New U.S. President

[Mini-Geek]

Originally Posted by 99.94

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/5061...ama-president/

Last I checked, the rest of the world aren't voting for the US President, Americans are, so it really doesn't matter who they think our president should be.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by 99.94

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/mp/5061...ama-president/

Reader's Digest article about their poll (referenced by that article):

"Global Poll: How the World Sees the 2008 Election

Our exclusive international poll reveals Obamamania abroad-and the enduring allure of the American Dream."

Citizen of the World

It's a good thing for John McCain that only American citizens can vote in U.S. presidential elections. If the election were held overseas, or even in the rest of North America, the Republican nominee wouldn't stand a chance.

This was just one of the remarkable findings in a new Reader's Digest Global Poll in which we asked people in 17 countries, including the United States, to name the issues they care about most and tell how they feel about the United States and the presidential contenders.

. . .

Also, in fairness to the GOP nominee, the Republican party is organized around a set of conservative attitudes and principles that are distinctly American in nature. These range from support for gun rights and low taxes to antipathy to legal abortion and centralized governmental control.

"antipathy to ... centralized governmental control"?

This is the party whose president imposed our only peacetime wage and price controls in the early 1970's.

This is the party whose current president has sought, or simply surreptitiously seized, greater and greater power for the executive branch ... and still continues to do so (e.g., the original Bernanke bailout plan) even now.

This is the party that has made the greatest addition to federal government in at least half a century (Department of Homeland Security), along with one of the greatest assaults on personal privacy and liberties in the history of the United States.

I agree that Republicans generally want, and have a quite legitimate right to advocate, gun rights, low taxes (not low deficits and low national debt, which is what they used to advocate), and barriers to legal abortion.

But they clearly do not actually, sincerely demonstrate antipathy to centralized governmental control -- far from it, they've consistently worked for, not against, centralized governmental control for at least three decades.

The supposed current Republican antipathy for centralized governmental control is a Big Lie campaign slogan, not the more genuine desire (AFAIK) of the Goldwater-era conservatives.

[AES]

"centralized [federal] governmental control"?

Yes, but "Jawwn McCain ... he's a reformist maverick..."

ewmayer's post cracked me up when I read it. I sincerely hope Jawwn follows the Goldwater-era conservative economic template as opposed to the Bush-era "new federal government department at every sign of difficulty" template, if elected.

On the path to our newest "economic" government agency, I did find one bit of humor. "Henry Paulson names former Goldman Sachs banker Neel Kashkari to head Wall St. bailout". Is "Kashkari" pronounced "Cash Carry"?

And today, Bush says: “We don’t want to rush into the situation and have the program not be effective.”

Indeed! Let's instead pressure congress to give our children a lifetime of debt to pay through taxes, or socialism, NOW, ASAP. It's CYA, eat this SH*T now or we'll all be starving or dead tomorrow.

Gawd bless real fiscally conservative (R)congressmen, (D)Brad Sherman, ... and also let Gawd bless all of the (D)blue dogs.

[cheesehead]

In the midst of comments on a not-too-remarkable article (http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/arc...6/1501672.aspx) is this gem:

Originally Posted by chris, los angeles, california

Even McCain's attack ads are out of touch. You'd think his Bush Campaign attack dogs would at least score a few points on the attack ... right?

Unless they are planning to lose this election and use McCain as the fall guy. They know how bad the economy is! They know how big this Wall Street bailout will be! This first $800 billion is not the end of it! They know the Democrats win when it's the economy - stupid! But even all the regulation in the world will not stop this recession avalanche from becoming deep and hard - particularly for the middle class. It will get really bad. It could be a depression! The next bust will be credit card defaults - I wonder if Congress bails out Visa and Mastercard?

So what's the point here. In politics when you've really fumbled the ball you want the other team to pick it up. The idea is to blame the Democrats for the economy when they cannot fix it. It's an old proven GOP strategy that really works. The GOP give up 4 years under Obama to get the next 8 years starting in 2012.

The GOP will run Huckabee / Romney in 2012 and they'll win since the economy will be weaker in 2011 than it is today. AGAIN it's the economy STUPID.

And McCain will not lead the GOP in 2012. As for Palin she is a base thriller who will go back to Alaska and will start running huge deficits, ask for massive pork, and show all Americans that she can bring the bacon home.

The economy is in free fall, and given the $11 trillion dollar debt the next president will NOT accomplish very much.

Don't forget Government revenues fall in a recession and whatever deficits are estimated you can calculate double that. Hold onto your cash folks - this fall is going to hurt us all.

[cheesehead]

From ABC Health Insider (http://blogs.abcnews.com/health_insider/) comes this warning:

"Think Twice Before You Vote and Drive"

Originally Posted by Audrey Grayson, ABC News Medical Unit

Every New Year’s Eve I transform into Driving Miss Daisy out of the sheer awareness that my chances of getting in a car wreck are much higher than usual. From now on, I’ll undergo the same transformation every presidential Election Day as well ... and you may want to do the same.

