You know it´s bad when...

The largest newspaper in Alaska endorsed Barack Obama yesterday, opting for him over their homegrown bulldog in lipstick (hey (context aside) her words, not mine). I´m actually happy to point out that this endorsement from a presumptive McCain-Palin supporter is not even really news, as it follows similar announcements from Colin Powell, Scott McClellan (you don´t get any more Republican than this guy), former Bush BFF Tom Berstein , and perhaps most surprisingly (due in part to her participation in the Democratic convention, but perhaps more to the fact that she´s Ike´s granddaughter)Susan Eisenhower. The list actually goes on, but I think I´ve made my point. Moreover, I´d also like to point out that none of the above high-profile Republicans, most of who have made their fortunes off the wonders of the free market, would ever DREAM of supporting a socialist, which BTW, Obama is not.

According to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:
Main Entry:
so·cial·ism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Ok "friends", the progressive tax system, which we´ve had like, since forever, and which was supported by Bush Sr., does none of the following: make privante organizations public, redistribute wealth in any way that fundamentally changes peoples' economic status ( the only thing it might do (GOD FORBID!!!) is shrink the gap that exists between the insanely rich, the moderately well-to-do, the middle class, and the poor), put us on the path-to a soviet-style government takeover (keep in mind that Obama´s healthcare plan still depends on private insurers) , and finally affect anyone who makes less than 250,000 dollars a year. I´m sorry, but it is just plain stupid, to insist that a tax cut that favors 95 percent of Americans (including small business owners) will result in class-warfare.

Also, on a totally unrelated note, I saw Shane West in the Lima Airport yesterday, swoon!

Rumor has it that Sean Hannity wants to makeout with Sarah Palin

(I don´t know if it's true) . Ok, so Sarah Palin sat down for an interview with Sean Hannity last night, and despite being one of the most ridiculous things I´ve ever seen, it was insanely entertaining. First of all, the questions were so scripted and predictable that I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin's youngest daughter (who is like four) could have nailed the answers. Hannity basically asked the following three questions (though not in these exact words): 1. OMG why are you so awesome ? 2. So, Obama is like a total socialist, right? 3. Why does the mainstream LIBERAL media hate you so much?

What´s even better is that when Sarah Palin mentioned shopping at consignment stores, Hannity seemed so moved by her small-town Alaskan charm that he replaced the permanent sneer he wears (whilst bitching about the vast liberal conspiracy that is polluting George Bush's America) with a soft grin. Honestly, as I watched the interview, I sort of got the feeling that Palin was talking to an adoring fan, and not a self-proclaimed independent journalist. In all seriousness, the interviews was as (if not less) informative than all of Palin's stump speeches, because Sean Hannity was too busy making googly eyes at the vice-presidential candidate , to ask her anything even moderately worthwhile.

So Michelle Bachmann...(yeah it´s too easy, but still)

After her disastrous Harball appearance Michelle Bachamann decided to stay under the radar for a bit, which makes sense. I mean after you call everyone who doesn´t agree with you a communist radical anti-american leftist, and then suggest that they should be rounded up Arthur Miller-style circa the Red Scare, it stands to reason that one might have to do moderate amounts of damage control. What baffles me is that after a long media absence (well for her, which was like a week) she decided to go on the O´REILLY Factor to set the record straight. Now, she didn´t really say anything particularly earth-shattering, and she also pretty much let good ole Bill recontruct the Harball interview to his liking, which is fine, but what still confuses me is that she never denied calling Barack Obama anti-American, nor did she explain exactly what it is about his platform that she finds so radically dangerous. But, then again substance has never really been her strong-point...so...

On a completely unrelated note, I think a lot of Michelle Bachmann´s problems could be solved if she stopped over-plucking her eyebrows. I mean, people might stop calling her a lunatic, if she does a slightly better job of aesthetically hiding her giant forehead (a problem I also share), and beady little demon eyes. Honestly, this won´t do much to change the fact that she's insane, but since people are more often than not, willing to judge books based on their covers sensible bangs, and bushier brows, might make her look a little more electable. For all of you who thought that my views were strictly partisan, I think I have just proven (by giving beauty tips to the other side) that I am as independent as Joe Lieberman, so there.

