Dennis Kucinich: peace, love, and UFOs.

During a visit to her home in Washington state, Kucinich said he saw a UFO and heard messages from it.

"Dennis found his encounter extremely moving," MacLaine writes. "The smell of roses drew him out to my balcony where, when he looked up, he saw a gigantic triangular craft, silent, and observing him.

"It hovered, soundless, for 10 minutes or so, and sped away with a speed he couldn't comprehend. He said he felt a connection in his heart and heard directions in his mind."

We can't discount this quirky Congressman already...C.S. Lewis, for example, popularized the argument that because of the things Jesus said, he must have been either a liar, a lunatic, or indeed the Lord. So then by Lewis's logic, Kucinich must be either a liar, a lunatic, or someone who actually had the experience MacLaine described.

The Bible-Science apologists would focus on the fact that, technically, a UFO is nothing extraordinary -- it's just a flying object that we can't identify.mber.

I see no motive for him to have fabricated the story. I suppose a hallucination is possible, although I would assume hallucinations of that magnitude don't happen to otherwise sane people, unless some sort of drugs are involved, and we have no evidence that Kucinich was on any drugs, either. Finally, there's no reason UFO's -- in the alien craft sense -- couldn't exist, although it seems unlikely that they would do things like Kucinich described without doing enough to confirm to more than fourteen percent of Americans that they exist.

Democratic Presidential Debate

After watching the Democrats square off for the big debate in Las Vegas, I was a little surprised to come across Fox News's article entitled, "Obama Wins First Debate." However, after reading the article, I have come to agree with it's findings.

--it's not so much that [Obama] scored a knockout punch, or that he was head and shoulders above any of the other candidates. In fact, it's the opposite--

However, from the Obama playing field, a smaller and potentially greater victory was won. Obama's more obvious negative in his candidacy is inexperience, especially in comparison to his competitors. However, Obama held his own on the stage, countering arguments in a clear composed manner even from his toughest competition, Hillary Clinton. He undoubibly has less experience than any of his rivals, but he still held his ground.

Fox News and I have finally come to an agreement. Once Obama overcomes his inexperienced perception, he will quickly gain ground in the polls. The debate was an important step in this process.


Currently, Hillary's main advantage over Barack is the experience issue. This brings us back to the 1960 Presidential Election pairing Nixon against JFK. "Experience is a quickly vanishing asset in a presidential race." Nixon's slogan was "experience counts." Well, he lost, and clearly...hottness counts. Americans could finally watch the candidates debate, bringing in an entirely new asthetic. And JFK was smokin' hott. JFK was probably equally adept and well informed, but he was noticeibly more articulate and attractive.

In my opinion, Hillary was impressive. She gave off an intelligent and competent presentation, held firm with the men on stage, and also drew acclaim for her peacemaking. My only complaint is that she seemed very scripted, which could just be synonymous with "prepared"...but it had a hint of fakeness. But i'm always overly critical about the fakeness of politicians, so she was probably fine.

John Edwards and Hillary had an awkward moment when Hill's vote in support of the 2002 vote for the Iraq war was questioned. It would have been blown off if she would have fessed up to an error in judgement, or a lack of good information...but she didn't, and kind of came off as cold and ruthless. However, Edwards, in his cute southern draw asked those who also formerly supported the war to "search their consciences," it was very poetic.

Another bold stance of Hillary's was when she addressed the Supreme Court decision to ban partial birth abortions. This issue will definitely be embedded into her candidacy whether she likes it or not. I was annoyed that she made it seem slightly like a push for girl power? Thats not really where the abortion issue lies when debating a Republican. The bigger issue is that of Church vs. State, and the lines that have been crossed time and time again in Bush's presidency. Just because the Church says it is wrong, doesn't mean it should be illegal. The law is the law, and your religion is your own business. yes, i'm a libertarian.

Dennis Kucinich is an man who deserves his 15 minutes of fame. Staked out the far left as his own and even directly challenged the other candidates in their Iraq war beliefs. So perhaps he is just the bête noire of Democrats.

At this point it is necessary to share my first experience hearing about Kucinich...see my next blog entry!

