How should a Christian vote in this election?

This Sunday, our baby Boo had his christening.

Our Reverend's first question when we sat down to discuss the baptism with her was: "Why do you want your son baptised?"

Apparently, the most common answer is: "We don't want him to go to Hell/Purgatory with all the other unbaptized children."

Our answer was simple and pedestrian: We wanted him to be raised with some kind of spirituality, so when he's old enough to make the decision about whether to remain a Christian (like his mum) or become a disbelieving, cynical heathen (like his dad) at least he's had the opportunity to make an informed decision.

I don't believe in God, but that's my decision - not his.

That's very important. Part of the 'problem' with Christianity in America is a whole slew of parents (not all of them, mind you - just some) brainwashing their kids.

A child who is brainwashed into being a Christian, à la that movie 'Jesus Camp,' isn't really a Christian. Part of being a real Christian is actually choosing that path for yourself when you're old enough (and unpressured enough.)

But the years I spent at a theological university (even if I was studying history) weren't entirely wasted and I found much of the discussion we had about the words from the Book of Common Prayer to be fascinating.

During the baptism, we're asked to answer a series of questions on behalf of our son - questions that represent the core beliefs of modern-day Christians. Our son is choosing to become a Christian, and from a practical point of view, these questions give guidance about what that means.

During the crazy election fever, many Christians are trying to consolidate the party they want to vote for with their spiritual beliefs. This really demands they ask themselves: "What are my core spiritual values?"

"What makes me a Christian?"

Yesterday, I was reminded that being a Christian isn't about the redistribution of wealth, or whether a pitbull wears lipstick.

During a baptism, you get asked to follow the most important values of Christianity - and I think a lot of modern so-called Christians have totally lost sight of what those are:

These are onwards from page 300 of your Book of Common Prayer, if you want to read along at home:

• Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?

Aside from the odd fiddle-player down in Georgia, nobody meets Satan or his demons in the flesh any more.

But Satan doesn't stand for 'evil,' so much as stubbornness and arrogance. Satan refused to submit himself appropriately to the Lord's will (remember, God grants 'free will,' yet punishes those who actually exercise that freedom.)

Renouncing Satan and his spiritual forces means renouncing pride and arrogance, which poison a good Christian's meek, humble service of God.

America is currently full of people who've forgotten this concept.

If I believed in something like Satan, I'd think he would be in hog heaven right now. He's had a President and a Prime Minister arrogantly equate their belief in God to their actions in Iraq.

He's got millions of Americans stuffed full of pride and arrogance, believing that they're spreading 'God's' message at home and abroad, when, in fact, they're spreading their own.

• Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?

This question is a very important one, because it addresses the real, physical, manifestations of evil on the earth - the actions of people and businesses that directly stand against what a Christian believes in.

This could be unethical business practices, like those Wal-Mart get involved in. It could be the evil practices of a political entity, deliberately misleading a country in order to justify a war (and both bearing false witness and going unnecessarily to war are grave sins.)

Issues like abortion fit here - and before any readers click their fingers and announce: "Ah ha, this means I must vote Republican!" think about how all the parties approach issues of an 'evil' like abortion.

I've often said that the right wing has become so proud and arrogant fighting against practical attempts to reduce abortions (like advocating non-explicit sex education) that the pro-life movement has become more about politics than actually eliminating the demand for abortions. Abortion is just an excuse to push an agenda.

There are other 'unGodly' practices that many so-called Christians put up with because they are convenient, profitable or just the status-quo (which all Conservatives, by their very definition, fight to maintain.)

• Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?

This is another very important, relevant question for modern Christians to consider.

Our Reverend gave practical examples of sinful desires that draw a person away from God. Things like addiction to drugs or alcohol [I notice you put didn't put down your glass of Sauvignon Blanc when you wrote that, Roland - Editorial Bear] but it made me immediately think of some people I've been spending time with lately who spend their entire time judging other people.

You are a bad friend/sibling/parent because you do this. You should do this. I will only accept you if you change this about yourself.

Jesus was pretty damn explicit about this kind of behavior, yet from my experience, so-called Christians remain the most judgemental souls on this wretched planet.

