TheTruth about Taxes

Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin have been saying that Obama Barack wants to raise taxes for average Americans. It appears they're lying again. The Washington Post ran this graphic (click to enlarge) showing what would happen under each candidate's plan.

Note that substantial tax increases do not kick in under Obama's plan until you get into the 600K range, which shouldn't affect a large number of schoolteachers (unless those charters are really paying better than I thought).

Note that Mr. McCain's largest tax breaks are for those who least need them, while Obama's are targeted toward those who need them most. Mr. McCain, who voted 19 times against minimum wage increases, does not seem to think people living hand to mouth need his help at all.

This is a good thing, because Mr. McCain is highly unlikely to help working people in any way whatsoever. It looks like Obama may offer us a little break, and it's high time we got one.

Which plan looks better to you?

Update: If you make over 200K, don't rejoice over McCain's plan just yet--he wants to tax your health benefits.

When They Say Ms. Palin Went to Iraq...

...what they mean is Ms. Palin did not go to Iraq.

Unraveling The Myth Of The "Straight Talk Express"

MSNBC's First Read notes the flurry of news coverage over the past few days detailing John McCain's lies and distortions.

The NY Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, Bloomberg News and the Politico all issued stories yesterday exploring the McCain campaign's emphasis on "truthiness" over "straight talk" these past two months.

The Politico sums it up this way:

McCain’s tactics are drawing the scorn of many in the media and organizations tasked with fact-checking the truthfulness of campaigns. In recent weeks, Team McCain has been described as dishonorable, disingenuous and downright cynical.

A series of ads — including accusations that Barack Obama backed teaching sex education to Illinois kindergartners and charges that Obama called Sarah Palin a lipstick-wearing pig — have provoked a cascade of criticism of McCain’s tactics.

The furor presents a breathtaking contrast to McCain’s image as a kind of anti-politician who plays fair, disdains politics as usual and has never forgotten how his 2000 presidential campaign was incinerated by a series of loathsome dirty tricks in the South Carolina primary.

...

McCain seems to have made a choice that many politicians succumb to but that he had always promised to avoid — he appears ready to do whatever it takes to win, even it if soils his reputation.

“We recognize it’s not going to be 2000 again,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said, alluding to the media’s swooning coverage of McCain’s ill-fated crusade against then-Gov. George W. Bush and the GOP establishment. “But he lost then. We’re running a campaign to win. And we’re not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it.”

They're running a campaign to win, they're willing to do and say anything to get there and they don't care what anybody thinks about it.

Great - just what you want in a president and his team - a lack of principle but a ton of cynical expediency.

Quote of the Day

"I’ve been in Alaska only a week, but I’m already feeling ever so much smarter about Russia."

-Maureen Dowd

Mr. McCain Lies Again

Planned Parenthood is running an ad to counter McCain's lie about a bill Obama supported. Even people who believe our wives, our sisters and daughters should be forced by the government to endure pregnancies caused by rape or incest might think young children ought to be able to protect themselves from abuse. This might even entail telling them what to watch out for.

Perhaps Mr. McCain didn''t lie. Maybe child abuse doesn't worry him. Perhaps he thinks we ought to simply ignore the problem and hope for the best. Maybe he doesn't actually know what's going on, and blindly accepts whatever his Rovian staff coughs up. None of these scenarios, however, argue for his fitness as President of the United States.

And whatever the explanation, Mr. McCain personally approved the lie in his ad.

Here's its counter, by the way:

Pathological (Continued)

The lies continue unabated from the McCain/Palin campaign. Here's the latest rundown:

John McCain stated yesterday on The View that Governor Sarah Palin, his choice for vice president, has never accepted any federal funds earmarked for pork projects for either her city or state.

Here is a list of the earmark funds Governor Palin has sought and received so far for fiscal year 2008 alone - $155 million dollars. For fiscal year 2009 Palin has requested funds for 52 earmarks that add up to $256 million.

Even when hit with the evidence to show she has actively sought and received earmark funds for pork barrel projects for her state, Palin herself continues to insist that she has not. According to USA Today, she also continues to rail against

"the abuse of earmarks," saying it is "un-American" and "undemocratic" and vowing the practice will stop under a McCain-Palin administration.

In addition to her continued lying about earmarks, Governor Palin was found to have lied about her claim that she visited Iraq :

WASILLA, Alaska -- Aides to Gov. Sarah Palin are scrambling to explain details of her only trip outside North America -- which, according to a new report, did not include Iraq, as the McCain-Palin campaign had initially claimed.

Palin made an official visit to see Alaskan troops in Kuwait in July of 2007. There, she made a stop at a border crossing with Iraq, but did not actually visit the country, according to a new report in the Boston Globe.

Earlier, McCain aides had said that Palin visited Iraq, and expressed indignation at questions about her slim foreign travel.

The campaign also said she had been to Ireland; that turned out to have been a refueling stop.

In other lying news, Bloomberg reports that the McCain campaign has been lying about crowd estimates at campaign stops and McClatchy News reports that the McCain campaign has released a deceptive ad for Spanish TV that claims Senator Obama killed immigration reform when both McCain and Obama voted the same side on the issue.

The Obama campaign has responded to the Palin/McCain pattern of lies with the following statement:

"The McCain campaign said Governor Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere, but now we know she supported it. They said she didn't seek earmarks, but now we know she hired a lobbyist to get millions in pork for her town and her state. They said she visited Iraq, but today we learned that she only stopped at the border. Americans are starting to wonder, is there anything the McCain campaign isn't lying about?"

Andrew Sullivan focuses on the lie John McCain himself issued on The View yesterday about Governor Palin and earmarks and writes:

It has now been a day since McCain lied this explicitly in public. And he hasn't yet retracted his lie. This AP piece is dated as of this afternoon. Why not?

Because if he has to retract this lie, he will have to retract his multiple other lies? While the media demands that Obama respond to things he never said and never meant, McCain is not even asked to retract a bald-faced, massive, obvious, refutable lie.

In the last month, McCain has become the biggest liar in the modern history of presidential politics. He makes Bill Clinton look like George Washington.

Indeed.

John McCain and Sarah Palin - pathological liars who just can't help themselves.

Maybe it's time for the press to stop being so polite and just call them what they are?

When John McCain and Sarah Palin make s&*t up, they're not engaging in "distortions," MSMers - they're telling "lies."

And the people telling 'em are, all together now - "liars."