Pre-debate commentary

8 p.m. tonight is the CNN Democratic Presidential Debate held in Las Vegas, Nevada. And I am soooo excited. There was talk of throwing a theme party at my house, and each person has to dress up like their least favorite democratic political candidate. Or we could even make it into a drinking game, every time Hillary does her i'm uncomfortable laugh (2 drinks), every time Gravel makes a face that resembles a grizzly bear (3 drinks), every time Barack and Hillary agree on something (4 drinks). We could make this quite the Thursday night if I felt inclined to continue.

Ok, lets make some predictions.

Women as Architects of

I love satire, but this is just ridiculous. These five "courageous" women actually got airtime to talk about how stressful it is to take their kids to soccer practice.

But...hes so old?

Republican John McCain sort of sings to his own tune when it comes to his political views. He is not overly conservative, and has the audacity to speak his mind on issues that don't align with his party, I like him and all..but what affect would his ancienticity have on the american public? And is this even a PC topic to be brought up?

When preparing to write this entry, I came aross several articles referring to McCain as the "Maverick." Forgive me for my stereotypical jest, perhaps McCain was a rebellious, promiscuous fighter pilot in his day; or perhaps 70 is the new 50; or perhaps the authors were aiming for a more docile interpretation of

noun
1.	someone who exhibits great independence in thought and action

And i'm pretty sure they were referring to his active sponsorship in gun control, finance reform innitiatives, support for legalizing illegal aliens, and his array of comments about affirmative action.

However, i would fully support any political insiuations that McCain was in fact a sexy fighter pilot. Off topic. But he did receive all these awards:

Silver Star Legion of Merit Bronze Star Medal Purple Heart Distinguished Flying Cross

A lifelong Repulican and American Conservatie Union, McCain has maintained outstandingly high acceptance ratings among his peers and the general public.
His traditional Republican side favors:
-very Pro-life
-in favor of free trade
-privatization of social security accounts
-against socialized health care
- in favor of school vouchers
-supports death penalty
-supports welfare reform

In more recent news, a debate between both Repulicans McCain and Giuliani began to get interesting as they focussed on the topic of...torture?

Of course, as Republicans often do, each candidate found it entirely necessary to do all but distribute paper copies of their resume to member of the audience. McCain detailed his personal experience in warning about the dangers of harsh questioning. Giuliani honed on his "work experience" section and explained his job as a prosecutor, and how those skills were relevant. It all seemed very cliche.

McCain’s shot at Giuliani’s credentials was the latest in an increasingly hostile back-and-forth on Friday between a pair who used to exclaim their mutual respect, as the issue of torture’s definition – once treated in Washington as an abstract issue of international law – has come to be personalized between the two Republican contenders.

On Friday, McCain, a former POW, criticized pro-torture opponents who “chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars.”

Giuliani, who never served in the military, said McCain “has never run a city, never run a state, never run a government. He has never been responsible as a mayor for the safety and security of millions of people, and he has never run a law enforcement agency, which I have done.” Blah blah, i have not hard Giuliani speak, without him interjecting this statement word for word.

so what exactly is a "Hillary bond" anyway?

For many Americans, the concept of a "Hillary bond" not only induces skepticism but generalized and accredited fear. While scowling at the tv during Giulliani's distasteful attempt at a Republican candidacy speech, he brought up the Hil-bond conumdrum...which left me wondering to what degree the relevant facts had been twisted. (More on Rudy in a moment) Could Hillary really be planning on issuing a $5,000 goverment-backed treasury security to every new baby born in the U.S.? More-over, does she really intend to print her picture on this bill? Regardless of the facts, hats off to the GOP for making Hillary, at least appear to be completely nuts. Giuliani further commented on the Hil-bonds, "But you know something? I've got news for you -- this costs money. It doesn't come from trees; it doesn't come down from heaven," later stating that this initiative would cost an estimated $20 billion a year.
Ok so Hillary later stated that it was "just an idea" and she threw it out there to generate "conversation." Meanwhile Giuliani was commenting on Hillary's likeness to Karl Marx....this is why I hate politics, or to be more fair, politicians. Giuliani proceeded to tout his successes in running buinesses, cities, and the state of new york, and I think thats great and all...but he gave me such a bad vibe. I don't trust him, what are the chances that after a 30 year career in controversial politics he has an ounce of morality and optimism left? Ok, thats a little harsh. Maybe it's the cheesy smile in this picture, I just flat out don't trust the guy.

Well, I guess there goes my attempt at an impartial view of the presidential race.

I'll be objective. Here's Giuliani on the issues:

Abortion: supports abortion rights.

