Palin goes Rogue

(If this post is random and a bit incoherent, it's 2:00 AM) I think the "original" maverick has been out-mavericked. Word has leaked out of the McCain camp that Palin is going off the reservation, doing her own thing, disregarding her "handlers"....this is crazy. Then again, McCain has repeatedly talked about Palin being a maverick and a reformer, so he should have expected this. Apparently, Palin's people feel like she's been mishandled by McCain's people, helping create an unfavorable image with the media and the country. On the other hand, McCain's people are saying McCain made a mistake picking Palin, claiming she is an unqualified diva that is costing McCain the election. While the official response to this news is predictable--it's false--it's hard to imagine that anonymous sources would be making this stuff up. Palin--in the words of Fred Thompson--knows how to field dress a moose; what did McCain expect, that she would be a mindful little girl and do whatever was asked of her? Many political pundits think this is Palin's way of positioning herself for a Presidential run in 2012. She can see the McCain ship has sunk--after burning to a shred--and rather than stay aboard, she's grabbing a life raft and bailing. Who can blame her? I don't think she has the credentials or the skill to fend off potential republican challengers like Romney, Guliani, and Huckabee, but either way, she's bound to make a lot of money with her new found fame, and the far right of the Republican party loves her. Most Republicans--at least I think so--are going to be gun shy about electing a relatively uneducated leader after the Dubbya experience, giving an edge to someone like Bobby Jindal or Romney (Sorry Huck and Palin, knowing the Bible better than the Constitution can only win so many votes) so I don't think Palin's exposure from this campaign will be enough to make her President someday, but she will have a future in politics, possibly even outside of Alaska. If she gets sick of having to protect the country from Russia, she can run for the senate and move to Washington--that would be nice I'm sure, not having to watch Russia and Canada every morning.  Palin has been publicly taking stances that contradict McCain more and more recently, indicating she's done being his puppet. 

It's tough to predict where the Republican party will be in 2012. They are looking at huge deficits in Congress--super majorities for the Democrats not seen since the 1930's--and a new level of skepticism towards their economic philosophy that has enriched the rich and helped create the current financial brew-ha-ha.  In hindsight, a lot of Republican analysts blame the problem on Dubbya and a weak set of candidates for this election.  Other analysts are saying that in hindsight--especially with the financial mess--not choosing Romney was a big mistake. They feel like people should have forgiven his past liberal positions because he fit the mold for a staunch republican President--much like Reagan, who became more conservative over time.  No one had heard of Obama until the Democratic Convention 4 years ago, so there may be someone out there that will electrify the country who is currently unknown, giving republicans their own Obama. If I had to buy commodities now, I'd be going with Romney or Jindal. They both have conservative views--especially Jindal--and they have a lot gaudier resumes than Palin. McCain seems to crave power so much I wouldn't be surprised if he ran again in 2012--although with 4 more notches on the belt, his anger might actually cause him to explode so it's probably not a good idea.  

Back to Palin. This week she's talked about her support for ethanol--McCain opposes this--and she has done some off-the-cuff interviews with reporters (McCain's people cringe when this happens). Word has it that on the last long bus ride aboard the Straight Talk Express, McCain gave Palin the silent treatment. It will be interesting to see how vocal the supporters of both candidates get in their criticisms of each other after they lose. McCain has to try and repair the damage he's caused to his reputation, hoping that his fellow Senators will treat him with a small amount of respect after his lame campaign. Palin has the luxury of going back to the North Pole, where all the Alaskan elves love her and will be proud of the fact that she ran for VP. She'll be more popular than ever and she can blame everything on McCain's people muzzling her. I wonder how rogue she's willing to go these last 6 days. She should endorse Obama. That would be a great way to show her maverickiness.  Anyway, my middle-of-the-night rambling must come to an end. As for Palin and her rogue behavior, I only hope it's not because she's a secret muslim manchurian candidate.

Fat American Hero's

I had this on my old blog and do to popular demand--I'm dead serious--it's back. If you or anyone you know, is fat and ugly, or just fat, send a picture and a story. You know who you are--the person people stop and stare at, the one that makes old people giggle, you are the fat, ugly person that makes the world a better place. You are the person that takes the shame so that other people can make fun of you. You are the one that causes the occasional traffic accident, occasionally making an infant cry, possibly causing an old person to have an aneurysm, but for the most part, you make people happy. You deserve some recognition. You deserve a special award. You truly are a fat American hero. I nominate you for the respect and recognition you deserve. So next time you think you should stop, don't, head back to the buffet and get another load, because if you don't, I might be sad.

