*snort* Palin's been compared to Quayle already. As a most unqualified VP. Except if you're working for a legacy. If that were the case, I'd rather stay in the Senate. Hard to say what her priorities are.

Hmmm...I'm not sure where she fits in here: McCain spokesman Ben Porritt offered, �McCain is going to pick a VP based on merit; a proven leader with sound judgment and well rounded experience that will give the public confidence that he/she is able to step in and govern at a moment�s notice.�

I would say her priorities had to be power (to effect change) and prestige. In the Senate, she's only one of 100. If any health care package gets through Congress, you just know it is going to be labeled the "Edward M Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill."

Palin's been compared to Quayle already. As a most unqualified VP. Apparently that title actually goes to Spiro Agnew.

I'd say there are quite a number of Senators, past and present, esp Ted Kennedy, I'd wouldn't characterize as simply "one of 100". That might be true with the Health Care Bill, but maybe that's part of her deal. It'll be the Kennedy/Clinton Health Care Bill. I just want to get to the election.

Apparently that title actually goes to Spiro Agnew. Someone else mentioned Admiral Stockdale.

Of course Ross Perot was no fabulous Pres candidate either. ;-)

But the distinction is "major" political party.

Is there going to be a VP debate or have they chucked that too? Frankly, it will be no contest again. Tough to choose between personal tragedies/hardships. Apparently she has a son with Down's.

Bet Biden would wipe the floor with her. Though not fair for me to say I supposed as I've never heard her say anything.

Agnew first was elected governor of MD in 1966, then became VP in '68. His local and/or state experience was minimal. 1957-1961: appointment to the Baltimore County Board of Zoning Appeals 1960: lost election for Judge of the Circuit Court 1962: elected Baltimore County Executive (must be like our county president position) 1966: elected governor

From a Tribune article: The statement also said Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy sources. "She leads a state that matters to every one of us - Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent," he said. As governor, she has raised taxes on the oil industry, pushed ethics legislation amidst corruption investigation of Alaska lawmakers and limited requests for congressional earmarks after Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" made the state a national laughingstock. ~~~~~~~~ Someone needs to take to a big city hair salon. She needs a makeover badly. ;-)

Could there be a happier Moon? I am thrilled! McCain gets it alright, WORD! I have heard her speak and she does it well. I don't think there will be a problem with Biden. He couldn't touch the age or experience issue with her because of rookie Obama. Frankly, I wasn't impressed with Biden at the comvention. (Karen), I'd go with Supreme Court and a promise to be elevated. I agree. Although, I think Hillary might wish to run against McCain in 2012.

(Mari) No, it's fire. He was involved in a bitter child custody dispute with her sister and she wanted him out. BTW, it will be viewed as a positive, a plus, by many women voters. ;-)

Especially since the jerk left/abandoned his spouse.

(Moon)Frankly, I wasn't impressed with Biden at the comvention. If you'd have seen him close up in action as a prenmier legislator for 30+ years, as I have, you'd be impressed.:-) Can't wait for the VP debate, and yes there will be one, in Missouri I think. I want to listen to this woman and learn more about her. I have to be honest though; I'd find it awfully hard to pull the lever for anyone who is anti Roe v. Wade. IMO, it's a woman's fundamental right.

(Mari) I'd find it awfully hard to pull the lever for anyone who is anti Roe v. Wade. IMO, it's a woman's fundamental right. Quite. However, you'd be amazed by all the holier-than-thous out there who simply cannot allow other women to have the choice. I was positively shocked many years to find a friend, who was rabidly anti-abortion (which I attributed to her being Catholic), admit to having had two herself! Hypocrites! (and she suffered no physical ill effects from her own experience and had two daughters when she finally married the jerk)

Equal Rights Amemndment is more important than Roe vs Wade, IMO. And I think this country should establish a Pro-Adoption stance instead of Pro-Abortion. There are too many ignorant young girls out there getting abortions, that's not right. There are plenty of Americans that would happily adopt those babies.

(Mari) I want to listen to this woman and learn more about her. I do as well. I don't think anyone adopts a "pro-abortion" stance, except simply to have it as an option. There are too many ignorant young girls out there getting abortions, that's not right. Perhaps if the administration had spent more effort and money on promoting safe sex rather than promoting abstinence (and trying to push religion into it through the faith based programs), which was shown to be a failure, there might be less of this problem. That's funny. I don't think there's a lack of American babies to adopt, but many, including several I know, choose to adopt internationally.

(Karen)I was positively shocked many years to find a friend, who was rabidly anti-abortion (which I attributed to her being Catholic) You may be surprised at how many Catholics are pro-choice. Last poll I saw, it was the (slim) majority. (Moon)Equal Rights Amemndment is more important than Roe vs Wade, IMO. The ERA is in the states' hands--the states that failed to ratify in order for there to be the necesasary number for it to become the law of the entire land. And you live in one of those states that didn't ratify--get going, Moon!;-) And good luck getting McCain-Palin to lead the charge on the federal level. *snort* There are too many ignorant young girls out there getting abortions, that's not right. So who gets to decide who "deserves" the right to get an abortion (presumably only those who not "ignorant or young"?;-) It must remain safe and legal. My mother used to tell me stories of a close friend of hers who died while having an abortion; this was in the early '50s when it was illegal. Her husband was abusive and she was leaving him and had no means to support another child (she had one young son already). Tragic. I've known women who have had abortions. Not one of them took it lightly. The government needs to keep its nose out of people's personal business, and focus on the huge problems we as a society face.

(Mari) You may be surprised at how many Catholics are pro-choice. I might, but the experience I shared here happened a long time ago but epitomized the hypocrisy of her position. Not one of them took it lightly. Absolutely. It isn't anything to take lightly for many reasons. But it should be no one's decision but the woman's herself. In the area of health care, boy, do we need a woman at the top! Besides the ability to choose, you better believe there would be a blood test for breast cancer (like in prostate cancer) and hot flashes would be a thing of the past! ;-)

Some conservative media reaction. Note the comments highlighted are out of context. I haven't read them all completely yet. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/29/125530/561/942/578766

I thought this was an interesting analysis/commentary on Palin and that women's issues will be brought to the front more in this election. It�s Palin By: Jane Hamsher Friday August 29, 2008 8:15 am 13 diggs digg it The desire to cause complete chaos in the Democratic party by nominating Joe Lieberman was overcome, and Sarah Palin is going to be John McCain's running mate. I don't personally think that it was Joe's "pro-choice" stance that killed him, he would've sold that out in a heartbeat. It's been obvious that the GOP has been making a play for the female vote ever since Obama won the nomination and it became apparent that he would rather gnaw off his right arm than choose her as a running mate. With the last Rasmussen poll showing that 28% of her voters still won't vote for Obama, there's certainly a lot of opportunity there. I have to say that as a woman, there is something intuitively appealing about her selection, even though I politically disagree with everything she believes in and would never in a million years vote for her. And we're hearing a lot about Obama's support for equal pay and Joe Biden's championing of domestic violence legislation because a large part of the female voting block is in play. I'm still not quite sure why Obama didn't try and lock that vote down by overlooking the personal animosity he and Clinton shared and picking her as his running mate, but he didn't. The chemistry between Obama and Biden is good, and watching them together last night I thought they made an appealing combination. But it also carries risks that McCain decided to exploit. The good news is that women's issues are going to become front and center for this campaign. I haven't seen enough of Palin to know how well she could do against Biden in a debate, but I'm not sure it matters. If she doesn't make some horrible gaffe, what she stands for symbolically will be more important than anything she says. I'd just recommend that if anyone is thinking of going on teevee and tearing her down by saying she doesn't care about the victims of Hurricane Katrina but only cries about her looks, they might want to reconsider. http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/29/its-palin/

Am I reading this correctly? Moon, are you going to switch from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain, just because he chose a woman as his running mate?? Don't you care that this woman is anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-death penalty, pro-gun and (if my sources are to be believed) nuttier than a Xmas fruitcake??

I think she was going to support McCain even before that, but this appears to help.

Did I hear David Gergen correctly last night on CNN when he said Palin was a "skeptic" on global warming and is in favor of teaching creationism in the public schools? Tell me I didn't hear that. :-(

You heard correctly.

I heard the global warming comment by either Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman. Not the other. :-( (BTW, have you noticed that Keith Olberman and Lester Holt have identical voices?) Another noticeable change seems to be in those MSN talking heads. I think NBC/Universal Legal has taken the reports of media bias seriously and come down hard. Chris Matthews was falling all over himself to appear PC. Maybe they all had to go to anti-sexism workshop. ;-)

(Sarah) are you going to switch from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain, just because he chose a woman as his running mate? Ever heard: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? ;-)

Dailykos.com has a ton on Sarah Palin and her record in Alaska (as well as the wonderful video where she questions what a VP really does...*that's* a video I took time to watch ;-)). It's too much for me to go through and post, I'm already behind schedule today. If you go to dailykos.com and scroll down the main few pages from the past couple of days, you'll find all kinds of commentary and links about her.