Immigration: supports providing a path to citizenship for some illegal immigrants, but not ahead of those in the system legally. Immigrants must pay back-taxes, penalties and learn English and American history before granted citizenship.

War in Iraq: opposed to setting a timetable for withdraw. Supports Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, fears failure in Iraq will lead to broader regional conflict.

Same-sex marriage: wants to define marriage as man-woman, supports domestic partnerships and legal benefits.

Social Security: Supports private retirement accounts as part of social security, but not at the expense of guaranteed benefits

Taxes: basically same as Bush's current tax cuts

*Information mostly from CNN election center

whats obama's deal these days?

So, I've been wondering, where has the Barack buzz been lately...when I came across today's USA TODAY cover story "Obama is still seeking traction." Finally, I get to write about my personal favorite 2008 presidential candidate...

He has time and money on his side. But after a fast start, he isn't gaining much ground in the polls.

He has been identified as the most viable African-American contender for president in history. He has published books and has raised a LOT of money in the 8ish months since he threw his hat in the ring for president. In the midst of all the February hoopla he held an impressive 23%, trailing Hillary at 48%. However, 8 months, six debates, and millions of dollars later--he has only picked up another percentage. Has the novel candidate plateaued? Or is he just laying low and waiting for his next big moment to shine?

The article analyzed the breakdown of the national standing poll; showing that Obama has lost some of his African American support to Hillary. This loss is due to his apparent weakness among core blue-collar Democrats and Hillary's inherited support from her husband's African-American fan base--so the question remains, how does he intend to pull the necessary 15% of voters from Hillary? Well, with three months left until the Iowa caucuses I believe the political arena is about to zero in on these two candidates.

Obama's strongest demographics are:
-47% households with annual incomes >$75,000
-45% post-graduate degree
-44% very liberal
-43% 18-29 year old age group
-41% post graduates
-41% independents that lean democrat
-39% men

Well, I pretty much fit the stereotype (except for being a man, of course).
I guess thats pretty typical though, considering we have grown up in a world more accustomed to accepting different racial backgrounds. I am quite sure there are still some white-radicals out there that aren't quite on the same page as the rest of nation.

Obama is a great speaker. He is thoughtful and composed, not overly confident, yet powerful in performance and message. When he speaks, you want to listen to what he has to say, but you also feel you could ask him a question and not feel stupid. Communication skills are hugely important, I would probably rank them as more important than experience...Just look at President Bush's cabinet? could he have a more experienced advisory team...um probably not! However, just listening to him speak takes complete credibility from him. Its like having a a million dollars and no debit card to access it.

So, I'll leave you with this...
"I defied the politics of the moment and opposed the war in Iraq before it began."

Libertarians--"party of principle"?

Beginning with Webster's definition:

Libertarian: A person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially thought and action. Capitalized: a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles.

The party denotes its self-->

Libertarians believe in, and pursue, personal freedom while maintaining personal responsibility.

Libertarians strongly oppose any government interfering in their personal, family and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another.

*a smaller government

*lower taxes

*more freedom.

*free-market economy

*foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade

*"live and let live" mentality and a balanced checkbook.

The Libertarian party is the 3rd largest political party with over 200,000 registered voters from all 50 states. It takes many of its characteristics from the two major parties and blends them into a hippy-fied effort to idealize America. Personally, I am a big fan of the Libs due to 3 major issues:

1) FREE SPEECH: they are the only party that explicitly defends free speech in every capacity which helps differentiate Libs from socialists.

2) SOCIAL SECURITY: you should be able to control your own investment strategies for your future if you choose to. Libs say that you should be able to opt out of Social Security and invest your money in your own personal retirement account. They are realistic--we all know there isn't going to be any money left when we retire, the governement should take over supporting the baby boomers, and let the 2nd wave have a chance to build a retirement fund for themselves. This policy in particular offers a very "pull your self up from your bootstraps" approach to social security, which is really the only democratic to handle the social security near-collapse.

3) FOREIGN POLICY/AID: Everything I have read about the "economic aid" America supplies to foreign countries points to stagnation of economic development, and dependence on U.S. money. U.S. aid programs have built tennis courts in Rwanda and sent sewing machines to areas without electricity. There needs to be logic and accountability that U.S. tax payer dollars are supporting American ideals. Don't give the poorest of the poor toys and food--give them tools and skills to better themselves and create a sense of independence. America mingles too much in foreign affairs, if Americans really want to help other countries we should begin by improving our own economy. Once U.S. companies have funds to invest abroad, free trading policies will exert a greater positive influence on the economies of developing countries than does sending them money.

