McCain Taps Lifetime NRA Member for VP, Shoots Self in Foot

John McCain pulled the trigger today and announced his choice for VP on the Republican ticket; Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. Proving that he is still capable of making major mistakes in spite of the recent obvious management of his political campaign by his 'handlers'; the failing McCain of the early primary days is back in force; pulling off a "Cheney" with a quick blast to his own foot.

McCain's has said directly that his primary criteria for his VP choice is their ability to step in and take over the role of President. Is this the best choice he can come up with?
This speaks directly to McCain's judgement when it comes to major decisions. He's impulsive, he's reckless, and he goes off half cocked. This major decision was made on the basis of a single meeting between McCain and Palin. It's a huge gamble. Is this what we can expect from him if he was in the White House? Is he going gamble our country with his reaction to a crisis?

This choice appears to be an obvious pandering to women voters by someone who is completely out of touch with Women's Issues. Somehow in his mind he thinks that a significant number of Hillary Clinton supporters who were not (at least prior to the Democratic Convention) in the Obama camp would rather vote for this "hockey mom" from a small town in Alaska.

Sorry John, but you got it wrong.
The only things working in Palin's favor at the moment, is her likability and that no one knows who she is. Sure, she's smart and well spoken, and may attract those who don't look any further; but what will happen when they look at her stand on the issues? She's as far away from Hillary Clinton as you can get. You don't give Hillary's supporters enough credit.

You might try to position her as being 'against big oil', because she's increased taxes on the oil companies. Read it more as 'sharing the wealth' of big oil then fighting them - Alaska depends on big oil tax payments to subsidize energy and government costs for Alaskans. She's been spending the tax dollars by funneling direct cash payments to her constituents. No wonder she's popular; and Alaskans are in favor of drilling in the ANWR. She's promoted an state economy that is addicted to oil company tax revenue; and bought her popularity with the people. That's the way things have been done in Alaska for a long time. She's hardly a reformer.

She supports expanding oil drilling - in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (yep.. she's to your right John..right there with GWB).

She's against putting Polar Bears on the Endangered Species List - why? because doing so might interfere with the construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline; another cash cow for the state of Alaska.

She's a sceptic on Global Warming (hi there GWB - again!) - in spite of the obvious changes in the state of Alaska.

She's Pro-Life -- (No Exceptions - not even for rape) -- yet.. she approved the hunting of wolves from helicopters, setting a $150 bounty for each killed wolf.

She's a Lifetime NRA member.

She believes in and supports the teaching Creationism in Public Schools. (Ala Pat Buchanan)

As for her political career - (from Wikipedia) Here's a sample of what we know to start:
2 three-year terms as Mayor of Wasilla, AK, a town of under 8,000 (about 1200 votes cast in the election!).

In January 1997, Palin fired the Wasilla police chief and library director. In response, a group of 60 residents calling themselves Concerned Citizens for Wasilla discussed attempting a recall campaign against Palin, but then decided against it. The fired police chief eventually sued Palin on the grounds that he was fired because he supported the campaign of Palin's opponent, but his suit was eventually dismissed when the judge ruled that Palin had the right under state law to fire city employees, even for political reasons.

While Mayor of Wasilla, Palin supported the presidential bid of conservative Pat Buchanan in 1996

As Governor:

Palin initially expressed support for the Gravina Island Bridge project,[21] commonly known outside the state as the "Bridge to Nowhere." However, once it had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending and some Federal funding was lost, Palin cancelled the bridge. She was able to keep the Federal money[22] because Alaska's congressional delegation was unable to prevent the state of Alaska from having to pay for part of the bridge's construction.[23][24] She proposed to send Alaskans $1,200 directly, paid for partially by the money given to the state of Alaska that was to be spent on the "Bridge to Nowhere" .[42]

In 2007, Palin approved a $150 cash incentive for each Alaskan wolf to be killed by hunters in helicopters.[43] The incentive was called a "bounty" for killing wolves by Alaska Wildlife Alliance Director John Toppenberg.[43]

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
Main article: Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
As of August 29, 2008, Palin is being investigated by an independent investigator hired by the Alaska Legislature[51] to determine whether she abused her power when she fired Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan. [52][53]
On July 11, 2008, Palin dismissed Monegan and instead offered him a position as executive director of the state Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which he turned down.[54][55] Her power to fire him is not in dispute. Monegan alleged that his dismissal may have been tied to his reluctance to fire Palin's former brother-in law, an Alaska State Trooper, Mike Wooten, who had been involved in a divorce and child custody battle with Palin's sister, Molly McCann.[56] Governor Palin on the other hand expressed executive concerns regarding her appointed commissioner's performance and cooperation with her staff in pursuing her administration's goals. This investigation is ongoing and results are pending.

