Umm, yeah, I drive a Toyota and will be happy to buy domestic when a comparable car gets me 250,000 miles plus. American trucks are one thing but American cars--please. I am not aiming this at the workers on the line but I cannot buy an American car simply to keep Ford happy. Ford's job is to make something I want to buy, make something so good that Toyota is a distant memeory. It's their job to impress the buyer, not my job to express loyalty without reason.

-Drew

Yeah, it's total BS. It frustrates me to no end when people put forth this type of "news" to try to discredit Senator Obama. It is fake and those responsible for its content should be deeply ashamed. What I am more concerned about are those things that Senator Obama really does believe. The truth (as it relates to Senator Obama) is far more frightening than are the lies.

Senator Obama is an Egalitarian and wishes very much that your neighbor have as much as you. Forget that he's raised some 600 million dollars (wow, for a campaign) and that he's preferred 5-1 on Wall Street--he, along with Senator McCain are truly nothing more than different branches of the same tree. (By the way, anyone who thinks Senator Obama is anti-business or has no ties to corporate America need only review some of the financial disclosures to know that he is massively funded by big business.)

Real change will never happen in Washington until a 3rd party candidate is elected, someone who believes that government needs to be restrained, not encouraged to expand and someone who believes that government is there to serve, not to dictate.

But that will not happen as long as people are inclined to gaze at a man with rapturous wonderment, dazzled by symbolism over substance.

-Drew

As opposed to what--President "spread the wealth" Obama? I just can't wait to give more of my money to people who don't work hard enough to make their own. Wait, that sounded cold, and for that I'm truly very sorry. What I meant to say was that I am so looking forward to redistribution of wealth. See, now I feel better.

-Drew

Dr. Paul got mine as well---in a round-about way. Neither of the two parties put up anything worth considering let along voting for.

Two things however, do make me happy.

1. I can stop hearing about this "fascist" police state we live in. An Obama victory (which will occur) is all the proof in the world that we NEVER lived in such a state as fascist governments would never have let power transfer hands without a coup d’état.

2. I will have four years (most likely eight) to blog each and every Obama broken promise and absurd redistribution of wealth policy that aims to give more to those who refuse to work for it. That will be a great deal of fun.

No bitterness or anger--we live in a nation where elections decide the road we are on and unlike some I'll not buy moronic bumper stickers with half brain-dead slogans like, "He's NOT my President." He'll be my president and I'll respect the office.

It's going to be quite a ride--for that much seems sure.

-Drew

On this we agree but I would submit that a number of Americans ARE in fact concerned about illegal immigration. We are witnessing the dawn of scary financial times and illegal immigration and the cost of such immigration is a huge financial concern to many. If, as Senator Obama states, the laws must be followed then I will look for him to immediately step up a serious commitment to securing our nation's borders. Wow, it was hard to type that without an involuntary rolling of the eyes. Neither party has been responsible in regards to this issue and in that such security is first and foremost a responsibility of upholding our Constitution, I find it more than a bit sad that we seem to wink, nod, and look the other way.

Well it took the Obama campaign about six minutes to figure out who Joe the Plumber was and he's not family. Any and all family members should have been part of the vetting process. He managed to mention her in his book so it appeared that she had at least some impact or influence on him.

I don't think it disqualifies him for office anymore than other private matters disqualify people. That stated, it seems that many Democrats want it both ways as it relates to what is private and what is public.

-Drew

Well, I think now we know that at the very least, illegal immigration won't be a top priority for President Obama. I mean, if he can't manage to keep track of his own family I think it unlikely that he'll be any better when it comes to keeping track of the thousands who cross here illegally each year.

Both parties have plenty to be ashamed of as it relates to the issue of immigration in that both parties have ignored the issue--hoping I suppose that it will simply go away. It won't and anyone with an I.Q. of a moth knows as much.

-Drew

I have to admit, it takes a lot of fortitude to create a post dedicated to the idiocy of Sarah Palin when one can't wake up in the morning without stumbling upon decades worth of Joe Biden's own unique brand of stupidity. Here are but three gems from the man who people seem to tripping over themselves to put one heartbeat away from the Oval Office desk. Following is a Biden comment he gave during an interview with CBS's Katie Couric:

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed," Biden told Couric. "He said, 'Look, here's what happened."

Perhaps someone should tell Joe that people weren't watching TV when the market crashed and that it was Hoover and not Roosevelt who was in office during the beginning of the Great Depression.

And another gem--

"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking."

No, he's not joking but because he's a Democrat, he'll get a free pass on this rather troubling statement. I'm sure that Indian Americans appreciated this statement as well and I know now beyond all else that I had better develop my "slight" Indian accent lest I confuse the poor people working at my local 7-11.