Also, thanks for joining in Jane! I wish more people chimed in.

You know, I'll apologize in advance for offending anyone, but as I said to my aunt (who's a Catholic nun), if a person's main concern or issue in aligning themselves with a Pres/VP candidate is that they're pro-life, then apparently life is very good for them considering the state of this country and the world. Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket By ERIC GORSKI, AP Religion Writer 2 hours, 1 minute ago Sarah Palin already has energized conservative religious leaders who had fretted that John McCain would pick an abortion rights supporter as his running mate. The Alaska governor was raised in a Pentecostal church and has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be." To Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religion Liberties Commission, Palin is "straight out of veep central casting." Land said he had urged the McCain camp to consider the political unknown. Gary Bauer, one of McCain's most enthusiastic evangelical supporters, said the Arizona senator had hit a "grand slam home run" and that adding Palin to the GOP ticket is "guaranteed to energize values voters." The 44-year-old mother of five, who led her high school chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, was baptized as a teenager at the Wasilla Assembly of God Church, where she and her family were very active, according to her then-pastor, Paul Riley. She now sometimes worships at the Juneau Christian Center, which is also part of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God, said Brad Kesler, business administrator of the denomination's Alaska District. But her home church is The Church on the Rock, an independent congregation, Riley said. "The church was kind of a foundation for her," said Riley, who said he gave the invocation at Palin's inauguration and had her address students at the church last month. Maria Comella, a spokeswoman for the McCain-Palin campaign, said Palin attends different churches and does not consider herself Pentecostal. As a politician, Palin has sided with the majority evangelical view in opposing gay marriage and expressing a desire to see creationism discussed alongside evolution in schools. During a 2006 debate, she said she was a proponent of teaching both evolution and creationism in schools. She later clarified her stance in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying that she doesn't think creationism needed to be part of the curriculum and that she would not push the state Board of Education to add such alternatives to the state's required curriculum. Not only does Palin oppose abortion as a matter of policy, but she chose to give birth to her youngest child, a son, after a prenatal exam indicated Down syndrome. Studies show that about nine in 10 pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion. "That will resonate in a big way," said Quin Monson, a Brigham Young University professor who studies religion and politics. Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who initially said he could not vote for McCain but has since opened the door to an endorsement, called Palin "an outstanding choice that should be extremely reassuring to the conservative base" of the GOP. Dobson added that the ticket "gives us confidence he will keep his pledges to voters regarding the kinds of justices he would nominate to the Supreme Court." "It's an absolutely brilliant choice," said Mathew Staver, dean of Liberty University School of Law. "This will absolutely energize McCain's campaign and energize conservatives." Staver called Palin a "a woman of faith who has a strong position on life, a consistent opinion on judges. ... She's the complete package." A Pew poll last week showed McCain leading Democrat Barack Obama 68 percent to 24 percent among white evangelical Protestants. But there was little enthusiasm: Only 28 percent of white evangelicals call themselves "strong" supporters of McCain, far short of President Bush's numbers four years ago. Many evangelical leaders said McCain helped himself with a solid performance at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church, where McCain proclaimed, "I will be a pro-life president." Mark Silk, who specializes in religion and politics at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn., cautioned that while evangelical leaders are praising the Palin pick, it might not necessarily trickle down. "The question is how this will be received by a lot of rank-and-file evangelicals who are just Americans struggling along, going to their megachurches, and care about values," Silk said. Some question whether old-guard traditional leaders, like Dobson, hold as much influence as in the past. The evangelical establishment never warmed to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's candidacy, but grass-roots evangelicals contributed to his big win in the Iowa primaries. Evangelical leaders got worried when McCain floated the possibility of a vice presidential candidate who supports abortion rights, including Sen. Joe Lieberman or former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge. By choosing Palin, "McCain is saying to social and religious conservatives, 'I'm taking your views incredibly seriously,'" said Michael Cromartie, director of the evangelical studies program at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington. ___ On the Net: Juneau Christian Center: http://jccalaska.com/ Alaska Assemblies of God: http://www.alaskaag.org/ Church on the Rock: http://churchontherockak.org/

Forgot to mention that the State of Illinois isn't the only one infected with nepotitis. Saw Luke Russert reporting from the convention floor, giving the truly lame "young" people's perspective. :-( Does they realize how embarrassing it is to stand in front of a camera and admit that young people think everything is honky dory for women, while behind him the speakers from the podium are pledging to finally get equal pay for equal work for women?? Talk about juxtaposition. Might as well have had a clown dancing behind him.

I've read Luke Russert seems to be out of his element. I just had almost this exact conversation with someone this morning.... 6 things the Palin pick says about McCain Jim VandeHei, John F. Harris 2 hours, 30 minutes ago The selection of a running mate is among the most consequential, most defining decisions a presidential nominee can make. John McCain�s pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says a lot about his decison-making � and some of it is downright breathtaking. We knew McCain is a politician who relishes improvisation, and likes to go with his gut. But it is remarkable that someone who has repeatedly emphasized experience in this campaign named an inexperienced governor he barely knew to be his No. 2. Whatever you think of the pick, here are six things it tells us about McCain: 1. He�s desperate. Let�s stop pretending this race is as close as national polling suggests. The truth is McCain is essentially tied or trailing in every swing state that matters � and too close for comfort in several states like Indiana and Montana the GOP usually wins pretty easily in presidential races. On top of that, voters seem very inclined to elect Democrats in general this election � and very sick of the Bush years. McCain could easily lose in an electoral landslide. That is the private view of Democrats and Republicans alike. McCain�s pick shows he is not pretending. Politicians, even �mavericks� like McCain, play it safe when they think they are winning � or see an easy path to winning. They roll the dice only when they know that the risks of conventionality are greater than the risks of boldness. The Republican brand is a mess. McCain is reasonably concluding that it won�t work to replicate George W. Bush and Karl Rove�s electoral formula, based around national security and a big advantage among Y chromosomes, from 2004. �She�s a fresh new face in a party that�s dying for one � the antidote to boring white men,� a campaign official said. Palin, the logic goes, will prompt voters to give him a second look � especially women who have watched Democrats reject Hillary Rodham Clinton for Barack Obama. The risks of a backlash from choosing someone so unknown and so untested are obvious. In one swift stroke, McCain demolished what had been one of his main arguments against Obama. �I think we�re going to have to examine our tag line, �dangerously inexperienced,�� a top McCain official said wryly. 2. He�s willing to gamble � bigtime. Let�s face it: This is not the pick of a self-confident candidate. It is the political equivalent of a trick play or, as some Democrats called it, a Hail Mary pass in football. McCain talks incessantly about experience, and then goes and selects a woman he hardly knows, who hardly knows foreign policy and who can hardly be seen as instantly ready for the presidency. He is smart enough to know it could work, at least politically. Many Republicans see this pick as a brilliant stroke because it will be difficult for Democrats to run hard against a woman in the wake of the Hillary Clinton drama. Will this push those disgruntled Hillary voters McCain�s way? Perhaps. But this is hardly aimed at them: It is directed at the huge bloc of independent women � especially those who do not see abortion as a make-or-break issue � who could decide this election. McCain has a history of taking dares. Palin represents his biggest one yet. 3. He�s worried about the political implications of his age. Like a driver overcorrecting out of a swerve, he chooses someone who is two years younger than the youthful Obama, and 28 years young than he is. (He turned 72 Friday.) The father-daughter comparison was inevitable when they appeared next to each other. 4. He�s not worried about the actuarial implications of the age issue. He thinks he�s in fine fettle, and Palin wouldn�t be performing the only constitutional duty of a vice president, which is standing by in case a president dies or becomes incapacitated. If he was really concerned about an inexperienced person sitting in the Oval Office we would be writing about vice presidential nominee Mitt Romney or Tom Ridge or Condoleezza Rice. There is no plausible way that McCain could say that he picked Palin, who was only elected governor in 2006 and whose most extended public service was as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (population 8,471), because she was ready to be president on Day One. Nor can McCain argue that he was looking for someone he could trust as a close adviser. Most people know the staff at the local Starbucks better than McCain knows Palin. They met for the first time last February at a National Governors Association meeting in Washington. Then, they spoke again � by phone � on Sunday while she was at the Alaska state fair and he was at home in Arizona. McCain has made a mockery out of his campaign's longtime contention that Barack Obama is too dangerously inexperienced to be commander in chief. Now, the Democratic ticket boasts 40 years of national experience (four years for Obama and 36 years for Joseph Biden of Delaware), while the Republican ticket has 26 (McCain�s four yeasr in the House and 22 in the Senate.) The McCain campaign has made a calculation that most voters don�t really care about the national experience or credentials of a vice president, and that Palin�s ebullient personality and reputation as a refomer who took on cesspool politics in Alasksa matters more. 5. He�s worried about his conservative base. If he had room to maneuver, there were lots of people McCain could have selected who would have represented a break from Washington politics as usual. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman comes to mind (and it certainly came to McCain�s throughout the process). He had no such room. GOP stalwarts were furious over trial balloons about the possibility of choosing a supporter of abortion rights, including the possibility that he would reach out to his friend. Palin is an ardent opponent of abortion who was previously scheduled to keynote the Republican National Coalition for Life's "Life of the Party" event in the Twin Cities this week. �She�s really a perfect selection,� said Darla St. Martin, the Co-Director of the National Right to Life Committee. It is no secret McCain wanted to shake things up in this race � and he realized he was limited to a shake-up conservatives could stomach. 6. At the end of the day, McCain is still McCain. People may find him a refreshing maverick, or an erratic egotist. In either event, he marches to his own beat. On the upside, his team did manage to play to the media�s love of drama, fanning speculation about his possible choices and maximizing coverage of the decision. On the potential downside, the drama was evidently entirely genuine. The fact that McCain only spoke with Palin about the vice presidency for the first time on Sunday, and that he was seriously considering Lieberman until days ago, suggests just how hectic and improvisational his process was. In the end, this selection gives him a chance to reclaim the mantle of a different kind of politician intent on changing Washington. He once had a legitimate claim to this: after all, he took on his own party over campaign finance reform and immigration. He jeopardized this claim in recent months by embracing ideas he once opposed (Bush tax cuts) and ideas that appeared politically motivated (gas tax holiday). Spontaneity, with a touch of impulsiveness, is one of the traits that attract some of McCain�s admirers. Whether it�s a good calling card for a potential president will depend on the reaction in coming days to what looks for the moment like the most daring vice presidential selection in generations. Mike Allen contributed to this report. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/12997;_ylt=ArQAAJmfafqwjCSNnIIJTPys0NUE

