Actuarial analysis says McCain won't be "healthy"
by end of second term as president

post from AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth on 06 August 2008 06:01:00 AM. © AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth

The actuarial says McCain has 8.4 "healthy" years left. He mistakenly drew the conclusion that McCain would therefore be healthy through two terms in office, thinking that eight years from now is the end of McCain's term. That's incorrect. The end of the term is in 8 years 5.5 months from now. Statistically, that means McCain won't make it through two terms as a "healthy" president. By healthy, he means ?the person does not require the care provided by an assisted living facility and is free of Alzheimer?s disease.?

By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, that means McCain wouldn't even be able to complete two full terms in office. His time runs out on December 30th or so of 2016, a good three weeks before the new president would be sworn in. So that means, statistically speaking, before the end of two terms, we should expect President McCain to have to be moved to a retirement home because he'll no longer be able to care for himself, and we should expect that he'll already be suffering from Alzheimer's.

This isn't a joke, and it isn't an attempt to mock McCain or elderly people. There's a reason that 72 year old men aren't professional football players or even commercial airline pilots (commercial pilots are required to retire at age 60). And there's a reason that there's no great uproar over the fact that senior citizens don't work in those professions. It's the height of political correctness to suggest that the presidency of the United States during war time requires less skill, stamina, and mental acuity than flying the friendly skies.

I've gotten feedback from some readers asking if McCain has had a "cognitive impairment" test. I'm told that everyone should get them as they get older, and that it's not clear from the medical records released (you'll recall that McCain only let a select group of reporters review his medical records in a sealed room for a few hours). I hope some reporters out there have the gumption to ask the McCain campaign for a specific answer to the question - has he recently taken a cognitive impairment test and what were the results?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/357438064/actuarial-analysis-says-m
ccain-wont-be.html

Digg this

Muse in the Morning

post from Docudharma - Front Page on 06 August 2008 06:00:00 AM. © Docudharma - Front Page

Muse in the MorningPrayer without tears is like a well without water.--Bhagavad GitaPhenomena XIV: cryingTearsToxic RaindropsSpitter, spatter - dribble, driperoding the soulThe sizzle of acidic waterdissolving resolutionHard hail pelletshammering the[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Docudharma/~3/357262873/showDiary.do

Digg this

Paris

post from Michael Alan Leon: MAL Contends . . . on 06 August 2008 05:29:00 AM. © Michael Alan Leon: MAL Contends . . .

Paris hits John McCain. Kewl.

Read The Full Article:
http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2008/08/paris.html

Digg this

Understanding Pelosi: One Word: "Accessory"

post from Edgeing on 06 August 2008 05:06:00 AM. © Edgeing

Nancy Pelosi was briefed on and signed off on torture. She won't impeach because she is an accessory to war crimes.

She would be impeaching and convicting herself.

Glenn Greenwald
Tuesday July 15, 2008 08:16 EDT
The motivation for blocking investigations into Bush lawbreaking

...one important political impediment to holding Bush officials accountable for their illegal torture program:
An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised.
As we witness not just Republicans, but also Democrats in Congress, acting repeatedly to immunize executive branch lawbreaking and to obstruct investigations, it's vital to keep that fact in mind. With regard to illegal Bush programs of torture and eavesdropping, key Congressional Democrats were contemporaneously briefed on what the administration was doing (albeit, in fairness, often in unspecific ways). The fact that they did nothing to stop that illegality, and often explicitly approved of it, obviously incentivizes them to block any investigations or judicial proceedings into those illegal programs.

In December of last year, The Washington Post revealed:
Four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
The article noted that other Democratic members who received briefings on the CIA's interrogation program included Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman.

Also see: Nancy Pelosi, How Do You Plead?, by George Washington, July 21, 2008

Without question, Pelosi has covered up crimes committed by Bush, Cheney and the White House gang.

Moreover, Pelosi is guilty of criminal conspiracy. She conspired with the Neocons to implement torture, spying and the use of tainted and unreliable evidence regarding 9/11.

She is also guilty of violating the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, which makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who order it, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. See this.

It is time for Pelosi to make her choice. Accept responsibility and show remorse, and she may be sentenced to community service. Otherwise, she will be tried along with Bush, Cheney and crew as a criminal.

She tried to explain it all the other day...

Nancy Pelosi Answers 10 Questions; First Question: Why Did You Take Impeachment Off the Table?

Q: Why have you taken impeachment off the table as an option for President George W. Bush? Nancy Shipes WOODSTOWN, N.J.

A: I took it off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration.

Translation: We can't impeach Bush because it's not ok with Bush. He won't co-operate and let us impeach him.

Read The Full Article:
http://edgeing.blogspot.com/2008/08/understanding-pelosi-one-word-accessory.html

Digg this

Is David Gergen Right

post from AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth on 06 August 2008 05:02:00 AM. © AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth

I watched This Week this weekend and saw these comments from David Gergen (via Sam Stein @ Huffington Post):

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'" said Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat, from Nixon to Clinton. "I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."

You can watch the video here.

His remarks and the subsequent reaction on the news channels got me thinking about how exactly it is that we go about crafting messages in advertising. Now none of what Gergen mentioned is, per say, overtly messaging "uppity", but does anyone think it's an accident that NRA hero Heston shows up as Moses? Things are communicated in code in advertising, and this is a great example.

Now Washington journalists will deconstruct each and every image and word choice of McCain's ads, trying to find a smoking gun of racism. There isn't one, and there won't be. What these ads do is attempt to hit on subconscious emotions, not overt ones. And that's what David Gergen is trying to say. Someone will see a hint of it (like Gergen), understand what's really going on, and then try and make the case.

