Obama Scare

The Republican led congress has voted 40 times to repeal Obamacare.  How many bills have they passed that would fix their perceived deficiencies of Obamacare? None. Why?

It’s my opinion that the Republican Party in picking Obamacare as the reason only they should be allowed to govern, has beaten the drums of doom so loudly they are scared to death their predictions will not materialize. They’ve painted themselves into a corner with their worst scenario being nothing too terrible happening. 

There’s going to be some problems in implementing the Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act), and especially so in the states where republican majority governments have refused to comply with the law’s covenants and are expected to continue stonewalling implementation.  But the proof in the pudding will be in the states that have complied.  Assuming a successful implementation, California, with a large population of under insured and a cooperative legislature should be the proof in what could have been in the resistant states.

Should California’s implementation be deemed a failure, I’ll be the fool.  However if California’s cooperation proves relatively painless transition, then the doomsayers will have egg on their faces. But I wonder if those I know, who have subscribed to the republican rhetoric, will have the courage to admit their error.

The one thing I’m sure of it is that we haven’t heard the last word from the ObamaScare folks--- they just have too much to lose to give Obamacare a chance.

Bob -- August 24, 2013

Vote for the Lesser of ...

Dated Monday, Nov 5, 2012

I’ve spent the last four years defending Obama not because he was so good, but because he wasn’t so bad. It’s easy for a candidate to make promises, so I don’t pay much attention to those. And obviously, neither of the current candidates could be is as bad as his opponent depicts. 

 

I'll concede one point to Romney. Things aren’t great in America. But despite his promises, there's little evidence that he will fix anything that time itself wouldn't fix. Recessions come and recessions go with the worst recessions going slower.  So to say there a problem is stating the obvious and promising a fix is wishful thinking.  However if he wins, I wish him luck.

 

Anyway, I’m going to vote for the candidate I think will do the least harm, and because I don’t think either candidate really has the power or ability to fix the economy, I'm going to stick with the devil I know.

 

What I'm absolutely sure of is that politics in America is broken, and until we get the outside money out of the election process there is no hope of a fix.  When even a moral man has to subjugate his principles just to get elected, too often he won't.  Then we are left with the individuals with lesser principles.  

 

When I look at the big changes in the election process of recent, I'm struck with the Citizens United case that allows individuals and corporations and (yes) unions to contribute enormous sums of money to political entities without the need to even disclose their identity.  What chance is there for honesty in politics when the ability to get elected lies more in the publicity campaign than in the man.

 

The Supreme Court's decision on Citizens United was split along the lines of the party of the president responsible for the justices appointment with the conservatives in the majority. It doesn't look like either candidate is going to break the deadlock in the congress, so the best hope for the next candidate is to maintain a balance in the Supreme Court. 

 

With four of the justices in their 70's (two appointed by Regan and two by Clinton) there's a good chance that at least one new justice will be appointed in the next four years. The current balance is 5 to 4 with a conservative majority and the Chief position.  I think a liberal (Obama) appointment will do the least harm to the court and the nation. 

 

That's why I'm voting for Obama, tomorrow. Besides, I think he's the better of the two evils, and I'd sure like to show all those assholes that made up all that stupid shit about Obama, his policies, and actions --- that cheaters never  prosper.

 

 

I Support Planned Parenthood

TODAY'S NEWS ---
By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times (edited here for major content only)


February 1, 2012

 In what looks to be a break between two organizations dedicated to women's health, a national breast cancer awareness group said it would stop providing funds to Planned Parenthood centers for breast cancer examinations and other breast health services.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a leader in fundraising for breast cancer research and famous worldwide for its iconic pink ribbon, said Tuesday that it was halting all partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates because of recently adopted criteria that forbid it from funding any organization under government investigation.

In September, Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) launched an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood uses public money to fund abortions. Planned Parenthood receives federal money but cannot use it to provide abortions.
 
After reading this article today, I filled out a contact us form on the  Susan G. Komen website stating that while I'll continue to support their cause, I will no longer be able to support their organization.
 
Then I contacted Planned Parenthood:
 

Gotta Hate Them Muslims!

Before I got too wound up in hating Muslims, I decided to try to get an understanding of all the really hateful parts there are to Islam. Here's what I found out starting with a little history.