It's shaping up to be a fascinating election. Can't wait for the debates.

I'm looking forward to the debates too. I've heard Palin speak and she does it well. No ums, ahhs, ughs. also, she is not anti-enviornment. She wants Alaska with all its natural resources to be the alternative fuel state to supply the country. I am also not a Darwinist, and I don't believe that Man evolved from a ape. There is room for all teachings in schools. Why must everyone believe in the Big Bang Theory? IMO, passing the Equal Rights Amendment will take care of Roe vs Wade. Women will finally be in charge. But we must get women into high offices. The DNC selected Obama over Hillary. Obama ignored Hillary eventhough having her as his VP would have, IMO, guaranteed a win. I will not fall in line, never have in my life, as my mother knows and suffers, LOL. A Pro-Adoption program or legislature should be passed nationally. Teenage girls are getting too many abortions, many of them don't even realize they are pregnant until their second trimester, the horror! Contrary to what you believe Dorine, there are not many newborns up for adoption in the US. Sarah, I'm already thinking Hillary 2012. In the meantime: Gov. Sarah Palin A Tenacious Reformer's Swift Rise http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082903593.html If I do volunteer for McCain at his HQ, I will be wearing my Hillary pin. I know at least two other Hillary VA delegates that will be there.

From today's Washington Post: In Israel, A Clash Over Who Is a Jew Ultra-Orthodox Contest Conversions By Griff Witte ASHDOD, Israel -- Yael converted to Judaism in 1992, and for the next 15 years she lived in Israel, celebrating the major holidays and teaching her children about the Jewish faith. But when she and her husband sought a divorce last year, she said, the ultra-Orthodox rabbis in charge of the process had some questions. Among them: Did Yael observe the Sabbath? Did she obey the prohibition on sex during and after menstruation? Dissatisfied with the answers, the rabbis nullified her conversion. Yael did not need a divorce, they ruled, because she had never been married. She had never been married because she had never been Jewish. And because she had never been Jewish, her children were not, either. "I was in shock. I couldn't believe it," said Yael, 43, who would allow only her Hebrew name to be published out of privacy concerns. Blond, blue-eyed and athletic-looking, Yael is baffled by the ordeal. "My kids grew up Jewish," she said. "They don't know anything else." Yael's personal trauma has become a cause for Israeli soul-searching over what it means to be Jewish, a term that carries both religious and ethnic dimensions. The case has set off a roiling debate between those who see themselves as saving Judaism and those whose first priority is to safeguard the Jewish state. On one side are ultra-Orthodox leaders who are using their long-standing dominance of Israel's rabbinical court system -- which has authority over marriages, divorces and conversions -- to tighten restrictions governing who can become Jewish. They see themselves as defending the religious purity of a people who, according to their interpretation of Jewish law, need to live apart from other groups. Those on the other side are much more concerned with demographics: They believe that at a time when the number of Arabs living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is poised to surpass the number of Jews, Israel needs all the converts it can get. This group includes secular Jews, but it is led by the religious Zionists, who form the core of the settlement movement in the occupied territories and who feel it is their duty to populate the biblical land of Israel. The stakes have escalated since Yael's conversion was tossed out: When she appealed to the High Rabbinical Court of Israel, it not only upheld the original decision but also threw into doubt the legality of thousands of other conversions. "There is a cultural war going on between various segments of Jewish society," said Benjamin Ish-Shalom, chairman of the Joint Institute for Jewish Studies. A trim man with a philosophical bearing who relishes any discussion of Judaism, he helps administer a government-funded education program for Israelis who need help getting through the rigorous process of conversion. Over the past two decades, Israel has admitted hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, over the objections of ultra-Orthodox leaders who spoke out against allowing non-Jews to enter the country. Many of the immigrants lacked the paperwork to prove their Jewish ancestry. Others had fathers or grandparents who were Jewish, but did not qualify as Jewish themselves because Judaism is passed down through mothers. Until now, ultra-Orthodox leaders have not acted as forcefully to invalidate immigrant conversions. To Ish-Shalom, facilitating conversion has been good for the converts, good for Judaism and good for the state. "Israel needs people. It needs loyal people," he said. At the moment, there is rough parity between the Palestinian and Jewish populations in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, according to Eliyahu Ben-Moshe, a demographer and former deputy director of Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics. Because of a high Arab birth rate, Ben-Moshe said, they are expected to establish a clear majority in the coming decades -- a terrifying prospect for Israeli policymakers as the well of diaspora Jews who are willing to immigrate to Israel dries up. The ultra-Orthodox, Ish-Shalom argues, are damaging that effort by requiring converts to heed strict standards. Ultra-Orthodox leaders don't disagree. They believe that God originally expelled the Jews from the land of Israel because of their lack of religious devotion and that the secular nature of the modern Israeli nation is unacceptable. As a result, many are anti-Zionist. "There's something more important than the state of Israel and Zionism," said Moshe Gafni, a member of Israel's parliament who represents the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party. Wearing the customary ultra-Orthodox uniform of black pants and white shirt, Gafni speaks forcefully and with deep conviction: "Unlike Christians, we Jews are not missionaries. If someone really wants to join the Jewish people, we're going to make it difficult for them." Gafni's view is rooted in his interpretation of Jewish law. To him, there are two kinds of Jews: those who were born of Jewish mothers into the faith, and those who can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are willing to abide by Jewish law and accept the hundreds of mitzvoth, or commandments, that govern an observant Jew's daily life. To admit others, he said, would be to destroy the integrity of a community that, according to God's will, needs to stay distinct. While the ultra-Orthodox are only about 11 percent of Israel's Jewish population -- approximately the same share as the religious Zionists -- they have wielded increasing power in recent years as high birth rates swell their numbers. Ben-Moshe said he expects them to double their share of the Jewish population within the next 20 years. Israel's notoriously unstable political system, too, has helped raise their influence: Mainstream Israeli politicians usually need ultra-Orthodox parties in their governments to build a majority coalition. Over time, the ultra-Orthodox have grown bolder in challenging the Israeli government's efforts to convert non-Jewish immigrants. Unwittingly, Yael became a part of that campaign when her husband filed for divorce. A Protestant by birth who grew up in Denmark, she moved to Israel in 1988 to be with her Jewish boyfriend. Because there is no civil marriage in Israel, she needed to convert to marry him here. The process took a year of intense study of Jewish prayers, holidays and traditions. "Ordinary Israelis don't know half of what I learned," she said while sitting at her kitchen table in this city by the Mediterranean. Like most ordinary Israeli Jews, her level of observance was not up to the standards of the ultra-Orthodox. Still, she had no idea that her conversion could be nullified -- especially 15 years after the fact. In their 51-page decision, the rabbis in Ashdod who heard the divorce petition wrote that "most of the converts lie to the rabbis when they promise to keep the mitzvoth after the conversion. . . . How can one bury one's head in the sand and continue letting into the vineyard of the Jewish people these total non-Jews?" Yoseph Sheinin, chief rabbi of Ashdod, did not take part in the ruling, but he praised it as a means of correcting the government's mistakes. "The idea of Zionism was to bring Jews here. The moment they brought Gentiles here, they bankrupted the movement," he said. When Yael appealed to the High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem, she was again subjected to tough questioning -- most of it focused on prohibitions relating to sex. "It was all about our private life -- our very private life," she said. "It was simply terrible." In a lengthy ruling, the Jerusalem judges attacked Rabbi Chaim Drukman, a religious Zionist who oversaw Yael's conversion along with thousands of others as part of an aggressive government effort to increase the Jewish population of Israel. Every one of those conversions, the court ruled, should be called into question. Drukman said the decision strikes at the heart of the Zionist project. "We feel a responsibility for the people of Israel," he said, his bookshelves lined with copies of the Talmud. "They don't. They only care about their small circle." Indeed, the backlash against the ruling has prompted proposals for alternative courts that would take a more lenient view of Jewish law, or the institution of civil marriage. Susan Weiss, a lawyer whose Center for Women's Justice is handling Yael's appeal to Israel's Supreme Court, said she is hoping that the case helps to "change the system from its roots." Until then, however, the government and the rabbinical courts continue to work at cross-purposes -- with the government spending millions of shekels annually to bring people into the fold of Judaism, and the courts trying to keep them out. Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, a major advocate for easing the conversion process, used to "pound on the table and say, 'If I had to convert, I would not pass,' " said Avigdor Leviatan, head of Israel's conversion office. "The problem lies with the rabbinical courts. There the system collapses."