UPDATE: The NY Times has an article in tomorrow's edition that describes Sarah Palin's governing style this way:

An examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

...

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that it would cost $468,784 to process his request.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

Just what we need after eight years of George Bush and Dick Cheney - an incompetent, vindictive evangelical with a penchant for secrecy, cronyism and placing loyalty above merit when making appointments.

Wanna elect the woman who hired her high school pal for a position at the top of the State Division of Agriculture because she had a "childhood love of cows"?

Then vote McCain/Palin.

Mr. McCain's First Change

A lot of people, naturally, are skeptical of John McCain's newfound mantra that he'll change the way things are done in Washington. After all, while it's true he once opposed Bush's tax cuts for those who least need them, he now wants to make them permanent. And while he publicly distances himself from GW, he endorses his ruinous foreign and economic policies.

Certainly there's no denying his campaign consists of the same smears, lies, and distortions that helped bring us eight years of Bush/ Cheney (even if Mr. McCain's lies are more easily disproved).

Still, this cycle will be different, particularly in respect to the traditional rigging of the votes. I mean, you can't just wait around for elderly Jewish women to vote for Pat Buchanan, and he's not even on the ballot this year. Worse, Ohio now seems to have a Democratic governor, and it's going to be tougher to make those Democrats stand 10 hours in the rain. In fact, even though fundamentalists prayed it would rain on Obama's nomination, not even that worked out this year.

But Mr. McCain has a plan. He's printed voter registration forms with an unnecessary extra box to fill out stating the applicant is a qualified voter. And guess what? If that box is not checked, as was the case on one-third of the forms, the applicants are declared ineligible to vote.

It appears that Ohio may have to notify those who've been disqualified, but I gotta wonder--since they applied for absentee ballots, doesn't that mean there's a good chance they won't be home? In any case, there are certainly new and innovative changes coming from Senator McCain, and I suppose we'll have to give credit where credit is due.

Update: The GOP in Michigan knows that people who lose homes are probably not fans of this economy. So they're making sure newly homeless Americans can't vote.

UN Too Dangerous for Schoolchildren

But not for diplomats, apparently. Fortunately, massive overcrowding, the highest class sizes in the state, dilapidated trailers and vermin-infested cafeterias and buildings are still no prob in Mayor Bloomberg's New York.

You Say You Need to Buy the NY Mets Dugout?

Here's your chance.

Quote of the Day

It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.

-John McCain

Pathological

Via Andrew Sullivan, here is a montage of the lies McCain and his campaign apparatus have spewed against Senator Obama:



But McCain isn't just lying about Senator Obama - he's also lying about his VP pick, Sarah Palin. Today on The View, for instance:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Friday running mate Sarah Palin has never asked for money for lawmakers' pet projects as Alaska governor when in fact she has sought nearly $200 million in earmarks this year.

The Arizona senator said the GOP vice presidential nominee would be good for the country because she would reform government, and specifically cited curbing federal spending for earmarks.

When pressed about Palin's record of requesting and accepting such money for Alaska, McCain ignored the record and said: "Not as governor she didn't."

Jake Tapper of ABC News lists the $200 million in earmarks she has sought and writes the following:

Will you please stop telling the American people that she never asked for or received any pork barrel projects?

Andrew Sullivan wonders if McCain is deliberately and knowingly lying or hasn't been briefed by his staff and is repeating what he thinks is truth.

But today on The View, Joy Behar and Barbara Walters confronted McCain with some of the lies he and his minions have spewed in the past few weeks (the lipstick on a pig lie and the Obama wants to teach sex ed to kids lie) and McCain didn't blink as he said that his accusations are not lies and regardless this is a tough campaign so, you know, what can you do...

Watch the tape of this. You can see it in his eyes as he defends himself - he knows he's full of s&*t but he doesn't care. He just wants to win, truth and honor be damned.

What a disgusting, dishonest, dishonorable piece of pathology Senator McCain is. Whatever it takes to win, that's all he is about. McCain First/Party Second - Country Last. That's Senator's McCain's campaign theme.

It is time for the mainstream media to tell the truth about McCain - he is a pathological liar and his campaign is the most dishonest in history.

And given the Bush/Cheney 2000 and 2004 campaigns, that's saying something.

Dishonest and Dishonorable

John Harwood of the NY Times on CNBC a few moments ago: Some of the charges McCain has thrown against Obama in this campaign have been "shockingly dishonest."

Jake Tapper of ABC News about charges McCain has made against Obama: "Not fair and not accurate."

Andrew Sullivan on John McCain: "Dishonest and dishonorable."

With his inability to tell the truth and his willingness to say and do almost anything to win the White House, Senator McCain's going to make one heckuva preznut.

His slogan ought to be: McCain First/Party Second - Country Last.

The Power of Books

We're covering an English Regents Exam from 2006 in my class. It's a listening passage from an author named Gary Paulsen, who maintains that books saved his life. The students must compose an essay on the power of books, supposedly to deliver as an address to their local library.

One of my students opened his essay with the immortal line, "Books can be very powerful, even though they are boring."

I looked at the kid's Iron Maiden t-shirt, and asked him what he thought would happen to me if I went to one of their concerts, got up on stage and called the band boring. Did he think people who went to libraries might feel the same way about books?

That didn't work. Then I asked him if he wanted to write an essay showing how books saved Paulsen's life even though they were boring. I told him that would be a pretty tough argument to make, but I'd read it if he wanted to write it. I'm pretty sure he erased the line after that, but I won't find out for sure until I see him again.

Several other of my students took exception to Paulsen's account--that he walked out on his job and family to pursue a writing career.

"He's retarded," declared a young lady in the corner.

This proved a popular sentiment, and much discussion was devoted to the apparent deficiencies in Mr. Paulsen's judgment. I suggested that smart people did not always do smart or nice things, but the kids were having none of it.

"How could he do that?" asked another kid.

The consensus was that he was wrong to do that. I tried again to convince the kids that even if he did the wrong thing, it didn't mean he was retarded. Whether or not I was successful, no one left that classroom thinking he was much of a role model.

On the other hand, the story may have been edited so full of holes that it barely resembled the original. After all, it was presented by the same government that thinks kids who've had little or no time to learn English need to pass this writing test.

McCain Blanks Pigs

Back during the 2000 primary season, then Texas governor George W. Bush ran one of the sleaziest political campaigns ever against his GOP opponent, Senator John McCain.