Palin Dresses Like "Average Joe"

Remember "Joe Six Pack"?  That's the guy Palin is fighting for.  That's the guy she can relate to.  She has pointed out how elitist democrats are and how it's her, hockey mom Sarah, that is really fighting for the little guy. When is the last time an average american spent 150 grand on clothes?  I know it's not her money, but she's wearing the clothes while that large sum of money is supporting Sak's 5th avenue and other "average joe" stores.  Man, I wish I could be an average american and spend $150,000 on clothes. I would be set for life.  I could buy a range of sizes to cover me so I can still have nice clothes even as I get fatter.  It's so kind of the Republican National Committee to pay for her clothes.  That's really charitable.  

Proposition 8

A good article: http://www.affirmation.org/learning/prelude.shtml

Gay marriage has taken a back seat to the election.  The major news networks aren't saying much about the intense battle taking place in California.  In June, the California State Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows same-sex marriage (equal protection clause).  In response, Proposition 8 is being put on the ballot to amend the Constitution, specifying that only marriage between one man and one woman is valid and legal.  The fundraising battle has been waged in Utah as much as it has in California.  Currently, proponents of proposition 8 have raised about 23 million dollars, with around 43% of that coming from Mormons.  Opponents of proposition 8 have raised around 17 million dollars--with 1 million coming from ex-mormon Richard Bastion, a co-founder of Word Perfect.  The Church has engaged in a massive effort to get members in California and Utah to donate time and money in the effort to pass Prop 8.  Why?  The Church argues that they are defending the traditional family, and the belief that marriage is a divinely instituted covenant that carries over into the next life.  By allowing marriage between any two persons, the traditional family will fade away as more and more people choose same-sex partners, causing great harm to society (I know this a very simple summary of their argument, but it's the basic idea).  

 I have a few questions about this argument.  First, the Church only considers marriages performed in a Temple, along with a life-time of faithful commitment to God's commandments, to be marriages that last for eternity.  No one is allowed to marry in the temple that doesn't earn a temple recommend, and the Church has never been, nor will it ever be, forced to allow anyone in the temple it deems unworthy.  Long after civil rights legislation had passed, prohibiting any form of discrimination based on race, the Church was still prohibiting blacks from entering the temple.  They waited 13 plus years to change church policy and allow blacks full temple rights.  They may have been on the negative end of public relations regarding the issue, but they didn't have any legal compulsion to make the change, they made it of their own volition.  Gay marriage may eventually be legal in all 50 states, and the Church still won't have to perform same-sex marriages in the temple.  The number of institutions and people that currently have the legal authority to marry people has had no impact on the Church's marriage policies.  People can drink beer, shoot heroine, and feeling really good about the ugly person next to them, go get married in a Vegas chapel--legally (most Vegas marriages are based on true love and commitment, creating a good foundation to raise a family).  The Church certainly puts no stock in this kind of marriage when it comes to eternity; only if this couple chooses to do what it takes to earn temple recommends, and then keep their covenants, will this marriage be eternal.  Ted Bundy got married while he was on death row--I highly doubt the Church believes this marriage to be eternal.  From a doctrinal standpoint--the only standpoint that really matters for the Church--this marriage and every other marriage not sanctioned in a temple by God, are completely meaningless after this life.  Sure, these marriages give couples legal rights and recognition, and they can create a stable environment to raise a family, but none of that really matters if it ends at death (the primary argument for temple marriage).  Corrupt governments, priests, casinos, Internet pastors, and all sorts of institutions have performed marriage in various forms for a long time.  Same-sex couples have been allowed to marry in quite a few countries around the world, and what do ya know, those countries haven't disappeared into the sea, and the family unit hasn't fallen apart.  According to studies of these countries, it has actually lessened the promiscuity and disenfranchisement of the gay communities, creating better community relations between gays and their heterosexual neighbors.