Driving fatalities in this country rise dramatically during presidential elections, according to a research letter released in today’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. And the increase in the number of these fatalities on Election Day even overshadows the increase in driving fatalities seen on holidays, such as New Year’s Eve and during other dangerous driving times, such as after the Super Bowl.

To make this determination, researchers from the University of Toronto examined government records of fatal car crashes from 1975 to 2006. They compared the number of fatal car crashes on U.S. presidential election Tuesdays (from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to George W. Bush in 2004) with driving fatalities from the Tuesday before election day and the Tuesday of the following week.

They found that on election Tuesdays, the U.S. averaged 13 fatalities per hour compared with 11 fatalities per hour during nonelection Tuesdays. This accounted for an overall 18 percent increase in the number of fatal car crashes on election Tuesdays.

According to Dr. Donald Redelmeier, director of the clinical epidemiology unit at the University of Toronto, the increase in driving fatalities seen on U.S. presidential election days “greatly exceeded the risk of New Year’s Eve and Super Bowl Sunday.”

“The average Super Bowl is associated with an increase of seven more people in fatal motor vehicle crashes, so that makes election days about three times more dangerous than the Super Bowl,” Redelmeier explained.

Comparatively, New Year’s Eve is only associated with about three more fatal crashes than the national average.

There are several reasons Redelmeier suspects presidential election days could be more dangerous for drivers than holidays and big game days. For one, he posits that the public is simply less aware of the potential for added danger.

“This shows that public attitudes and awareness can really influence road safety,” Redelmeier said.

In addition, because of our heightened awareness of roadside safety on holidays such as New Year’s, the number of police officers patrolling the roads for drunken or reckless drivers increases exponentially. The same is not so on our election Tuesdays.

But we can all say from experience that adding even just one extra responsibility to our already loaded schedules can lead to speeding or other distractions.

Redelmeier also points out in his report that many of us are traveling to unfamiliar areas in order to cast our votes. This simple change in routine can lead to increased distractions and even heightened anxiety while driving, all of which could be contributing factors to the increase of fatal car crashes.

Although there are a few simple changes that might help bring down the number of fatal crashes during election days -- such as increased presence of police officers and roadside patrolling, or the establishment of more automatic enforcement technologies such as video cameras at stop lights and photo radar -- I think the one thing we can all do to help curb this phenomenon is to be aware of it.

With that said, this news won’t discourage me from showing up at the polls this year -- but it might take me some extra time to (slowly, calmly) drive there. And I hope the same for you.

(" ... a few simple changes that might help bring down the number of fatal crashes during election days -- such as increased presence of police officers ..."

So that's why patrol cars were stationed near polling places in black neighborhoods of Florida on Election Day 2000, with officers telling blacks that their polling place was closed -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of then-Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, was just trying to bring down the number of fatal crashes, but his orders to the officers got a bit garbled in transmission.)

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

From ABC Health Insider (http://blogs.abcnews.com/health_insider/) comes this warning:

"Think Twice Before You Vote and Drive"

2 factors not mentioned. The first and lesser, hussling to get to the polling place, before or after work, or during a break. Second, and I believe the major reason, far more old drivers. Since they 'turn out' to vote better, and they often man the polling places, and volunteer to pick people up, they are putting more miles as a group than normal.

[ewmayer]

Der Spiegel: Astronomers' First Success at Predicting Near-Earth Asteroid Collision

Unter Astronomen kursieren inzwischen Witze über den Asteroiden. So solle das Objekt zusätzlich zu den bisher verwendeten Bezeichnungen 8TA9D69 und 2008 TC3 noch einen weiteren, griffigeren Namen bekommen. Alain Maury, einer der in Fachkreisen bekanntesten Asteroiden- und Kometenexperten, zitierte in der Minor Planet Mailing List einen Kollegen: "Ich würde diesen Asteroiden nach Alaskas Gouverneurin Sarah Palin benennen. Warum? Er ist klein, nicht besonders hell und wird keine besonders großen Spuren hinterlassen."

Translation:

Meanwhile, jokes about the asteroid are circulating among astronomers, to the effect that in addition to the currently-used designations 8TA9D69 and 2008 TC3 the object should receive a further, more-quotable name. Alain Maury, one of the best-known asteroid and comet experts in the scientific community, cites a suggestion by a colleague in the Minor Planet Mailing List: "I would name this asteroid after Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin. Why? It's small, not especially bright and will leave no particularly memorable traces behind."

[Graff]

"I would name this asteroid after Alaska's Governor
Sarah Palin. Why? It's small, not especially bright and
will leave no particularly memorable traces behind."

Very amusing. (Un)Fortunately, using names of politicians
for minor planet names is not allowed until the individual
has been dead for at least 100 years. Also, minor planets
receiving names have to be numbered (requiring
observations at four or more oppositions) and 2008 TC3
won't ever be numbered as it was seen only over an
arc of less than one day.