Like Judaism and Christianity, Islam traces its roots to the biblical Abraham. It was Abraham (a descendant of Noah) that entered into the agreement with God whereby in exchange for believing in Him as the one and only God, Abraham and his descendants would live a prosperous life. That assumed Abraham had any decedents. Abraham's wife, Sarah, was barren, so she suggested that her slave/maid Hagar become Abraham's second wife to bear him children. It worked. Hagar had a child they named Ishmael. Well 13 years later, Sarah had her own baby, Isaac, and wanting to ensure Isaac would be first in line for Abraham's inheritance, Sarah talked Abraham into freeing and evicting Hagar and Ishmael. Abraham agreed kicking them both to the curb.

Understandably Hagar was really despondent, but God came to her and told her not to worry. He would take care of her and Ishmael. And so he did. The 12 children of Ishmael went on to become Tribal chiefs in the Arab lands, and one of these descendants is believed by Muslims to be the one and only Mohammed -- the final prophet, messenger, of God to the people of the world.

Isaac didn't do so badly either in leaving his mark. His decedents began with Jacob, then Joseph (with the Coat of Many Colors), and not last nor least -- Jesus of Nazareth.

So the relation of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all began with Jacob who started the monotheist (one God) movement. But in staying focused, I'll stick with Mohammed's line of the family. The line that I'm supposed to hate.

Mohammed was born in Arabia in 570 CE. He was orphaned at a young age and raised by his Uncle to be a merchant. He was about forty when he got his first of many "Revelations" from God through the angel Gabriel. Three years later he began sharing these revelations, building a following. His main complaint was that the Arabian holy city of Mecca was run by tribes that still worshipped many idols where as he was preaching there was only one God and he, Mohammed, was his messenger

For years Mohammed and his followers fought wars with the Mecca folk eventually defeating them. All during this time, Mohammed continued to receive God's Revelations that he wrote down and now form the verses of the Ouaran, the Holy Book of Islam.

After Mohammed's death in 632, his followers now numbering over 10,000 began not to worship Mohammed directly, not because he was a deity, but because they considered him the perfect being whose life and actions should be emulated. Therefore Mohammad's biographers' recordings of his life, sayings, and traditions became additional holy books for Muslims intent on following the actions of the perfect human.

The main schism in Islam came almost immediately after Mohammed death. One faction of his followers believed the next leader of the religion should be (as was Mohammed) a direct descendents of Ishmael. The other faction, believe the leader should be the best candidate regardless of ancestry. This disagreement led to the Shia and Sunni denominations, with the Shi'a favoring ancestry and Sunni expertise. In today's world Sunnis are the vast Muslim majority with somewhere around 85% of the total world Muslim population followers of 1.6 billion --- second only to Christian adherents totaling 2.1 billion... (See bottom graph for more info)

It's easy to become a Muslim all one need do is to profess, "There is no God other than God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." That's it. That gets you into the religion, and that's the first of what is known as the five pillars of Islam. The other four pillars (in no particular order) dictate what it takes to be a righteous Muslim

Pillar two regards the five times a day that a Muslim is to spend time in prayer. There are detailed directions for these prayers including time, direction and position of the body. While there is no rule that says a believer need to be with others during prayers, most Muslims prefer not to be alone and Fridays are a big day for communal worship in a Mosque. The prayers are scripted and actions are choreographed. It's expected that when reciting the prayers the language will be Arabic. So it's like me singing La Bamba -- I don't try to sing it in English, because I can understand the translation.

Pillar three regards fasting, going without food, water or sex during daylight hours. Fasting is a personal sacrifice to atone for sins and although there are a number of occasions to fast, the major one is the month of Ramadan. In the Arabic calendar, this was the month when Muhammad first spoke with the angel Gabriel. There are lots of exceptions to fasting requirements for the young, infirm, or travelers. But wherever possible the faithful are expected to make up missed days later.

The fourth pillar deals with tithing or giving of alms. A Muslim is expected to donate a percent of his wealth (not just income) and spending to ease economic hardship for others and eliminate inequality. There's a minimum due that as of 2010 was $3,275, but for the poor personal good deeds and behavior can be substituted. Obviously, this pillar relies heavily on the honor system to succeed.

Pillar five is a onetime obligation, a pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca during a specific month. This trip is called the Hajj and anyone who makes it can add a title to their name of hajj (hajja for a female). Like most of the obligations, the Hajj is waived for the infirm or those who cannot afford it.