(Moon) No ums, ahhs, ughs. Colin could never run for public office then. ;-D

So we move from politics to abortion to religion, Moon? All the taboo subjects? ;-)

Apparently the press in Palin's own backyard aren't that thrilled. Even Locals Are Blasting Palin Pick Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM PDT http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/30/1296/05455/509/580216

She apparently thinks Hillary Clinton was a whiner. In regards to what, I don't know. http://www.newsweek.com/id/156190/output/print

The whining comment was picked up by the media immediately. Heard it yesterday. You might want to click on the video at this link to see her tapdance around the question of unfair media. She actually says "perceived whining." Perceived by whom? I suppose the media. But the answer is pathetic IMO. Women have been working harder to overcome this for longer than she's been alive. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Palin_on_Clinton.html

Listening to it again, her answer reminded me of the advice given to Victorian women to lay on their backs and think of England. ;-)

Essentially she was telling Hillary to "man-up", which incidentally was essentially Mark Penn's advice to her, per the Vanity Fair article anyway. It will be curious to see if she gets similar treatment, though she's not running for the big job and is along for the ride to some degree.

Essentially she was telling Hillary to "man-up", And how dare she tell Hillary to "work harder!" In other words, shut up and don't complain. Perceived whining indeed. She's not fit to shine Hill's shoes. Outrageous. (Moon)I will not fall in line And neither will I. If McCain thinks that most woman are going to fall in line and vote against their own self-interests because he put a woman on the ticket, he has another thing coming to him.

Dorine asked how the Daily Show was covering the convention and I said they were on a one-day lag. That was true, with the exception of Friday's show because they were able to get in the Sarah Palin announcement. My Tivo also included a couple of minutes of the Colbert Report, which started out with Palin as well. Wish I'd recorded that. (Mari) If McCain thinks that most woman are going to fall in line and vote against their own self-interests because he put a woman on the ticket, he has another thing coming to him. You might want to view this: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=183521&title=John-McCain-Chooses-a-Running-Mate

Moon, I am sorry to hear that you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you were truly a supporter of the issues that Hillary Clinton stands for, you certainly wouldn't be voting for McCain/Palin. I think it's a shame. And voting against your own self interests doesn't help anyone. If you feel so strongly about Clinton getting shafted by her own party - why not vote for a third party candidate whose platform at least mirrors some of the things Clinton stands for?? That's certainly not going to help the Dems, and at least you're not voting against your own self-interests. As for teaching Creationism in schools, I think it's fine if it's part of a Religious Studies or Philosophy class. It doesn't belong in Science class - it's not a scientific theory or belief in any way. And I'm very much opposed to turning the US into (even more of) a Theocracy. Separation of Church and State is basic to our country's foundations. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves at some of the things the Republican party does.

On another note, I will say that the US is suffering a decline in its political prospects because of the "two party" (practically ONE party now) system. The only way to achieve real progress in the US in politics is, imo, to introduce some kind of "preferential voting" system, which allows people to vote for the candidate which they believe represents their interests, without having their vote flushed down the toilet and/or benefit a candidate/party they loathe. Australia has a pretty good (not perfect) form of preferential voting which ensures that there are always more than two parties, and in fact, quite often allows third party and independent candidates to weild a great deal of power under certain circumstances. The Australian Greens Party always has at least a couple of Senators at the federal level, which makes for some interesting debates, I can assure you. (Not to mention that our venerable Greens Senator, Bob Brown stood up and gave GW a serve while he was here over keeping people detained indef nitely without trial in Gitmo! I got to shake Dr. Brown's hand and tell him he was my hero for doing that!) Bob Brown is often the only man in Australia to point out the Emporer's lack of clothes, and I think it's great.

(Mari) If McCain thinks that most woman are going to fall in line and vote against their own self-interests because he put a woman on the ticket, he has another thing coming to him. But then again, if their self-interests include being pro-life, anti-environment, against gun control and a belief in creationism vs. evolution, then McCain/she are their candidates. What doesn't jive obviously is that if they were also Hillary supporters, because she has the opposite ideology. Then the question becomes why support Hillary because technically she was against those self-intersts. A word comes to mind I won't mention. Jane, is the political system there ruled by money and special interests as it is here? 3rd party candidates don't have a chance here really as long as those influences are in our system IMO. Except to exist as potential spoilers.

I will say that the US is suffering a decline in its political prospects because of the "two party" (practically ONE party now) system. I agree. It is shame that people who voted from Nader took votes away from Kerry in the last election, etc. I also have a problem with our court system. I believe there should be a panel of judges to judge criminals not citizens, ie: O.J. results. As for teaching Creationism in schools, do not fear, it will not happen. My problem comes with the teachings of theories in Science class: Evolution and Big Bang are just that, theories, I think it's fair to add Creationism to it. I fear it not. Here is blog from a woman(45), I met at Hillary's HQ, a feminist who after graduating from U.C. San Diego adopted two black toddlers, they were brothers and she wanted to keep them together. It is worth reading: http://www.thesisterhoodofthetravelingpantsuit.blogspot.com/

