New Computer?

So, I’ve been computer shopping for a new computer lately.  My current ol’ jalopy has pretty much had it and I’d like a new, more reliable machine for Boston.  Right now I’m looking at a really nice gateway computer at Best Buy.  The computer has a quad core processor, 6 gigs of ram, and a GeForce 9800 vid card.  Anyone have any experience with best Buy computers?  I’d like a computer with a decent vid card, since I’ll probably want to play Starcraft 2 a bit when it comes out

On that note, has anyone seen the Starcraft 2 website?  The new units look like a LOT of fun.  I can’t wait to run around with a protoss mothership!  My only concern is that Starcraft 2 does not look like it supports the hero model that Blizzard featured in Warcraft 3.  The ability for map designers to have level increasing heroes really helped inspire some great custom maps.  Will Starcraft 2, without the ability to create heroes, have as enjoyable custom map features?  All in all, I kind of hope that it doesn’t, as strange as that sounds: I could use having one less distraction from my Ph.D. work.

 

McCain’s “Secret Plans”

I’m watching McCain’s interview on The Situation Room on CNN right now.  I just had to log in online real fast and say how funny I found McCain’s answer to the question, “What would you do differently to catch Osama.”  McCain’s answer, in short, “it’s a secret.”  Also, “I know the area.  I’ve been there.  I know how to win wars.”  So, McCain, do our current military brass not know how to win wars?  Why didn’t you speak up sooner, Mr. expert?  Why don’t you at least offer some vague plans and not just use national security as a cover-up for your ignorance?  As if you could do anything differently!  Honestly, McCain’s all talk.  Sure, I don’t expect or want specifics: that WOULD give away a plan.  However, that doesn’t mean that vague, or even false plans (I mean, Normandy wouldn’t have worked probably had we not tricked the Germans into thinking that we were going to land in Calais) just to show that you’re going to change something.

Also, moving the Embassy to Jerusalem?  God… can you say saber-rattling?  McCain has the gall to say that Obama is willing to lose a war just to win an election and then goes around saying stupid foreign policy statements that won’t accomplish anything except pissing off Muslims even more.  Or, his stupid comments about kicking Russia out of the G8 powers…  Yes, we need more enemies in the world.

I remember when I was in High School and actually respected McCain.  Now, I feel dirty thinking about that…

 

On a side note:  I hope that Germany commits troops to Afghanistan in light of Obama’s speech.  THAT would really make McCain look like the foreign policy idiot that he is.

 

The War in Iraq Op-Eds

The McCain camp, desperate to stir up some sort of press coverage amidst Obama’s highly advertised trip abroad, is railing against the NY Times’s recent rejection of McCain’s Op-Ed piece on Iraq.  So far, the coverage that I’ve seen on this controversy has been pretty hard on the NY Times.  CNN’s Lou Dobbs (I can barely stand the guy) threw around the conservative’s favorite derogatory label and denounced the Times, in his typical higher-than-thou attitude, for its biased “liberal” coverage.  As if the Times does not have pretty conservative writers such as William Kristol.  Or, David Brooks.  Kristol is a foreign policy adviser for McCain’s campaign, by the way.  

Reading both articles, I have to confess that I agree with the Times’s decision, although I’ll also admit that my seething dislike of McCain probably sours my neutrality on the topic.  McCain’s article offers no new insight into the candidate’s position on Iraq and spends a majority of its word-count criticizing Obama’s similar Op-Ed piece last week.  The Times, which has stated that they will be happy to post an Op-Ed piece by McCain (and has done so at least 6 times, from what I can find), asked McCain to focus more on outlining his own strategies and less on attacking Obama’s position.  The little bit of media I have seen on the issue has spun this as a debate on equal representation for both candidates.  However, when comparing both Op-Ed pieces side by side, the Times’s criticism of McCain seems sound: Obama and his plan is the topical subject of roughly 43 percent of the sentences in McCain’s article, much less than the 11 percent of the sentences in Obama’s article that discuss McCain. 