Oh yeah, and Sarah Palin hates the middle class

A newstory just broke about Sarah Palin's fashion expenses. Apparently, the former Miss Alaska runner-up spent 150k on designer clothes....LAST MONTH. Now, I´m not saying that Democrats don´t have extravagant tastes as well (they do), but it seems kind of odd that a candidate who constantly RANTS about putting an end to government waste and campaign finance reform spent what could be considered the equivalent of a decent yearly salary by most Americans on looking hot. I´m just saying that though she claims to be an outsider, she certainly spends like an insider (on herself).

I went to Catholic School (thus the blog title, sorry internet pervs):

And despite leaving with a sneaking suspicion that I might end up it hell, it was a relatively positive experience, kind of. The friends and memories I made during the twelve years of my Catholic education will accompany me forever, which I guess makes up for the fact that I was forced to attend terrifying anti-choice rallies, whilst listening on a weekly basis to rants about the dangers of Islam and feminism. In all honesty, I actually credit the development of my critical thinking skills to the time I spent trying to figure how exactly it was that praying to Mary, was somehow the equivalent of having Jesus on speed-dial...but I digress...my selected topic of discussion for today is the A-word, yes abortion, which I know is a black and white issue for pro-choice and pro-life people alike, but I´d like to suggest a middle ground.

First of all, I honestly believe that nobody is pro-killing babies, and that when you throw talk like that into any discussion about abortion your´re basically asking for a fistfight. The prochoice argument is simple: women should be able to decide about what goes on with their bodies. To put it more simply: the government cannot legislate inside womens' uteruses (which I think seems fair).

Now as a practicing Catholic, I personally believe that life begins at conception. So if I were to be in a situation involving an unplanned pregnancy I would CHOOSE to have the baby. However, my positition comes from my faith, which has also taught me about the importance of tolerance and accepting other worldviews . In America, we have this thing called the seperation of church and state. This means that moral arguments that are couched in religious justifications have absolutely no place in the law. Moreover, since most abortions take place when fetuses aren´t viable (i.e. when they depend 100 percent on the woman that is carrying them for their life) it is legally impossible to grant them protection under the law.

More importantly, I promise you that John McCain is not going to do anything to erode what is perceived by some as America's longheld pro-choice tradition. Keep in mind that in the last eight years Bush has appointed two new Supreme Court justices, and still, no progress has been made in overturning Roe v. Wade. The abortion issue is a bootstrap that allows Repblicans to appeal to voters who would never actually benefit fom a majority of their policies.

Why I have beef with Sarah Palin:

1. She is not a pitbull, but a trained monkey. All of her stump speeches can be reduced to blah blah blah hockey mom, blah blah blah Bill Ayers, blah blah blah plumber, blah blah blah unpatriotic, blah, blah blah, I love this country, blah blah blah, socialism. How any self-respecting woman would agree to do a job she´s cleary not qualified for, and then let aides and her running-mate spoonfeed her talking points is beyond me. The only times we´ve seen her semi-unfiltered were in those horrendous Katie Couric interviews, where she fumbled through questions related to the economy and couldn´t even name a newspaper she regularly reads. Now, I´ll admit she´s gotten better in the last couple of weeks, but that only means she´s been practicing her lines, not that she´s ready to be vice-president.

2. Love of country does not=a line on one´s resume. One thing that really irritates me is that Sarah Palin claims to have this unique perspective about what it means to be an American, which if I´m not mistaken, has something to do with, teen mothers, hockey, and hunting. Now, I actually don´t have a much of a problem with Sarah Palin´s brand of patriotism. What does bug me is that she thinks 1. her way of seeing America is the only way (keep in mind that she comes from one of the least diverse states in the Union) and 2. that somehow repeating "I love this great country" makes her qualified to be vice-president. When I was in high school, I used to visit a borderline senile but charming old lady who said exactly the same thing, but I highly doubt Palin's supporters would accept her as their vice-presidential candidate.

3. Ugh, the comparison of Obama and Palin's experience levels. This one just pisses me off. Fine, Sarah Palin has been a governor and a mayor, but it is pretty damn clear that she didn´t spend a single second thinking about foreign or hell even domestic policy until she was tapped to be McCain´s running-mate. I know this has been repeated several times, but people, please remember that she used Russia´s proximity to Alaska to evidence her foreign policy experience (despite never having visited there). Also, i´ll concede that she perhaps cut taxes in Alaska (and fairly distributed oil wealth), but none of that means that she is in anyway equipped to understand the recession currently facing America. Obama has been in the Senate since 2004 and was a community organizer in one of the most problem-riddled parts of Chicago before that. Also, on a perhaps tangential, but definitely related note, he is just smarter. Even if you do a balance of who has made more executive decisions and Palin comes out ahead, when it comes to thinking critically and creatively (which is ultimately the key to transformingU.S. politics), Obama and Biden clearly have Sarah Palin beat.