• Do you put your whole trust in [Jesus Christ's] grace and love?

When I read this, it made me think of something I learned in university - you should put your whole trust in Jesus to look after and protect you, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't look both ways before crossing the street!

Likewise, why is it that Christians are amongst the most outspoken about issues like Global Warming? Jesus helps those who help themselves, so maybe by providing us with decades of empirical evidence to support the warming of the Earth, our friend JC is just pointing out that we should get off our collective asses and do something about it, instead of blithely burying our heads in the sand.

• Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself?

This is the most troubling of all the questions we were to be asked. Why? Because I honestly don't believe the Christian right-wing continue to do this. Our Reverend gave us an excellent example - somebody who goes to prison and becomes a Christian there.

Thing about being a Christian isn't just having a baptism - getting a stamp on your hand that read "Heaven: Accept One." It's about believing in Jesus and his message. As long as you do that, earnestly from your heart, the Bible is absolutely explicit that you will enter heaven.

So that means child killers and rapists and murders are just as eligible for heaven as anybody else - and it's up to Christians to recognize and accept that fact. That's why the Christian right promoting capital punishment, for example, is so troubling. They might yell "those killers will burn in hell!" but, if you believe in the Bible, they won't. They'll be right there in heaven with them.

If you are open to recognizing Christ in all people, you should be absolutely against ending another human life, however wretched and undeserving it may be.

• Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?

It was this question that made me think, looking at the big picture, that a true Christian should probably vote Democrat in this election, rather than Republican.

Because the Republican party, in my mind, does not currently strive for justice or peace.

Peace? Well, they started a war on false grounds in a foreign country. Politically, strategically and economically it might have made sense - but it was an unprovoked war, unrelated to the War on Terror, that cost the lives of thousands of American troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians (remember, we should be 'recognizing Christ' in all people, not allowing them to become 'collateral damage' just because they're Muslims.)

Justice? What a farce. The Patriot Act trampled on American's constitutional rights. Guantanamo Bay crushed the rights our Declaration of Independence says are 'inalienable.' Bush's tax policies redistributed as much wealth as Obama seeks to (just in the wrong direction.)

The Republican Party needs a four or eight year break so they can look themselves in the eye and figure out just what justice really is.

And, finally, there's the most important part of that question - how a good Christian should 'respect the dignity of every human being.'

The human beings who need that dignity the most are the ones who have it the least. People on the bottom rung of society. The ones who can't afford or aren't eligible for health care, who can't get a job, or live on the streets.

The Republican party is against helping those who lack the resources to help themselves. To quote brilliant, but (in my mind) occasionally misguided politico The Other Sarah, "It is not the job of the government to give handouts and to reward people for being poor. Welfare, in all it’s forms, should be abolished."

No. Welfare shouldn't be abolished. It should just be restructured in order to give people a leg-up towards supporting themselves. Having the dignity of making their own way, instead of surviving on handouts that the Republicans try to abolish.

This is why I believe the reforms Obama is suggesting, which some people incorrectly think are 'socialism,' wind up being far more 'Christian' in nature than those of the Republicans.

Sometimes, it seems like the Republican policy is: "Screw everybody else, it's every man for himself here." And that might be very American and that might be kind of pragmatic, but it sure as hell isn't very Christian.

Let's hope the millions of so-called Christians who helped vote George Bush* into office - twice - take the time to reexamine their beliefs before tomorrow. If they're truly voting for a more Christian America, than they're making a huge mistake supporting John McCain.

* And just for the record, in 2004, when I saw still achristian (although not a very good one) I fully supported George Bush, as I found John Kerry's campaign to be based around the single misnomer: "Vote for me, I'm NOT Bush."

Why I Support Barack Obama

I like John McCain. I really do. I like him as a person and as a politician - but the further he retreats into the arms of the conservative core of the Republican party, the more independent centrists like me are forced towards Barack Obama.

So a few days ago, despite wavering back and forth between the two for months, I decided to put my money down.

I bet on Barack Obama.

Don't get me wrong - he's not a perfect candidate by any means. Nor are the Democrats the perfect party. Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae are just two of the many recent examples of continuous corruption and graft overlooked by Democratic politicians (in return to substantial campaign contributions.)

