Dingbots, Critters and Clanks: September 2008

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Analysis of Ahmadinejad's chat with Larry King--for Deanna

Yeah, double standard all right. Israel's an ally, Iran's considered an enemy. Neither one are very open to inspection, though since Israel owes us, I doubt they'll use the nukes without provocation. That would look really bad for us.
He removes himself from the issue of hostility. BOTH countries are to blame for that (though I can see Cheney issuing some threats behind closed doors).
Lol, " AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): No. We do not a preference of any sort... And it's not important to us either."
Disagree with him, but it's still funny how casually he brushes the election of one of the most powerful people in the world off.

I would really like to see Obama have a chat with Ahmadinejad, but that would be feeding into the hands of O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

"AHMADINEJAD (THROUGH TRANSLATOR): Our country of Iran has a historical presence that extends to 7,000 years. And never has the Iranian nation taken a misstep against another nation. Throughout history, it has demonstrated that." ORLY? I seem to remember the Iran-Iraq war(s) being instigated by both sides.

Love the sideswipes he makes periodically. "But this defense does not mean that we must infringe on the rights of other nations, not at all."

This is new, "You are aware that in the course of the U.S. attack on Iraq, we were
asked, in fact, to enter into the coalition or the war, to some extent
-- not the coalition, but the war -- just to make up for the war that
Saddam launched against us that went on for eight years." Hadn't heard that before.
This one's new, too, "But let me tell you, 118 member states of the NAM, the Non- Aligned
Movement, have actually supported our peaceful nuclear pursuits.
Fifty-seven member states of the Organization of Islamic States have
also given their support to us in this regard. And there are many other
organizations -- multilateral organizations that have supported our
endeavor and efforts."

He's right, certainly, about Iraq. It's the keystone to the Middle East. Been wondering recently if the Iraq Invasion was a power play, too. Showing bin Laden who's the boss and everything (not that the invasion actually took much effort).

He sidesteps a lot of questions--typical from what I remember of him. And is right about the bomb as a purely state-oriented political threat. States want to be around in the long run, after all.

Focuses a lot on Israel, which will not reassure most Americans. We like Israel, we like having an ally in the region besides Turkey, we like the feel-good of having given the Holocaust survivors a homeland again.
And just as a note, the division of Palestine isn't America's fault--that was Churchill. Whatever you can say about Sharon, he was moving people out of the occupied territories, which was good. Olmert started movin' 'em back in after Sharon became a veggie. And Arafat had the opportunity to have a homeland again through the Oslo peace talks under Clinton, but refused it because it wasn't the old borders again. And Palestine DOES have free elections--that's how Abbas got in power much to the concernation of the US.
Wish he'd give a definition of a Zionist. Does that include someone who lives in Israel, oe just those that support it as a State. What about the people in government or in the army? They don't have a choice about being in the army, you know. Required for all 18 year olds.
Denying the Holocaust doesn't help his case in not being a threat.
"Or in Alaska, perhaps." LOL, chase out the moose! And they can have Palin--nobody will miss her.

"AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I have no concerns in that regard
because they aren't able to do that, because the worst thing the U.S.
government can do would be an attack. I think that in the United States
there are enough reasonable people, smart people, who would not allow
the U.S. government to make a mistake."
Hope so. We can't do a three-front war.
"Iran is an extremely big country and very developed and powerful, too. With big people." Nearly died. Sounds like a little boy describing a fish he caught. If he were to be more explict in what he means (big hearted, he said later), iinstead of sounding like a blaggart, that would be good.
Makes a silly arguement about homosexuality. And ignores some gruesome hangings (hung by a crane until dead).

"AHMADINEJAD (through translator): If it an, it would be the best
scenario. But I think that it needs a timetable. That's what I think. A
clear timetable so that it allows for their withdrawal in the shortest
a period of time. Because the presence of the United States there has
not reduced tension and it has not limited terrorism, either. In fact,
it has increased terrorism."
Agreed. There's blog by an Iraqi woman called Neurotic Iraq Wife who says we need to get our asses out, because it would be best for Iraq (the September 2008 archive, "The Blatant Neurotic Iraqi Truth..." if you're interested).