I will not be pushing McCain/Palin on anybody here, so I'll probably not interrupt the Obama fest anymore. I consider myself an Independent now. Yesterday, I was in the car all day. I listened to POTUS 08 and was able to hear several interviews with people who know Palin. I found one of the interviews to be incredibly interesting. They interviewed an old "friend" of hers (more like a mentor)--an independent candidate who ran for governor in 2002. The following is what he had to say about Palin: Apparently, Palin was an active Mom who, after college, worked as a commercial fisher (and union member, which I just can't get over....that this woman said, in a room full of Ohio Republicans--"My husband is a proud member of the United Steel Workers Union."). After she had her kids, she became actively involved in PTA. In 1992, she was elected to the city council, where she served for several years before running for Mayor. She served as Mayor for several years before deciding to run for Lt. Governor in 2002. This guy telling the story ran for Governor in 2002, but lost to the sitting Republican Governor, who was a total crook. Anyway, she lost the race for Lt. Governor, but was immediately appointed to head The Oil and Gas Energy Commission (or something like that). Apparently, the head of the Republican National Committee in Alaska also wanted to be on that commission and had promised that if he was appointed to do so, he would stop working as the head of the state party (the commission was suppo ed to be non-partisan, as AK is 51% independent voters). Anyway, he was ultimately appointed as well, but continued working as the party leader. Palin complained and he said that he would only do so after hours. At some point, Palin discovered that he was still working as the Party leader on state time. She confronted him and told him that he needed to stop. He blew her off. She confront the Governor of AK (Republican--long time Governor) and he blew her off. When no one would take a stand, she resigned her position and filed an ethics complaint with the Attorney General's office (as run by Republicans). About two weeks later, she received notice from the Attorney General that she was being investigated And that they were going to fine her and potentially prosecute her (for something unrelated, but obviously as a threat considering that she was going after the head of the Party for ethics violation). She contacted her friend, the guy telling this story, and he generated a letter and sent it to the Attorney General. The letter basically said that they expe ted an investigation to be conducted of the Governor and the RNC head, and that it needed to be done within ten days. The days later, they received notice that an investigation had been filed. Ultimately, Palin pushed the issue forward until the Attorney General and the head of the RNC were forced to resign. She then ran for Governor in 2006 and kicked the sitting governor's ass, as she ran on a ticket of reform--to get the corrupt Republican politicians out of Alaska. She told Republican Senator Stevens to take his ear marks (potentially corrupt---he has been charged with crimes and I have no doubt that we can thank Palin for helping in that investigation), as she was not interested in his "bridge to nowhere". She also took on the big oil companies and imposed the highest wind fall profit tax on them that has ever been recorded in AK history. She took the money that she received back from the oil companies and returned it to residents of AK in the form of rebate checks. She also suspended the gas tax. She worked with Democrats to get a natural gas pipeline bill passed and negotiated with an energy company OUTSIDE of AK (which is unheard of, apparently) to get the contract. Her first day in office, she put the Governor's plan on ebay and sold it. She felt it was excessive and not what the people wanted their taxpayer dollars to go toward. She got rid of her chauffeur (but found him a job somewhere else) and said that she would drive around the state on her own. Since then, she's attended all functions and appointments in her VW Jetta (yes, a non-American car company...and she's a Republican who was a member of the United Steel Workers Union). She also got rid of her domestic staff (but again, found them all jobs), as she said that she had four kids and "how could they learn how to work" if they had someone else taking care of the house. "We ate macaroni and cheese before, and we'll eat it after." While she is a social conservative, according to several people who were interviewed, she hasn't governed that way, per se. She is pro-life (I am pro-choice, up to the first trimester) and like HRC and Obama, believes marriage should be between a man and a woman. However, when the state attempted to pass legislation banning domestic benefits to same sex partners, she issued her only veto thus far. So while, she does seem to have issues that she stands for, she seems more concerned in what the people want, versus what she wants personally. She seems a lot like McCain in that respect. She's obviously not afraid of her party considering that she's spent the first two years in the Governor's office fighting them. She's pro-labor, which is about as blue collar Democrat as it gets. It's not just that she's pro-labor, she actually cited her husband as a "proud member of the USWO" (the only time during the speech yesterday when they're were no cheers in the audience). I get the feeling from what people were saying that she's more concerned with reaching compromise and making sure corruption stays out of political office than anything else. She is being pursued right now for allegedly committing some type of "ethics violation" regarding her former brother in law and his being suspended from the state police. Thus far, there hasn't been any evidence to prove that she had anything to do with it, but of course, "someone" is paying $100,000 to have an investigation done on her. Something tells me that, considering all the enemies she's made in the Republican Party over the last two years, there are a few people out there who would like to see her go down. Ironically, all of them are Republicans, including her state Senator Stevens, who is currently facing criminal prosecutions. Democrats should be jumping up and down at this (and apparently they are in AK), but ironically, they aren't. Yesterday, a Democratic female congress person was interviewed on CNN. She obviously didn't know anything about Palin, as she said that Palin was part of the "old Republican corruption in Alaska", and that "she's just part of the same old politics." It really pissed me off, to be honest, as there is absolutely nothing about this woman that seems "normal" in politics. I might not agree with her on all the issues, but more importantly, I respect her and from everything I've heard, it appears that she is trustworthy. Yes, I'd preferred to vote for HRC in 2008, but I'm happy to vote for McCain/Palin so that I may vote for HRC in 2012.

My friend who adopted the boys is white, forgot to mention it. I want to leave with a bang: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/08/30/saturday-truth-and-consequences/

G'Day there Just tuned in...and have been skimming... Forgive me...I may be ignorant to US politics...but am I right in assuming there are politians who are against abortion, but in favour of the death penalty?? whaaat? That doesnt compute. I do wonder what actually goes on in these politicians heads...do they actually believe in this stuff, or is it just a game they all play to get elected...a game they all play that screws with peoples' lives... As I get older, I get more cynical....it sems no matter what side of the fence you sit polically, we are all just pawns in their games...and ambitions... Perhaps they all go into this with stars in their eye..but once they get a glimpse of that pension fund...it all goes out the window... Anyway...enough with the gloom and doom...what I really wanted to say to the anti-choice brigade was, HANDS OFF MY CHOICE TO MAKE MY OWN DECISIONS!!! There...sorry if I offended anyone...but had to get that off my chest... Those anti abortionists...anti choice peopel make me want to scream!! ave a good weekend...!! xx

(Moon) so I'll probably not interrupt the Obama fest anymore. Wot Obamafest? I know I don't moderate this conference but it would appear that, rather than discuss an issue, the person stating a position was attacked. Not the way it should be done. If you don't agree, state why objectively. (LindaMc).but am I right in assuming there are politians who are against abortion, but in favour of the death penalty?? whaaat? That doesnt compute. Of course. Hypocrisy runs rampant. However, it is possible to hold seemingly conflicting views simultaneously if one sees abortion as the killing of an innocent, while the death penalty is for someone far from innocent. Me own view is entirely consistent and can't be faulted as hypocritical in any way. ;-)

I guess, Moon, that you must believe that Gravity doesn't really exist and that it shouldn't be taught in Science class either, since it, as ALL Scientific principals are, is titled "the THEORY of Gravity". Please do not allow the fundamentalist's silly and trite argument that "Evolution is a theory" confuse you. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by a shiteload of factual evidence. As is gravity. Evolution and gravity are both real. You may choose to believe that human beings have not evolved from ape-like creatures but the DNA evidence proves that belief to be entirely wrong. We ARE ape-like creatures. Our closest relative on the planet is the bonobo, with whom we share 98.4% of our DNA - that is, 98.4% of our DNA is IDENTICAL to that of the bonobo. That's not a heckuva lot of difference. We're obviously related. Regardless of what you want to believe. Although I think you have every right to believe in whatever mythology you wish to, I do not believe you (or anyone) should be allowed to teach this mythology in schools as FACT or SCIENCE. It isn't either of those things, and I do not want America's children being lied to by their teachers as part of the curriculum. Palin is being investigated, according to Wikipedia and other sources, for firing the AK Public Safety Commissioner for not firing her ex-brother-in-law. While the firing of her ex-bil seems to have justification, there does seem to be some question as to whether she should have fired his boss. She has a history of firing people who don't "play along" with her. In fact, as Mayor of Wasilla, she fired the Chief of Police for supporting an opposing candidate. He sued, but his suit was dismissed when the judge ruled that Palin had the right under state law to fire city employees, even for political reasons. So - she fired him for political reasons. Seems to me to be the same ol', same ol' from another Republican. They do what they do for political reasons, and not for the good of their constituency. All that said, she does seem to have done some good in AK. But her experience in governing is very minimal and I truly fear for the country if McCain were to get into power and kick the bucket. It really does send a shiver of fear down my spine. I'm not a big fan of Obama - I would have preferred to see Clinton nominated/elected. Given that hasn't happened, however, I am utterly opposed to a moment longer of Republican rule. The rest of the world is watching, and if another Republican were to get into office, I think they might all close the borders to Americans.... ;-) (Just kidding, but really, the integrity of the US is very much in question these days!) Dorine, any political system anywhere in the world is influenced by money and special interests. It is the nature of the beast. But at least with preferential voting, third party and independent candidates can run and get elected because voting for one of them doesn't give advantage to a party/candidate whom you do not wish to vote for. Please read about preferential voting to understand further: Preferential voting

had the right under state law to fire city employees, even for political reasons Isn't that against a Federal Law of some sort? Ok, I must admit, I must look up what a bonobo is. ;-)

Sorry - guess I hang out with too many nerds. *lol* Bonobos are also known as "pygmy chimps" (though they are not a subspecies of common chimps, but a separate species in their own right). They are the closest biological/genetic relative to humans currently living on the planet.