My vote isn't going to either of the two candidates running for the White House and I don't believe that Sarah Palin is without her issues. What I find humorous in all of this is that speed with which Obama/Biden supporters begin to hurl rocks, forgetting perhaps that their own candidate's record regarding monumentally unintelligent statements is very much on the record.

Oh, and one last Biden quote. Again, this one is priceless. Following is Biden commenting on Senator Obama. He later apologized and again, all was forgiven.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

THE FIRST??? What a dope.

-Drew

I agree with all of you who have already commented. The more I watched him (I've known about him long before this election) the more I've identified with so much of what he has to say. Instead of using the Constitution for nefarious and unjustifiable positions on everything from war to federal bailout programs, Dr. Paul understands that there is a mechanism in place to amend our Constitution if desired.

Dr. Paul is treated poorly by those who have a massive aversion to both facts and the binding nature of an un-amended Constitution.

He has my vote.

Drew

Really? So, you believe that humans cause huge volcanos to erupt and change landscapes for hundreds of miles? I remember Mount St. Helens in May of 1980 forever changing Southwest WA but I don't think man did a whole lot to start that.

**If "global warming" is going to brought in here I think it's a worthwhile reminder to remember that volcanos were blasting the hell out of things long before we had a whole lot of people roaming around.

Great link--thanks to the OP for posting this. Ironically, I had been doing some research on Dr. Stanley Milgram (who is mentioned in the clip linked in the original post.)

Milgram was a social scientist who performed some very interesting (and disturbing) tests at Yale between 1961-1962. The premise was simple--as you saw in the video above. In the event that you did not watch the entire video, Milgram was able to show that regular people were willing to administer lethal shocks of electricity to people all in the name of "education" and consequence based learning. Actors (no one was really shocked) were put in place and "teachers" were told that for every wrong answer the actor "learner" gave, a shock would have to be given. The voltage started very low but eventually it got to insanely high doses. The actor "learners" would scream in protest--beg the "teacher" to stop--express clear discomfort.

The results--65% of people were willing to take the experiment all the way (to 450 volts) simply because a guy in a white lab coat (the observer of the experiment) told them to keep going.

Before the experiments, psychologists were asked how many people they felt would actually "go all the way" and scientists thought the number would be incredibly low. They were wrong.

So, one guy in a lab coat telling another guy to keep shocking the "learner" DESPITE the fact that the learner was in obvious pain! Why?

This fascinates me a great deal, especially as it relates to religious fanaticism. If one guy in a white coat who has NO ability to make/force a person to administer electrical currents sufficient to cause a great deal of harm can convince over 50% of sane/rational people to harm another all in the name of education, should we be shocked that authority figures who employ the name of God are able to do much more of the same, with far more terrifying results?

For how many centuries and using how many reasons, has God been put front and center as it relates to "In the name of God we..." only to have the action equal some form of horror? True, many have committed horrible acts in the name of no God at all and those situations are no less tragic. But they are less confusing, in many ways. To justify hate in the name of love is beyond scary. To convince people that the hurt they are causing, whether that be some form of bigotry or something far more sinister) is "OK" because the ends justify the means--well, that is nothing new to this world or to humans.

We should pay attention to Stanley Milgram.

-Drew

Very well put!!

I hope that no one took from my last post that lessons cannot be learned through adversity. That is not at all what I meant. What I did mean was that if a moral agent of some sort is infused into the situation then the "lesson" becomes very subjective. I don't see that as a lesson in the traditional sense. I do see rising above circumstances in an effort to reconstruct not so much a lesson as a hard-wired "drive". We all react biologically to events. If someone throws something at you, you don't think about moving, you move. We overcome a lot in life because our survival (literally) depends upon doing so.

But when a tornado or a hurricane destroy half of a state I don't believe there is a god of any sort imposing lessons for the purposes of edification. I do understand that when something powerful, something that cannot be stopped, visits us, there is, at times, a wish that allows people to reach for something even more powerful. But that is also where the problems start because to hold that line of thinking it would appear (at least along the TX coast) like Ike won.

Just my thoughts.

-Drew

What amazes me about the "lessons in loss" argument is that no one wants to endure it. Some people justify suffering (when a god is in the picture) as a test, something to make us appreciate more, all we have. But if that is so, then why don't people simply impose the lesson without prompting?

If anyone really believes that having your home reduced to splinters of wood is character building then Home Depot should have a sudden rush on large hammers as people seek to experience the same. But that goes against everything we truly believe as it relates to self-preservation instincts.

It's easier to conclude that weather happens, that tropical depressions simply occur as part of larger global patterns and events. When a god is injected into the situation so is the morality of the event. It does not help at all that we name storms. But it is even less help to believe that in some small (or large) way, we are being taught a lesson.

What lesson?

