Realm of the Wombat

Let’s go on a journey to Wasilla, Alaska, home of Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, with Jason Jones of the Daily Show.

And now let’s all throw up.

Maybe I don’t live in the mostest pro-Americaist state in the land, but guess what, Gov. Palin,

I vote that you’re an idiot.

To all of the pigs out there, sorry for this very offensive post.

My favorite two moments: 1) When Michelle Obama said, “Who names their kid Barack Obama?” 2) During the Hillary Clinton video, there was a clip of Bill Clinton speaking with the caption “Hillary’s husband”, like we wouldn’t know who it was.

Other thoughts:

I’ll give McCain one thing: he’s a fast learner. It was only earlier this year that he became aware of the internets, and then he said he’d learn how to use email.

Apparently he learned all about blogs also, and that people can leave comments on them. He also discovered that he could set up a reward program for everyone that made positive comments about him!

Later, he used the interwubs to search for information and came across Wikipedia. It had all sorts of good information about Georgia (formerly of the USSR) that he could use for writing speeches!

I can’t wait until he finds YouTube!

Despite the fact that Hillary Clinton has only held elected office for seven years compared to about ten for Barack Obama, she is championing herself as the experience candidate. Recently she’s been touting her role in foreign policy during Bill’s presidency. FactCheck.org breaks it down, it doesn’t sound all that impressive.

One also wonders if “experience” is a useful quality for a president. Electoral-vote.com takes a look at that question, leading off with this comparison:

How good Are experienced presidents, anyway? Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates, one of whom had spent 20 years in Congress plus had considerable other relevant experience and the other of whom had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?

If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln.

Hillary Clinton has made a common retort to Barack Obama’s message of change that she has experience making change, to the tune of 35 years worth. We all know that she’s been a senator for the last few, so that time definitely counts, but I’m not sure how to assess her time as first lady or her career prior. Fortunately, someone checked into Hillary’s claims of “35 years of experience”, and it turns out that the claim seems reasonable.

Although this is article was from Congressional Quarterly, I recommend FactCheck.org to monitor the candidates truthiness. Also, Bill Moyers has featured a series of excellent interviews with political non-pundit Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the author of several books on elections, politics, and the media.

This has been a public service announcement.

America, you made me proud by knocking out Rudy Guiliani, while he drove in circles. Now let’s dump a couple more of these clowns. As much as I enjoy watching Mitt Romney throw money away, you republicans out there have the easy job of voting for the guy you should have been supporting all along.

Democrats have it a bit tougher. Obama and Clinton have similar policy positions. The election of either would be historic. And while I think Hillary would be a good president, it’s time for fresh blood in Washington. Judging by the direction of recent polls, it seems I’m not alone.

And if you don’t listen to me, I’m going voting Bloomberg.

When she first ran for the senate, Hillary Clinton made a mistake by saying she was a Yankees fan despite previous reports that, with her roots in Illinois, she was a Cubs fan. She later explained that the Yankees were her “American League team.” Clearly these comments were designed with the New York voter in mind. Does anyone think that Hillary has very strong opinions on the matter one way or the other? I don’t remember seeing her at either a Cubs or Yankees game. In any case, when asked by Denver reporters about her opinion of this year’s World Series matchup, she answered, “Neither of my teams is in. I’m going to be an interested but dispassionate observer.” She could have very easily said, “As a Yankees fan, I want to see the Red Sox lose, so I’m pulling for the Rockies,” or “I am very impressed by the never-say-die attitude of the Rockies, so I hope they win.” Instead, she gave the answer that most sports fans would have.

On the other hand, Rudy is supposedly a big Yankees fan. He’s always shown at Yankees games. He rooted for the Yankees against the Mets. He’s also very conscious of his status as a true Yankees fan in the political arena:

“I’m a Yankee fan,” Giuliani replied then. “I always believe it’s a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan.” [Daily News article]

In no universe should a die hard Yankees fan actually want the Red Sox to become champs again. I guess the political universe is an exception.