4. Her speeches are designed to incite hate and division. After watching Palin closely for the last couple of weeks, I´ve noticed that she does a really excellent job of not talking about anything in particular, and instead focuses on getting people riled up about about the fact that Obama hates this country, pals around with terrorists, and wants to have to have tea with the President of Iran. Now, lets put aside the fact that these claims are about as factually accurate as the Da Vinci Code, and consider what this strategy says about Palin. On the one hand it´s a sign of genius. If American's can be duped (AGAIN) into electing a joe six-pack, it´ll be thanks to Sarah Palin. On the other hand it proves that she is completely shallow (because she is avoiding the issues).
Biden and Obama could easily respond to her attacks by referencing her husband's involvement with Alaska's Seperatist Party (as this certainly would undermine Palin´s patriotism rant), but have elected not to, because their strategy is to rise above

To put things simply. I don´t doubt that Sarah Palin is a decent person, (well actually I do, but I´m trying to be generous), but I am absolutely certain that she should not be vice-president, not because she´s unqualified (though this is a problem as well), but because she doesn´t think.

I am not an economist....

And, the only thing I know about 401ks is that my dad has one that´s not doing so well. Also, due to my pile of students loans and guilt-induced fear of the private sector, I really won´t have to worry about a mortgage until I´m like 100. So I´ll admit to being, like Sarah Palin, a novice as far as economic issues are concerned. However, I am decently good at pointing out the obvious...so I´d like to share a few thoughts I´ve had in the last couple of weeks:

1. John McCain promises to not raise anyone´s taxes. Fair enough, but I´d also like to point out that this means that he´d maintain the tax code that was last reformed in 2002, by a one, capitalism-loving George W. Bush , who is now regulating the economy like woah, btw.

2. John McCain wants Joe the Plumber to spread the wealth around. Again, this statement is rhetorically appealing, but let's take a closer look at the content. The idea behind giving businesses tax cuts is premised on the reasonable assumption that they´ll reinvest their extra income in a way that makes the economy grow. Now, I am fully willing to accept that an incompetent application of this principle, and not blind greed motivated Congress to approve the Bush tax cuts, but for the last 6 years, really really (insanely) rich Americans have had the opportunity to invest in the national economy, and what have the results been? A huge banking crisis, a massive credit crunch, and a spike in unemployment. I know that government officials are often inefficient and infuriatingly influenced by special interests, but I'd rather depend on their elected asses, than on the consciences of people like Richard Fuld, Martin Sullivan, and the late Kenneth Lay.

3. Taxes pay for things (see I told you I was good at pointing out the obvious). I can honestly say that I´m not overly optimistic about the short-termn benefits of the Obama or McCain economic proposal. If I remember my Smith correctly, the cyclical nature of the economy makes it inevitable that lows will follow market highs (all of you who had me pinned as an anarchist hippie can now shut up). However, I do think that the government can take measures to temper the impacts of flunctuations in the market (see Keynes, I think). Of the two candidates, the only one who is willing to do this is Barack Obama, and his suggestions include taxing people who make large amounts of money (because average Americans buy their products and services, watch their movies and telivision shows, and work on their assembly lines) to take care of pressing issues like healthcare, education, and infrastructure (taxes pay for BRIDGES and their upkeep people!). Moreover, the 5 percent of Americans who would see their taxes raised are so insanely wealthy that Barack Obama's tax cut for the middle class would have no impact on government revenue, and would allow ALL of you to keep supporting small and large businesses. Honestly, I don´t think it´s asking too much of huge corporations to pay more into the government system of a country that has given them so much. To put the very valid crititicisms of American overconsumption aside, if there are benefits to be reaped from it, they should be equally distributed

Like I said, I'm not an economist, but then again, neither are most Americans. John McCain says that the economy depends on small businesses, and American consumers. I agree. Unfortunately his tax proposal (or de facto extension of Bush's) doesn´t back that up.