-Drew

I have family in Texas. My thoughts are with them and I would gladly offer anything I have to assist them as they work to rebuild their lives. Thoughts and a willingness to help set aside for a moment, I see no meaningful or practical reason to pray for them. A group of Texans who, shortly before Ike made landfall, fervently prayed that God would direct Ike away from Texas, shattered all illusions that God was even remotely interested as the 600 mile-wide storm angrily plowed ahead. If God couldn't bothered to intercede before Ike kicked the hell out of Texas, what would serve as his motivation to provide comfort now, as people pick through piles of garbage searching for precious mementos of a former life?

A particularly heart-breaking image was that of a women, convulsed with anguish, hands buried in her hands, standing in front of what 24 hours earlier had been her home.

She has nowhere to go and little left of of what used to be her life. She could do little to conceal her depression and deep shock. Standing in front of a pile of what might generously be called kindling, some commented in the larger part of the story that at least God had seen fit--replete with loving kindness--to spare her life. Presumably those people (like me) are writing from a warm home that is still standing.

It is absurd to suggest that because one is left alive but in a state of incomprehensible loss that God has illustrated the very best evidence of his love. If I were to destroy things very dear and important to you, would your anger be assuaged if I argued that hope should be found, and in fact, that thanks should be offered me because I left you with your life? Can you honestly imagine a more grotesque line of reasoning or a more sadistic pathology?

So where does this leave not only the good people of Texas but the rest of us? Viewed traditionally, we are left to search for some type of meaning. We are left to discover and then to deploy in defense of a loving god, reasons in justification of "lessons" god is presumably attempting to teach us. The spiritual gymnastics it takes to wrap the mind and heart around such destruction as god purchased a front row ticket for the show, is nearly impossible.

There is however, a more substantial way to view Ike, Texas, and the search for meaning. Is it not possible that Ike was not created by or directed by god? Could it be that Ike formed as a result of a tropical depression off the west coast of Africa and that after forming, simply traveled according oceanic currents and meteorological mechanisms?

That idea is far more comforting to me than to justify a loving creator ignoring the very people who prayed for reprieve. It is more comforting to me to know that storms happen as part of complex climate implications and not because god was bored and looked to "teach" people to be thankful for life as the remnants of their homes washed out to sea with each rising tide.

God can be neither thanked or held in contempt for things if one simply concludes that physics, and not ignored prayers and pleas drive such catastrophic events.

To view Ike as created, as "allowed" and as pre-determined, forces a person to grapple with the worst part of faith and scarier still, the worst part of a god, who, outside of promising to protect, once again has failed to answer the very prayers those who believe on his name, offered, with both sincerity and hope.

-Drew

I just stepped in something.....wait, was that a pile of "Oh Please......."

Thirty years ago, Sarah Palin was what "in the day" feminism was all about creating. The champion of the movement, Gloria Steinem argued that a woman should be able to have both--a career (and by career she did not mean simply putting a man's food on the table at a specified nightly time) but in fact a "power" career. Empowerment was about being able to have kids and have a the career and the only that that has the almost irrelevant Ms. Steinem bothered is that this particular woman (Mrs. Palin) carries and (R) after her name.

It was Gloria and her work of yesteryear that has produced women like Sarah Palin. In fact, Gloria is right when she asserts that Palin is the wrong woman with the wrong message in that the right woman (Senator Clinton) has been cast to the side, the bitter little cheerleader for Mr. Obama.

Women like Gov. Palin drive women like Ms. Steinem crazy because Palin does not consider herself a victim of anything or anyone. That is, she has earned what she has. But she failed to pay the toll that fringe feminism instituted long ago. Palin isn't a bitter angry victim that felt like she had to fight the establishment in order to flip it the bird. She's not run by the shrill likes of Ms. Steinem and THAT is why she's the wrong woman.

Drew

The problem with a fight like Lesner and RC is that if Randy gets caught--dare I even think it--but if he were to get caught and Lesner were to (gulp) win.......we would never hear the end of it and he'd instantly be propelled into top level fights (if that hasn't already happened.)

I think Randy takes this fight--and I'm absolutely hoping so but I'm with some others--RC and Fedor before Randy is 60 years old. That's no joke either--I think Randy would fight Fedor in the Bingo room at the retirement community. He wants that fight, bad!

Oh, and Spider is the man--no question. He moved up in weight and made a decent fighter look stupid. I'd like to see Anderson Silva fight Tito and both Shamrock brothers--just for the pure hell of it.

-Drew

He should counter-sue in that I'm sure once in a while she enters the office in a state of PMS and directs it in his general direction.

Ridiculous? Yeah--just as ridiculous as her lawsuit.

Hi--it's all good. I did not take your post as a Mac bashing post--I apologize if my response seemed bitter--really, I was just making my case and like I mentioned, I still use a PC for most of the day. What I think Mac has done right however is to make a system that people do enjoy for certain things. Since they are still so behind MS and since that is not likely to change I understand that there will be limits (e.g., Chrome, the new browswer by Google is not yet ready for Linux) but I still have fun.

:)

Drew