GOP cites Palin's skill, but how relevant is it? By TED ANTHONY, AP National Writer Sun Aug 31, 4:56 PM ET ST. PAUL, Minn. - Wait, now, say the Republicans. You think that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin lacks experience? You think that at 44, with less than two years running the nation's northernmost state, she doesn't have what it takes yet to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Pshaw. What about the fact that she stood up to embattled Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens? What about her oversight of her state's National Guard contingent? Her experience as a mother? And, hey � what about the fact that she runs a state that happens to be very close to Russia? Each of these characteristics has been cited by a Republican since Friday as an ingredient in John McCain's conclusion that Palin is qualified to become vice president of the United States. "She has experience not only in politics but in life," former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee said Sunday on CNN. None of this suggests that Sarah Palin is not a skilled, competent, multitalented public servant. But it means that, in the face of fierce Democratic assertions that she is too green to be elevated to vice president, the GOP is looking for whatever it can to show that's not the case and to bolster her credentials, particularly in national security. And in some cases, the responses from Republicans who showed up on the Sunday morning talk-show circuit to promote Palin's qualifications are unexpected, to say the least. Thompson: "She's a mother of five children. ... And she has more experience than Barack Obama." Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina: "Governor Palin took on Ted Stevens. If she can take him on, she can take on the Russians." Stevens, a Republican senator, is facing corruption charges and running for re-election. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty: "Palin is commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard." The state's Guard has about 4,000 members. From McCain's wife, Cindy, came a geographic assessment of qualification: "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia. So, it's not as if she doesn't understand what's at stake here." What these traits say about Palin's ability to serve as vice president or, in an emergency, as president is not entirely clear. But the flurry of comments by leading Republicans hint at a flood-the-zone strategy when it comes to Palin, whose gender, Christian faith and conservative chops infused a lively crackle into John McCain's campaign during the weekend between the two national conventions. The GOP has also implied that Democratic reactions to Palin's selection are sexist, particularly since, they contend, her time as Alaska's governor gives her the edge over Barack Obama in executive experience. Obama, 47, has spent almost 12 years in office, all of it as a lawmaker � eight years as an Illinois state senator and nearly four as a U.S. senator. Palin's total is 12 � she spent 10 as a city council member and mayor, and nearly two as governor. "If they want to go down that route, in all candor, she has far more experience than Senator Obama does," McCain said Sunday in St. Louis. Democrats insist sexism isn't at play. "It's not the woman issue at all," former Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Sunday on CNN. "There are a lot of other Republican women who could have filled this role if that is what he was looking for" � such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," saw a kindred spirit in Palin's experience as mayor, despite the fact that her town, Wasilla, has about 7,000 people and his had nearly 8 million when 9/11 happened. "Maybe it's my own background as a mayor and United States attorney, but this whole idea of executive experience to me would really qualify her," Giuliani said. He dismissed questions about the size of the town she ran. "You know why? She had to make decisions. All Sen. Obama has had to do is talk. That's all he does." Some of the comments seemed a bit non-sequitur. Russia, for example. Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder. But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations. Stephen C. Donehoo, managing director of Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington, and former military intelligence officer specializing in Latin America: "No doubt the campaign staff have her hooked up to a fire hose on foreign policy issues," said Stephen C. Donehoo, managing director of Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington and a former military intelligence officer. "No doubt they fear a debate with Joe Biden that touches foreign affairs," Donehoo said. "My guess is Graham and (Joe) Lieberman are doing a lot of tutoring." Republican Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota appears to have no such worries, given what he considers to be Obama's lack of experience. "The president sets the tone," Coleman said. "The experience issue is on the other side. The No. 1 guy there is the guy without the experience." ___ Contributing to this report were AP writers Tom Raum, Jim Kuhnhenn, Glen Johnson and Nestor Ikeda in St. Paul and Anne Sutton in Juneau, Alaska. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_grasping_at_straws;_ylt=AtpVkym6dQviIdp9N1d21kqs0NUE

I read about this the other day, with more specifics into what was edited, how and when, but I can't remember exactly where I read it. Sarah Palin Wikipedia edits--fast and furious By Natalie Weinstein, CNET Sat Aug 30, 11:13 PM ET Sarah Palin's life has been abuzz since she was officially selected as John McCain's running mate on Friday. Her Wikipedia page has, likewise, been awash with activity. After well over a thousand edits were made to her page that day, the Wikipedia editors raised the page's protection level to restrict who can make changes, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Meanwhile, The Washington Post reported evidence via Cyveillance that in the days and hours before Friday's announcement, Palin's page was being edited more frequently than those of other potential vice presidential candidates. A clue, perhaps? Her page was specifically garnering the attention of someone identified as "Young Trigg," who made numerous edits deemed favorable by a Wikipedia editor. There has already been much speculation as to who "Young Trigg" may be, especially considering Palin's youngest child is named Trig. Wikipedia does have specific rules regarding conflict of interest. However, all it will take to solve the mystery is for someone to track down the identity of "Young Trigg." On a related note, Palin is trending No. 3 and No. 4 on Twitter at the moment. http://news.yahoo.com/s/cnet/20080831/tc_cnet/83011357831002959838;_ylt=AqPTVrmCWSnSDg6nT0d6Fk2s0NUE

(Moon) so I'll probably not interrupt the Obama fest anymore It's only a perceived "Obamafest" since there seems to be only one person with a significantly different viewpoint willing to post opinions. I applaud you for it. I have to admit I've learned an quite a lot of new things about you in the last week. I, myself, welcome all viewpoints, to be discussed in a rational, adult manner. In fact, I'm intrigued by varying viewpoints. I think it's a shame that people with opposing views don't seem comfortable with posting, though I do know some of their opinions and views privately. The way I look at it, if these views are something you feel strongly about and are personally comfortable with those opinions, it shouldn't be a problem to support your positions publicly as well. Having the courage of your convictions in essence. To each his own I suppose.

Having the courage of your convictions in essence While being open minded of course. :-) Good day, ladies! I'm off to the US Open again. The shots from LA of the hurricane coming ashore are frightening. Can't believe all these reporters, including Anderson Cooper, are standing out in the middle of all that. A camera showing what's going on out a window would work fine for me. I don't need the commentary.

It's what every Darwinist loves to profess. Turn on the television, read the magazines, and you will be bombarded with "scientific information" regarding the similarities between apes (i.e. monkeys, baboons, etc.) and human beings. Many scientists have, in fact, devoted decades of their lives to studying the behavior of these animals, all with the idea that, yes, these are indeed grandma and grandpa. The notable stories of Jane Goodall and Dianne Fossey living with chimps and gorillas fascinate the public, sparking our minds to believe that the thoughts, behaviors, and communications of these animals are not all that far from our own. Genetic developments in the scientific community have helped reinforce these ideas, or so it seems. What is, however, the truth of the matter? Are we really so similar to our furry friends? "We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1] Steve Jones Scientist, Evolutionist An exceptional quote to begin with, revealing that specific, pinpointed similarities between two separate species can mean very little. Baboons, according to research, share 90% of their DNA with human beings. Does this, therefore, make them 90% human? The answer, in light of this quote, is absolutely not. Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher, also noted concerning man/monkey genetic differences: "Now the genetic difference between human and his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%. That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out, that is a gap of at least 48,000,000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal; there is no possibility of change." Human Genome Project, Quantitative A Disproof of Evolution, CEM facts sheet. Cited in Doubts about Evolution? And as a writer for the Smithsonian concedes: "just a few percentage points can translate into vast, unbridgeable gaps between species." [2] Simply stated, if we were to take this idea of similarities to determine which animal is most like us, we would come up with dire results. Take, for instance, our number of chromosomes (46). Two of our closest ancestors would be the tobacco plant (48) and the bat (44). Furthermore, because the chromosomes in living matter are one of the most complex bits of matter in the known universe, it would seem logical to assume that organisms with the least number of chromosomes are the end result of millions of years of evolution experimenting to increase complexity in living organisms. Therefore, this would reveal that we started from penicillium with only 2 chromosomes, and slowly evolved into fruit flies (8), and after many more millions of years we became tomatoes (12), and so on, until we reached the human stage of 46 chromosomes. Millions of years from now, if we're fortunate, we may become the ultimate life form, a fern, with a total of 480 chromosomes. Or, again, we could examine the human eye. Anatomically, it is most similar to that of an octopus'. Of course, the theory that the human eye evolved was directly commented by Charles Darwin himself when he said, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." [3] Another argument in relation to man/monkey similarity has to do with language. A chimpanzee named Washoe and a bonobo named Kanzi "have become famous for their ability to respond to human language in surprisingly complex ways." [4] In contrast, however, Robert Seyfarth, one of the most dedicated primate researchers in the world, says, "You can teach a bear to ride a bicycle in the circus, but it doesn't tell you much about what bears learn to do in the wild." And lastly, "even in the laboratory, no animal has attained anything like true language." [4] Regarding Seyfarth, he and his wife, who have performed many notable experiments with vervet monkeys and baboons, came to the conclusion after their latest work that the limitations on intelligence and communication in monkeys are severe.[4] For example, foraging baboons from a troop who have separated themselves so that they're on opposite sides of a forest are known to make barking calls, which have long been thought to be calls of contact to one another. Experiments have revealed, however, that the monkeys are only mourning because they're lost. "...monkeys don't actually recognize that other monkeys have minds," say Seyfarth and his wife.[4] Humans can convey their thoughts and emotions to one another, so that one can sympathize with another who is hurting. Monkeys cannot. While chimps can grieve and certainly show emotions, they do not appear to sympathize with other chimps who are grieved. Conclusion Look into the matter yourself. You are your own scientist, and can, with proper study, come to scientific truths firsthand. Don't take their word for something, and don't take our word for something. Truth is truth, fact is fact, and patiently lies waiting, like a fossil, to be discovered. NOTABLE QUOTES: "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans - of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings - is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." Dr. Lyall Watson, Anthropologist 'The water people'. Science Digest, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44. "Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man's hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variablitity is considered, the answer appears to be no." Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D. Professor of Anthropology, Penn State University 'Population genetics and human origins'. Scientific American, vol 226(1), January 1972, p. 94. "As I have implied, students of fossil primates have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is legitmate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field at all." Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A., M.D., D.Sc. Beyond the Ivory Tower, Taplinger Pub.Co., New York, 1970, p.64.