The biggest difference in the Muslim faith is it goes beyond just prayer and involves itself in politics and law. That's because that was what Muhammad was all about. He brought down the tribal religions and built his following through being involved in every aspect of life. So it's not God who tells Muslims to spread the faith, but rather the desire to emulate everything Muhammad. If Muhammad fought wars to spread his religion, then that must be the path all Muslims should follow. Right? No, wrong. Muhammad was more than willing to live with the other faith. Especially, those of Abraham's beginning: Judaism and Christianity.

It's true that Muhammad fought battles with the Jews, but these battles were more political in nature than religious. So for a Muslim today to think that God wants them to make war with the Jews, is just a misguided (if not misused) concept of what defines a faithful Muslim. This is not to say that an objective of the Islamic faith is not to spread the faith -- it is. But isn't that an objective of Christianity, too. Tell me it's not a Jehovah's Witness, Catholic Missionary, or Mormons objective to spread their respective religion.

Some people look at how Muslims treat their women or just live in poverty and it's easy to hate them for how they live -- in poverty and ignorance. But there are as many differences in how Muslims live as there are in Christianity. Is there no difference between an African, Central American or Italian Catholic? Of course there is, and just like with Muslims it's often more a function of culture than religion.

Still there's a commonality in countries with majority Muslim populations that follow Shariiah, the religious code of Law. But not all do. Turkey is a secular government country and so is Pakistan. Even the Shariiah law is debated amongst most Muslim as those derived from the Revelations and those derived from customs of the time with some give and take of the ones to follow.

Absolutely backward countries like Afghanistan don't seem to care about the difference, but they appear to be more than a little screwed up in their thinking anyway. For instance in how they treat women as a sub species. This might have been the way it was pre Mohammed, but he introduced many women rights. He made it possible for women to inherit and own property. He made it possible for a woman to divorce her husband. In other women issues, it's easy to see that not all denominations or Muslim majority countries share customs like the facial covering laws.

So what makes Muslims fly airplanes into sky scrapers? In the big picture, I don't think it has a whole lot to do with religion. Even seemingly religious wars are almost always about politics. Nevertheless, religions are good at creating fanatics who are easily duped into doing the nefarious bidding of politicians, both secular and non-secular. The "Jews killed Jesus" allegation has been the cause of many a pogrom started by Russian czars more often than not to take the public's attention away from Czars inability to care for their people. The Catholic versus Protestant wars of the 16th and 17th century were more over the Papacy's revenue than ideology.

It isn't illogical that people of abiding faith have difficulty arguing with a; "I command you to ...," coming from God -- or one who supposedly speaks for Him? Logic has to go out the window before people can become unquestionably faithful. My favorite definition of faith is -- The illogical belief in the improbable. So when your illogical faith that God will protect and direct your actions (despite overwhelming evidence that God has not properly directed or protected other faithful that proceeded you - witch hunts, inquisitors, ...) is what gets you to listen to a man of God. Then faith can have you trusting false men of God. It's a logical conclusion that the most faithful would also be most easily led astray, to fanatical violence. So maybe we should question those who lead us.

Maybe hating Muslims for killing the 9/11 victims is not going to be any more effective in solving problems than hating the Jews for killing Jesus, or hating witches for ruining the crops. Maybe these are problems not related to religion or superstitions. Maybe.

Then if it's not religion, what is it that ticks these people off? Colonialism, western support of dictators with the best oil deals? Or could it be Western support for Israel.

Now Wait a Minute, Bob. Israel's our friend. The Jews were the first ones in Israel. They have a right to take their historic lands back. Right?

Sure, just like the Native American Indians have a right to their historic lands. Maybe we late comer Americans might get a little pissed if the Indians retook their lands. We might even fight back, and not just because they worship The Great Spirit. Also we might also get pissed at whoever helped them.

I could ponder these things for many more pages, but I think I'm just going to say, "I can't hate all Muslims for the actions of a few Muslims on 9/11, anymore than I can hate all Christians for the actions of a few Christians, anymore than I can hate all (fill in the blank) for the actions of a few (fill in the blank).

Finally I found the following chart (CIA supplied) informative with respect to the task of hating Muslims. There's a whole lot of them.

If you're still with me do you find these numbers revealing? You should before you decide who's right or wrong.

