Election Day Victories For Animal Rights

As a vegetarian, I don't often get to see one of my biggest pet issues hashed out in an election year. But Nov. 4 brought with it two major wins for animal rights, and may point the way to further victories in coming years. The Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are wising up big time about electoral strategy, using the pocketbook rather than an infrequently successful moral appeal as their weapon of choice. The New Republic has the story:

I spoke with Michael Markarian, Executive Vice President of the Humane Society of the United States, who said that such ballot measures, introduced in states where they are likely to pass, do much more than reform a single states' animal treatment laws. They are a message to American industry as a whole that considering animal welfare is increasingly within their economic self-interest. California agribusinesses, fearing a rise in operating costs, spent heavily to combat Proposition 2 and have nothing to show for it. Markarian is hoping that all animal-related businesses will draw the lesson that it is simply cheaper to improve animal treatment of their own accord, rather than risk a costly political fight they will probably lose.

Proposition 2, which passed with 63 percent of the vote (63 percent!), says that confined animals must now be able to "lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely." If you've ever seen a vegetarian information pamphlet, you'll know how impossible this currently is given factory farming practices.

Animal rights aren't by any means a political issue per se, and in posting this here I don't want to court the perception that I consider the question part of a new Democratic political agenda. There are a few notable Republican animal rights activists (even a Bushie or two). It's a good day for everyone when we outlaw veal crates and battery cages, no matter who you voted for.

Cheers And Floating

Many of the posts here have been long, thoughtful looks at issues and what kind of policies and dialogues we're going to need in the next four years. For my inaugural post, I thought I'd change it up a little. I'm not sure how widely the news videos spread around the country or how many people saw the images, but I was at the all-night White House street party that broke out on election night, and for the curious, here's how it went.

I've seen crowd estimates settle around 1,000, and although I have no talent for estimating these things I'd say it was more like double that, especially considering the stragglers and people at the margins of the glut. I'd also say, from the time I spent there, that it was about 90 percent college students, something I'm not sure has been mentioned in the press reports. So, enough with the dry statistics. . .

It was fun as hell. Knots formed in the generally milling crowd and started chanting or singing at the drop of a hat. A lot of girls were riding around on guys' shoulders, and pot use was pretty open, but there was none of the stupidity and tawdriness of spring break shitkickers. Everyone was there to celebrate, not just to get wasted, and people were for the most part sober except for being really happy. I found the best way to enjoy the whole thing was to make my way back and forth through the crowd from one end to the other, stopping whenever I saw a group I wanted to join or it looked like one would form. We sang "Ole, ole ole ole" and the national anthem (a lot) and God Bless America. On too many occasions to count, people would start up cries of "Yes we can!" or "No more Bush!" or "O-ba-ma" or the occasional "Si se puede!" and the next twenty people in each direction would join in. One game that emerged was spotting the bright white glare of a television camera and trying to get through the crowd to make it into the shot. No one pushed. There were no fights. It was all in good fun. I never got interviewed, but I'm positive I ended up cheering and chanting on one Canadian broadcast. After the correspondent signed off, everyone in the crowd went nuts around him with cheers and he smiled and, frankly, joined the party for a moment before having to leave.

As the night wore on I started to see a few middle-aged and older people in the crowd, including one guy who was shouting "You fascist motherfucker!" and balling his fists with victorious glee, facing down the White House like the Scots taunting the British in the middle of "Braveheart." I ended up on a home video being made by Frank from Winona, Illinois, who asked me as I passed him why I'm so happy to be rid of Bush. My answer, as best I can recall (with a big grin on my face): "Oh, man, there are a million and one reasons, I could never get to it all. I thought I wouldn't have a job when I graduated college. I thought there would be a hole in the sun by the time he left. But now, not only are we getting rid of Bush, we're replacing him with someone who actually knows what he's doing. Save this tape. You'll remember this." Then we introduced ourselves, shook hands, he said he totally agreed with me and we kept going our separate ways.