Gareth Williams, Minor Planet Center

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by Graff

Very amusing. (Un)Fortunately, using names of politicians
for minor planet names is not allowed until the individual
has been dead for at least 100 years. Also, minor planets
receiving names have to be numbered (requiring
observations at four or more oppositions) and 2008 TC3
won't ever be numbered as it was seen only over an
arc of less than one day.

Gareth Williams, Minor Planet Center

Now, see, Gareth, if you were a maverick agent of change like Senator Jawwn McCain, you'd be willing to buck the entrenched Astronomisticistical establishment and change that burdensome bureaucratic regulation.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

hussling to get to the polling place, before or after work, or during a break.

Well, the article did say, "... adding even just one extra responsibility to our already loaded schedules can lead to speeding or other distractions."

Second, and I believe the major reason, far more old drivers. Since they 'turn out' to vote better, and they often man the polling places, and volunteer to pick people up, they are putting more miles as a group than normal.

There's something that deserves more analysis. (I don't have online access to JAMA; will check the library to see whether they considered that. It's in the Oct. 1, 2008 issue -- Vol. 300, Num. 13) It didn't take long for another commenter to note that, too:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/health_insi....html#comments

Originally Posted by zack | Sep 30, 2008 9:40:25 PM

I think the real subtext here is in regards to older drivers getting on the road in droves. I know a lotter of older folks don't venture out much, but you can be sure they'll be driving to the local polling station on Nov. 4. The added hazard of older drivers on the road with slower reflexes and reaction times shouldn't be overlooked as a cause of the increase in accidents.

[ewmayer]

NYT Editorial: Politics of Attack

It is a sorry fact of American political life that campaigns get ugly, often in their final weeks. But Senator John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin have been running one of the most appalling campaigns we can remember.

They have gone far beyond the usual fare of quotes taken out of context and distortions of an opponent’s record — into the dark territory of race-baiting and xenophobia. Senator Barack Obama has taken some cheap shots at Mr. McCain, but there is no comparison.

Despite the occasional slip (referring to Mr. Obama’s “cronies” and calling him “that one”), Mr. McCain tried to take a higher road in Tuesday night’s presidential debate. It was hard to keep track of the number of times he referred to his audience as “my friends.” But apart from promising to buy up troubled mortgages as president, he offered no real answers for how he plans to solve the country’s deep economic crisis. He is unable or unwilling to admit that the Republican assault on regulation was to blame.

Ninety minutes of forced cordiality did not erase the dismal ugliness of his campaign in recent weeks, nor did it leave us with much hope that he would not just return to the same dismal ugliness on Wednesday.

Ms. Palin, in particular, revels in the attack. Her campaign rallies have become spectacles of anger and insult. “This is not a man who sees America as you see it and how I see America,” Ms. Palin has taken to saying.

That line follows passages in Ms. Palin’s new stump speech in which she twists Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the Weather Underground and confessed bomber. By the time she’s done, she implies that Mr. Obama is right now a close friend of Mr. Ayers — and sympathetic to the violent overthrow of the government. The Democrat, she says, “sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.”

Her demagoguery has elicited some frightening, intolerable responses. A recent Washington Post report said at a rally in Florida this week a man yelled “kill him!” as Ms. Palin delivered that line and others shouted epithets at an African-American member of a TV crew.

Mr. McCain’s aides haven’t even tried to hide their cynical tactics, saying they were “going negative” in hopes of shifting attention away from the financial crisis — and by implication Mr. McCain’s stumbling response.

We certainly expected better from Mr. McCain, who once showed withering contempt for win-at-any-cost politics. He was driven out of the 2000 Republican primaries by this sort of smear, orchestrated by some of the same people who are now running his campaign.

NYT Op-Ed | Thomas Froedman: Palin’s Kind of Patriotism

Palin defended the government’s $700 billion rescue plan. She defended the surge in Iraq, where her own son is now serving. She defended sending more troops to Afghanistan. And yet, at the same time, she declared that Americans who pay their fair share of taxes to support all those government-led endeavors should not be considered patriotic.

I only wish she had been asked: “Governor Palin, if paying taxes is not considered patriotic in your neighborhood, who is going to pay for the body armor that will protect your son in Iraq? Who is going to pay for the bailout you endorsed? If it isn’t from tax revenues, there are only two ways to pay for those big projects — printing more money or borrowing more money. Do you think borrowing money from China is more patriotic than raising it in taxes from Americans?” That is not putting America first. That is selling America first.

Sorry, I grew up in a very middle-class family in a very middle-class suburb of Minneapolis, and my parents taught me that paying taxes, while certainly no fun, was how we paid for the police and the Army, our public universities and local schools, scientific research and Medicare for the elderly. No one said it better than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”

I can understand someone saying that the government has no business bailing out the financial system, but I can’t understand someone arguing that we should do that but not pay for it with taxes. I can understand someone saying we have no business in Iraq, but I can’t understand someone who advocates staying in Iraq until “victory” declaring that paying taxes to fund that is not patriotic.

How in the world can conservative commentators write with a straight face that this woman should be vice president of the United States? Do these people understand what serious trouble our country is in right now?