BDR 9/11 (that's September 2011)

What I Learned About Judaism

It was in the 60s and 70s when I read books like James Michener's The Source and Leon Uris's Mila 18 and Exodus, that I became facinated with the Jewish religion if for no other reason than the stick-to-itiveness of its followers. But I was always ignorant of the evolution of modern day Judaism, its celebrations, observances and sects, so I did a little research and ...

Three of the most important Jewish celebrations are now thought of as marking biblical events actually originated with traditionally agricultural celebrations. The first of these, Passover, was originally a celebration of the first barley harvest of the year. Passover now marks the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt after Moses brought the 10 plagues of Egypt forcing Pharaoh to release the Jews from slavery. The last of the Plagues was the death of the first born children. However this death plague "passed over" all the first born Jews, hence the name, Passover.

The modern day Passover holiday lasting seven days, begins with the Seder (ritual) meal where the food symbolizes the period of slavery and the stories of the Exodus (escape) are retold. The menu includes bitter herbs to symbolize the difficulties of slavery and Matzo or unleavened (incomplete, without yeast) bread to symbolize the speed with which the Jews fled.

The next biblical holiday, Pentecost (from the Greek for 50), celebrates God giving Moses the Ten Commandments fifty days after the Exodus. This day was formally the agricultural celebration of the wheat harvest.

The third biblical celebration is Sukkoth or Feast of the Tabernacle (tent) and is a remembrance of the forty years that the Jews spent wandering the desert after the Exodus. The idea is that God ordered the tent structure built to represent a "dwelling" for his presence with the Jews during their wandering. This celebration coincided with the agrarian final harvest celebration.


The first non-biblical celebration, Rosh Hashanah begins the Jewish New Year and according to Jewish tradition is the day where God inscribes each person's fate for the coming year into the Book of Life and waits ten days (until Yom Kippur) to "seal" the verdict. During those ten "Days of Awe", a Jew tries to amend his or her behavior and seek forgiveness for wrongs done against God and against other humans. The evening and day of Yom Kippur are set aside for public and private petitions and confessions of guilt. At the end of Yom Kippur, Jews consider themselves absolved by God. Now my research didn't say anything about what happens if someone is not absolved, so I'm guess dying in any fashion during the next year would be an answer to that question.

Yom Kippur, also known as Day of Atonement, is the holiest day of the year for the Jews. Its central themes are atonement and repentance. Jews traditionally observe this holy day with a 25-hour period of fasting and intensive prayer, often spending most of the day in synagogue services. Yom Kippur completes the annual period known in Judaism as the High Holy Days (or sometimes "the Days of Awe").

Two lesser holidays are Purim and Chanukah. Purim commemorates the deliverance of the Jewish people in the ancient Persian Empire from destruction as described in a story recorded in the Biblical Book of Esther. According to the Book of Esther, Haman, royal adviser to the Persian King planned to kill the Jews, but his plans were foiled by Mordechai and Queen Esther. The day of deliverance became a day of feasting and rejoicing for Jews. Purim celebrations include public recitation of the Scroll of Esther, giving gifts of food and drink, giving charity to the poor, and a celebratory meal. Other customs include drinking wine, wearing of masks and costumes, and public celebration.

Chanukah has always been my most familiar Jewish celebration just because it coincided with Christmas, my favorite holiday. The celebration about a miracle lamp that stayed lit for eight nights with only enough oil for one night, as well as the representative eight day celebration of lighting the eight candled menorah really doesn't need a lot of explanation. The most to be said is that really Chanukah's not a very important holiday anywhere except America where it gave the Jewish kids something to brag about --- eight days of Christmas, wow, was I impressed!

Another area I found interesting is how these Celebrations evolved . In the earliest days after their release from Egyptian slavery and before the Common Era, the Jews celebrated at the Temple of Jerusalem. The Temple was where the Ark of the Covenant that held the tablets bearing the Ten Commandments were kept making it the Holiest place for the Jews. Even though the first temple was destroyed by the Babylonians around 586 BCE and the Ark disappeared, subsequent rebuilding of the Temple occurred and remained the central holy place for Jews at least until the times of Jesus. So to celebrate the Jews would need to travel to the Temple and where they would offer sacrificial lambs. After the repeated destruction of the temple, there was a change in the way Jews observed. Regionally located synagogues replaced the centrally located Temple and prayers replaced sacrifices.

There are two main religious documents of Judaism. The Torah which is what the Christian faith calls the Old Testament of the bible. The text of each book is more or less the same in Jewish translations as what you see in Christian bibles, although there are some occasional, slight differences in the numbering of verses and there are some significant differences in the translations.