Bush, employing venomous scum like Karl Rove, Tucker Eschew and Dan Bartlett, threw everything but child molestation charges at McCain after the Arizona senator won the New Hampshire primary by a whopping 19 points and put George W's GOP nomination/coronation in jeopardy.

During the lead-up to the next primary in South Carolina, Bush surrogates spread rumors that McCain, a Vietnam War POW who had spent 5 and 1/2 years in a prison camp, was a "Manchurian Candidate" who had been brainwashed by the North Vietnamese Communists and would betray the country once elected. They spread other rumors through push-pollers that McCain's adopted Bangladeshi born daughter was his "illegitimate black child." They called McCain the "fag candidate." When McCain fought back and accused George W. Bush of smearing and "twisting the truth like Clinton," the Bush people retaliated by saying that McCain had "gone negative" and couldn't be trusted to be president.

The smears and rumors worked - McCain lost, Bush went on to win the GOP nomination, steal the White House away from Al Gore and run the country into two (unfinished and unpaid for) wars and near bankruptcy all the while ignoring warnings about domestic terrorist attacks upon the nation (see August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing) and environmental crises like Hurricane Katrina.

After McCain lost the bitter 2000 race to Bush, he declared there was a "special place in hell" for the Bush people who ran smear campaign. When he began running for president in 2008, he said he would run a "respectful campaign" and wouldn't engage in negative campaigning or smears against his opponents.

But then he fell behind in the polls and he decided to hire many of the very same Bush/Cheney 2000 people who ran the smear campaign against him to run one against his opponent, Senator Barack Obama.

Since then all we have gotten out of the McCain campaign is smears, distortions, and out and out lies about Senator Obama.

McCain has declared that Senator Obama would rather "lose a war than lose a campaign," has run ads comparing Obama to empty-headed celebrities like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, has claimed Obama called McCain's VP running mate Sarah Palin "a pig," and started running another ad claiming Senator Obama wants to teach 5 years old about sex before they can read.

Heckuva way to run a "respectful campaign," eh?

Senator Obama has so far tried to take the high road and continue to campaign on issues. Unfortunately the smears and negative attacks by the McCain campaign and its various surrogates and evil minions has worked - Obama, once leading by as much as 5 points in the national polls, now trails by as much as 5 points in those same polls.

That's as much as a 10 point turnaround - no wonder Senator McCain and his Bushies are smirking so much these days. In a year when unemployment stands at 6.1%, the federal government is bailing out Bear Sterns, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and perhaps Lehman Brothers all the while hundreds of thousands of Americans lose their homes to foreclosure, inflation has driven oil and gas to all-time highs, food and other commodities continue to soar, and personal bankruptcies climb, the incumbent Grand Old Party is ahead in the race for the White House.

That's a heckuva job by these guys in the Republican Party. They can't govern, they can't win wars, they can't handle hurricane relief or figure out how to regulate the financial markets so that taxpayers don't have to bail out crony capitalists to the tune of a trillion dollars, but they sure can lie, cheat, smear and steal elections.

I fear Senator Obama, an honorable man as much as John McCain is a dishonorable one, will not fight back properly and fight fire with fire.

So let me start for him:

I just read over at %^&*#@.blogspot.com that Senator McCain blanks pigs.

You heard that right - McCain's a pigblanker, he likes to take those pigs into the mud and get down and dirty with 'em.

In fact, there's nothing like the sight of a naked pig to get the 72 year old's ancient motor revving. He may be decrepit, he may have one foot in the grave, but he sure still likes blanking pigs. Sometimes twice a night.

You don't believe me? Just look at the company he keeps.

I know, I know - calling McCain a pigblanker is silly right?

Yet, it's smears as silly and as stupid as the one I just wrote above that the McCain people have been spreading about Obama and the news media have been helping to disperse.

Somehow the Jim Lehrers and Gwen Ifills of the world just don't think it's their job to tell you when a campaign is engaging in a coordinating campaign of lies and smears.

So they report the lies like they're "news" and people start believing them.

And the liars win.

McCain wins.

The rest of us, those who want to see a campaign of substantive issues and intelligent discourse, lose.

Given the ease with which these pigblankers sleaze things up every four years and win, I am starting to think that maybe democracy as a viable form of government has run its course.

Maybe it's time to time to let the pigs run everything.

As we know from Orwell, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

But when it comes to out and out sleaze, dirt and venom, nobody is equal to the Bush/Rove/McCain people.

Daunting Tuition Fees?

Why not auction your virginity?

Check Out Our Friend...

...Christine Gralow, who will be blogging for the NY Times. Don't forget us little folks, Christine.

Craig Ferguson on Election 08

Thanks to Schoolgal

The Carnival Is in Town...

...more specifically, at the Core Knowledge Blog.

Quote of the Day

"Anybody who believes that the Republicans, whoever they are, can fix the mess they created probably believes that the iceberg could have saved the Titanic."

Hillary Clinton

3 Runaway Trains--A Message from John Powers

THEIR TARGET: The Citizens of New York

DON’T BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE BACKS OF NEW YORKERS

Last month I attended an MTA “Capital Improvements Budget Hearing.” In light of Governor Paterson’s initial budget cuts announcement, his willingness to consider privatizing parts of New York State’s infrastructure (highways and bridges) and an increasing awareness on my part that the issue of whether Finance will control Government, or Government will control Finance may not be able to be avoided any longer, I thought it would be a good idea to start attending hearings of this sort. It may help to create worker and family solidarity and can potentially highlight issues that don’t necessarily make it into mainstream media outlets.

My immediate goal in attending this meeting was to “sneak” a discussion of the GHI and HIP proposal to privatize our health plans into the MTA’s public record and emphasize that the MTA should have a vested interest in this proposal because it will cost them money. What follows is the text of my speech.

[Please note that I am no longer an active member of the Coalition Against Privatization and that I was given three minutes and was buzzed with a red light three times before leaving the podium…therefore I paraphrased a bit at the end of my actual testimony]

*************************************************************

Good Afternoon,

My name is John Powers and I am a teacher by trade. I am also a United Federation of Teachers’ Chapter Leader and a founding member of the Coalition Against Privatization.

What I have learned in a short span of time (my activist work began only ten months ago) is that too often it is the everyday citizen who finds him/herself on this side of the table. The table I refer to is the one in front of you called, “the burden of proof.” It is we, the people, who come out and speak truth to power and not the other way around. Why do the very people who toil the hardest to make ends meet day in and day and who keep our city and state humming along, the ones who must behave as if they have not met the burden of proof regarding initiatives that will hurt their pockets and their health? Or dare I say hurt their bodies, minds and souls. Today’s hearing regarding a capital improvements program is no exception.