If McCain is going to claim victim status against the “liberal” media, then he needs to offer an opinion article with more substantive articulations of his policies.  Obama’s Op-Ed came before Obama’s speech on Iraq and offered a lot of new, insightful articulations of his policies towards Iraq and Afghanistan (McCain has even cited Obama’s article to demonstrate Obama’s views).  McCain’s article, however, only reiterates things that McCain has said before and does so with an extra dose of venom.  Obama, while throwing in a few soft punches at McCain, has no statements as unabashedly aggressive as, “Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say.”

Ouch!!  I love the passive-aggressive “perhaps,” by the way.  McCain should at least have the balls to make his statement out-right if he’s going to say something so accusatory.

The press, in all of their fervor about equal representation, has ignored what I believe to be one of McCain’s most grotesque statements yet: “I find it ironic that [Obama] is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.”

The worst mistake?  It doesn’t take a liberal to think of worse mistakes.  I’d start with Katrina.  To be fair, McCain has criticized Bush for his lack of response to Katrina and promised, ”I would have landed my plane at the nearest Air Force base and come over personally.”  Of course, words are easy.  Perhaps McCain, like Bush, decided to party instead.  “Let them eat cake!”

McCain and Bush when Katrina landed on August 29th, 2005. Notice the tarmac and the big, unused Air Force One slightly out of picture.

 

 

McGreedy and Social Security

I had to post a brief response to this article I read on yahoo about the amount of money each year that McCain receives from social security:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080717/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_social_security

 

Frankly, I find it disgusting that a man who earns more than 400k a year and is married to a woman worth 100 million dollars would decide to accept any money whatsoever from social security.  To make McCain’s greed even more gross, McCain hypocritically criticizes the current system because, as it is currently planned, it is running out of money.  Instead of serving as a role model for Americans and demonstrating what they can do to help fix problems in their country (as any good president should do),  McCain has resorted to petty speeches against a problem which he is unwilling to undertake any personal sacrifices to repair.  To be fair, any wealthy American who does not need this money should refuse to accept it so that tax payers are not feeding the bank accounts of wealthy citizens.  McCain, or anyone with a ridiculously large income, should not accept government benefits they clearly do not need. 

Then again, we are also talking about a candidate who brags about his ability to hike the grand canyon even while collecting a 60k per year 100 percent tax exempt pension from the military for his disability.  I respect his service to his country, and the physical sacrifices he has made, but if he is going to brag about being in tip-top health then he should probably not also claim disability.

It is also worthwhile to note that his medical records, released to the AP, listed only the following noteworthy problems (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e791.htm):

• McCain’s prostate is slightly enlarged, typical for a man in his 60s.
• He has seasonal hay fever, for which he uses a nasal spray.
• His only continual medications are daily aspirin therapy, commonly prescribed once men hit their 50s or 60s to prevent heart attacks, and the antioxidant vitamins C and E.
• A colonoscopy in 1995 found a few small, benign polyps, again typical for his age. A repeat exam in 1997 was normal.

That doesn’t sound like someone who is still suffering from a disability.

 

McCain Strikes Every Pose!

I just saw this on the Colbert Report and had to repost it:

 

Really, this combines two of my favorite things: Madonna and making fun of McCain.  Whoever submitted this video to Colbert is brilliant!  For those who do not watch the Colbert Report, it is part of Colbert’s campaign to find ways to make McCain less boring.  I am slightly disturbed though seeing McCain’s head on that dancer’s body… he looks almost….. eeeewww…. sexy…

 

 

Irony: Dobson Accuses Obama of Distorting the Bible

Alright, while I do not plan for my blog to become a series of responses to news articles on yahoo, this one was too good to pass up:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080625/ap_on_el_pr/dobson_obama_8;_ylt=Amoqu8rYv4dOTLub8LsZBaVh24cA

According to the article, Jim Dobson, of Focus on the Family, accused Obama of distorting the bible in a speech that Obama delivered last year.  While I cannot find either Dobson’s comments, or Obama’s speech, I don’t find Dobson’s supposed remarks surprising.  Instead, like the blog that I posted yesterday, I find them to be terribly ironic:

“I think he’s deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology” (Dobson).