You Can't Make a Monkey Out of Us http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2003/03/57892

I don't live my life in Absolutes. I am Pro-Choice up to the first trimester. After that, I am Pro-Adoption. LOL, I feel like I should be running for office now. I do have plenty of opinions on the Economy and Foreign Affairs. I would start by paying more attention to South and Central America and less attention to Africa. Meow.

And don't get me started on Islam.

And don't get me started on Islam. Believe me, Moon, I know better. ;-) "We also share about 50% of our DNA with bananas and that doesn't make us half bananas, either from the waist up or the waist down." [1] I'm sorry, Moon, but.....LOL!! That's a new one on me. I'd bet some men (or their parts ;-)) have been compared to bananas, but not sure if that's good or bad. ;-D

(Moon) There are too many ignorant young girls out there... (Me) Perhaps if the administration had spent more effort and money on promoting safe sex rather than promoting abstinence (and trying to push religion into it through the faith based programs), which was shown to be a failure, there might be less of this problem. You know a friend keeps telling me Palin is the gift that keeps on giving......I'm starting to agree: So much for abstinence-only education Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM PDT http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/13540/20367/584/582167 And in all fairness, the highlighted passage above about teenage girls being ignorant, I mean it in the sense of the word that they are lacking knowledge, not being mean and calling them stupid. Proper education about sex goes a long way, or better than "praying" or encouraging they won't and don't do anything at all. I'd call the people espousing that viewpoint ignorant, in the not so nice way.

I think she wrote this for some people here. Really looking forward to the debate. I'm certain they're tutoring her 24 hrs a day and I do believe she's no dummy. The Lazio Fallacy by MissLaura Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:45:23 AM PDT One piece of "common wisdom" that's emerged quickly since John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate is that Joe Biden had better be careful not to look like he's beating up on a pretty girl by, you know, knowing more than she does and showing it. Rick Lazio's name is inevitably mentioned, because obviously if Biden knows more than Palin, it will be equivalent to physically getting up in her face. At the same time I'm outraged that the groundwork is being laid for the notion that a woman shouldn't be expected to hold her own in what is, effectively, a job interview, I don't doubt that the danger of this is real for Biden. Why? Because the traditional media has decided it's a landmine for him. That means that, come the vice-presidential debate, this is what they'll be conveying: Sarah Palin has not one shred of a clue about foreign policy, agricultural policy, urban policy? Everyone knew that. But did you check out how Biden was rude enough to make that obvious even to people who know less than Palin? Damn, what a sexist pig that guy is. We saw in the first days of reporting on the DNC exactly how pervasive a media narrative can be even in the face of contradictory facts. If you can't find meaningful division among Democrats, ignore the fact that the people claiming to be PUMAs are actually Republicans. So it would go with Biden debating Palin. So here's my problem with this. How fucking insulting to women and to the nation is this line of thinking? The view of women the pundits and reporters are taking here is that we will rise up en masse in outrage that a man who actually knows more than a woman dares to demonstrate it? Not, mind you, that we'll be faced with a woman who actually knows her stuff and can't get a man to acknowledge her expertise -- no one thinks that's going to happen -- but that we'll be offended on behalf of our gender to have one individual woman's ignorance pointed out. At the same time as the traditional media story will have women as a gender supporting Palin out of their disappointment that Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee, that same story will have women as a gender ignoring the fact that Hillary did pretty damn well in debates against not one but several men, including the aforementioned Joe Biden. This is how dumb they (the women among them included) think we are, that we won't be able to see the massive logical fallacy they're creating out of whole cloth and attributing to us. A few women will fall for that line of bull. But proportionally, fewer women than major media reporters will do so. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/1/10451/48394/398/581344

Well, Moon, if you refuse to acknowledge scientific facts, there really isn't anything I'm going to say that's going to convince you that you are closely related to apes. The fact remains that we are. All you need to do is to look at a gorilla or a bonobo to see that human beings are indeed, very closely related to them. But people who refuse to acknowledge the truth of this, and who hold onto their mythological beliefs that human beings are "special", or that we (humans) co-existed with dinosaurs will persist in those beliefs. And that's fine, but I don't want those superstitions taught as "science" or "facts" in our schools. If we start teaching Christian beliefs in our schools, we certainly don't have any basis for preventing the teaching of Islamic beliefs in our schools, either. That's just how that cookies crumbles. Personally, I don't want either one taught outside of religion or mythology classes. Your mileage may vary. As for Palin, I think she may be turning out to be just a bit more than the Republican Party bargained for. *lol* There's a rumour going around that "her" four-month-old Down Syndrome child is actually her daughter's. I don't know enough about the whole thing to guess if that's true, but that rumour is what forced her to come out with the story that her (17-year-old, unmarried) daughter is now pregnant.

I read about that other rumor last night. It seemed so far fetched, but if even parts of the story are true, many questions are begged. From what I've been reading, they vetted her in the barest of terms it seems. McCain only spoke to her once, maybe twice, for an extremely short period beforehand. Scary. If we start teaching Christian beliefs in our schools In our public schools. I went to private Catholic school through high school, so I don't have a problem with that. But then I'm also not a creationist. Hell, I'm not even a believer of organized religion at this point.

I'd like to ask the pro-lifers/pro-adoption advocates to consider this scenario and let me know what you think (even though I know I'll get one response if I'm lucky). A 30 year old woman with a 10 year history of significant psychiatric issues (including deep depression), on psych meds, becomes pregnant. During the pregnancy, she has to be taken off her meds, but in order to manage her depression, must undergo ECT (electroshock therapy). Up until the pregnancy, she was living at what was essentially a group home for those with psychiatric issues. She was kicked out of the home when she became pregnant, ending up in a shelter, where she returned to with the baby when she was discharged from the hospital. A visiting nurse was requested for both upon discharge. She has no medical insurance, but applies for Medicaid to cover medical services outside of the hospital after the baby is born, a time consuming process requiring the gathering of quite a number of supporting documents to determine eligibility with no guarantees that she will be accepted to the program. There was obviously no abortion and the baby was not given up for adoption, both for unknown reasons. My questions are: 1. The mother did not abort the baby, considered the (morally) correct course of action by some. How does going through and having the baby benefit the baby and/or the mother? Or even society? 2. The mother did not give the child up for adoption, a valid alternative to aborting or keeping the baby. How does this benefit the baby and/or the mother? Or even society? 3. What options do you think she and the baby have? Should have? What if her Medicaid is not approved? Discuss. :-)

Oh and I forgot to say, she expressed that she did not want to have a baby, but obviously didn't practice abstinence or safe sex.

And in all fairness, the highlighted passage above about teenage girls being ignorant, I mean it in the sense of the word that they are lacking knowledge, not being mean and calling them stupid. Even though I didn't make the comment in the first place. ;-)

Yes, thanks for clarifying Dorine: I am speaking only of public schools, of course. I myself went to Catholic school for seven years, and received religious education in school, which I had/have no problem with, since it was a private, religious school. If you want your children to be taught religion in school, please feel free to enroll them in a private school. I do not wish to have religious beliefs taught as science, however, in public schools. Even in private school, it's really inappropriate to teach children that biblical representations of the "creation of human beings" is anything resembling science. But really, if you pay someone to teach your child that in a private school, I guess that's your problem (and your poor child's, who is receiving a second-class education if they are taught that). I'll tell you: the "Creation Museum" that was opened in Kentucky last year makes the US the laughingstock of the world. You should see what my friends here in Australia have said about this place. What a joke. Truly, Moon, the so-called "science" of creationism is basically non-existent.

As I've said I don't live my life by Absolutes. Fossils have been found of yew trees with dinosaur fossils dating back millions of years. It turns out that the Yew tree has not evolved, it is precisely as it is today. It was born perfect? With no need to evolve? Trees are living organisms. I've also never stated that the Theory of Creation should be taught in schools, I do consider it a Theory and many theories are taught in science class, it would just be one more. Islam is not a theory it is a fallacy (waving to Dorine). I also went to Catholic school and was a rebel there as well with my constant controversial questions. I drove one particular priest to almost want to strangle me, LOL! Never fear Jane, things don't change that quickly. Creationism won't be added to the school curriculum. Roe vs Wade will not be overturned either. From Nature Mag: "Gravitational Theory" is our explanation of the phenomenon we know as 'gravity'. It is a law of gravity that if you drop an object here, it will fall to the ground, but it is Gravitational Theory that explains how and why this occurs. Gravity is a law, but we understand and explain it through a theory. It is both ; ) Laws are NOT theories. A law is a statement or principle that 'describes' a phenomenon, Theories are coherent, well-substantiated explanations.