According to the booklet handed out upon entering, the money you are asking for [from the Federal Government] will not cover the total cost of capital improvements. So, the MTA has once again proposed fare hikes that will threaten to further destabilize working families across our great city. Soaring gas prices. Absurd rents. Soaring food prices. Woe is us. But what about you MTA? Is this the best plan that can be devised? When in doubt…when in trouble…pin it on the very people who keep you in business. Well, I think I speak not only for the Coalition Against Privatization but a great many New Yorkers when I say, “HELL NO.” Go back to the drawing table and come up with something original, new, fresh.

Perhaps you can meet with Governor Paterson who just the other day was vacationing in the Hamptons when he made an announcement that he will cut $51 million dollars to CUNY, the very institution that made my being here possible, and offered a proposal to cut $506 million dollars in health care spending, $250 million dollars in local government assistance and $132 million dollars in new programs. If you do consider to meet with him and come up with a plan that won’t cripple the families of New York, ask him for his thoughts on the HIP and GHI merger and proposal to privatize.

As you probably know from reading about New York City’s lawsuit against the merger of HIP and GHI (a company now called Emblem Health), that if this company is allowed to privatize (that is a move from “not-for-profit” status to “for-profit” status) it will cost New York City 27.5 million dollars for each 1% increase in premiums. The next highest insurance carrier in NYS is 26% higher than HIP and GHI’s current rates so if Emblem Health raises rates to just half of 26% it will mean close to a $400 million dollar charge to NYC. Guess who bear the brunt of that too? The MTA is sure to raid operating expenditures like workers’ salaries and benefits in order to see this capital improvements project through to its completion. Make sure then that you ask Governor Paterson to do something about this HIP and GHI fiasco. If you don’t, it will cost you money. Perhaps you can help our Governor to pressure Eric Dinallo, Superintendent of Insurance for NYS, to consider an independent impact study that will assess how the proposed privatization will affect the over 4 million people who are insured in New York State. It’s the least that you can do.

Before I leave you, I want to call on our labor leaders, including the MLC to start behaving like unions and not businesses. It’s a crime that I and other brothers and sisters from various trade unions are here speaking on behalf of the families of NYC and State. Our union leaders are too concerned with money and political machinery to do what their mission has always been: to protect workers and their communities.

In closing, the Coalition Against Privatization says “NO” to fare hikes

and “NO” to Emblem Health’s attempt to privatize [HIP and GHI].

Lies, Lies, Lies

The post-convention poll numbers are out and it's official - McCain/Palin ticket got a bigger convention bounce than the Obama/Biden ticket and now is either tied for the lead or ahead in the race:

CNN Poll: McCain 48%, Obama 48%
CBS News Poll: McCain 46%, Obama 44%
Post/ABC News Poll: Obama 47%, McCain 46%
Gallup Tracking Poll: McCaon 49%, Obama 44%

The reason for the shift?

The press says it's McCain's VP choice, Sarah Palin. Not only has she energized the evangelical base of the Republican Party, Gallup says independent voters are now swinging to the McCain/Palin ticket in part because of the addition of the Alaska governor while the Washington Post reports that Palin is helping attract the support of white women to McCain.

I wrote here last week that Palin was a bad choice to be VP because independents and swing voters were turned off by the extreme partisan tone of her convention speech and far-right views on abortion, contraception, and the environment.

But that was before the GOP noise machine swung into motion and created tons of 30 second ads touting Ms. Palin as an emblem of fiscal prudence, good government or, as Josh Marshall put it at TPM, "the mavericky, pork-busting reformer from Alaska."

But the reality, as has been shown in numerous news story over the past week, is that she is far from a pork-buster, a maverick or a reformer.

This morning, for example, the Washington Post reports that Palin

has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business.

The governor also has charged the state for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband, Todd, has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.

Gee, that's not so mavericky or reform-minded. Hell, even Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-San Quentin) didn't think to try that kind of fiscal "sleight of hand" while he was sitting on his gold-plated toilet seat.

In addition, the New Republic reports that the McCain campaign's assertion that Ms. Palin fought against the "Bridge To Nowhere is a "naked lie" while Josh Marshall points out that even as the McCain campaign advertises Palin as some kind of earmark-slayer:

when she was mayor and governor, in both offices, she requested and got more earmarks than virtually any city or state in the country.

Gee, those things aren't mavericky or reform-minded either.

On the economic front, while the McCain campaign has touted Ms. Palin as a fiscally prudent, good government advocate, when she took over the mayoral office in Wasilla the city had no debt, but when she left the city had $19 million dollars worth. Much of the debt increase resulted from Palin's decision to have the city build an indoor sports complex that went way over budget and remains unfinished and in litigation. As Andrew Sullivan noted on his blog:

She is a Bush-Cheney fiscal conservative: low taxes, unprecedented new spending, utter incompetence, endemic cronyism and massive debt.

So how is it that the McCain campaign and the GOP has managed to sway voters into thinking Palin is a paragon of fiscal responsibility and reform policies?

Simple - lies, lies, lies, repeated over and over until people figure "Hell, those things they're saying about Sarah Palin must be true because they keep saying 'em."

This is a lesson that the guys running the McCain campaign learned from when they ran the Bush/Cheney campaigns or for that matter sold the Iraq war to the American people.

If you repeat something enough, it becomes "truth" no matter how bald-faced or a naked a lie it is.

Judging by the poll numbers, so far, it's working.

Losing Your Home?

Why not just buy another one before they foreclose?

Mr. McCain Makes a Funny

Lately, much has been made of the importance of being fair to Sarah Palin and her family. Apparently, rampant sexism and callousness are big problems nowadays. So let's go back to the good ol' days, and take a peek at what her esteemed partner, GOP standard bearer John McCain had to say about then teenage Chelsea Clinton:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."

Get it? You see how Maverick Johny not only gave that goshdarn Chelsea what for, but also managed to make indirect suggestions about her mom Hillary and Janet Reno? You see the cleverness and subtlety at work there? And teachers, can you imagine how thoroughly junior high school kids would enjoy that sort of wit?

Now when Maverick Johny apologized, his hometown paper and the AP also printed his attempt at humor. However, the New York Times and the Washington Post, and even Maureen Dowd ($) deemed his remarks too distasteful to publish. MJ added:

'I will always maintain a sense of humor. Life is too short not to.''

