politics are so much fun.

so I’ve had a lot of people ask me about my political views. I’ve had a lot of people criticize me for them, and act shocked that I would actually vote for Obama. for some time I’ve considered writing about it, but not really had the energy or motivation to do so. but in the last couple of weeks I’ve watched all kinds of interviews with Sarah Palin, read articles about her history, watched the presidential debate, and sent off for my absentee ballot. as a result I have politics on the brain, so I might as well talk about it.

I’ve not been a big McCain fan from the outset of his campaign. for one thing, he’s voted twice against expanding hate crimes definitions to include sexual orientation. he’s been in support of the Iraq war from the get-go, and I disagree with his foreign policy in general. (ontheissues.org is a good place to look at his voting record, and his website has his statements as well.) because I don’t hold very strongly with Republican ideals in general, I wouldn’t be his biggest fan, but the biggest kicker is the war. add to that his age and health history, and it makes me even more wary. (no, it isn’t ageism. it’s realizing that he would be the oldest president to begin a first term.) which brings into play why Sarah Palin is also a big factor.

let me just clear up any doubts you might be having: I don’t like Sarah Palin. first and foremost, she’s too conservative for me. but regardless of your political affiliations, I would recommend doing a little investigation on her before you vote for McCain.

first, a little look at her attendance record.
“Palin has spent little time in Juneau, rarely coming to the state capital except when the Legislature was in session, and sometimes not even then. During a recent special session called by Palin herself, she faced criticism from several legislators for not showing up personally to push for her agenda. Someone at the Capitol even printed up buttons asking, ‘Where’s Sarah?’”

secondly, this whole “bridge to nowhere” business.
“Last year, Palin announced she was stopping state work on the controversial project, earning her admirers from earmark critics and budget hawks from around the nation. The move also thrust her into the spotlight as a reform-minded newcomer.
“The state, however, never gave back any of the money that was originally earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge, said Weinstein and Elerding.”

and my third, final, and largest beef with Sarah Palin? the woman doesn’t seem to know what she’s talking about.
look up her interviews. say what you will about liberal media editing — these aren’t soundbyte answers. for example, from the transcript of her interview with Charlie Gibson:
GIBSON: “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?”
PALIN: “In what respect, Charlie?”
GIBSON: “The Bush — well, what do you — what do you interpret it to be?”
PALIN: “His world view.”
GIBSON: “No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.”
(transcript here.)
even though he told her what he meant by the Bush doctrine, her answer still didn’t address it — she proceeded to say that she agreed with what Bush has done militarily (the “war on terror,” I assume), not the idea that preemptive strikes are perfectly acceptable.
I suppose it could be argued that he was using “media elite” lingo, but honestly? if I’m not mistaken there are books about this stuff. or one could simply read a newspaper. I know what the Bush Doctrine is, and I’ve never been an elected official or taken a political science class. I don’t even follow current events as closely as I should. I would think that, as a mayor and then a governor and then a running-mate of a presidential candidate, one would be familiar with the policies of the current administration, particularly the policies one’s running mate agrees with.
just one example on the interview issue. you should really watch them all.
and though people gave her rave reviews after the debate, I really don’t feel she proved herself by any means. she didn’t have the same kind of trouble that she’s had in her interviews, but often she danced around the questions, either not answering them at all (just using ambiguous language with terms relating to the topic of the question) or changing the subject to something she knew about. I understand wanting to discuss subjects you’re familiar with, but she should be able to answer the questions asked regarding policy. for example…

IFFIL: “…You, Governor Palin, have said that you would like to see a real clear plan for an exit strategy. What should that be, Governor?”
PALIN: “I am very thankful that we do have a good plan and the surge and the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq that has proven to work, I am thankful that that is part of the plan implemented under a great American hero, General Petraeus, and pushed hard by another great American, Senator John McCain.
“I know that the other ticket opposed this surge, in fact, even opposed funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama voted against funding troops there after promising that he would not do so.
“And Senator Biden, I respected you when you called him out on that. You said that his vote was political and you said it would cost lives. And Barack Obama at first said he would not do that. He turned around under political pressure and he voted against funding the troops. We do have a plan for withdrawal. We don’t need early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there or we’re going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan either. We have got to win in Iraq.
“And with the surge that has worked we’re now down to presurge numbers in Iraq. That’s where we can be. We can start putting more troops in Afghanistan as we also work with our NATO allies who are there strengthening us and we need to grow our military. We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we’re getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq.”

again, the question was what the exit strategy should be. and the answer? … we can’t lose. we have to win. and Barack Obama is bad because he voted against a bill for funding the troops — though he already explained last week that he voted against that bill because there was no timeline for withdrawal. and he pointed at, as I’m sure you all know, that McCain was opposed to (though he wasn’t present for the vote) a bill for funding the troops which did contain a timeline. politics are so much fun.

obviously, I’ve listed more issues with Palin than I have with McCain, which theoretically is backwards — since the presidential candidate is more important, right? but the truth of the matter is, the fact that John McCain picked this woman as his running mate scares me. it was a total marketing move in attempt to appeal to more conservative religious voters and women. I understand, theoretically, the motivation. but really, was there no one else? the idea that this woman could be the commander in chief of our military gives me the creeps. and that’s a fact.

and if you’re wondering, this week’s SNL debate skit was great.

I may post more later on why I’m voting for Obama, since the anti-McCain/Palin explanation got rather lengthy. for now, however, that’s a pretty good starting ground on why I’m voting Democrat this election.

just an example of American arrogance…

in case you haven’t heard, our landfills are getting rather full. this makes it more difficult to find room for our garbage, the volume of which doesn’t seem to be decreasing. so what is our great nation doing about this problem? instead of the seemingly obvious solution of recycling recyclable material, such as the myriad amounts of plastic and paper products that are sent to sit and rot, we’re shipping our trash overseas.

shipping. trash. overseas.

imagine, if you would, the world in 30 years. China is the world’s largest superpower, and as their industries have continued their exponential increase, they begin to encounter this problem — lack of space for waste. their solution is to ship their excess waste away… to America.

would we ever stand for such a thing? would we ever allow some other country to make us their dump, just because we have more extra room for trash than they do? you bet your sweet trasero we would not. but in the classic fashion of our country, we’ve chosen to take the high road of the double standard… after all, we’re support industry for SOMEONE in those third-world countries by sending them our waste.

the kicker is that, according to what I’ve read, electronics make up a large percentage of this garbage. electronic equipment is full of hazardous crap — lead, mercury, hexavalent chromium, and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). if you don’t click the links, some BFRs are known endocrine disruptors — basically, they mess up your hormones, which messes up just about everything else.

not only are we sending them crap, we’re sending them toxic crap. better for our hazardous waste to pollute their ground water than our own, right? go us.

ETA: I should note that all my information came from peer-reviewed academic journals. the things you learn while writing a research paper.