Most of the fun came from just being there. It felt good. Everyone was partying for the best of reasons. A few people carried Obama cutouts above their heads, making for good photo ops when they lined up nicely with the White House. Two or three people crowd-surfed, prompting someone next to me to say to his friend, "Come on, this isn't a Hootie concert." At one point a big group had formed and started singing, of all things, the Georgetown Hoyas fight song. I was standing right there but didn't know the words. One college guy was smoking a cigar and sprayed his Heineken beer foam over his head, splashing everyone around him, but no one seemed to mind very much.

For the record, there were a lot of sexy coeds. I spotted a few guys I thought might have been there to pick up chicks, but I didn't see anything happen. Everyone there seemed to be with a group of friends, and people would often link hands and go through the crowd in fours and fives. I never saw anyone I knew, so I was free to kind of roam the scene and stop to sing or whatever or, once, join a temporary drumming dance circle. The snipers were visible on the White House roof despite it being the middle of the night and completely overcast, but they didn't ruin the picture for us -- everyone seemed to take it all in good fun, as if to say, "Ha ha, we get that roof now." At one point, I think probably around 1:15, the White House floodlights went off for the night and everyone took it as a chance to start chanting "No more Bush!" at the top of their lungs. I shouted "Address the nation, George!" and a few people laughed.

Anyway, I could go on, but you get the picture. When I left at 1:30 it showed no signs of slowing down, and several hours later, watching the local news hoping to get some late Senate election returns, I saw that by 4:00 it had finally petered out. Every account I've read of it includes quotes from security guards or police or whoever saying they'd "never seen anything like it." I hope we keep seeing that kind of jubilation on election day from now on, because that's how people should feel.

First, last and only plug: this is cross-posted at my (currently slow-moving) personal blog, Lapplander.

It's time to go, Joe

Dear Joe,

You first came to our attention as the protege of William F. Buckley. This was not a good sign, but it's a big tent party. Ten years ago, you were the first Democrat to give aid and comfort to a partisan witch hunt against a president of your own party, and hardly an extremist member at that, for his personal failings and his regrettable attempts to hide them. But it's a big tent party and the GOP never had the votes to convict and remove. It is thus exceptionally displeasing, but can be forgiven. Indeed, you may remember that you ran for vice president in 2000 despite all the events of 1998 and 1999.

But then, Joe, you left the party because it chose someone else instead of you in the primary. That's not polite. It's a big tent party, but if you're prepared to leave the party and run anyway because it rejects you (which your primary opponent pledged not to do) then you really have no loyalty to the party at all.

Still, many things can be forgiven. Joe, you've been voting with the Republicans like crazy. You're a big Bush supporter. You campaigned for the other guy, and repeated the worst lies and smears leveled against the guy who was supposed to be your guy. Then you went to the other guy's convention and foamed for them on command.

Joe, the party can count to 51 without your help now. It doesn't need you and you haven't given it good reasons to keep you around. Frankly, a lot of the Democrats pretty much hate your guts and it's not because they're assholes. It's you. Now it's time for you to accept some consequences of your actions. This is personal responsibility.

Unfortunately for the Connecticut Senator, it is highly unlikely that Democrats would act against the wishes of Majority Leader Reid, who wants Lieberman to give up his chairmanship. Moreover, progressive activists have been anticipating this move for months, and have organized efforts to pressure steering committee members to strip Lieberman of his perks.

Two Days Left

I am beyond any hint of a desire to be bipartisan.

After these last 8 years? The truth is more evident than ever. Roughly 85% of Republicans work to get in the way of progress, and roughly 98% of their politicians serve the same purpose. The result of 6 years of giving them unbridled power and the two following years of lame-duck impotency have given us the biggest steaming pile since the 1930s.