Ms. Dowd replies:

Life is also too short for making the President's daughter the target of a junky, misogynistic crack masquerading as humor.

It is indeed. And we don't need another shoot-from-the-hip President who acts before he thinks either. Maverick John's cynical, blatantly opportunistic choice of Ms. Palin, clearly far from the most qualifed for the job, just reinforces that.

Buen idea

This week's official NYC Educator film recommendation is Casi Casi, which concerns the intrigue of a student council election. Hopelessly lovesick Emilio, pictured here, is determined to lose so as to impress the young woman who opposes him. It's the first film I've ever seen about high schools in which the actors actually appear to be teenagers.

The camera work is clever, and the actors are great--really funny and really expressive.

Aside from the film, though, I noticed that all the students wear shirts like the one pictured here. Honestly, what would be so bad about having kids wear uniforms like this? They're simple, they'd help us to identify intruders, and they look comfortable. We could require kids to wear similar polo shirts, and perhaps offer a long sleeve version for cold weather. Why should charters be able to require uniforms but not us? We could sell them at cost and help families who couldn't afford them.

It appeared the uniform entailed only that shirt and dark pants. I like the idea. What about you?

The School Lunch is Awful...

...but it's better than nothing.

John McCain...

...is voting for Barack Obama.

Ms. Palin Doesn't Meet the Press...

...for two weeks, apparently, while this excellent VP candidate is taught what to say. Or something. Or perhaps she knows what to say. Maybe she just has to say it a different way. I mean, there are different ways to pronounce community organizer, and you can't just heap the scorn in the same tone every time.

Anyway, she certainly read the speech they wrote for her and who could ask for more? Still, that nasty sexist liberal press wants to ask her questions she hasn't even heard before? What's up with that?

And who the hell are these communities, to get organized? Thank goodness John McCain is running for President. He voted against raising the minimum wage 19 times, and he and Ms. Palin will keep those nasty working people from having too much power:

McCain Voted Against the Employee Free Choice Act but for a National ‘Right to Work’ for Less Law. McCain voted against the Employee Free Choice Act, which would level the playing field for workers trying to form unions. He voted for a national “right to work” for less law that would attempt to eliminate unions altogether. (H.R. 800, Vote 227, 6/26/07; S. 1788 Vote 188, 7/10/96)

McCain Crossed a Writers Guild Picket Line to Appear on ‘The Tonight Show.’ McCain crossed the picket line of the Writers Guild of America to appear on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.” (Think Progress, accessed 2/27/08)

McCain Voted to Allow Employers to Hire Permanent Replacements During a Strike. McCain voted against ending debate on a bill that would bar employers from hiring permanent replacements for striking workers. (S. 55, Vote 189, 7/13/94)

Against Giving Firefighters and Police a Voice on the Job. Firefighters and police risk their lives every day to protect the public, yet McCain voted to deny them the right to discuss workplace issues with their employer in 2001 and skipped a vote on the issue in 2008. (H.R. 3061, Vote 323, 11/6/01; S. 2123, 10/1/07; H.R. 980, Vote 126, 5/13/08)

McCain Voted Against Collective Bargaining Rights for TSA Screeners. McCain voted against a measure to grant Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport screeners limited collective bargaining rights. The measure would not have allowed them to strike or negotiate for higher pay. (S. 4, Vote 64, 3/7/07)

Depend on this: Sarah Palin will be ready on day one to help Senator McCain make sure those nasty communities don't get organized, don't join unions, don't get collective bargaining, don't have job protection, don't get health care, and don't get child care either. She'll show this "nation of whiners" what's what. And she, whose job entails being ready, is absolutely ready. She's chomping at the bit. She can't wait for someone to call her at 2 AM.

Except not for two weeks.

Meanwhile, for some reason, Joe Biden is ready right now:



Update: from Andrew Sullivan :

If McCain picked her, he must believe she can be president now. If she can be president now, why the hell can't she hold a press conference?

And there's more:

Ferraro was being interviewed within four days of being announced. Dan Quayle gave an interview one day after being selected.

We are now on Day Nine for Palin and are told to expect another thirteen before she's ready.

This is a pitbull with lipstick? More like a cowering chihuahua.

Double Standards? Nah

Thanks to Rhoda

Related: Anne E. Kornblut, in this weekend's Washington Post, asks:

What if, back in the 1990s, Clinton had announced the pregnancy of an unmarried, teenaged daughter? Would the Republicans have declared it an off-limits family matter and declined to judge her, or would it have turned into a national scandal that hurt her chances as she decided to pursue her own career in elected office?

What if, instead of the GOP's new vice presidential candidate, Clinton had been the one to run for national office without any international experience to speak of? (After all, Clinton's rivals diminished the relevance of her eight years as first lady, saying they counted for little on her résumé.)

And what if Clinton had rejected questions about her record by calling such lines of questioning sexist? What if she had refused to name any national security decisions she had made, as a spokesman for Sen. John McCain did on Palin's behalf last week, on the grounds that the question was unfair?

Deal of the Day

(via)

Like The Last Eight Years Never Happened

Watching the Republican convention this week, if I didn't know any better I would have thought that Democrats have been in power the last eight years and "insurgent-mavericks" John McCain and Sarah Palin are running as the "true agents of change" to topple the liberal establishment in Washington and return conservative governing principals to DC.

But of course George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have been running things the past eight years in Washington, Republicans have held power in the Congress for six of the last eight years and four of the last eight years in the Senate.

So what the hell are they running against - themselves?

Turns out yes:

By the time the convention here was about to get under way, Mr. McCain almost sounded like a speaker at an Obama rally. “I promise you, if you’re sick and tired of the way Washington operates, you only need to be patient for a couple of more months,” he told supporters in O’Fallon, Mo., on Sunday. “Change is coming! Change is coming! Change is coming!”

He continued the mantra Thursday. “Let me just offer an advance warning to the old big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second crowd,” Mr. McCain said. “Change is coming.”

Boasting that he had fought corruption even among Republicans, he said the party had lost its way. And he offered a sweeping promise of reform: “We need to change the way government does almost everything.”

So McCain, who has voted 90% of the time with George W. Bush the last eight years, is going to be this "agent of change" even though every idea he proposed in his speech - from more oil drilling in Alaska to Iraq war policy to the handling of the economy - is nearly identical to Bush's record of the last eight years.