Quoting her directly:
"[A]s for that V.P. talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that V.P. slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."

(Nice National perspective there - and so knowledgeable about National Office!)

In May 2008, Palin objected to the decision of Dirk Kempthorne, the Republican United States Secretary of the Interior, to list polar bears as an endangered species. She threatened a lawsuit to stop the listing amid fears that it would hurt oil and gas development in the bears' habitat off Alaska's northern and northwestern coasts. She also called the global warming theory supported by Kempthrone and most scientists "unreliable", and asserted that human activity has not caused Arctic ice to melt.

Wow.. what fodder for the news! McCain has confirmed Obama's criticism of the Republican ticket in dramatic fashion.
McCain must be banking on the short time between now and November 4 will not be enough time for people to really understand the risks of this person sitting next to a 72 year old president who has fought cancer 4 times.

10 Things To Look Forward To At The Democratic National Convention

10 Things To Look Forward To At The Democratic National Convention

Posted using ShareThis

Nuclear Power -The John McCain Energy Plan Fallacy

In June 2008, John McCain proposed his "Lexington Project", a position statement outlining his ideas for a comprehensive energy independence plan.

Along with the over reported talking points on expanded domestic oil and natural gas production on the OCS and lesser proposals for alternative fuels and technology incentives, McCain goes further and makes a major proposal for nuclear energy. What is amazing to me is why his ideas about nuclear energy are not being talked about and critically examined in the press, or by Obama.

Under the heading of "Investing in Clean Alternative Sources of Energy", McCain proposes building 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with an ultimate goal of building 100 new plants. He notes that it critical that they be built using components designed and built domestically.

This key element of his plan is also referenced in his Economic plan, attributing 700,000 new jobs to the nuclear power plant initiative alone.

It all sounds great if you just listen to the sound bites and browse the web site. After all, McCain claims, he served on a nuclear powered ship, and it was perfectly safe. So of course he immediately extrapolates to nuclear power generation, creating a false analogy.

If you look even a little deeper, it quickly becomes apparent that none of this makes any sense; to say it's highly speculative would be giving it too much credit. Of course, these days, candidates can publish pretty much anything they want to without any supporting facts. They just hire operatives to spin it into 'truth'. Republicans must think the public at large is just 'stupid, stupid, stupid' (thank you Forrest Gump). Of course, they take pride in being 'ignorant', so it's no surprise. It seems that the press gets sucked right up into the Republican populist movement; finding 'facts' too boring to give more than a passing glance; focusing more on cheap gimmicks, one-liner political jabs and low blows.

But before I digress further, let me get back to the subject of this article and just give you some 'facts' to consider about Nuclear Power.

How can anyone with some common sense and a little bit of knowledge about nuclear power issues in this country possibly list it under the heading of "Clean Alternative Source of Energy"? Sure, it's Zero-Emission; it had better be! The production of nuclear power, is one of the most ecologically dangerous and 'dirty' methods of generating electricity imaginable. Air pollution and carbon emissions are not the only measures of "clean".

It starts with the mining of raw Uranium ore. The ore must then be processed, or milled, to extract the Uranium. What's left over, Uranium mill tailings, contain radioactive material. They cannot be disposed of, but must be collected, impounded, stored and then monitored in perpetuity. By itself, this is an ecological nightmare, a low level radioactive superfund site that can never be cleaned; only contained. As you can imagine, there is almost no commercial Uranium mining in this country.

Worse yet are the waste products from the nuclear reactor in the form of spent fuel rods. The spent fuel rods remain highly radioactive for many millennia (that's right.. 1,000's of years). They are extremely dangerous to manage and store, emitting about 20 times the human lethal dose of radiation each HOUR. There is currently NO permanent storage facility in the US for the storage of High Level Nuclear Waste. In 1982, Congress acted to create a national storage facility. In the 26 years since that time, progress towards creating this facility has dwindled down to one site 'Yucca Mountain, Nevada'. Highly controversial, the NRC has not yet received a license application from the DOE, the agency responsible for constructing and operating the site.

While debate goes on about the viability of this site over the clear objections of the people and government of the state of Nevada, nuclear waste continues to be collected and stored at or near the existing nuclear power plants, creating local risks and security issues.