We don't need to strike deals with them. What we need is the frickin' opposite of them. So fuck 'em. Let's bust some proverbial heads and chase them out with town with torches and pitchforks. Liberals have been right all along. Conservatives are more obviously wrong than any time in living memory. Debating them is time better spent making cupcakes. You may as well try to spit into your own eyeball.

Enough. They must go down.

Reaganomics and neo-conservatism must drown like a pair of starved rats that abandoned a sinking ship in the middle of the arctic ocean, with no land for miles. They must cling to each other, gasping for air, while their limbs go numb with the chill of the water. A great wave must pull them under the surface, as the icy touch of Mother Nature grips their tiny, panicking lungs with inevitable mercilessness. They must blink helplessly as they continue to sink, in their last fleeting seconds of mindless fear, before finally being swallowed live by a giant fish (that looks suspiciously like Barack Obama). They must hear nothing but their own final heartbeats in their final moments in the dark, burning yet also freezing belly of the Obamafish. Then, in an effort to let out their last, hapless squeak, they must leave their mortal coil to be dissolved into naught but nutrients and waste.


Go Obamafish go.

Obama Wins!

I am not predicting future tense, but past tense in this election.

Obama has already won it people, he is way too far ahead. McCain has all but conceded while Republicans are flocking to Obama. Powell, Goldwater, Buckley - even Bush's press secretary. Rumor has it that McCain's mother plans to vote for Obama.

If you think I am overconfident, I'd suggest looking out your window, and you will see pigs and guess what they'll be doing.

Obama will win and win big: 396 electoral votes and a double digit victory in the popular vote. (10 points to be exact). He will win Montana, North Dakota, and Georgia and all the other tossups and blue states. It doesn't look there will be an October surprise, but what about a November surprise? Perhaps Obama will win Arizona, Arkansas or even Texas.

Not likely? Maybe not, but neither is a victory for McCain. We will not be seeing a woman president any time soon.

Oh, and by the way, Obama is going to win in 2012 also.

It's Getting Real Ugly Out There

I came across an AP story just now that is chilling:

Presidential candidates are accustomed to raucous rallies this close to Election Day and welcome the enthusiasm. But they are also traditionally monitors of sorts from the stage. Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.

Not so much this week, at GOP rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate "I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country," McCain stoked the sentiment. "I think I got the message," he said. "The gentleman is right." He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait.

"I don't trust Obama," a woman said. "I have read about him. He's an Arab."

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

"No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign is all about."

He had drawn boos with his comment: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States."

The anti-Obama taunts and jeers are noticeably louder when McCain appears with Palin, a big draw for GOP social conservatives. She accused Obama this week of "palling around with terrorists" because of his past, loose association with a 1960s radical. If less directly, McCain, too, has sought to exploit Obama's Chicago neighborhood ties to William Ayers, while trying simultaneously to steer voters' attention to his plans for the financial crisis.

I've been reading this sort of thing for at least a week now. On a conservative bulletin board I post to, a moderator was angry with McCain for not going with the tone set by the more rabid Republicans. It's obvious these people do not like McCain--hell, they're booing him. They're motivated by hatred and fear. This, "my friends", is how fascists think and act. Their behavior is most easily explained by racism, but it isn't just that. Not all racists are ready to kill their political enemies. They've been trained to consider everyone to the left of Mussolini to be a "socialist". There's no thought involved in this labeling; indeed, few of the people we're talking about could define socialism if asked. But they know it has something to do with the government and taxes, and it's real real bad.

So where does McCain go from here? He despises his new base and they detest him. Most want him to win and then promptly die so Palin can become President and presumably bring about Christ's reign on Earth. The piece of him that is still honorable (and it's there--look at the above quote) has come to the realization that Obama should be President, because McCain can win only by the triumph of the worst impulses and worst elements in the US. But what will the yahoos who are calling for Obama's murder do if he becomes President? We know what Timothy McVeigh did. He will probably have imitators, although I hope they aren't as successful.