"The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud."

Frontrunners set the pace for a long race!

<sup>The Washington post listed their opinion of the 2008 election frontrunners:
Democrats: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama
Republicans: Giuliani and McCain

Clinton, Obama, and Romney all raised over $20 million in the first quarter of 2007, whereas Edwards, Giuliani, and McCain raised over $12 million.
--Is this an accurate reading into American public opinion of these candidates? well, yes and no. Obviously the donors represent a significant allegiance to each of the candidates, however, the outcome of this election large depends on the nostalgia of the people. Candidate information, press releases, video and commentary have become infinitely more accessible than any election ever! With the internet, youtube, google--basically anyone has a significant source of information at their fingertips.

According to a poll featured on ABC News from early 2007, 65% of respondents stated that they are following the 2008 election closely (which is high, for being a year before the election). This brings me to point out that you must really take statistics for what they are worth. I mean, how much more likely are you to call into the newstation and tell them that you are following the election, opposed to calling and saying you are not following the election and you are a lazy unpatriotic american? Clearly, voluntary response surveys are not an early indicator that Americans are actually going to get actively involved in the election proceedings. Those of us who care have a responsibility to neutrally educate and motivate the country from within.

So the basic timeline is thus:
April 2008: the Constitutional Party will hold their National Convention in Kansas City, Missouri
May 2008: the Libertarian Party will hold their National Convention in Denver, Colorado
July 2008: The Green Party will hold their National Convention in Chicago, Illinois
August 25-28, 2008: The Democrats will hold their National Convention in Denver, Colorado
September 1-4, 2008: the Republicans will hold their National Convention in Saint Paul, Minnesota
**NOVEMBER 4, 2008: All states will elect their members of the Electoral College

And then--January 20, 2009 we will Inaugurate our new commander in chief.

For the remainder of my blog, I think I would like to closely examine each of the candidates (at least one from each party and the frontrunners) weigh their pros and cons, and let my readers in on a few of my personal leanings! I'll post my observations of Steve Kubby from California and the rest of the Libertarians this week!</sup>

The 2008 United States presidential election, scheduled to be held on November 4, 2008, will be the 55th consecutive quadrennial election for presient and vice preisdent of the U.S. There will also be elections helf for all 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and elections for 34 members of the Senate.

Whats the big deal? Well--basically it means that we have the chance to make some big changes in the political arena, restructure the system of checks and balances, mitigate the damage done in Iraq, or reform social security to a degree of sustainability. It also means that we have the chance to uphold our self-fulfilling prophesy toward a downward spiral of coverup and corruption.

Ok--optimism is inherent in my blood, however, when it comes to U.S. politics I begin to exhibit extremely skeptical and cynical tendencies. When the search for our nation's commander in cheif succumbs to an all out guerilla warfare PR campaign, people need to care enough to look at the big picture.

A little about my poitical leanings:

Basically, i'm a Libertarian who values voluntary collectivism and freedom of information. I believe strongly in individual rights as long as they don't infringe on anybody else. Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy) I really encourage everyone to get to know themselves a little better and sort through their political beliefs. A good online quiz: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test -- it won't necessarily tell you your political affiliation, but it helps you to think about major issues in a less direct sense.

There are several reasons why this election is very different from any other:
1) This is the first election without incumbents in the primaries since 1928
2) There are literally over 20 people running
3) There are so many seats up for election in the House and Senate as well
4) There is less than a 30% approval rating for our current president
5) Democrats are finally beginning to define their issues
6) The two top runners of the Democratic party is a woman and an african american

My view regarding the commander in chief: The role of a commander in chief/president/leader in society is to collectively organize, empower, manage, and motivate your team. No one can expect the presidential-elect to be the all knowing, all seeing rightness in the world. No one is divine, no one is immortal; a politically diverse political body is essential, in these times checks and balances is the only way to ensure integrity--our forefathers knew this. Our president should realize his strengths and his weaknesses and have a network of capable specialized individuals in which, to build his cabinet. He should be, if nothing else, an effective communicator--efficient in receiving input objectively and presenting actions openly.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does." - M. Mead

--Jess