Dorine, that example of a deranged troubled woman is disturbing. The woman was basically abandoned. She should have been helped and counseled into giving her baby up for adoption.

http://partisanreport.com/blog/2008/09/01/loony-leftist-on-the-attack-against-palin-and-its-personal/ On Sarah's pregnancy, some very funny comments.

Hey! Posting pics can be fun! :-)

LOL!!

To change from politics for a while, I thought this was an interesting article regarding women in the workplace from the NYT: Girl Power at School, but Not at the Office By HANNAH SELIGSON Published: August 30, 2008 I WAS born in 1982 � about 20 years after the women�s rights movement began. Growing up in what many have called a post-feminist culture, I did not really experience institutional gender bias. �Girl power� was celebrated, and I felt that all doors were open to me. When I was in college, the female students excelled academically, sometimes running laps around their male counterparts. Women easily ascended to school leadership positions and prestigious internships. In my graduating class (more than half of which was female) there was a feeling of camaraderie, a sense that we were helping each other succeed. Then I left the egalitarianism of the classroom for the cubicle, and everything changed. The realization that the knowledge and skills acquired in school don�t always translate at the office is something that all college graduates, men and women, must face. But for women, I have found, the adjustment tends to be much harder. It was certainly hard for me � I lasted only nine months in my first job out of college. Inspired by my own rocky entrance into the work world, I decided to interview other young women and discovered that many of them, like me, were facing a steep workplace learning curve. What was it, I wondered, that was making our first career steps so wobbly when we had been so accomplished and self-assured in school? Every workplace is different, but certain patterns began to emerge. I experienced and heard of instances when some women, instead of helping a new female colleague, tried to undermine her. Rather than giving �the new girl� the tools to succeed, they might try to sabotage her advancement. I saw some men, raised in a different era, who refused to take young women seriously, focused on their appearance and gave them the least desirable assignments. Even in this day and age, I saw women becoming �assistant-ized�� saddled with all the coffee runs and photocopying. Some workplaces are more sexist than others. A woman should never accept a job offer without first finding out whether the odds are already stacked against her. This background check will assess how a potential employer treats its female employees, how many women are in leadership positions and whether there is a history of pay discrimination or sexual harassment. But outside forces are only part of the story. I have also seen young women � myself included � getting in the way of their own success. I have found that we need to build a new arsenal of skills to mitigate some of our more �feminine� tendencies. Having lived in a cocoon of equality in college, we may have neglected these vital, real-world skills. In my own case, I realized that I needed to develop a thick skin, feel comfortable promoting myself, learn how to negotiate, stop being a perfectionist and create a professional network � abilities that men are just more likely to have already. The more traditionally �feminine� trait of sensitivity, while often appreciated, is not always an asset in the work world. I have spent too much time being rattled by terse e-mail from editors, agents who have told me that I�d never get a book deal, and bosses who have berated me as not being �detail-oriented.� I think that in order to break through any kind of glass ceiling, or simply to get through the day, you have to become impervious to the daily gruffness that�s a part of any job. I used to think that perfection was the pathway to success. Not so, according to women I have interviewed who have reached the apex of their professions. Rather, it can lead to paralysis. Women, I have found, can let perfectionism stop them from speaking up or taking risks. For men, especially if they are thick-skinned, the thought of someone telling them �no� tends not to be viewed as earth-shattering. One tactic I�ve found useful in getting over the perfectionist tendency is a shock therapy called soliciting feedback. Not only does it demystify what your boss thinks about you, but it also gives you the data to become a more valuable employee. The other dose of shock therapy I�ve undergone is reprogramming my brain to think that, yes, girls do brag. I�ve indoctrinated myself with the idea that my job is a two-part process. One part is actually doing the work and the second part is talking about it, preferably in bottom-line terms. The old-boys� club proves that men have long known that a professional network is imperative to success. Women don�t have as much of a tradition of business networking (�Do you want to go grab a beer?� doesn�t quite roll off our tongues) and, understandably, they may feel awkward or clueless about how to do it. I can tell you that it doesn�t work to go up to someone and say, �Will you be my mentor?� That�s the workplace equivalent of �Will you be my boyfriend?� A more organic approach � saying something like, �Can I pick your brain about some ways to transition out of my entry-level position in the next year?� � has been much more effective for me. Young women also need to learn how to speak salary, a language that many men already seem to know. Coming into the work force, I thought that, just as my professor had given me the grade I deserved on my political science midterm, my company would pay me what I �deserved.� RECENTLY I had a conversation with a male friend, a reporter in his mid-20s, about how hard it is to ask for money and negotiate for raises. He looked puzzled that I�d have an aversion to something that he does with ease, telling me: �When I want a raise, I just ask for it. And even if they say no, I�ll keep asking for it.� The American Association of University Women found that men who are a year out of college make 20 percent more in weekly pay than their female co-workers do. Why? Because my friend and scores of other young men understand the central tenet of a bigger paycheck: ask and you shall receive. The pay disparity speaks to a larger issue that women, coming directly out of the colleges that nurtured and rewarded them and gave them every advantage, may have trouble grasping. For me, it was crystallized in a comment made to me by Myra Hart, a retired senior faculty member at Harvard Business School who studies women as entrepreneurs: �By and large women believe that the workplace is a meritocracy, and it isn�t.� Hannah Seligson, a freelance journalist, is the author of �New Girl on the Job: Advice From the Trenches� (Citadel Press).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/jobs/31pre.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&em

�Do you want to go grab a beer?� doesn�t quite roll off our tongues Speak for yourself, Hannah! Some of us know how to offer a guy a beer! ;-)

Here's a really interesting article about the possible financial implications for Americans of the upcoming election: Economic View

Thanks, Jane. I read that several days ago. Matter of fact, your posting it reminds me I wanted to send it to someone I know who has a degree in Economics and was curious what he thought of it, but I forgot to do it.

Dunno if you guys have heard about this, but apparently a couple of the Republican "talking heads" got caught on open mics they didn't realise were open... video clip from MSNBC (link pops up in new window)

And here's a rather droll, tongue-in-cheek commentary on the selection of Palin: John McCain, Hero

Here's the video with a transcript beneath it, which I was thankful for. I'm not in a noisefree environment and couldn't hear much of what was said clearly. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/09/palin_means_its_over_peggy_noo.html

Oh. My. Goodness.

Just curious. I am watching coverage of the RNC on tv, and during Palin's acceptance speech, they keep showing this blonde woman next to Todd Palin. Who is that woman? Sorry to be so clueless, but I didn't hear her introduced, and I've not seen any graphics identifying her, but the tv crew seems to think she's quite important, as they keep showing shots of her reaction to the speech.

i actually didn't notice her. i was switching between that and the Williams sisters match.

but even when I did watch, i noticed the kids and dad...and boyfriend, but not her. Maybe Palin's sister?

Are you referring to Cindy McCain?

I started to post her then deleted because I didn't notice in shots of her she was near Todd. Just Guiliani.

Ah, just saw a clip. Yes, it was Cindy McCain.

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention By JIM KUHNHENN, Associated Press Writer 44 minutes ago ST. PAUL, Minn. - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth. [Ed note - Don't they all on both sides stretch the truth.] Some examples: PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere." THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere." PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform � not even in the state senate." THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation. PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars." THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded. Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families. He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise. MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson. THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state � by population. MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC. THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations. FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States." THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries. FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right � change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington � throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin." THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check;_ylt=AjQBP62xpuD7MnlCEKzQthSs0NUE

I started reading this Alaskan blogger a few days ago. He's quite amusing. Starts out with Guiliani's speech and on to Palin. http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/03/here-we-go-rnc-watch-open-thread/

From an AP report, Peggy Noonan trying to "CYA" over her "It's over" remark off camera on the live mic. UPDATE: Noonan tries to explain her remarks, and says that what's "over" isn't, she meant, McCain's campaign, but that what's over is the truth to the belief that "whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks."

Just ran across her whole explanation of what she said: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122044753790594947.html?mod=todays_columnists

I thought she spoke very well last night. I am looking forward to the debates. From the Wall Street Journal: Focus Turns to Palin Record Governor Pushed Conservative Agenda, but Showed Flexibility http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122048513733097089.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news