Sarah, We Hardly Knew Ye

Proving once again that she never gave a shit about Alaska, Sarah Palin is stepping down at the end of this term. Though no specific reason was stated, according to all sources - as well as Palin herself - she is stepping down for two reasons:

1) Some small scandals and book deals will get in the way of being a good governor.
2) She is probably planning to run for president in 2012.

Wait, what?

Apparently she is stepping down both because she has problems that make her a bad governor, AND because she thinks she can and will run for President in 2012.

This boggles my mind.

Surprise Activism in Strange Places

I may or may not use questionably legal file sharing services. To my surprise, after (accidentally?) opening the file sharing program Limewire, I found this:



(may have to click to see the image)

Good on them. They clearly didn't have to do anything, and yet they chose to do something about it.

Subtle

How Poetic.

From Mark Sanford to his Mistress:

You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details …

Hilarious. "My dear, when I look into your eyes, I see infinite skies and wondrous possibilities. When I feel the softness of your lips against mine, I feel as though I am transported into a universe, floating without gravity in a state of endless comfort. And when I get to grasp your boobies, it's like totally hot lolz."

Emails.

Marriage Should be Between a Man and a Woman and his Other Woman

Gov. Sanford Admits Affair and Explains Disappearance

Mark Sanford, the governor of South Carolina, apologized in a rambling news conference for having an affair, ending a mystery over his week-long disappearance.

Idiot. Maybe if every staunch supporter of banning gay marriage wasn't either gay themselves or cheating on their wives, the issue could be taken more seriously. Except even then the argument is retarded and everyone involved needs to shut the hell up. Go away, Sanford. Add yourself to the list of disgraced moronic politicians that support moral laws they are in process of disproving.

Revolution in Iran

The current conflict in Iran is the reason that using military force to try to get others to follow your beliefs is a poor decision. Left to their own political system, reform and adaptation are inevitable in civilized society.

The "revolutionary leader" Hossein Mousavi may not mark the beginning of a more liberal Iranian society by any means. But it shows that countries are willing to bring change on themselves, and forcing them to with bombs only serves as a deadly distraction from their own political struggles - one that will get them to blame the outside source rather than start creating change.

Now that they have been left alone, the problems with their own political system have been exemplified, and the citizens have decided not to take it. It may not work, but this is the best way to get change in another country.