With all the fussing from the right about how "hate-filled" the left is concerning George W Bush, I have never, in a dozen or so protests (some of them huge and spirited) starting with his first inauguration, heard anyone say "kill him". And Bush was responsible for over a hundred thousand needless deaths. Obama is just a smart black Senator--and Democrat who is ahead in the Presidential race. The people who are most opposed to Obama are, apparently, disposed to violence and have no respect for democracy or their society. "Country first" my ass--it's party first and last for this crew.

Do you remember the feigned outrage at the "shocking display" at Wellstone's funeral? The right managed to parlay that ploy into Norm Coleman's victory six years ago. Well, where are those tender sensibilities today? Drowned in bile, it seems.

Every Obama hater I encounter (there seem to be no McCain supporters) has the same line of patter, handed to them by their masters: ACORN is stealing the election for the terrorist-loving socialist. The black guy is the racist, not us. The Media is burying the real issues because they are on the side of the socialists. When Obama is elected they'll turn America into a communist dictatorship. And so on. And on, and on. No facts are necessary. Logic need not apply.

As sad and twisted as some of these people are, they're Americans and aren't going anywhere (they don't know how and have no passports). We have to live with them. I just wish I knew how to reach them. I bet McCain does too.

Hooray for My Team!

No one who posts to an internet bulletin board could have been surprised by this article in the Washington Post yesterday, which includes the following:

There is another piece of evidence that party identification rather than ideology is behind the growing polarization of the electorate: On a variety of unrelated issues -- gun control, the economy, war, same-sex marriage, abortion, the environment, the financial bailout -- the views of Republicans and Democrats have become increasingly monolithic. There is no reason someone who is against abortion should necessarily also be against gun control or for economic deregulation, but that is exactly what tends to happen among committed Republicans. Loyal Democrats have similarly monolithic views on unrelated issues.

"Party identification is part of your social identity, in the same way you relate to your religion or ethnic group or baseball team," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego. This explains why, on a range of issues, partisans invariably feel their side can do nothing wrong and the other side can do nothing right. By contrast, moderates don't feel there is a yawning divide on issues because they don't identify with one party or another. Moderates, in other words, are like people who are uninterested in sports and roll their eyes when fans of opposing teams hurl abuse at each other.

One of the most dependable reactions on the net is the impulse of a netizen to support a fellow partisan, to concentrate on the areas of agreement with him/her, and to attack those identified with the "other side". It's disorienting to see those who agree with one on the Iraq occupation take a position contrary to one's position on gun control, abortion, religion, NAFTA, or same sex marriage. I like to think I handle this sort of cognitive dissonance better than most, though; I often see fellow liberals become irate over a former comrade's apostasy on some issue, almost to the point of claiming he's forthwith drummed out of our club. It's even worse on the conservatives' side; their big boards (like FreeRepublic) are famous for banning anyone who deviates from orthodoxy in the slightest.

So, the cited article says this tendency has become more pronounced over the years in the US, and I believe it. But how smart is it? My answer is, not smart at all, if you care about a civil society and a functioning democracy. There is no good reason a person can't be a free trader, pro-life, pro-gun control, and for universal health care. But those people would not have a home in either major party today. They'd have to keep half their opinions to themselves when among friends. And we haven't even started talking about religion.

I don't know how we can improve this situation. The major parties and their politicians keep talking about "big tents" and such, but it makes no difference. The hoi polloi still needs their culture wars. And I definitely feel this urge too. "President Sarah Palin" makes me want to retch. To me, she stands for a return to the Dark Ages and a repudiation of the Enlightenment. Everything about her and her family strikes me as trashy and destructive, from the snowmobile fixation through hunting and beauty pageants and religious fundamentalism to the shotgun marriage of her daughter to an unemployed high school dropout. If they were neighbors I'd avoid socializing with them. And I'm sure I'd be called a "hater" by Palin, as she terms all those who don't think as she does.