I know that was a long first question, but now to my 2nd issue.  It is becoming more and more clear that there is a biological element to sexual attraction--Elder Holland has publicly recognized this.  For anyone that knows someone gay, it doesn't take a lot of effort to realize they aren't consciously choosing to like the same sex.  Most people that are attracted to those of the same gender feel that way from the time they start to recognize feelings of attraction, the same way I started to like girls in 1st grade.  For the homosexual, this is natural; it is all they have known or will know.  There is no "cure" despite claims to the contrary.  Denying the biological nature of sexual attraction is becoming more and more futile, and it won't be long before it will be like denying any other scientifically conclusive fact that used to be in dispute.  Recognizing the biological nature of sexual attraction makes this an issue of civil rights.  If sexual attraction is biologically driven, it really isn't different from skin pigmentation--people don't get a choice in the biology they have.  Irrational fear, bigotry, prejudice--these are the things that drive the marriage debate.  Gay couples aren't going away, and giving them the chance to fit in and be treated as equals won't destabilize my marriage.  

Whether it happens sooner or later, gay marriage will become legal in our country, and gays will become a perfectly normal part of our society.  People can either be ahead of the curve like those that fought for civil rights, or they can look hateful and ignorant, fighting the inevitable.  Proposition 8 is misguided, and the Church's support for it is a mistake.  Hopefully, the Church will recognize a little less belatedly than their previous civil rights battle, and avoid the painful accusations that hindsight could prevent.

McCain Experiencing Amnesia

Even in politics, there are certain "unwritten rules" that are very rarely violated.  These rules are difficult to define, but people seem to know when they've been crossed.  In the 2000 Presidential Election, the Bush campaign crossed the line when they engaged in "push" polling--calling voters and asking questions that have no truth, but planting ideas in people's heads, i.e. "did you know that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child and his wife is a drug addict..." Bush's team did this in South Carolina right before the 2000 primary, leading McCain to decry dirty campaign tactics.  In 2004, the attacks on John Kerry's military service were produced by the Bush team from 2000, now infamously known as "swift-boat" tactics.  At the age of 72, maybe McCain is experiencing some age related memory loss, because he has a political team full of the people that opposed him in 2000, and unsurprisingly, they are running the same type of campaign.  Many political veterans believe McCain's team has run the most negative, truth-distorted campaign in modern political history.  With too many examples to cite them all, I will simply list the most recent "swift-boat" move from the McCain camp.  Starting last Friday, the McCain camp has decided that with time running out, poll numbers getting worse by the day, and a relatively successful history throwing the kitchen sink at the opposition, it is time to flat-out lie about Obama.  Sarah Palin said that Obama "...pals around with terrorists"--referring to Bill Ayers.  Ayers was a founding member of a left-wing group, The Weather Underground, that resorted to using bombs in their campaign to end the Vietnam war.  The Weather Underground bombed the Capitol Building, Pentagon, and Post Office; the bombs were homemade, and while causing damage, they weren't aimed at people.  Obama was 8 around this time, and by the time he met Bill Ayers, Ayers was a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois.  Ayers has been accepted by many boards, schools, and other institutions that respect his educational knowledge--a Ph.D. in Administrative Education--and Palin isn't calling all of these other people and institutions friends of terrorists.  Obama, and many others, have publicly said they disagree with Ayers former tactics, and that is all they can do.  There are no warrants out for Ayers, he has been forgiven by the law, and now he is doing his best to improve society.  Obama has served with Ayers, and many others, on the boards for 2 charity organizations, and when Obama first ran for office, Ayers held a gathering at his home to collect campaign donations for Obama--that was in 1996.  Ayers supports Obama now, but Obama isn't using Ayers in any way to help his campaign.  Opinions legitimately vary when it comes to Ayers and his past, but he is a man that does good today, he has been exonerated by the law, and using the word terrorist invokes far different images.  Palin and McCain are distorting the situation in a way that crosses ethical boundaries, and in doing so, undermining their case for office.  They may be losing, and desperate to mix things up, but they should do this by criticising Obama's policies.  Obama has responded by talking about McCain's efforts to protect deregulation during the Savings and Loan Scandals of the early 80's--something that is far more pertinent considering it is very similar to the economic crisis today.  At the end of the day, McCain will lose, and Obama will have a difficult situation awaiting him when he takes office, but at least he will get there with his dignity intact.  McCain has become everything he has ridiculed in the past, he crossed all sorts of boundaries and lines he used to respect and recognize, and unless he really has amnesia, he is killing his own, well-deserved, good reputation.