"...wherever we can meet with the American people and to learn about them
and their lives. We think that having talks is the best way." Dunno if LA is the best place to learn about American culture (it's such an anamoly!), but he's right. If you understand a people, you can communicate effectively with them, and if he wants to convince us Iran is not a threat, he need to do that better than he has. He's also right about saying we need more contact with Iran, because if we understand a country, we can deal with it effectively. And despite being friends with you, I don't know too terribly much about Iranian culture.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

NOW . Poll | PBS

Why?

Friday, September 19, 2008

My decision !

Not that you probably care.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Politics - News, Opinion and Analysis from CNN.com

This should not be! McCain is not going to be good for the US and is coniving! >:(

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Election Issues and Policies

I really need to sit down a figure all this out.
2008 Presidential Election Candidates on the Issues
All I can do is sigh. There's seriously minor differences between McCheney and Obama on a good chunk of the issues.

Break down:

Roe v Wade: Mc opposes, Ob supports:
Death Penalty: both support. Ugh
NCLB: Mc supports, Ob has mixed opinions. I am not happy about that. The NCLB act punishes teachers, who are at the mercy of the administration.
Embryonic stemcell research: both support. Fine and dandy.
ANWR drilling: both oppose. Cool beans.
Kyoto Treaty: Mc opposes and Ob's position is unknown. Kyoto is unreasonable for industrialized nations, at least at the pace it demands.
Guns: Mc opposes a assult weapons ban while Obama supports one. Both support background checks.
PATRIOT act: both support. I hate hate hate the PATRIOT act (you heard me!)
Guantanamo: Mc supports it, Ob opposes.
Torture: both oppose it (thank god).
Wiretapping: Mc and Ob oppose it.
Border Fence: Both support. Le sigh
Citizenship paths for illegals: both support. What else are we gonna do with them?
Internet nuetrality: Mc opposes, Ob supports. That counts in Obama's favor, for me at least.
Sanctions on Iran: both support
Iran as a military option: Mc supports it (!) and Ob's opnion is unknown (!). That it's even phrased that way makes me sick.
Iraq war: Mc supports it, Ob doesn't
Troop surge: Mc supports it, Ob doesn't
Withdrawal: Mc opposes it, Ob wants it to be gradual. I personally agree with Obama.
Minimum wage increase: Mc opposes, Ob does.
Gay marriage: both oppose. Sigh.
Civil unions: Mc has mixed opinions, Ob supports
Consitutional ban on gay marriage: both oppose.
Universal healthcare: Mc opposes, Ob supports.

I suppose it depends on your voting issues. Mine are all freedom and civil rights, pretty much, as well as Iraq, so I think I'll be an Obamainator. Need to double check their fiscal policies, though.

Edit: From today's Times:
Obama's approach to Wall street makes me a little unhappy. He wants more regulation and I don't. I DO want the companies to bail themselves out or die, instead of my taxes going to save their asses. As a friend said: Privatized profits with socialized losses is fascist.
In fact, I'd like the whole regulatory system to be flushed.
On the other hand, McCain would treat employer-paid healthcare taxable as part of one's income. That in and of itself will probably kill my family, since he want the employers to estimate how much they're spending on your healthcare and you'll be taxed accordingly. All of us in my house are on some pretty expensive meds, and two of us have themost expanisive mental illness to treat. At the moment, I won't be paying extra taxes as I'm not insured by my employer, but my parents WILL.
That would force a hell of a lot of people into the health-insurance market place and out of the current system--which I admit is flawed, but I would think it better than this other system. I'm one of those who thinks that captialism does not belong in the healthcare arena, at least on an individual level. It workds perfectly well for insitutions and corporations but not to much for families, unless we regulate the hell out of it which would make me unhappy.
Bob Herbert:

"When younger, healthier workers start seeing additional taxes taken out of their paychecks, some (perhaps many) will opt out of the employer-based plans--either to buy cheaper insureance on their own or go without coverage.
That will leave employers with a pool of older, less healthy workers to cover, That coverage will necessarily be more expensive, which will encourage more and more employuers to give up the idea of providing coverage at all."