Maybe it'll take a realignment to shake up this very stable dichotomy. If one party becomes substantially more numerous, the other's exclusivity would have to weaken if it were to have any chance of regaining some parity.

But maybe we're all beyond that. Americans tend to move to areas whose values they share. And the net allows us to select our own communities. You can always be in the majority somewhere in cyberspace, and somewhere in the real world, if you're willing to move.

I don't know how much further apart we can get than Jon Stewart and Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson and Michael Moore. Conservatives usually have (take you pick) no sense of humor or a very different one from me. They are not open to new experiences. Many of their moral choices are repugnant to me--and vice versa. I often think we're doomed to a cycle of shoving each other's faces into the ground as we gain temporary ascendancy in politics or popular culture, all the time nurturing our fears and resentments about each other.

We can try to be civil, and we often succeed. I hope that this does not become impossible.

The Meaning of a Western Strategy

In any strategy which focuses on the importance of winning certain swing states, the Western States of Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Arizona are states which should be looked at. I mention all five of these states however, because they have all swung at least once in the last four elections.

Although Arizona is not considered a swing state in 2008, it could be critical in 2012 depending on how the electoral votes are re-allocated.
In general, the blue states are likely to lose electoral votes as a result of the next census, but most of the above mentioned states will grow at a faster rate than other states; therefore, it is more significant that these swings states will gain electoral votes than that the blue states will decline in relative electoral strength.

The candidates tend to chose a strategy which ignores states that are not competitive. But is this really the best strategy? By ignoring California and Texas, Obama and McCain might be making a mistake, since they could be raising a lot of money in these states.
Finally look at Alaska: once considered a swing state, although it has leaned Republican, it has moved more into the strong states column for McCain because it is Palin's home state. But Alaskans for Obama know more about Palin than most of Obama's supporters and a visit there could be beneficial for Obama.
It wouldn't change the likely outcome of a McCain victory there, but it would accomplish at least three things.

1. He could raise money there.
2. It would make a good story on the evening news.
3. It could increase his chances of winning the popular vote, which doesn't help him win the election, but would make the fairness of the electoral college more of an issue.

The counter argument, is, of course, that such a visit would limit his time in critical states like Colorado.
By the way, if Obama does better in Nevada than in Colorado it would increase the likelyhood of a 269-269 tie which would result in Obama being elected by the House of Representatives and Biden being elected by the Senate, assuming a decisive victory for the Democrats in both bodies in November.
If such a scenario occurs and McCain gets more popular votes that Obama, don't be surprised to hear key Republicans talk about abolishing the electoral college and replacing it with a popular vote. Don't forget, however, that in all likelyhood this would mean that the election could be based on a plurality rather than a majority of the popular vote which I see as being opposed to the principle of being ruled by the "consent of the governed".

(adding Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire to the blue states results in a 269-269 tie)

Values and Pride

This blog is tied to a forum with some history behind it called Turn Left Interactive, and while there's a lot of typical web board bullshit that goes on there, every once in a while something pops up, in this rabid microcosm of the national talking-points war, that's very revealing.

One of our members posed the question, "What are small-town values?" a la the Sarah Palin quote: "We grow people with good values in our small towns."

Here are two of the answers Republican participants put forth, when they actually bothered to try to answer:
"I think much of what makes small town values seem more appealing is the presumption of a more caring and cohesive society -- one in which your neighbors are "known" -- not only to and by each other, but known within the community. In many cases, for generations."

"You're 2 times as likely to be murdered by the morally enlightened members or our nation's urban communities. We upstanding urbanites improve a bit when it comes to forcibly raping our neighbors, only outpacing our rural counterparts by about 30%."

So, in essence, small-town values are knowing who your neighbors are and having a lower crime rate?

Both attempts at this answer are earnestly made, but fail when confronted with logic. You can know your neighbors in any community, rural or urban, (Hell, some cities even have a sampling of the recently maligned "community organizers"), and if anything has served to isolate us in our communities, it's television, computers and cars. As for the crime rate, it's doubtful anybody really believes Sarah Palin was talking about not getting mugged.