This is coming from the face of Focus on the Family, an organization notorious for distorting religious messages and scientific studies to argue against a variety of “liberal” causes: especially homosexuality.   Dobson is just another prejudiced man hiding behind the bible to justify extremist, dangerous views. 

I am tired of hypocritical zealots using the bible as a weapon.  I worry, given the crazy rumors circulating the internet about Obama’s supposedly Muslim beliefs (clearly false– how can you explain the Rev. Wright controversy if he is Muslim?), that this is the first of many swift-boat style attacks against Obama’s Christian beliefs.  I find Obama’s use of religion as a political tool for healing to be refreshing, especially because Obama ties religion into a liberal message of tolerance and acceptance.  Obama threatens to change the fundamentalist political “revolution” that Bush has trumpeted for the last 8 years.  I am sure Dobson, a man who actively campaigns against tolerance, is afraid of people being drawn to Obama’s interpretaton of Christian religion as an accepting, loving theology.    This will be the first of many such groundless attacks, I am certain.

 

 

 

Republicans DO Profit from Terrorism, McCain Cannot Deny It!

According to the AP and Yahoo! News, a top McCain aide is quoted in an upcoming issue of Forbes Magazine saying that another Sept. 11th style attack would “certainly be a big advantage to him [McCain].”  McCain attempted to distance himself from his aide’s comments by highlighting his anti-terrorism record: “”I cannot imagine why he would say it; it’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear.”

McCain, in a common political gesture, evades his aide’s controversial (although I believe true) assertion by shifting the subject of the assertion into a topic which is more beneficial to his candidacy and emphasizes an area where he believes that he is strong: ironically, McCain chose to emphasize his anti-terrorist position. McCain’s statement, taken generously, could at best claim that he is not actively trying to promote terrorist attacks against the US, but does not claim that he would not benefit from an attack, should one happen, in the upcoming election. Although the news article, and McCain, perceive this statement as a serious political faux pas, McCain’s decision to emphasize his anti-terrorism efforts to distance himself from his aide’s comments offers (all too concretely) an acceptance of what I assume to be the aide’s main argument: Republican’s benefit from the public’s fear of terrorism– the more people are afraid, the more people will want to vote republican. McCain couldn’t tout an anti-terrorism campaign without a frightened public. The sad truth of McCain’s attempted denial is that the medial, and hence the public, will accept such a statement as a denial and spin the aide’s comments into an attack against McCain’s anti-terrorism credentials, as opposed to an attack on McCain’s manipulation of the American public’s fear.

As I write this response, I realize that what bothers me the most about this controversy is that the aide’s statement is being read as a radical, outlandish statement. The news article attempts to be objective by not weighing the truth value of the aide’s assertions, but in denying to weigh the truth value benefits McCain and presents these ideas as another instance of political foot-in-mouth disease and not as serious statement worthty of factual consideration. I am worried that the Republicans will, yet again, force themselves into the white house by pandering to our fears. I do not believe that the media, or the public, should let these rare moments of confession– when the republican’s true motives and concerns about terrorist attacks are disclosed– slip into a game of political “pin the belief onto the candidate.” Our media wants blood– just like what it found with the Reverend Wright controversy (another instance where the media tried to pin Wright’s beliefs onto a candidate and did not consider the weight and consequences of the Reverend’s views about US society)– but as a result is too easily manipulated into allowing candidates like McCain to shift an accusation against his manipulative stratagies into an accusation against his anti-terroism stance.

Link to article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mccain_terrorism (I can’t figure out how to hyperlink…)