In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws of the scriptures to everyday life. Orthodox Jews believe God taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah. In addition to these two main works, Jews have Midrashim, which are basically stories expanding on incidents in the Bible to derive principles or Jewish law or to teach moral lessons. For example, there is a Midrash about why Moses wasn't a good speaker (he put coals in his mouth as a child basically as a way of proving that he wasn't greedy... Okay, that explains it all).

Then there are Responsa: answers to specific questions of Jewish law where committees of Rabbi interpret Jewish law to specific questions. This tradition continues to the present day, and there are several rabbis in this century who have developed responsa on issues relating to modern technologies. For example, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who died in the 1980s, wrote responsa on such diverse topics as the permissibility of cosmetic surgery, the koshering (proper use) of automatic dishwashers, and artificial insemination. There are thousands of Responsa volumes in print.

My final question was about the different sects of Judaism: Orthodox versus what? Most of the schisms of Judaism are caused by the interpretation of the Mishna. Orthodox Jews believe that the faithful must follow the laws literally, while other sects to varying degrees feel the laws were more cultural than sacred and can in many instances be ignored. For instance Reform and Progressive Jews believe the laws against eating pork or shell fish were cautionary health rules developed in the days before refrigeration, and never intended to display devotion.

Also, interesting is that the world Jewish population is only 13.5 million people (2009 CIA figures). Of that number 43% (5.8 million) live in Israel and 39% (5.3 million) live in the U.S. The remaining 2.3 million are spread out all over the world. I find this surprising that the numbers are so small. I mean, the US has a combined population over 305 million, so the Jews account for less than 2% and they are the second largest US religion after Christians.

I just find those numbers surprising low considering the influence that people of the Jewish faith have had in so many measures of my sixty-four year life. I've always had Jewish friends and have worked for two Jewish owned businesses. Why do I know these people's religion, because one way or the another they made it known. But it's never made any difference to me.

I really learned a lot here, with the biggest surprise being how most Jew's lives, while rich in tradition, aren't as locked into the Religious dogma as I had thought.

For my next essay, I want to write down some of what I've learned about Islam, then Buddhist, then on to some Christian cults: Mormon, Catholic, ... Fascinating stuff --- to me.

Abortion?

Anti-abortion people most often seem to have a moral objection to abortions based on their religious convictions. They are a minority but that doesn't stop them from wanting to force the end of abortions by any means available. Why wouldn't everyone agree? Should I question their convictions?

I could ask why these moralist don't quit having surgery or using medicine to cure their ills and start using their convictions to cure their ills as does another minority religion, Christian Science. Is it because unlike themselves, Christian Scientist don't really have a correct understanding of what God wants? Is it even just that He wants us to quit killing unborn babies? I guess so, because war, capital punishment, gun totting self defense all seem to be getting a thumbs up from from many of these same anti-abortionist's God? Now I could discuss those issues, but maybe abortion is a big enough topic to limit my discussion here.

I personally deplore the idea of abortion. While working as a volunteer board member for The Huntington Beach Community Clinic, I developed the idea of "No Choice". Give boys/girls/men/women access to birth control, so that an unwanted pregnancy could be avoided in most cases. No Baby -- No Choice necessary. However, in case of a pregnancy for any reason, I don't think I have the right to object to the termination of that pregnancy if that be the decision of the mother.

I don't give the father equal rights in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, because nature didn't give the father responsibilities equal to the mother's in carrying the baby to term. In fact God even fell short with not requiring care for a newborn beyond birth. Had He, there wouldn't be any trash can babies or need for "No Fault ... Surrender Baby Laws" .

As a teacher and world traveler, I've seen and known unwanted children. Would the world have been a better place had those children been aborted? I don't know. Could the world have been a better place for those children? -- absolutely!

So until the anti-abortion folk are ready to accept responsibility for making the world the best place possible for all children, I'm not going to respect their moral objection anymore than I'd respect a Christian Scientist's intolerance for cough medicine.

If it were not for Anti-Abortion crowd painting a wide swath of objections to anything however loosely associated with abortions, their existence could easily be ignored. But when an organization with as much positive impact on society as Planned Parenthood is vilified, because they legally provide abortion services and counseling to less than 3% of their clients, I feel a need to enter the conversation.

