China vs. CNN (and Tibet)

Recently there's been a bit of a to-do between CNN and China over comments that CNN commentator Jack Cafferty made about the Chinese efforts to make the Olympic Torch relay smoother, i.e. without protests. Cafferty said on CNN's "The Situation Room":

"I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years."

China has demanded an apology from CNN and Cafferty, saying that Cafferty was out of line. CNN issued an apology, but Mr. Cafferty has not.

My take: This seems like a bit of a knee-jerk reaction by China. They are thinking not with their intellect, but with their gonads. Someone criticized them, and all they can think of is how someone was mean to them. Hey, Chinese, we have this great thing in the U.S. called "freedom of speech." Also, "freedom of the press." That means that Jack Cafferty can say whatever the heck he wants about you. And you can take that and shove it.

Here's the video:


In other China news:
In the run-up to the Beijing Olympics, China has been trying to suppress signs of unrest in Tibet. To that end, the Chinese have referred to the Dalai Lama as a "wolf in monk's robes" and a "terrorist." For people who don't understand, let me give you an illustration.

How Fares McCain?

Not as poorly as some had hoped or feared, in fact.

According to RealClearPolitics, his "RCP Average" in head-to-head polls against both Clinton and Obama (see here) is above both potential Democratic nominees' averages by 1% and 1.4%, respectively.

But before you McCain supporters start popping the corks on the champagne, consider this. The chart showing the fluctuations of the Averages shows that McCain has come off of a period in which both Hillary and Obama were beating him, and especially Obama. 1% and 1.4% are very slim leads, and the election is by no means decided.

Renovation

As anyone who had seen my blog before (that would be me) would attest, this is a bit of a change. I'm taking Barack to heart, and saying, "It's time for change we can believe in!" Well, you can sure as heck believe in this.

I added "BlogLog" and "NewsClues" to show some of the blogs and news sources that I use (not really MSNBC or Fox- I just thought those might be news sources to include, although some people would dispute my characterization of Fox as a "news source"). I also changed the layout, since the previous layout was cramping the videos that I had embedded. After I post this, I will also put a wee little bit more about my fair self under the "About Me" section.

Hope anyone who stumbles across this by accident enjoys it,
Patton

Does Experience Actually Matter for a President?

All right, everyone knows about the arguments that Hillary has been making since Day One against Barack Obama. I am referring, of course, to the "I have experience" argument (even though HRC's real world experience is debatable). The notion that an experienced President is necessarily a better one, and, conversely, that an inexperienced President is necessarily a worse one, is not borne out by the records of certain past presidents. Woodrow Wilson had never held a national level position. He had been governor of New Jersey for 2-3 years before he ran for Prez. We can see, of course, how his relative inexperience on a national scale hurt him when it came to conducting World War I. There are several other examples of strong Presidents who were relatively inexperienced, and highly credentialed Presidents who apparently did not gain much from their years of experience. The President who guided us through what was probably our greatest domestic crisis ever had served four terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and one term in the U.S. House of Representatives before his election to the presidency on the eve of the Civil War. I refer, of course, to Abraham Lincoln. Oddly enough, both his successor, Andrew Johnson, and his predecessor, James Buchanan, had years and years of experience in government. Buchanan failed to do anything worthwhile to prevent the Civil War, and Johnson messed up Reconstruction and got impeached to boot.

What I would like to see in the race is more focus on the candidates' past judgment, and how they think they would handle an MRC (Major Regional Contingency) or even, potentially, something larger than that. If 9/11 happened again, who would respond the best and fastest? That's what the voters should ask Hillary, Obama, and McCain (and Paul and Gravel, I suppose, if anyone cares about them anymore).

A Very Well Done Video

A video that just came out for Sen. Obama, apparently done totally independently of his campaign. Take a look:

Sifting Through the GOP Debate, Part I

Taking a short break from school to note something interesting from the Republican debate:

Ron Paul made up a word.