Wow - meet the new boss, same as the old boss - now that's change you can believe in!!!

If you liked the last eight years of Cheney/Bush rule, you'll love the next four years of McCain/Palin rule.

Send a Message

Please consider signing this letter to Obama and McCain; just send your name, school and district or other organizational affiliation to classsizematters@gmail.com

Dear Senators Obama and McCain:

We would like to congratulate you on your nominations for President. As public school parents and other stakeholders, we want to bring to your attention the critical need to improve the opportunities of millions of children throughout the country who attend markedly inferior schools that deny them an adequate chance to succeed.

We have read your education positions and believe that the concerns we raise and the proposals we suggest would help focus and strengthen your plans for improving our nation's schools.

In recent weeks, two different statements have been released by advocates, academics and elected officials, with very different perspectives about how to improve our nation's public schools, particularly for poor and minority students. The first statement called for even more high stakes testing, merit pay for teachers, competition, and charter schools, and pointed to the teachers unions as the major obstacles in achieving success.

We would call this approach NCLB on steroids. Rather than improving our schools, more high stakes testing and merit pay based on standardized test scores will likely further punish our neediest students, diminishing their educational experience and lead to even more teacher turnover, test prep, narrowing of the curriculum, and less time and effort given to authentic learning in their schools. It will also contribute to more test score inflation, meaning that studentsʼ scores will no longer provide reliable evidence of their actual level of achievement.

The other new coalition of academics and advocates argues that although some educational programs should be supported, without major investments in health care and reducing poverty, it is wrong to ask schools alone to significantly narrow the achievement gap between ethnic and racial groups or improve outcomes for our neediest students.

Although we believe that as a society we should be doing more to expand healthcare and reduce income inequality, we also believe that this perspective significantly understates the potential for dramatic improvements, particularly in those schools that most minority and high-poverty students attend, and the need for critical reforms to enhance their chance of success.

The following are the improvements that we believe are necessary and would change the lives of literally millions of children throughout our country.

1- Safe and uncrowded schools with more counselors: Many of our students, particularly in urban areas, attend overcrowded schools in near third world conditions, contributing to a variety of disciplinary problems that make it difficult for them to learn, leading to more violence and higher dropout rates. In addition to less crowding, these schools often require many more guidance counselors; in many, there is only one counselor for six hundred or more students.

2- Smaller classes: Despite the abundant research that conclusively demonstrates that smaller classes can significantly narrow the achievement gap, poor and minority students continue to attend schools with much larger classes on average than those in wealthier districts, and thus are deprived of the individual attention they need to succeed. Small classes in all grades K-12 have been linked to more classroom engagement, more time on task, higher levels of achievement, and lower dropout rates. Moreover, in national surveys, educators throughout the country overwhelming say that reducing class size would be the most effective way to improve the quality of teaching in our public schools.

3- Adequate resources and teacher support to assure that all students receive a rich, well-rounded curriculum including the arts, physical education and project-based learning in a curriculum connected to their own lives and culture, with progress evaluated by high-quality, appropriate assessment tools that are primarily classroom-based.

4- More parental involvement: Studies show that the more involved parents are at the school level, the better the outcomes for students. And yet the top- down, corporate approach to school governance currently used in cities throughout the country such as Chicago and New York has consistently and systematically worked to eliminate the ability of parents to have a real voice in decision-making and thus to be true partners at the school and district level.

Competition, including charter schools and vouchers, has not and will not lead to a significantly better or more equitable public school system, just as it has not brought us better access to health care. In fact, the continued proliferation of charter and other schools requiring interviews and/or application processes risks creating wider disparities between the haves and have-nots; and what is often advertised as increased parental choice actually means the ability of such schools to exclude our neediest students. The last thing our nation needs is a "trickle down" educational system.

As a nation we have an overarching moral imperative to provide all our children with the same educational opportunities that our more advantaged public and private school students take for granted, including the right to attend a safe and uncrowded school with smaller class sizes, a rich, high-quality curriculum, and more parental involvement.

Until these goals have been achieved, we cannot and should not give up on the potential of schools to transform lives.

We urge you to recognize this imperative, and if elected president, do everything in your power to ensure that every child who grows up in this country has the opportunity to attend the sort of school he or she needs for a better chance to learn and succeed.

Yours,

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters

Julie Woestehoff, Executive Director, Parents United for Responsible Education, Chicago

Deborah Meier, senior scholar, NYU, former principal of K-12 public schools, MacArthur Fellow

John de Beck, Vice President, San Diego Board of Education

Neal Wrightson, Director, Children's Community School , Pasadena , CA

Diane Aoki, Parent and teacher activist, Hawaii

Peter Farruggio, PhD., Asst. professor, Univ. of Texas Pan American Edinburg , TX

George Wood, Principal, Federal Hocking Middle and High School, Stewart , Ohio

Lynne Y. Strieb, Philadelphia Teachers' Learning Cooperative

Bert Strieb, LaSalle University , Philadelphia , PA

Patricia Hamilton, Schmid School LSC Chairperson, Chicago

The Rev. Larry E. Turpin, United Church of Hyde Park , Chicago

Sabrina Craig, LSC Parent Representative, Drummond Montessori Magnet School. Chicago

Martin Halacy, Chicago Public School teacher, 32 years

Paul E. Sjordal, Naperville IL , former director of youth development, South-East Asia Center, Chicago

Sarah Vanderwicken, former local school council member, Chicago

(list in progress)

Sure, But Will It Play With Independents And Swing Voters?

The mainstream media have been falling all over themselves to praise Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech to the RNC last night.

Mike Allen of the Politico called the speech a "grand slam." John Harris and Jim VandeHei of the Politico wrote that

in the space of one 36-minute speech by Palin, McCain proved that his choice was not a lapse into temporary (or even permanent) insanity. The speech’s political significance goes far beyond the fact that Palin showed herself capable of delivering a spirited reading of words that other people wrote.

Just as Barack Obama’s 2004 convention speech transformed his career, Palin’s speech has the potential to transform the dynamic of this race.

Wow - a grand slam, a game changer!!! Must have been a helluva speech this woman gave!!!

And it absolutely was.

Governor Palin attacked Obama as ineffectual, silly, and inexperienced at leading anything other than his little league team. She repeatedly mocked him as a "community organizer" with a tone that made Obama sound effete (apparently real men are only supposed to advocate for oil companies or the hedge fund industry, I guess.)

