Obama Is On The Phone? For Me? Really? Yeah, Right!

Remember when Sarah Palin became the victim of a radio show prank? She thought France’s President Sarkozy called to talk to her.  Please! It’s nice to think that you’re that important, but come on Sarah! Sarkozy doesn’t give a darn about you. There is absolutely no reason for Sarkozy to be talking to you.

Well, politicians were apparently paying close attention. No one wants to become the victim of a prank, including Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. It is reported that President-elect Obama called to, among other things, congratulate Ms. Lehtinen on her re-election. The Congresswoman, remembering Palin’s mishap, promptly hung up.

Shocked at this unexpected event, Obama asked Rahm Emanuel to call her. Guess what happened! Same result!

Finally, Representative Howard Berman called her. Ms. Lehtinen, still wary, asked Berman to recite a private joke they once shared. Now convinced and somewhat embarrassed, Ms. Lehtinen told Berman to ask Obama to try to call her again, saying “I know this sounds very presumptuous, but please tell President-elect Obama he can call me now and I will take his call”.

Obama called and they had a good laugh. “You will always be remembered by me, because I have made many of these calls and never once has anyone ever hung up on me. And never once has anyone hung up on me twice,” Obama said.

Good for Ms. Lehtine. I love her skepticism. I wonder how many Republican Congressmen will now try to avoid Obama using the same technique just to avoid talking to Obama.

Here’s Palin’s prank call. I feel bad for her. I really do. It’s a tough prank to foresee but, as I said earlier, the first clue should have been Sarkozy’s interest in talking with her. 

Earth To Palin: Fruit Fly Research Is Key To Many Cures

Watch this video. This is Sarah Palin’s policy statement on US budget.

For anyone who doesn’t know about genetics research, just google it and you’ll see a vast array of publications and discoveries about the topic. Fruit fly research is the standard by which many genetic and birth defects as well as molecular biology are studied today. In fact, fruit flies have been used for protein, cell and genetic research for around 100 years. It is precisely this type of research that brings hope to areas such as autism. 

I concede that over 50% of US population is unaware of the importance of fruit fly research in the areas of genetics and molecular biology. As the mother of a Down Syndrome child, however, Sarah Palin sure doesn’t seem very educated about genetic defects and research. Doesn’t anyone fact-check her speeches? Anyone? It is clear that she’s been busy recently. She’s definitely sacrificing her family for her country – and I truly mean that in a positive and respectful way.

The Republican media machine jumped into action by saying that she was only speaking of fruit fly research as it applies to agricultural, not genetics. Please, don’t insult my intelligence! Watch the video again and listen to her words. Her condemnation of fruit fly research came in the following context: “. . . sometimes these dollars go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good.”

Oh, I know. Perhaps she was only objecting to fruit fly research in Paris, France. She would have no objections if it was conducted in the US. We hate the French . . . don’t we? I forget what our official policy on the French is these days. Do we like them or not? It’s so hard to keep track.

I have also read (on various blogs) that Palin does not believe in genetic research due to her religious views and, hence, her objection to it. I don’t believe that. She’s much more intelligent than many on the left portray her. I assume her children receive vaccinations which, after all, is a direct result of genetic and protein research.

I love this bit from Rachel Maddow. Both she and Keith Olbermann are a little too far to the left for my taste, but I enjoy Rachel’s funny and sometimes sassy remarks.

Here’s a good link to learn more about fruit fly research:

http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2003/11/14/Science/Fruit.Fly.Study.Improves.Genetic.Research-2245662.shtml

Judo With Putin – I Wonder If He’s Compensating For Something

OK, so stop me if you’ve heard this one! Young Vladimir grows up in the old Leningrad, joins the KGB, becomes President of Russia, fools George Bush into thinking he has a good pro-democracy soul, installs a new hand-picked Russian president to succeed him, makes himself the Prime Minister with more power than the president, and shoots a Siberian tiger just in time to save a TV crew. 

What more can Putin accomplish in his life other than going to Disney Land? How about producing a DVD of himself showing off his black belt Judo moves on his 56th birthday?

President Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw a good man. McCain looked into Putin’s eyes and (by his own admission) saw a K, a G, and a B. They are both wrong. They should have seen a J, a U, a D, and an O. 

fat_buddha

Long gone are the days of Russian Presidents who are in perpetual state of drunkenness and whose large bellies resemble a Buddha God – remember Boris Yeltsin? Even at his old age, Ronald Reagan could kick Yeltsin’s hard-to-miss butt. No longer. Both Putin and Medvedev can easily take on our elected officials: the great philosopher, public speaker and humanitarian (Bush), the old cantankerous guy (McCain), and the Messiah (Obama).

And of course Sarah Palin knew all about this a long time ago. She could practically see the production of this DVD from her kitchen window looking out toward Russia.

One Undecided’s View of The Vice Presidential Debate

I will begin this post just as I did my previous one about the Presidential debate last week.

I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I side with Democrats on many issues. I side with Republicans on many others. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for in November.

I am not going to evaluate any specific topics, points or responses. I’ll let others do the analysis and mudslinging. Here’s what I saw.

Sarah Palin’s game plan was to defend Palin. She had a horrible week leading to the debate. She had no choice but to make up for it. She did not disappoint. She performed spectacularly. If you read my previous post on the first Presidential debate, you know that I was impressed by Obama’s ability to address the moderator as well as McCain by looking at both of them. Palin executed the same ability perfectly by addressing the moderator and her opponent. She looked comfortable, had a smile on her face most of the time, and did not hesitate as she has in previous interviews. Biden looked as bad as McCain did – old, stiff, angry. The coaching she received in the past few days was clearly very effective. Good for her.

Joe Biden didn’t seem to have a game plan. Either he was not prepared for this debate or Palin performed so well that made Biden look bad. I have no doubt that if the format of the debate was different in a way to allow for detailed back and forth exchanges, Palin would not have performed as well. But Biden knew the format. It was his debate to lose. And he did.

Experience v.s. new blood stood out as the theme of this debate. Experience did not benefit Biden. He relied on his record in Congress, and he bet his VP nomination on the idea that the average American viewer might actually give a darn about the past or about meaningless statistics. Wrong move, Biden! Palin may not have presented many details on anything, but that was actually the right plan. We all know that VPs are virtual no-bodies. They are merely there to help the real Presidential nominee. The average American wants to hear specifics from and learn the record of Presidential nominees, not from VP nominees. I was watching CNN’s reaction meter of undecided men and women voters. Almost every time Biden talked about his record in Congress, he flat-lined the graph. No one cares. Palin achieved the same reaction when she talked about her experience as mayor and governor.

At the end, I know that VP debates are not decisive or consequential. Not much is gained or lost by them.

I remain undecided.

Palin’s Family Is Absolutely Fair Game – Really!

The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.

We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.

Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.

Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.

Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.

Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.

And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”

Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:

Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source

Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?

I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!

Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.  

And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.