Unless, of course, "malinvestment" is in your dictionary. He used it twice, within the space of a few breaths!

DEVELOPING...

CORRECTION: I spoke with my Latin teacher and my Academic Team coach, who is an English teacher. My Latin teacher says it is a word, and my coach concurs, but both agree that it really was a rather inapt word. So, to summarize: Ron Paul said "malinvestment." I laughed at him for making up a word. It turned out that it actually was a word, except that it sucks. I think that's a fair summary.

It's Worked Well for Rudy, Hasn't It?

I had a little run-in with a Paulian on The Caucus (NYTimes Politics blog), who claimed that "Dr." Paul's strategy is to target delegates.  Oh really?

 

/*WARNING! Following content contains slight profanity!  You've been warned!*/

 

He also claimed that Rep. Paul was winning in "states that don't get as much attention," or something like that.  Oh really?  Which states has he won...let me think...?  Iowa?  Nope.  New Hampshire?  Uh-uh.  Michigan?  Negative.  South Carolina?  No.  The best he has done is 2nd place in Nevada.  According to CNN, Rep. Paul has 6 delegates so far.  NYT says that he has none.  (Of course, we all know about how the NYTimes is so liberal.  Courtesy of Rudy.)

 

This does not sound like the strategy of a healthy campaign to me.  This sounds like a campaign that's saying, "We're screwed.  We can't get out because our candidate has made such a commitment to this.  Let's just whitewash the walls to cover up the fact that they're going to come down sooner or later."

 

The commenter is #4 in "Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Answer The Phone" on NYTimes.com, at this address if this link doesn't work: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/28/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-answer-the-phone/

Colonel Ron Blimp

I enjoy reading the posts of people courageous enough to actually stand against the fanatical Paulians. That's why I found this very funny. Also, since I am a huge Monty Python fan, I liked this, too.

When Paulians Attack!, Part II

This is just plain ridiculous. Ron Paul needs to rope in his supporters- they are simply out of control. To me, "Dr." Paul is an "NIMC" candidate- "Not In My Country." I would sooner vote for Duncan Hunter than Ron Paul, just because of his supporters. They are incredibly intense, and their intensity is rather freaky. Go ahead and spam me, Paulians! I can take it! You lot are full of so much bull that you cover it up by screaming at people who dare question your Ron Paul gospel. Enough is enough! People make mistakes, and it generally isn't due to grand conspiracies. We are completely over your yelling and screaming and voter intimidation.

A Fair Tax?

I read this column in the New York Times, and I thought a bit. I like Mike Huckabee; he seems like a pretty darn nice guy. But would his tax ideas work? It doesn't seem to make sense, that the FairTax would be taking the tax burden off of those who are able to support it and who don't need to spend such a large percentage of their money to live, and putting it on the people least able to support it. Their math also seems a little weird, too. The article quotes one of the major sponsors of the FairTax saying, "Liberals should love it: it lowers taxes on wages and imposes a tax on wealth." Let me spell out the likely reason why liberals don't seem to be too impressed. The great majority of American people live from paycheck to paycheck, spending most of what they take in each month, whereas people who get more money don't have so much of a problem with that. If they cut back on some luxury expenditures, rich people could get a hell of a lot better off on this. A single man taking in $1,000,000 a year, with no mortgage, 50% investment rate, and good personal habits spend about a percentage point extra, and receive a boost to actual usable income of about 300%. Whereas a 3-person family earning $40,000 per year, with no mortgage, no investment, fairly low charitable-giving and gift-giving rates, public school education for the tyke, and an overall low profile results in an increase in taxes paid, decrease in purchasing power, and a decrease in spendable income. That's very interesting, isn't it. The "progressive" tax would hurt the people who can afford it the least, and help the people who don't need the help.

P.S. This was done practically on a whim, so any FairTax supporters who think I did my research wrong should keep in mind that this was very rushed. I want to do a more detailed look into it, but time has not permitted.