In the late 1980s, the Huntington Beach Community Clinic lost its state funding not because it performed abortions (it didn't), but because it 'might' refer a woman to Planned Parenthood if she expressed an interest in abortion services or counseling. The Clinic survived and that funding was reinstated when that era's anti-abortion governor was voted out of office.

But that blanket incrimination of any and all associations with anything pro-abortion has continued to ebb and flow with the political climate. Although the GW Bushes administration can be proud of their contributions to combating Aides in Africa, they should be ashamed for excluding some of the most capable health care providers in Africa from administering the programs just because they legally provided abortion services and counseling in their home countries. Those restrictions were lifted shortly after Obama's inauguration.

It's regretful that Abortion has become such a political issue when rightfully it should just be a personal or moral (albeit Religious) issue. But issues make good bedfellows, and the GOP right have fostered the Religious right until they have become equal voices in the abortion opposition movement. Federal laws like the Hyde amendment, have restricted since the early 1980s, any federal funds being used directly to pay for abortions except under the most strict of circumstances: mothers health, rape, etc. Still that's not enough to silence the outrage. There's still guilt by association.

Planned Parenthood gets one third of its funding from government grants and service payments. The other two thirds comes from private donations and service fees. But that's not going to deter the guilt by association taint. The Government gives money to Planned Parenthood (remember only 1/3 of PPs operating revenue) . Planned Parenthood provides abortion services (remember only 3% of PPs contacts were for abortion related). Therefore the Government pays for abortions!

"My/Your taxes pay for Abortions! Those guys are using my tax dollars to pay for abortions!" I bet you can guess who those Guys are, and I'll give you odds which political party will rescue Me/You from this travesty.

That is guilt by association. A political and moralistic weapon used here against abortion, but it's illogical at best. Then what's the solution?

Pass a law against abortion.

But the Supreme Court might strike that law down as unconstitutional.

Then pack the court with anti-abortion justices.

But that's been tried and failed since Roe v Wade, 1973.

Then propose and pass an Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Okay!

Okay, do it! But until you're done, please just shut the fuck up!

I Don't Hate Sarah Palin

Over and over, I read and hear about how the Right loves Sarah Palin and the Left hates her. I consider myself on the Left, and I don't hate Sarah. I just can't understand why anyone thinks she is so great -- much less, good enough to love?

When she came onto the national scene as McCain's running mate she took a lot of flack. It wasn't her fault she was unprepared. It was McCain's fault for picking someone so unprepared to stand up to the public scrutiny. But her failure to take off running only led to more suspicion of her qualifications and thus began the "left hates her" or the VICTIM defense. Every time she failed to perform to what the public expected of a Vice Presidential candidate she and her people held her up as a victim of left wing hate. And so it goes on to this day.

The first time I vividly remember the Palin Victim Defense being utilized was when Rudy Giuliani was speaking before the Republican National Convention. He kept stating his disgust in how the Left had questioned Sarah's maternal abilities -- from the transcript[1] he said, "One final point. And how — how dare they question whether Sarah Palin has enough time to spend with her children and be vice president. How dare they do that. When do they ever ask a man that question? When?"

After that speech I spent the next hour Googling, trying to find a single source for who the "they" were that Giuliani was referencing. I couldn't find a single article from a reputable news organization where anyone was quoted as questioning Sarah's motherly abilities. In fact, from everything I could find, it appeared that the Left was bending over backwards not to mention that Sarah was even female. The left was probably skirting the subject even harder than the right was trying not to mention that Obama was black.

So what was Giuliani doing? He was creating a victim. No woman should be treated this way, was the clear message, and it was the evil left ( the They) that had done it. He made poor Sarah a subject for sympathy. It's good to love her, so it's hateful not to love her.

From that day on Sarah was a consummate victim. If she couldn't answer a question like Katie Couric's, "What newspapers do you read?" well she didn't answer because she was being harassed, victimized. It certainly wasn't because she didn't have an answer, as one might believe form the following transcript of that interview conducted about two weeks after the Giuliani speech:

COURIC: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

PALIN: I’ve read most of them again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media —

COURIC: But what ones specifically? I’m curious.

PALIN: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me over all these years.

COURIC: Can you name any of them?

PALIN: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news.

Okay, so this was the proof that led Sarah to believe that the main stream media (MSM) were unfair in their treatment of her. After all it had only been a little over a month since she'd been selected as McCain's running mate and this being her first interview by the MSM (i.e.: not Fox News media). So how could she be expected to answer so difficult a question?