McCain, in a speech at the end of May in Las Vegas, states "We may not need Yucca". In what appears to be a clear pandering effort to get votes in Nevada, he proposes some vague idea of an "International Repository", which even based on statements by his own staff, is clearly a pipe dream. By their own admission, the only place in the world this could be built would be Siberia! How he could be so presumptuous as to suggest that some other country would want or be willing to store our nuclear waste is beyond comprehension. It is incongruous to propose doubling the number of nuclear power plants in this country while at the same time suggesting that we don't need a permanent storage facility to handle the waste. Clearly, these are creative fantasies and platitudes, none based on any reasonable set of facts.

Storing nuclear waste is dangerous enough, but transporting it is a disaster waiting to happen. Even the smallest accident would create an ecological catastrophe. A major debate that has been sidelined by the lack of a centralized storage facility; transportation of nuclear waste will be a major impediment to any expansion of nuclear power generating facilities. There are no safe methods of transporting the highly radioactive spent fuel rods. To find a way to transport it to Yucca Mountain will be a huge challenge. No one wants to be along the route, and the route must be highly secure. For McCain to suggest that waste be transported through our highly populated port cities, and then half way around the world to Siberia or some other foreign destination, paid for, and secured by the lowest bidder to a government contract is beyond belief. Yet, he is on the record as suggesting this plan.

This month, in a speech at a nuclear power plant, McCain suggested reprocessing the waste. Another platitude, which flies in the face of his previous suggestion about storing the waste. Reprocessing nuclear fuel rods extracts the remaining Uranium and also extracts Plutonium; which can be used for weapons. It still leaves the problem of storing the remaining waste, and creates the new problem of storing and securing the Plutonium. Nuclear power reactors don't currently use Plutonium, and making new weapons would violate numerous international treaties.

Now, after reading this far, if you are still thinking that those issues could be worked out, consider these additional facts:

There hasn't been a single license application filed for a nuclear power plant in this country in over 2 Decades; primarily due to the problems outlined above. The last plant was completed in the early 80's.

The license process takes 4 years, after which construction could easily take an additional 4 years. It's a 10 year proposition for power to actually be generated. If there was any economic sense to building a nuclear power plant, someone would have at least applied over the last 20 years. Now McCain expects 45 licenses over the next 20 years? Not likely; and if the DOE were to do it, even less likely!

The latest technology is in Europe. Building a plant here with strictly domestic engineering and construction isn't realistic. The industry simply doesn't exist here anymore. Not only does McCain expect to build these plants at lightning speed, he expects to re-create an industry overnight.

There is almost no commercial uranium mining in this country. Basically, all of the uranium used to generate power in this country is IMPORTED, so we would be trading dependence on foreign oil to dependence on foreign uranium. The price of Uranium has gone up by a factor of 10 between 2002 and 2007 (from the $9 /lb range to the $90 range). The environmental issues with mining Uranium in the US make it impractical, especially if you expect to double the demand.

There are NO commercial reprocessing facilities in the US. Government operated reprocessing facilities are used for research and the production of plutonium. Considering 'reprocessing' of spent fuel rods, would increase the number of nuclear sites, and create only more issues and increased costs. There is no practical value for energy production purposes.

Where would you put 45 new plants? No one wants them in their backyard, even if they are 'safe'. Even if there hasn't been a 'leak', plants have been shut down due to failures. Finding acceptable locations to build conventional power plants is hard enough. With the transportation, security, and potential ecological and safety issues, nuclear plants are orders of magnitude more problematic.

The public deserves to have McCain's proposals and policy positions brought into the realm of public debate and critical review. This is what you can expect from a McCain administration. These statements and proposals speak to the credibility of the candidate that proposes them. The issue is not whether the proposed nuclear power plants would be built; it's clear they would not. What is at issue is whether a candidate that proposes such unrealistic campaign fodder deserves your vote.

I'm becoming a fan

What can I say, Funny or Die is a great site.
Here's one I couldn't resist:

The new Republican slogan "A change you Deserve" is stolen from the makers of Effexor,a anti-depressant. Something we will all need if McCain gets elected. I guess the slogan is true enough...

Anyway... check out this video; the disclaimers are great!

See more Adam "Ghost Panther" McKay videos at Funny or Die

I think I'll buy stock in Wyeth; the makers of Effexor!