The $5k credit he would offer doesn't even cover my family's medical expenses in a year, I'm danm sure.
Mm, not good. I need healthcare to function.
That said, I disagree with Bob Herbert on his assumption that I can't understand the insurance market well enough to navigate it if I have to. Give me some time and I can manage it. Actually that might create a whole new division of legal expertise. Yay. More lawyers.
Candidate Tax Plans.
McCain wants to keep and create more tax cuts. Obama doesn't. We're so deep in the hole we can't have that. Obama wants an increase in social security taxes for certain brackets ("Social Security tax would be 12.4% for income from zero to $102,000; 0% for income from $102,000 to $250,000; and 4% from $250,000 and up, effective 2018"). Damn it, I already loose about fifteen bucks (out of my $180 average paycheck) and that would be more. Those upper tax brackets need to pay more than I do. I sincerly doubt that as a teacher I'll make enough not to have to pay.
"Create an "American Opportunity Tax Credit." This universal and fully refundable credit would equal 100% of higher education expenses up to $4,000," is a part of Obama's plan and I like that. I'm going to be in school for the next four or five years, so I'll probably get to use that.

Presidential Candidate Tax Plan Comparison

	John McCain	Barack Obama
Marginal Individual Income Tax Rates View Research Area »	Continue the lower rates enacted in the 2001-03 tax cuts. (Source).	Maintain the current 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent rates from the 2001-03 tax cuts, but allow the top two rates to expire (the 33 percent rate would rise to 36 percent; the 35 percent would rise to 39.6 percent). Eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. (Source).
Corporate Income Tax View Research Area »	Cut rate to 25%, (from current 35%) fully phased in by 2015. (Source).	Eliminate capital gains taxes on start-up and small businesses (Source). "Level the playing field for all businesses by eliminating special-interest loopholes and deductions." (Source).
Tax Reform View Research Area »	No specifics available. Taxpayers choose between the current system or "a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction." (Source).	No specifics available. Instruct IRS to provide pre-prepared tax forms for many filers (Source).
Estate Tax View Research Area »	15% tax rate on estates over $5 million ($10 million for married couples). (Source).	45% tax rate on estates over $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples). (Source).
Social Security Payroll Tax View Research Area »	Opposes increasing the payroll tax from the current 12.4% on wages up to $102,000. Supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts. (Source).	Social Security tax would be 12.4% for income from zero to $102,000; 0% for income from $102,000 to $250,000; and 4% from $250,000 and up, effective 2018. (Source).
Alternative Minimum Tax View Research Area »	Phase out the AMT (Source).	Extend AMT patch.
Capital Gains & Dividends Taxes View Research Area »	Maintain the 15% rate on capital gains and dividends. (Source).	Raise capital gains and dividends rates to somewhere between 20% and 28%, keeping them equal.
Other Tax Policies	-New refundable health care tax credit ($5,000 for family coverage, $2,500 for individual coverage). Replaces the current exclusion for employer-based health insurance premiums. (budget neutral) - Increase the dependent exemption each year until it reaches $7,000 in 2016 (the 2016 level would be twice the level in 2009) (Source).	- Create a new "Making Work Pay" refundable income tax credit of up to $500 per person or $1,000 per family. It would offset the payroll tax on the first $8,100 of earnings. - Create a 10 percent mortgage credit worth up to $800. - Give full-time workers making minimum wage an Earned Income Tax Credit benefit up to $555. If the workers are "responsibly supporting their children on child support," give those workers a benefit of $1,110. - Create an "American Opportunity Tax Credit." This universal and fully refundable credit would equal 100% of higher education expenses up to $4,000. - Make the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit refundable and increase the maximum credit to $1,500 ($3,000 for two or more children). - Make the Retirement Savings Credit refundable. Reduce the maximum credit from the current $1,000 per taxpayer ($2,000 per couple) to $250 per taxpayer ($500 per couple) and roughly double the phaseout threshold from $16,000 for singles in 2008 ($32,000 for couples) to $32,500 for singles in 2009 ($65,000 for couples). The credit would phase out at a 5% rate when AGI exceeds these thresholds.