Still. that does not mean that some type of intervention by the US is unwarranted. But the point of such interventions is to focus on positive changes while staying sensitive to their culture, rather than simply destroying crap we don't like...

~~~~~~~

This post is somewhat rambling, but the point is that what we are witnessing is - while sometimes tragic - often times remarkable, and it would not have occurred if Iranians were forced by gunpoint to conform to the beliefs of the US. Hopefully things turn out for the best, but even if they don't, this is still a historic moment for their country and the world, and it will not soon be forgotten.

My Problem with the Two Party System

As a Democrat, the two party system rarely bothers me. So what if there is only one choice to represent my beliefs? It is still THE choice that represents my beliefs, and though I can have minor disagreements with their voting choices, chances are I would have them even with the perfect candidate.

Rather, my problem with the two party system is that it does not allow for replacements once your party is elected. I am not fond of my Democratic governor. She does many things I agree with, because we are both Democrats, but otherwise I do not think she is that great at her job.

What can I do? I cannot vote for an independent, because there aren't really any that match my views and even if there were, they probably won't win and will simply take away from the Democrat's chances. I'm not voting for a Republican, because that wouldn't make sense. The Republican may be EXTREMELY qualified and would do a fantastic job getting things done - but they would do a fantastic job at instigating a belief system I don't agree with. So ironically an extremely competent Republican would be worse, since they would accomplish the goals I disagree with.

So I am left with a governor I don't want, simply because I do not have other options. Sometimes I feel as though people should vote for the party first and the person in the role second. It would give a voters a chance to unseat incumbents while still keeping their party in power. If I want my governor gone, I have to vote for the opposite party, and that just isn't happening.

God is Good....?

I'm not an Atheist. I am not against religion. I am also not against Christianity. But I do have a problem with it that I think can be found in the following analogy:

The world is flooding. I have a boat that can fit an unlimited amount of people. But the only people I let on the boat are the ones that pledge their undying devotion to me beforehand. I accept rapists, spousal abusers, and other terrible human beings as long as they pledge that devotion, but I turn away children, college professors and good people that simply want the freedom to live their life. Those people I condemn to death, even though I have plenty of room and can fit them all.

I walked by a car that had the Jesus fish and two bumper stickers that said "God is Good" and "God loves all." I find it hard to believe that someone can believe in Christianity and not see that there is a problem with the idea that "God is Good" when he lets people burn in hell for not believing in him, even if they are good people.

That does not mean that religion itself is necessarily bad. Or the idea that heaven exists but it is not for everyone. Consider the following:

The world is flooding. I have a boat that can fit an unlimited amount of people. The only people I let on the boat are the ones that are good people. Some people may have done bad things in the past, but if they are good people that made bad decisions I let them on anyway, along with all other people that have lived good lives. I accept all men and women and children, but I do not accept rapists, spousal abusers, and other terrible human beings. Those people I condemn to death, even though I have plenty of room and can fit them all.

Once again there are people I have turned away, and arguably they can be saved by my boat as well. But at least I have accepted all of the good people in the world, no matter what they believe and what direction they have chosen for their lives. to me, if I have to have a hell, this is a much more positive belief system.

Conservative David Brooks on Sotomayor

From the New York Times:

Sonia Sotomayor had bad timing. If she’d entered college in the late-1950s or early-1960s, she would have been surrounded by an ethos that encouraged smart young ethnic kids to assimilate. If she’d entered Princeton and Yale in the 1980s, her ethnicity and gender would have been mildly interesting traits among the many she might possibly possess.

But she happened to attend Princeton and then Yale Law School in the 1970s. These were the days when what we now call multiculturalism was just coming into its own. These were the days when the whole race, class and gender academic-industrial complex seemed fresh, exciting and just.

Worth Reading.

Interesting Unimportant Factoid

Kristin had an article about Rashida Jones often playing roles in which you did not know what ethnicity she was supposed to be. I realized I did not know what ethnicity she even was, so a quick glance at her Wikipedia page showed that she was African American and Jewish, both of which came as a surprise (I had assume she had some Indian or Filipino blood in her). More pleasing from the page was this:

Though raised Jewish, Jones began practicing Hinduism in her early teens after her mother took her to an Ashram in India. Today, however, she practices Judaism and told a reporter, "In this day and age, you can choose how you practice and what is your relationship with God. I feel pretty strongly about my connection, definitely through the Jewish traditions and the things that I learned dating the guy that I dated. My boyfriends tend to be Jewish and also be practicing."

She's a good one to have on our team. Yet more proof that we're a people that understands humor. =).

New York is 5/5

So far, every food place I have been to in New York has been amazing. I only remember the name of one (Shake Shack), but the others have been equally as delicious. This vacation may have helped me discover a love of eating - something I never really had before.

Yep. I have nothing else interesting to say, other than I am soon to be the proud owner of General Motors. Hooray?

Boston Coming to a Close - On to New York!

Exploring Boston consisted of a tour around a cemetery, drinking at a bar called Sunset and trips to Harvard, Boston College and MIT to see what the campuses look like (Harvard was the least attractive of the three, and that saddens me).

Next up, New York, where I will be dumping some of the clothes I own in order to make room in my bag to purchase inexpensive trinkets from Chinatown, Korea(n?)town, Little Italy and more. Woo ha.

Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Thus far she seems like a good pick. Moderate enough to please most fringe partisans but not moderate so far as to lean to the right. And at 54, if she is to become a good justice, she should have many healthy years on the bench. We'll see what comes out these next few weeks before this pick is thoroughly judged.

It is also nice that she is a Hispanic woman. That's two different qualities that have never/rarely been seen on the Supreme Court. Though I am not generally fond of the idea that one should pick based on any sort of political pressure, so far she seems to be very well qualified. I will reserve judgment until I hear some of the decisions she has made, but so far it is leaning in the right direction.

Traveling for 3 Weeks

Updates will be sparse, but there will be updates. In the meantime, there's this:

Ever since it looked like a Democrat had a good shot at the White House, gun rights groups have been loading for bear. One example: Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman published a book last year titled These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War On Guns, which wondered if it's "something Democrats drink that causes them to climb aboard the Gun Control Express."

Candidate Barack Obama's record on the Second Amendment was anything but supportive; he appears to have once endorsed a complete ban on handgun possession, though aides claimed someone else filled out the survey. Other prominent Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Rep. Henry Waxman, and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, seemed equally enthusiastic about new restrictions targeting law-abiding gun owners.

So what persuaded a sizable majority of the House and Senate to vote for a bill lauding the "the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens?"

Though I'm anti-gun in the general sense, handguns are last on the list of priorities. I can see a reason to carry them, at least in the home. Still, it surprises me they even bothered with this legislation. Gun rights have become less of a "hot topic" of late, so the timing of this seems odd. But hey, whatever.

All Those Whiny Conservatives

It was not long ago that Republicans painted liberals as whiners that created useless and embarrassing protests that somehow made them less American. To an extent, they were right - there were a remarkable amount of protests that were, at least to this liberal, embarrassing. The Code Pink women come to mind as something I could have done without. Interrupting a speech for mindless shouting rarely gets the message across (no one can hear it on TV), and often makes the speaker look that much better for ignoring it with grace.

But once again proving that it has zero to do with the political stance and 100% to do with being powerless, conservatives decided to take it upon themselves to show the same type of whiny disregard for their own public appearance.

As police officers took the protester away, much of the stadium cheered his removal. A few moments later, another single protester began shouting “Abortion is murder.” The crowd erupted with loud boos directed at the heckler and then broke into loud chanting of Mr. Obama’s campaign slogan, “Yes, we can.”

This quote from the NYTimes is nearly identical to what we heard about Bush's speeches and the Code Pink (and other) protesters that were there to disrupt the speech, only to get booed away.

This is not to say that protesting is bad. It's not. In a way, I don't even have a problem with the Notre Dame protests. Go right ahead. But it is important that Republicans realize that they are doing the same tactics they ranted that only liberals did, and stop being hypocritical in their complains about the other side.

I Came, I Saw, I Market

Politics as usual gets boring. Anyone that has read this blog (Hello all 3 of you) knows that I generally enjoy making jokes about what's happening. Unfortunately, not a whole lot of funny things are happening, and those that are (Conservatives rallying the troops to block on Obama judge appointment because that's what they do) are almost cliche in their sadness.

When not blogging (so... 6 days a week), I help people market websites, as well as my own side projects.

So I'm debating whether or not to occasionally use this blog to market some things, in between political posts. I would not stop writing about politics - on the contrary, I would probably write more because I would have something reminding me to write something. But those posts are going to greatly annoy anyone that comes to this site (looking at you, Kristin). So maybe I won't. Thoughts?