Punished?

I've followed politics closely for about fifteen years, and I've heard politicians say things that caused a wide range of emotions, things that made me laugh, shout, scream, cry, groan, growl, and even roar. When I heard this weekend's speech by Barack Obama in which he said if his daughters made a mistake, he wouldn't want them "punished with a baby," for the first time I was literally made nauseous. I've been digging on the web for clarification, some restatement, something where he acknowledges what a disgusting statement that was, but I haven't found it yet.

Maybe it's the fact that I spent the weekend with my five-year-old nephew; maybe it's the fact that four of my dearest friends have had their first child in the past three months; maybe it's the fact that I have witnessed close friends' unplanned pregnancies grow into amazing, gifted, brilliant, compassionate, giving, wonderful human beings, but those words gave me the shakes.

Punished? Punished by whom? Make no mistake, a child is never, never, never, never, never a punishment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbZJYWjkAPo

(It has been brought to my attention that the poster of this video has made some rather harsh statements with which I would not want to be associated. The link is merely a reference for those who haven't seen the video. That's not where I originally saw it.)

200,000

I purchased a brand new Ford Escort on April 30, 1999. In the nearly nine years since, I have driven the car over 200,000 miles. I've done basic maintenance, replacing oil, tires, filters, wipers, brakes, etc., along with the battery and the alternator (which many would argue are also basic wear-and-tear items), but the car has needed no major repair work. Every day, I turn the key and it runs. The car still averages about 32 mpg for city driving and around 40 mpg on the interstate. I've considered buying something new many times in the last few years, but I can't find anything reliable enough and efficient enough to be worth the cost. My sincere thanks to everyone at Ford Motor Company for a truly great car.

The Wisdom of David Mamet

I don't consider myself a serious fan of Tony and Oscar nominated writer David Mamet, but I have admired and enjoyed some of his work, particularly The Spanish Prisoner and Wag the Dog. After reading his column in the March 11, 2008 Village Voice [link below], though, I think I may need to invest some time in catching up on his backlog. I am politically right of center, so his ultimate conclusion is one I'm comfortable with, but what I found most admirable and pertinent to the current political situation in the United States was the process by which he arrived at that conclusion. He seems to have achieved a sense of balance and a respect for those with whom he disagrees--something our nation desperately needs. While I disagree with some of the details regarding both George W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, I find this passage instructive:

"I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.

"Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh."

His point should considered by all partisans. The truths every American needs to accept are these:

1. John Kennedy was not as good as liberals say he was.
2. Ronald Reagan was not as good as conservatives say he was.
3. Bill Clinton was not as bad as conservatives say he was.
4. George W. Bush is not as bad as liberals say he is.
5. Not all liberals are [insert your favorite Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter insult line here].
6. Not all conservatives are [insert your favorite Al Franken or Janeane Garofalo insult line here].

If we can admit and embrace the fact that the other side--whatever side that is--consists of, as Mamet puts it, "the same folks we meet at the water cooler," maybe we can stop yelling, finger-pointing, hate-mongering, and fear-mongering, and actually find solutions we can all stomach.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0811,374064,374064,1.html/full

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000519/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mamet

Oh, the Delegate Math

The way the Democratic Party apportions delegates is, to put it lightly, a convoluted process.^ Under their proportional system of awarding pledged* delegates, the current tally is:

Barack Obama 1344
Hillary Clinton 1208
(March 5/RealClearPolitics)

If, instead, the delegates in those states had been awarded under a winner-take-all system, the tally would be:

Hillary Clinton 1738
Barack Obama 1530

This is relevant because US presidents are still determined by Electoral College tallies, which are winner-take-all in 48 states. (Maine and Nebraska award by congressional district.) The candidates’ respective EC scores at present would be:

Hillary Clinton 219
Barack Obama 188

As their contest continues in Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and beyond, it seems clear Obama will maintain his delegate lead, but he will be unable to garner enough delegates to win the nomination outright. Meanwhile, Clinton will most likely win Pennsylvania, maintaining her advantage in the Electoral College count. The practical upshot of this is a Democratic National Convention where both sides have a mathematical case for the nomination and everyone in Denver needs a helmet.

^The Republican nomination process is also ridiculously complex, but it seems downright elementary by comparison.

*These are the delegates voted on in caucuses and primaries, not the super-delegates.

Recession?

Obviously, the US economy is facing some very serious issues, the mortgage crisis being the most notable. If we are really in a serious recession, though, how is it possible that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama raised over $35 million each in campaign contributions in the month of February alone? Add to that whatever number of millions have been raised by John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, and it's pretty clear there is still a fair amount of disposable income floating around.

It seems to me all the talk of recession by political candidates and media outlets ultimately serves to exacerbate the problem and generate a self-fulfilling prophecy. It also strikes me as a bit suspect that such dire predictions have accompanied presidential campaigns throughout my lifetime, most notably in 1980, 1992, 2000, and now 2008--all election cycles in which the party out of power sensed an opportunity to turn the tables.