The reason the boat is missed here is because "small-town values" is just code for small-town pride.

Small-towns throughout the country have seen massive losses recently. The family farm is disappearing. Rust-belt cities where life revolved around one or two industries are falling apart as those industries abandon them. These places are full of people desperately in search of pride.

The reason the neo-conservatives don't use the word "pride" is because pride itself is not enough to be proud of. There has to be something you have, intrinsically superior to the alternative, available to make pride possible. And values are where that's at.

"Our schools may be struggling, but I can be proud that I'm a hunter."

"I may not have health insurance, but at least my neighbors share my cultural roots."

"I may have lost my job, but I'm going to Heaven."

This is the tricky part, that Obama has, for the most part, been very conscious of. This is not something to lash out at with anger and sharp tongues. Small-town folks are already beaten down. The situation is actually just sad. When all you have to turn to is your heritage and the afterlife, then you've given up any hope that you can control your own life at all.

Preaching about "small-town values" does nothing but encourage the same bad habits many Americans developed as a result of Republican policies. It's the same cycle that we've seen for years, and it will continue until enough people snap out of the funk, at least for that necessary brief window of time, and stop it in the voting booth.

Abstinence-Only Fails, Contraception Works

While obvious inferences might be drawn from my title to the recent scandal regarding the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate's family, aside this notice I'm not especially interested in talking about them. I suspect I will be the odd man out on this blog, since I find the daily news cycle a bit tedious and thus am rarely inclined to do straight, topical posts. We all have our different strengths and weaknesses. My interest is more issue- and idea-oriented.

It has for some time been a standard Republican policy to support one and only one form of sex education in the schools: "Don't do it!" This approach is the darling of social conservatives, who can correctly point out that abstaining from sex is a most efficacious way to avoid being pregnant or contracting a sexually-transmitted disease. It's even fair to say that recommending teenagers do not have sex because they lack the life experience or emotional maturity to handle the personal and interpersonal issues involved in that decision. One does not want teenagers to have sex for the same reasons one does not want them drinking, smoking, or any number of other things.

However, there's an element of equivocation I often observe in the social conservative appeal to abstinence. Yes, abstinence is a 100% effective way to avoid ending up in unfortunate situations that only arise from having sex. If a disease can only be transmitted sexually, refraining from sex will spare you any risk of the disease. But this simply ignores obvious reality that teenagers will have sex. Not all of them, certainly, but some percentage will. This has likely been a constant for the whole of human history, so the notion that a few teachers and parents telling them to do otherwise is breathtakingly naive.

Yet this is exactly the position one must endorse in order to favor abstinence-only education. Yes, abstinence works for those who remain abstinent. However, teaching abstinence and abstinence only leaves those who do elect to have sex as endangered as they possibly can be by their conduct. Closing our eyes and hoping for the best is not just bad policy, but an abrogation of our responsibility to the next generation.

Given that some teenagers will have sex, whether we tell them to or not, what can we do about the resultant pathologies? The answer is obvious to anyone who has read my title. We can teach teenagers about contraception. We can educate them about proper condom use. We can inform them about birth control pills. These are all simple, common sense solutions that also happen to work, as this just-released study demonstrates:

“The United States seems to be following the recent patterns in other developed countries where increased availability and use of modern contraceptives and condoms have led to remarkable declines in teen pregnancy,” said lead author John Santelli. “If most of the progress in reducing teen pregnancy rates is due to improved contraceptive use, national policy needs to catch up with those realities.”

Clearly we are enjoying a decline in teen pregnancy, and we have not abstinence-only education but greater access information about contraception to credit for it. So why do we have social conservatives pushing the exclusion of education about contraception from the curriculum? Are they devoted to increasing teen pregnancy? Is there a sexually-transmitted disease lobby plying them?