I think Gergen is making a good point here, but I think that it's getting lost in the delivery. I believe he is right - just look at the plain facts of the last two weeks of John McCain's TV campaign:

In "The One" John McCain is tearing down the idea that a President has the capacity to change a culture and lead change in the world. That's what Presidents do, change the course of history, either for good or bad. If you don't want that job John, and if you don't think think that it's possible for a President to change history, why are YOU running for President?

In "Celebrity" McCain is marginalizing the public appeal Obama obviously has, comparing it to the same appeal the public finds in pseduo-celebrities with night-vision sex tape specials. It specifically mocks the power of a president to use words to change the world ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" anyone?) - dredging up the Bible and Moses to complete the message - only God changes the world.

In their web ad "Obama Love" McCain mocks huge international crowds. Yeah, because the last thing we would want is a President who is admired by the rest of the world. How does he turn this obvious positive into a negative? By pulling out a handful of extreme political views and painting all of Europe with the broad brush of socialism. McCain is tapping into the feeling in his base (and perhaps beyond) that the last thing that we want is socialism - hint hint - he's talking about Obama's health care reform plan.

So is Gergen right? Is there uppity in here? Just look at the questions that the ads ask. Who are you to change the world? Who are you to get all the attention? Just who do you think you are telling us we have to change?

Voters seem to be taking away that message in a more subtle form - in growing numbers they don't believe that Obama shares the same view of America that they do. From Rasmussen:

Forty-six percent (46%) of voters nationwide now say that Obama views U.S. society as unfair and discriminatory. That?s up from 43% in July and 39% in June. By a three-to-one margin, American voters hold the opposite view and believe that our society is generally fair and decent.

And McCain is feeding that perception with these campaigns. Just who does this guy think he is?

I've become a big fan of Morning Joe on MSNBC in the mornings. Obviously, the last week of ads has been the main topic of discussion of late. Pat Buchanan has been saying for months that Obama's biggest liability is his ability for average voters to relate to him (the "have a beer" question that pollsters usually ask). Earlier in the primary, it was that Obama was too "faculty lounge" for the average voter. His current take is that many in the public went from asking "who is Barack Obama" to "who does this guy think he is". I'm loathe to say it, but he's right - polls show that Obama's numbers on this issue are moving, just not in the right direction.

So what's the antidote to this kind of campaign? You have to take this head on (I think with paid TV ads) - you can't just ignore it. What might that TV ad look like? Think of images of Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton drawing huge crowds overseas - paired up with the exact footage from the McCain ad of Obama in Berlin - and ending with Obama making his case clearly and forcefully that not only can an American President earn the respect of the world, but can also lead the world.

See, that subconscious thing can work both ways. Deep down, I believe that most Americans want their President respected - and even more so their country respected. Visuals of Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton remind voters of a time when we were respected in the world, and our President was a leader. Obama needs to tell the public himself that he wants to get our country where we all want to go - not hope that it gets through the media filter that's all a-flutter with Paris and Moses. I believe that average Americans won't care what race the President is if he's getting the job done - Obama just has to make sure getting the job done is what he's talking about. He can't respond to McCain's attacks weakly, Americans don't want a weak President. That was Kerry's mistake, and it's not a mistake Obama can afford to make.

P.S. You can see Ms. Hilton's reaction in John's post below. In case you were wondering what Paris Hilton's mom (a McCain donor, you know, casue she's rich and probably loves those tax breaks) thinks about all this, you can read that on the HuffPost.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/Americablog/~3/357401713/is-david-gergen-right.htm
l

Digg this

So, Not Bayh, Then

post from MyDD on 06 August 2008 05:01:14 AM. © MyDD

So says Bayh: Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., told The Indianapolis Star today that Sen. Barack Obama has not asked him to be his running mate and that he's not expecting Obama to announce his vice presidential pick when Obama is in Indiana Wednesday. Asked if[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/357204071/76333

Digg this

Neil

post from Michael Alan Leon: MAL Contends . . . on 06 August 2008 04:48:00 AM. © Michael Alan Leon: MAL Contends . . .

Whenever writing about Israel and the US committing human rights violations, I need to hear music and peace.

Neil:

video details and more

Read The Full Article:
http://malcontends.blogspot.com/2008/08/neil.html

Digg this

And It's Jenkins

What a wild night of election returns!

Those of us here at Boyda Bloc do, certainly, have to say last night's results were a surprise- if only insomuch as the Kansas Republican Party did what we said all along we thought they should do, even though we never expected them to do it. They rejected re-run Jim Ryun for all the same reasons the people of Kansas tossed him out on his ear 2 years ago: He was an incompetent legislator and the worst failure Kansas has had in our congressional delegation in a generation.

For those reasons (and so, so much more), even Kansas Republicans couldn't allow the possibility of Jim Ryun representing them in Congress again.

Therein lies the rub for poor Lynn Jenkins. This isn't her victory, not even at all- this is a backlash against Jim Ryun, and this was her simply beating a man who had already been sent out to pasture by his former constituents.

We have to admit, we didn't know the rank-and-file of the KS GOP felt the same way about Jim Ryun as we do here- we didn't realize they recognized him for the failure he was the same way we do. But, obviously, they do indeed, and, because of that simply truth, Lynn Jenkins finds herself the Republican nominee for Congress.

So- fair points to Lynn Jenkins for the upset win. Good job to her team (Patrick- *kisses*)- but, dear readers, please ponder this with us today: Jenkins has now proven she can beat a man who failed us, a man who had already been beaten, and a man who should have ridden off into the sunset. How does she translate her apparent ability to beat washed up failures into beating a wildly popular & thus far wildly successful incumbent of the majority party?

Our bet? She can't.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/BoydaBloc/~3/357431545/and-its-jenkins.html