Although she did manage to talk a little bit about herself and her family, the overall tone of her speech was scathing (though with a smile) and derisive of her opponents. James Fallows wrote that

The speech was surprisingly negative and mocking. You can see why Rush Limbaugh has been such a fan of hers: if these words were delivered by someone older, less attractive, and male, they could have come straight from a Limbaugh radio monologue.

Now this mocking tone will certainly make the base happy (and it has - just turn on any of the cable networks today to see the smiley faces on the previously depressed Peggy Noonans and ) and her extreme positions on abortion, sex education, and gay rights will no doubt stoke formerly lukewarm evangelicals to enthusiastically come out in droves for the McCain/Palin ticket.

But it just won't work with independents, undecideds or those infamous Hillary supporters who are having trouble supporting Obama.

How do I know?

Because there were three focus groups that were held last night during the Palin speech and in all three independents and undecideds were turned off by Palin's mocking tone, sharp attacks and lack of policy specifics.

Here is the first:

In two different focus groups of Clinton-supporting Nevada women -- married and unmarried -- conducted immediately after Gov. Sarah Palin's Wednesday night speech to the Republican National Convention, a few common reactions quickly took shape.

First, women in both groups were impressed with Palin's speaking ability and poise. But they were hardly convinced that she was qualified to be vice president, or that she truly represented the "change" they were looking for, especially in light of what was deemed an overly harsh "sarcasm" pervading her address.

...

In the "married" group, when one attendee kicked off the discussion by saying "she's a good speaker, and a crowd pleaser," the rest of the room articulated their agreement. "I didn't expect to be as impressed as I was," said another respondent. But then another woman added: "Once she started mudslinging, I thought, it's the same old crap as other politicians. McCain used her to get the women's vote. And she's using McCain."

"Thank you," another woman responded. "That really upset me; there was no need for that. It was snippy."

The unmarried group also voiced similar objections to the harsh, partisan edge of Palin's remarks. "I'm not impressed with her at all as a person," one said, citing her "finger pointing" and general sarcasm after the group had generally agreed that she was a talented public speaker.

The second focus group round-up, courtesy Of Taegan Goddard:

The Detroit Free Press put together a panel of voters to listen to last night's Republican convention speeches and, much as I predicted last night, the independents were universally negative on Palin. In fact, they were more negative than the Democratic voters. The speech was clearly designed to help close the "enthusiasm gap" that has dogged the McCain campaign all summer.

Now the third focus group:

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (D) had focus groups of married and unmarried women watch Gov. Sarah Palin's speech at the Republican convention last night.

Key findings:

* While some unmarried women moved toward the Republican ticket, an equal number moved against them. There was little change among married women.
* Most women said an overly harsh "sarcasm" pervaded her speech.
* On a scale of 0 to 100, Palin improved her favorability scale roughly 10 points among both married and unmarried women.
* Palin's recitation of her experience and accomplishment failed to answer, particularly for unmarried women, whether she was ready to be vice president.

Perhaps McCain can win in 2008 by running a Rovian political campaign that appeals to the already converted, but I don't think so. In poll after poll that I have seen over the last few years, there are more self-identified Democrats than Republicans these days and the intensity of Obama supporters far exceeds the intensity of McCain supporters.

It's going to be an ugly political season (so much for McCain's promise to run a clean campaign), but I seriously doubt Governor Palin's mockery is going to win over too many swing voters, undecideds or independents.

But it sure will make the "Drill Baby Drill" crowd happy.

UPDATE: Oops - turns out GOP strategist and former McCain aide Mike Murphy agrees with my take on the Palin nomination:

Republican political consultant Mike Murphy finds himself lonely among his fellow GOPers since he doesn't think Gov. Sarah Palin was a good choice as Sen. John McCain's running mate.

"I think she'll ultimately be a polarizer. After last night's smash, Republicans are in deep love. Nothing thrills 'em like a good 'us vs. them' speech. But I'd guess that most Democrats had the opposite reaction. In a year where the Democrat generic numbers are 10+ points better than the Republican, I don't like the math of a strategy that just polarized the election along party base lines. Among the vital sliver of voters in the middle, I think Palin's rock solid social conservatism will be a turn off. And while voters may value vision over experience, Palin's inexperience is a weakness, denying McCain an argument that has been helping him against Obama."

But after last night's speech, it looks like Murphy is about the only GOPer who feels Palin isn't going to help the ticket.

It's Okay,,.No One is Listening

Conservative stalwarts Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy inadvertently opened a window into their private ruminations. Despite the jubilant cries of the GOP faithful, Ms. Noonan, who'd just written a WSJ column praising Ms. Palin (and who wouldn't praise her, after that vituperative, bitter, insane speech), showed the world what she really thought of the newly packaged VP candidate:

Noonan, who had praised Palin in a Wall Street Journal column in the morning, said, "It's over," and added, "Most qualified? No. I think they went for this, excuse me, political bull -- about narratives ... Every time Republicans do this, because that's not where they live, and that's not what they're good at, they blow it."

That may be true, but Ms. Palin is certainly good at vetoing funding for teenage mothers. And families with special needs children will doubtless have a friend in Ms. Palin, as long as they don't need health insurance, or day care, or a raise in the minimum wage (which Maverick Johny voted against 19 times).

No School for You

Mayor Mike's "reformed" schools tell public school kids they're on a waiting list. The district Family Advocate office doesn't return phone calls.

Recent surgery? Take a hike, says the DoE.

Ms. Palin Makes an Impression

From Bob Herbert:

Here’s the deal: Palin is the latest G.O.P. distraction. She’s meant to shift attention away from the real issue of this campaign — the awful state of the nation after eight years of Republican rule. The Republicans are brilliant at distractions. Willie Horton was a distraction. The chatter about gays, guns and God has been a long-running distraction. And we all remember the Swift-boat campaign.

If you want a real issue, forget all of the above and revisit Monday’s front page of The New York Times. Hundreds of families are being forced out of their homes each month in Louisville, Ky., because of mortgage foreclosures. With record numbers of poor and homeless students, the public schools are struggling.

And maybe America is finally waking up to that---with leaners included, Obama now polls at 51%.

You Can't Get There from Here

NYC Educator and The Chancellor's New Clothes are blocked on the public computers at my school. I've received a report that they're blocked at one other school. If you could let me know whether they're blocked at your school, I'd like to hear about it.

You may leave it in the comments, or click on the upper right to send me an email.

