN — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 02:06:00 +0000

Hurricane Gustav is presently a Category 3 hurricane. By contrast, Hurricane Katrina "weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 [2005] in southeast Louisiana."

However, perhaps we focus too much on storm strength, and not enough on the the strength of Louisiana's engineering. Huricane Katrina herself was not what caused so much devastation in New Orleans in 2005. Rather, it was the flooding caused by failure of the levies and pumps that killed people and destroyed property. Lousy engineering -- not high winds and rain -- was to blame for the catastrophe.

Why is it that the US news media constantly reports on the power of the hurricane, yet asks few questions about New Orleans' levies and pumps? To what extent have these been upgraded? It's been three years. The politicians are silent on this issue.

This video explains what really happened in the aftermath of Katrina, and debunks some common misconceptions:

Obligatory Obama acclamation & McCain Veep selection thread

Aggregated from: HOYDEN ABOUT TOWN — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:39:48 +0000

Bene mentioned last night a desire for some commentary on the cynically timed announcement of McCain’s running partner as Sarah Palin, so here goes: here’s a short bit from the LA Times, who sums her up as a risky choice due to her inexperience, the very charge that the McCain campaign has been harping on with respect to Obama (others don’t buy that line).

How will she fare in the TV debates against the veteran politicker Biden? Will Palin’s history of running for Miss Alaska back when Obama was applying to Harvard Law School help balance the whole “celebrity” schtick? We’ll have to wait and see over the next two months (which could be a very long two months of infuriating sexism levelled against a different female candidate this time (the concept of vpilf.com is especially obstreperating)). But if the McCain campaign has chosen a woman at least partly to appeal to Hillary supporters, well: anti-abortion advocate Palin is not the woman those disaffected Dems are looking for, that’s for sure. How insulting to left-leaning women generally for the GOP to think that she could be: as if all that matters to Hillary supporters is that Hillary was a woman, so Palin is interchangeable just because she’s a woman too.

What I do find interesting though is that in McCain choosing a woman as VP who’s more socially conservative than he is, he is playing to the potentially disaffected Republican base, those people who won’t vote Obama in a million years but who might very well choose to stay home rather than vote McCain - Palin might just tip enough of them into turning up at the polls. Obama’s choice of Biden, oddly, appears to be also playing particularly to the potentially disaffected Republican base (who, remember, mostly wouldn’t vote Obama in a million years). This is not to say that Biden doesn’t have any strong points on the left side of the balance, but his particular strength for the combined ticket is as a centrist with some hawkish credentials. Why aim to appeal to the right more than to the base of Democrats feeling alienated, Dems who were willing to vote for him earlier this year if he ended up the nominee but who now have doubts because he’s been equivocating on their core issues as part of running after swinging Republicans (a pattern repeated by the last few Dem presidential campaigns - why do they keep running after the right instead of shoring up the left? how many Congress majorities do they have to lose to get the message?).

Of course McCain chose a Veep to appeal to his base on the Right rather than any possible swing from the Left. Most of those people who read carefully are well aware that the PUMA phenomenon is over-hyped, a media narrative picked up and blown out of all proportion. The resentment is there in bucketsful, sure (including a couple of bloggers who’ve been on my feed reader for ages and who regularly rant in fine PUMA style). There’s especially heaps of resentment that traditional pro-forma procedures acknowledging close contenders were banned from happening by the DNC just for this convention: nevertheless that doesn’t mean that a majority of Hillary supporters are going to vote for McCain out of spite (a term with interesting connotations), especially in a swing state - they can count the numbers on the Supreme Court as well as anybody.

But what about the disaffected Dems living in states that are solidly red or blue in presidential elections? Where a small proportion of those not toeing either party line cannot influence the electoral college result, but whose vote can strategically influence other results? Those who perhaps initially supported Edwards as a check against corporatism, then who may have voted for Hillary in the primaries because of her determination regarding healthcare, and who’ve never particularly been convinced that Obama is strong in the areas that matter most to them? The Greens for one are going to pick up plenty of votes, enough to allow them to develop their party funding base and become a more influential party in the next election and the election after that. The perception that the Dem National Committee has simply ignored their concerns could also hurt a lot of Dems running for Congress/Senate at the State and local levels - the Dems could conceivably win a Presidency that has to cope with a hostile Congress and more Republican/Independent Governors than ever before.

At the beginning of this year, there were plenty of Dem voters looking at the candidacies of Edwards, Clinton and Obama and thinking “wow, this is great, I could happily vote for any of them, we’re not only going to sweep the Presidency we’ll sweep both Houses as well”. That general cross-candidate goodwill has largely evaporated amongst many Dems who first supported other contenders because they feel that their vote is being demanded as an entitlement rather than having their issues considered in the way that the issues of disaffected Republicans are being considered.

Even worse, people who are not fully on board with Obama, even those who are just saying “I’ll vote for him, but I’m not that happy about it” are reporting that others both online and in their social/family circles are bullying them for not being evangelically pro-Obama. That sort of bullying is not going to convince hold-their-nose Obama voters to become fervid supporters and evangelists for Obama-Biden, but it may well push them into not voting for any other Dem on the ticket for all those other elections in November.

There comes a point when people should just be satisfied (though not complacent) that the numbers are falling their way with the potential to get even better. No need to get true-believer on people’s arses as well.