I just had to laugh -

I have to laugh… direct from the John McCain website, his Energy Plan includes changing light bulbs. I guess, by the standard he applies to Obama, changing light bulbs is the McCain Energy Plan.

"American Homes: Homeowners can save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year with better light bulbs, appliances, windows, and insulation."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Issues/JobsforAmerica/energy.htm

Did you notice, like I did, that his Energy plan is listed as “Jobs for America”? More on that later, but first... save Thousands with light bulbs, appliances, windows and insulation?
I’d like to see the calculations on that! It sounds a bit ‘enthusiastic’ and certainly isn’t backed with any facts on his site. I can vouch from personal experience that you won’t save thousands by changing out your light bulbs for CFLs. It’s a good idea, and one that I’ve done (see my previous posts), and think we all should do, but let’s get real on the individual families actual expected savings and investment costs.

Light Bulbs and Tire Pressure Gauges.. KISS at work!

What strikes me most is that somehow he thinks that Nuclear Power is “Clean” energy. Does he think its “Clean” because it’s a ‘zero-emission’ technology (to quote his site)? I certainly hope its zero emission, but what about the Nuclear Waste? Even if you consider a strategy to reclaim some of the waste, the remainder is so toxic, so radioactive, and so potentially dangerous, that handling the waste coming from the existing 100 or so reactors in the US is already an unsolved major problem. John McCain’s own state doesn’t want nuclear waste stored there, and transporting waste through any populated area, or between states is almost impossible. He completely ignores the issue of what to do with all the waste. Remember, nuclear waste will be with us for generations.

The fallacy of this cornerstone of the McCain Energy Plan is that for reasons that are obvious to anyone in the energy business, not a single application to build a nuclear power plant has been received by the NRC or DOE in the past 2 decades. In spite of this glaring fact, McCain seems to think that he can wave a magic wand and just because he says so, utility companies and related construction industries will build 42 new nuclear power plants by 2030 (in the next 2 decades). Obviously, if there was some logical economic sense to building a new nuclear power plant in this country, someone would have applied to do it sometime in recent history. To top it all off, McCain would insist that the plants be built using only American companies and labor (notice that his energy plan is actually listed under “Jobs for America” on his website - see link above), yet the latest technology for doing so exists outside the US, being that the construction industry hasn’t built a plant here since the ‘70s.

This really is a ‘Jobs’ program as the web page header says. It’s a boondoggle for the Industrial complex, (the Military has it's own boondoggles), not a realistic energy plan. You won’t see a single watt of electric power from this plan for at least the next decade. Similarly, even if McCain wants to start drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf today as he states in his latest speech, realistically... oil production from such an undertaking is also between 5 and 10 years away.

For now, I guess we will all just have to inflate our tires and change out our light bulbs. At least, it will have an effect NOW. As simple proof, the decline of fuel prices. People have stopped extra driving when gas went to $4.50/gal., and the drop in demand is having it's effect!

On the other side of the political fence, I sent my 2 cents in to Obama's web site, and I suppose a few thousand others have as well. Maybe, as a result, today you see him taking a stand and pushing back the Republican's ridicule.

Obama fights back and defends his statement that when asked what an individual can do, that tire inflation is both a viable and serious response:




OK. I had to post this link.
Please send your complaints to McCain; he opened the door for this.
Sure she's got holes in her arguements:
Are you sure Maui is the best place for you to tan?
I have to say it's scary when she sounds better than McCain on the energy issue.

Paris Hilton chimes in with her response.. TYVM Syd, it's all your fault!

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

KISS - More Ideas

KISS works. Keep it Simple, Stupid !

The way to accomplish huge changes is to ask millions to each make a very small change that they can easily manage. It can work for the environment, it can work for our economy, it can feed the hungry and help the poor.

What are some KISS ideas that can accomplish HUGE changes, by asking many to make a small, seemingly insignificant change. A change we can all live with?

What are some of your ideas?


Some ideas of mine:

I've changed out my light bulbs for those twisty CFLs. They save huge amounts of power, and last for years and years. You can buy them cheap on e-bay or find them subsidized by your local power company. I'm working on the the reflector bulbs on my recessed lighting next. Now, my net power savings doesn't amount to much; probably just a few dollars each month, but apply the power of numbers. In California alone, millions and millions of light bulbs that use 15 watts instead of 75, saving 60 watts/bulb/hour.. saving multi-megawatts of power every single day. Amazing.