I've made it a point not to use the sort of language that would upset the DoE filters, so that's not it. Anyway, if you'd let me know I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

Update: Pissed Off Teacher has photos.

Dead Presidential Campaign Sketch

Last Friday morning, the McCain for President campaign announced that GOP presidential nominee John McCain had decided that Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, would be his nominee for vice president.

The announcement was such a surprise that press folks appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe program weren't quite sure how to even pronounce her name (apparently she pronounces her name the same way that Michael Palin, former member of the Monty Python troupe, pronounces his.)

in the hours after the announcement, members of the press, bloggers and probably even the Obama campaign scrambled to figure out just who the hell she was and what she had done in the past.

Turns out not too much - at least not at first glance.

As NYC Educator noted here, Palin is an old Pat Buchananite from the 1992 campaign, as well as the mayor of a "city" in Alaska with less than 7,000 inhabitants (here's what the City Hall of that city, Wasilla, looks like courtesy of TPM) and the current governor of Alaska for just 20 months.

A bold move by McCain?

Surely.

A smart move?

Uh, not so much.

Since Palin was selected to run with McCain, we have learned that she is being investigated for abuse of power charges in Alaska relating to the firing of her former brother-in-law from a state job, has "lawyered up" in that case, and has had to announce that her 17 year old unmarried daughter Bristol is indeed 5 months pregnant in order to put to rest rumors that Palin's son Trig was actually Bristol's child and thus Palin's grandchild (the theory being that the evangelical Palin family was embarrassed by Bristol's illegitimate pregnancy and thus pawning the kid off as grandmommy's.)

There is some conjecture whether the McCain campign knew about Palin's daughter's pregnancy or not before Palin was chosen to run with McCain (it matters because they added Palin to the ticket to appeal to conservative evangelical Christians who are notoriously, uh, shall we say uncomfortable with anybody having pre-marital sex let alone a baby out of wedlock) and Andrea Mitchell reported tonight on MSNBC that the really deep vetting of Sarah Palin only began after she was announced as the VP nominee.

Wow - what a pick this Palin is!!!

You know times are tough for the Grand Old Party when Joe Biden, Barack Obama's pick for vice president, seems staid and boring compared to McCain's choice.

That said, this stuff about Palin matters.

The more scandals and quasi-scandals that surface about Palin the more it becomes abundantly clear that the McCain campaign did a thoroughly incompetent job of vetting this woman before they announced her for the ticket.

As Andrew Sullivan noted on his blog:

The bottom line is that he obviously hadn't vetted this person in any halfway competent fashion. McCain's first major presidential decision was rash, impulsive, ill-researched and foisted on the world with no warning. With this decision, McCain clearly wanted to indicate that he was breaking with Bush. But the manner in which he made it proves he truly is Bush's third term - just more reckless.

Indeed.

They should have picked Michael Palin instead.

Although in sheer comedic terms, it remains to be seen if we're going to get more laughs out of Sarah Palin than we would have out of Michael Palin.

Right now, I'd say it's about even.

And that's saying something - wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

UPDATE: The governor's past gets weirder and weirder - ABC News reports that Sarah Palin was once a member of the Alaskan Independence Party - a fringe political party which has been advocating for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide if they want Alaska to secede from the U.S:

The AIP platform states that the purpose of the party is to "seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution ... To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature ... To support the privatization of government services ..."

Taegan Goddard looks at all the negative news items about Sarah Palin and her family that the McCain campaign dumped this holiday weekend and wonders:

How much more is there to learn about Sarah Palin?

Good question.

I bet not even John McCain (perhaps especially John McCain) doesn't know the answer to it.

To All

Best of luck tomorrow when you meet the kids for the first time!

Trouble Making Ends Meet?

Why not rob a bank?

Some Elephants Deserve Our Support

Lily Tomlin I know would greatly appreciate any assistance to help save Jenny the Elephant who is suffering in the Dallas Zoo. The Tennessee elephant sanctuary is willing to take her, but Dallas officials refuse to take this humanitarian action. I have contacted the mayor, city council and the zoo itself along with hundreds of others, and still Jenny suffers. Please check out the links below for more information and email addresses.

Here is some background information:

http://www.concernedcitizensforjenny.net/

What you can do:

Contact the Dallas Mayor
You can email the mayor, whether or not you live in Dallas. Politely but firmly urge him to retire Jenny to The Elephant Sanctuary. Civilly insist that he intervene in the Zoo’s decision to keep her in Dallas.
tom.leppert@dallascityhall.com

Contact Dallas City Council
http://www.dallascityhall.com/government/government.html

Contact the Dallas Zoo
info@dalzoo.org

Thank you in advance for taking the time to help Jenny.

Schoolgal

No Child Left Behind...

...is precious little consolation for parents who've lost their jobs and homes, and are struggling to afford crayons, school lunches, and gas for the car.

Ms. Palin Clarifies Her Opposition to Fiscal Waste

GOP Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin proudly told the world:

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,"

Perhaps she simply forgot that she had campaigned in 2006 promising to build the bridge. And perhaps when she wore a Pat Buchanan button at a Pat Buchanan rally, she didn't mean to imply that she supported Pat Buchanan. Perhaps when she said she supported creation science being taught in schools. she had simply forgotten that she did not support creation science taught in schools.

Perhaps Ms. Palin simply forgot to tell us that her "Thanks but no thanks," didn't preclude her from taking an equivalent amount of federal funds--or that her "no thanks" did not preclude her from spending quite a bit on the bridge she was for before she was against:

In fact, the Palin administration has spent "tens of millions of dollars" in federal funds to start building a road on Gravina Island that is supposed to link up to the yet-to-be-built bridge, Weinstein said.

"She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money," said Elerding about her applause line.

Doesn't it make you wonder what else Ms. Palin may forget? Might she one day start a war and then say, ya know, goshdarn it, I didn't really want to start a war?

Is that far-fetched? Didn't the Bush administration spend an awful lot of time telling us we needed to get into Iraq in order to counter the WMDs they never found? Aren't we spending three billion a week on this endless war while working Americans lose their jobs, their homes, and their pensions?

And if there are folks out there who don't care for what's being said about Ms. Palin, well, it's not really about Ms. Palin. It's about John McCain, who, having met her once, selected her and let her get vetted on the internet. Apparently Maverick Johny, shooting from the hip, couldn't be bothered.

America, up to its neck in debt incurred by GW's war and tax cuts, simply can't afford to shoot from the hip anymore.

Illustration via Andrew Sullivan