Tag Archive for 'politics'

Swimming Against the Stream

“The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it.” - Woodrow Wilson

That’s how I feel in politics…

Yes, We Can.

In the past on this blog, I’ve supported Ron Paul for President and Chris Dodd for fighting the FISA immunity bill. Throughout both, I’ve always realized that there was something uplifting and inspiring about Barack Obama, but have been unable to put my finger on it.

Thanks to Nick Harris of NewsGator’s Inbox product, I no longer have to wonder:

After you’ve enjoyed the motivating musical adaptation, I encourage you to watch the entire speech, given by Obama after the New Hampshire primaries: Yes, We Can.. The really good stuff starts at around 9:45…

While others constantly demonstrate how wrong our country is and point out the seemingly endless list of things that are broken in our society, Obama has spoken positively of the great things America has accomplished and that it has yet to accomplish. You don’t have to like all of his positions — when was the last time there was a candidate you did? — but how can you deny that this man has our best interests at heart after watching that moving presentation?

While I still think Ron Paul would make an amazing President, it’s clear he’s not going to win this election. Faced with the prospect of a McCain or a Hillary Clinton term, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Barack Obama represents our best hope for changing the negative path we’ve been on for far too long. So with pride I say: Obama for President!

Yes, we can!

Support Chris Dodd’s Filibuster of the FISA Bill!

Just say no to retroactive immunity for the telcos that have violated our rights for the Bush administration, support Senator Dodd’s Filibuster of the FISA bill!

Who is your Political Candidate?

Take the quiz: Glassbooth

As expected, Ron Paul was my #1 candidate, followed by Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich.

When I first saw the link on Shep’s blog, I figured it would be another stupid 3-question quiz that spit out a semi-relevant answer, but I was pleasantly surprised to see it was very well organized and spot-on with my results at least.

While I highly recommend you check out Ron Paul’s position on the issues1, at the very least you should go into this election with an informed opinion, regardless of the candidate you choose.

Remember, primaries are coming up in under a month, so time is running out!

  1. I really think that if you objectively look at reality, you’ll find he’s the best possible candidate [back]

Prostates, Prejudices and Hypocrasy

So I was recently linked to Paul Krugman’s opinion piece from the NYTimes entitled Prostates and Prejudices and I just can’t ignore it… I mean, you guys actually pay this man to put out hypocritical crap like this? Wow… I need to go to work for the NYTimes.

The third paragraph is where we really start to hit Rudy Giuliani hard:

Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels - bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

So a politician didn’t get his facts right or took something out of context to further his own point? Well, that’s not exactly news, but alright, let’s hear what you’ve got to say…

Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates - the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.

Wrong you say? Ok, I can believe that. I mean, who’s ever heard of this City Journal and why would we believe a conservative Manhattan Institute anyway? Carry on…

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

Wa… Wait a minute. So you’re saying the survival rate in England is actually 74.4% but that it’s actually the same as the claimed 82% survival rate in the United States? I’m not sure my high school Algebra teacher would agree with you on that one, Mr. Krugman.

Oh, by the way, where did you get your claim of 74.4%? Forget to cite a source, did we? And how exactly does 74.4% end up equaling 82%? Oh, right, just take your word for it…

So that’s bogus numbers1? Check. Invalid comparison2? Check. Smear campaign against Giuliani3? Check.

Hey, I hate the man just as much as the 9/11 next 9/11 guy4, but come on. If you’re going to call the pot black, at least make sure you’re not the kettle first.

  1. Unless you can cite me a more reliable source than the City Journal. [back]
  2. Unless in the universe in which the NYTimes resides 74.4 does in fact equal 82. [back]
  3. Unless somehow this is supposed to be flattering to your former El Presidente. [back]
  4. 9/11… [back]