Start a piggy bank.. and just collect pennies and nickels. You won't notice the difference.. and when the bank is full, donate it to a worthy cause. It's only a few dollars, over an extended period of time, but if we can get Millions of People to do the same thing, we can solve the problems of hunger and homelessness on our own streets.

KISS - Tire Gauge Woes

Barack Obama's "Keep you tires inflated and cars tuned up" approach to cutting gas consumption in this country has been fodder for John McCain and Republican mud slinging for the last few days. The press seems to be joining in, making light of his KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) suggestion; but wait a minute!!

The TRUTH is that experts have proven you can easily save 3 to 5% on gas consumption by inflating your tires to maximum pressure, keeping your car tuned and air filters clean. This is not a 'new' Obama idea, it's one experts have been suggesting for quite awhile.

My personal experience and perspective on this idea:

I Inflated my tires so that when hot, they are 2 lbs under the tire's rated max pressure on my 4WD Jeep Grand Cherokee. I saw my gas mileage increase about .6 mpg (I was getting 16.3, now getting 16.9)or about 3.5%. Not a big deal.. hardly noticeable? Well, a 20 gallon tank of gas in California cost about $85 last week, so my 3.5% translates into $2.98 per tank, and I fill up about once per week. That's about $150 per year. Still not a big deal? OK.. maybe not, but it didn't 'cost' anything, it just saved. Plus, I have the added benefit of reducing my carbon footprint and it's a change I can easily live with.

Look at it from a business perspective.. the ROI on the tire pressure gauge (cost me ONE dollar) was about 2 days. The annualized ROI is 15,000%.

Let's compare it to what the government's tax rebate check was worth. About 25% of the $600 rebate right? But this didn't cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. And next year it'll save me another $150 (assuming gas prices don't go up).

But it's only $150.. and 1 car.. WRONG!! The power is in the numbers... there are MILLIONS of cars.

Obama's simple statement would save the US more oil than the proposed expanded offshore drilling leases would produce, and it would save it NOW.. not over the next 20 years, which is what it would take to see the effects of offshore oil drilling (if they would even drill) and the 1% of current consumption it would supply.

Besides, the press (including even CNN) blatantly ignores the fact that Big Oil has existing leases that they are NOT drilling on right now. Big Oil hardly needs another giveaway by the government in the form of new offshore oil leases.

But why exactly are the oil companies are not drilling on their existing leases? I suggest to you a theory: They gain huge windfalls in the value of their 'reserves' (oil leaseholds not in production or drilled), and make more net dollars per share profit for themselves and their stockholders by keeping the price of oil high. Expanding production to drop the price of oil back to $60 a barrel would cause a dramatic 'loss' on the oil companies' books in the estimated value of their leaseholds. They are playing a balancing act with our economy and demand for oil, keeping the prices as high as they can without completely killing the economy, while the working Americans suffer the cost.

More important, and significant, is to remember that what we are dealing with here is the power of numbers. A very small change multiplied by a very very large number of 'changers'. Look at it from a national standpoint - multiply $150 by the many millions of cars and trucks on the road.. Yikes!! Quickly the impact of a small individual change means many hundreds of millions of dollars a year to the economy.

This is no 'Joke' .. and I don't think Obama ever meant it as such. It is a very serious, and realistic suggestion. Instead of backing away from it, Obama should stand up and defend his suggestion with facts. I intend to suggest to Obama's campaign that they send a 'free' tire pressure gauge to every one of their millions of donors on request. What, you already have a tire pressure gauge? Give it to your Republican friend and explain how to use it! Maybe CNN AC360 - (Keeping them Honest) should do the same (or beat him to the punch!) Single handedly, that KISS suggestion can do more to reduce the US demand for foreign oil RIGHT NOW than any legislation by Congress could ever do.

McCain doesn't even have a plan! He should be agreeing with Obama, not ridiculing him. He shows how ignorant of the simple facts he really is. This should expose McCain and the Republican political machine for what it is.. a front for Big Oil and Corporate profits; but instead all we hear is McCain's ignorant stuffy one liner 'we can't solve .... by inflating our tires'. Ironically, we can move an long way in that direction by doing just that simple thing. All we need is an honest press to spread the word; one more interested in what's good for the people, than political headlines and 'one liners'.

The point is that both McCain and the Republican negative campain strategy is ignorant and just WRONG!! They attempt to sway other ignorant voters by trying to discredit Obama, instead of acknowledging a good idea and suggesting even more ways that people can save. Obama didn't think of this.. he's just willing to take good ideas and promote them when it makes sense for the people.