No. Rather it seems that the social conservatives have decided that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong in itself and doing anything to aid those who elect to have such sex is only aiding a sinner in escaping punishment. If one accepts this premise, then one must conclude that abstinence-only education is working exactly as intended.

I have sometimes heard from conservatives who will admit to some of these facts that whatever the case may be, sex education is not the place of the schools. Having them involved means that children could learn things contrary to the values or beliefs of their parents. Isn't questioning your opinions, however cherished, the thing a good education is supposed to be about in the first place?

As I fail to see how teaching children about abstinence and contraception in the schools prevents parents from also teaching children about abstinence, condoms, or anything else they wish to teach their children, I see no grounds on which to make an objection except the notion that sex is a dirty thing that you should only give to one you love enough to marry and those who think otherwise deserve hardship and disease. I find it impossible to make a moral defense of any such position.

Pregnant With Controversy

Who'd have thunk it? In a mere three days, the John McCain campaign has transformed into an episode of Jerry Springer.

Obama rightly scolded his own out-of-control troops and told them to quit the frothing, and now that we've had a good full day of Preggersgate, the dust is finally starting to clear a little bit. What do we see?

There is a real issue buried under all the slop: Teennage pregnancy. Bristol Palin's issue is an issue for a lot of families in America, enough so that most other first world countries outrank us in keeping their horny young ones from an early end to childhood. That distinction includes Russia, which, if you follow the link to the Wikipedia article, you'll see has a teenage birth rate of 30 out of 1,000 - compared to our birth rate of 53 out of 1,000.

If all the frantic mudslinging leads to an honest debate on this issue it may have all been worthwhile. As an added bonus, teen pregnancy is irrevocably tied to abstinence education and religious indoctrination, which also direly need to be addressed.

So gear up for another God vs. condoms debate.

There's also a secondary issue with major ramifications hidden beneath the tabloid trash: Abortion. For example, let's read this already famous line:

"We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."

Bristol's decision? Really? That's an odd choice of words from someone who would like to see one of her options taken away. And for all we could possibly know, it may not even be true. Parental and social pressure is a powerful thing.

So my point is, the issue goes far deeper than the young daughter of a surprise VP choice. This situation could become a symbol for every other kid across the country facing the same trial, and the challenges they face when confronted with their family, religion and upbringing.

That is, it could become a symbol if we have the national maturity to allow it to. That much has yet to be seen.

All Spin, All the Time

It's become fashionable to decry partisanship these days. I see commercials featuring elephant/donkey hybrids kicking graphics representing intractable problems, implying that if we could only forget about those silly policy and values differences and work together, we could make short work of global warming, the energy crisis, and inadequate health care. Well, that's pretty silly. there are fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals on most issues of importance. And that's OK.

But what does bother me is that partisans today seem to consider facts as soldiers and analyses as campaigns in the political war. There isn't even a nod to truth. The editorial pages are schizophrenic. Half of the commentators seem to live on different planets from the other half.

There are many examples I could point to, but let's take the experience debate. I'm a Democrat supporting Barack Obama, but I'm not about to tell anyone that I'm confident he would come through in a pinch. I think he would, but he hasn't shown that he would. It's a genuine issue. Why not just admit it and address it?

Well, because it's got to the point where if you show any weakness or doubt, the opposition will pounce. They're not going to reciprocate by admitting that McCain's first few years in the Senate weren't so hot, or that his best days are behind him and he really hasn't done all that much in over two decades. They'll take your admission and run with it, overpraising McCain in comparison. You can take comfort in your openmindedness and fairness, but your opponent will outpoint you.

However, what good are those points? The idea, it seems to me, is not to win points or even arguments, but to win votes. Is 24/7 propaganda doing it? I don't know. In one-on-one conversations with leaners or undecideds, my sense is that it doesn't work. Admitting the other guy's strong points does establish some good faith basis for further discussion, and may make space for a real conversation. Just a thought.