Rudy Giuliani is carefully changing his opinion on many an issue in his presidential campaign to court the conservative voter. I get that. Does it really matter to Rudy one way or the other what the legality of abortion is? Does it really matter to him if more stringent gun control laws are passed? Unless he has a gay son that we haven’t heard anything about, do gay rights really matter to Rudy? Maybe a little bit, but not nearly as much as national security and the “war on terror.” So he promises to appoint strict constructionist judges and backtracks on his more liberal positions that he held as mayor of New York.

But I don’t understand this:

“I’m rooting for the Red Sox … I’m an American League fan, and I go with the American League team, maybe with the exception of the Mets,” he said. “Maybe that would be the one time I wouldn’t because I’m loyal to New York.” [AP story]

He could have said, “It pains me to say it, but I think the Red Sox will win,” or “Even though I am a Yankees fan, I recognize that the Sox have had the best team all year.” But to say that he will root for the Red Sox is unacceptable.

America, we cannot allow this type of flip-flopping turncoat into the White House. We need someone with strong, unwavering values. I can think of only one person for the job. Which is why I say to you, vote Romney!

I recently posted about the Secretary of Transportation and her opinion of bicycling as a form of transportation. I received the following response today:

Thank you for your e-mail about the importance of bicycling and walking as a form of transportation. I share your interest in a safe, efficient mullimodal transportation system. Your e-mail discussed comments I made during a recent interview regarding the importance of effectively prioritizing major transportation spending decisions. These comments were in no way intended as an indictment of bicycle and pedestrian investments broadly. Rather, they were part of a much larger critique of the processes by which investment decisions are increasingly being made at the Federal level. Too often, political influence and power arc guiding transportation spending priorities, instead of merit, competition, data, and analysis. The U.S. Department of Transportation believes that bicyclists and pedestrians are legitimate and welcome users of our Nation’s transportation system. They are a healthy part of the solution to congestion in our urban areas. We also believe that States, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies are in the best position to understand the unique needs of their own communities, which is why we have continued to strongly support broad eligibility under the Federal-aid program for a diverse mix of transportation investments, including bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities. Programs that improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians arc also eligible for Federal safety dollars. Although the number of bicyclist and pedestrian injuries and fatalities has dropped by 10 percent since 1994, fatalities have increased in the last 2 years, and this is not acceptable.

Thank you again for voicing your opinion. I hope to continue to work with bicycling and pedestrian advocates as we face the challenges of meeting our country’s changing
transportation needs.

Sincerely yours,
Mary E. Peters

Even before moving here, I learned that Chicago has a very poor reputation when it comes to recycling. The program for recycling household items is to put your recyclables in a designated blue bag, and then throw it away with the rest of the trash. The blue bags are supposed to be separated from the rest of the waste and sent to recycling centers. Not surprisingly, many of the blue bags never make it out of the trash and get sent to the landfill. However, some districts (including ours) recently replaced the blue bag program with the blue cart program. We now have a separate blue trash container along side our regular trash cans in the alley. Items in the blue carts will be collected by trucks separately from the trash. Score one for common sense.

The city is also trying to make progress in collecting recyclables in public spaces, e.g. the lakefront parks. They have put out blue carts similar to the ones for residential collection. Lots of them. In fact, there are more recycling containers than regular trash containers. In a perfect world, this might be the correct course of action. But at this point, it’s a mistake. Chicagoans are so recycling ignorant that they will use the closest trash-can looking thing for recyclables and non-recyclables alike. I’m sure that when these things get filled up, the sanitation department will see the amount of non-recyclables inside and send all of the contents to the landfill. Instead of placing the blue carts so haphazardly, they should be placed right next to a regular trash can. Then, when someone goes to throw something away, they’ll see the two options and hopefully dispose of the item in the correct container. I’m glad the city is making an effort to push recycling, but right now it’s mostly show over substance.