But Sarah hasn't just been victimized by the MSM. From reading her book, Going Rogue, it seems she was victimized by her own Alaskan citizens. For instance, she felt it was necessary for her to resign her governorship eighteen months early because of the all the nuisance, ethics violations filed against her by them Alaskan liberals.

Alaska doesn't have a rule like other states where the attorney general defends the governor against nuisance suits -- yep that would be too wussy for them independent and tough Alaskans. Even the State Personnel Board, was against her as evidenced by the appointment of Thomas Daniel to investigate one of the more recent complaints about her starting an Official Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund.

Here's how she was victimized: The so-called "independent counsel" who started this investigation was an attorney from President Barack Obama's law firm.[2] That would be Daniel who is a partner in a national law firm with over 700 lawyers that has on occasion represented Obama, other democrats, and with a number of Fortune 100 company clients where you might find a republican or two.

Well in his alleged biased investigation Daniel found that using the term "Official" did in fact make the appearance that the Fund was state sanctioned which violates the Alaskan Ethics Act.[3] For this he was attacked on Fox News[4], numerous blogs, and on Sahara's own new defense fund and Facebook Wall as a "so-called 'independent counsel'."

Here's what Daniel had to say in his own defense: “They are trying to make the argument that because I’m a registered Democratic and have given money to Democratic candidates that I’m biased. But in fact, you know I’ve dismissed five complaints out of six,” Daniel said. “If I were out to get the governor because of politics, I doubt that would have occurred.”[5]

The six complaints Daniel referenced were all against Palin. And as more evidence of his independence, in 2004, Daniel was hired by the Personnel Board to investigate an ethics complaint against then-Attorney General Greg Renkes. That complaint was brought by Sarah Palin and state Rep. Eric Croft, a Democrat. Renkes resigned amid conflict-of-interest allegations, and the case was settled. Oh and by that time Sarah Palin had already resigned her position from the State Board where her complaint originated. Yes, Sarah had resigned, because she didn't like the way things were being run.

The obvious point though, is that Sarah was not being victimized by Daniel or the Personnel Board. She and her attorneys made a mistake, and she could have moved on without the bias claims, but then that wouldn't promote her victim persona. And she now has an unofficial legal fund that has reimbursed her for most if not all of her expenses. As a side note, she never attempted to use a $100,000 reimbursement fund established by Alaskan legislature to aide in her ethics defense, "because she and her attorneys decided not to use (it) because of the difficulty in separating the alleged ethics violations as against her official governorship duties or those associated with her fund raising or other activities."[6]

There were other plenty of other conflicts for Sarah in her political life. In her Going Rogue she points to conflicts she had with the Wasilla Mayor and later with the Police Chief as if these were badges of courage, because well... she was on the side of truthiness. And can anyone forget Sarah's widely reported conflicts with and within the McCain campaign staff. But Sarah also explained away those conflicts in Rogue, and it sure wasn't her fault.

I can't believe it's this "poor-is-me" causing all the loving for Sarah? Sympathy maybe, but not love. So then is it the common sense, ideas she has that will fix America? Maybe, but without facing the MSM, answering the tough questions, how will we ever know? And while just playing the "Regan" card gets her respect (maybe love?) from the conservatives, it's not going to do it for me -- Regan wasn't all the good for this country, but I'll save that for another blog entry.

In conclusion, I'm a left wing, liberal who has difficulty understanding the conservative love affair with Sarah, and who also definitely doesn't hate Sarah -- or Tag or Willow or Todd or Bristol (or even the little dick-head that was doing what boys try to do to Bristol). I don't hate any of them. They look like nice people. Misguided? Yes, but aren't we all. Maligned? Not as much as they would have us believe. No, I don't hate her or hers. But do I expect her to explain herself as something more than a victim of persecution, conflict and resignation before her or any of her clan occupy the White House? You betcha!

[1] http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2008/09/03/transcript-rudy-giuliani-speech-republican-national-convention-2008/

[2] http://www.sarahpalinlegaldefensefund.org/about.php

[3] http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/07/21/14/Legal%20Defense.22542.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf

[4] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/palin-investigator-ties-democratic-party/

[5] Anchorage Daily News, ADN.com, From Lisa Demer, July 24, 2009

[6] http://community.adn.com/node/142582#ixzz14c4r6ygk