But America isn't the country it was even a month ago.

The right wing talk show pundits warned that Obama would socialize America. In the end, it was the Bush government that nationalised the mortgage industry and is now considering doing the same to the banks. By the time Obama gets sworn in, there isn't going to be any industry left to socialize!

Things are going to happen whether we like them or not. America is being swept away by a current and the President can't change the direction it flows in.

I reached my decision to support Obama for several reasons:

Obama will cut taxes for the middle class - Obama's tax-cut program will give Tina and I back more than twice what McCain's would. That doesn't even include McCain's plan to tax health insurance - taking even more money from middle class people like us.

Obama is more fiscally responsible (although this is debatable)- McCain talks big about cutting pork barrel spending, but his financial plans don't do anything to tackle the deficit or the bankrupt mess that is Social Security. Obama's tax-plan will raise the burden on America's richest 1% - meaning he'll run a tighter ship than McCain. Besides, after eight years of financial ruin, can anybody trust Republicans to be 'fiscally conservative' any more?

The fact that they voted down the $700 billion bailout - yet voted FOR it when $100 billion in 'pork' was tacked on - proves that Republicans are hog farmers just like the Democrats.

Obama is more socially liberal - This is probably what swayed it for me. On issues like civil partnerships for gay couples, sex education in schools and the like, McCain is liberal enough. However, his party isn't and I don't want to see America's liberties trodden underfoot anymore. There are members of the Republican party who want to outlaw sexuality, enforce Religion and turn the 'land of the free' into a twee, homogenized pseudo-Christian Disneyland.

Sounds like a nightmare to me. Have you ever been to Disneyland? Impossible to get a gin and tonic anywhere.

Obama is a better statesman - Nobody will deny that Obama is a smooth operator. McCain, with his gurning expression and hunched shoulders, is the butt of jokes. Obama, on the other hand, is a modern-day John F. Kennedy (just without the sexually transmitted diseases.) If we wanted to pick a president on the basis of who's more presidential, Obama wins hands down.

Obama is a better ambassador - The Europeans love him. The Middle East will sit up and take note when a brown-skinned man with the middle name 'Hussein' takes office. Obama promises to actually tackle problem nations like Iran and North Korea, instead of refusing to talk to their leaders and barking aggressively at them like a chained-up junk yard dog.

Just by electing Obama, America will go some way towards restoring the international prestige that George Bush destroyed.

Obama will screw up the Supreme Court less than McCain - Let's be honest, here. Supreme Court judges legislate from the bench. The right wing can crow all they want, but conservatives like Scalia are JUST as bad as liberals like Ginsberg. Whatever happens, the Supreme Court will interpret laws how they want - and in that case, I'd much rather a liberal addition to the bench than a conservative one. I don't like it, but I don't like it less than anybody the Republicans could suggest.

Obama will get things done - By the time the election rolls around, we'll have a Democrat-controlled Congress and a Democrat-controlled Senate. This renders McCain, as a Republican, pretty much powerless to get anything done unless he crosses party lines. We may not like everything Obama puts forward, but at least it'll stand a chance of seeing the light of day.

It's time for a damn change! So we've just had eight years of the most hated president in recent history... And you want to elect one from the same party? Say what you want about Bush, but I think his failure says as much about current Republican party values as anything about him personally (actually, if he started drinking again I imagine he'd be fun to hang out with.) It is time for a change. It's time for a Democrat. Simple as...

I just want to support him - Perhaps most importantly of all, I support Barack Obama for a simple, silly - possibly even racist reason:

When my son is studying history - and looks back on the historic 2008 election (when the first African American candidate stood for the White House) I don't want to tell him that I voted for the stuffy, white, Republican septuagenarian.

Change is coming one way or another - We can either be part of it, or we can sit on the sidelines and gnash our teeth.

The Debate

Last night's Presidential Debate in Nashville is being hotly discussed.

Before other people's opinions swayed mine, I wanted to get down what I thought of the debate - and who 'won.'

Both candidates were their normal, professional selves. Obama, of course, came across better. He's tall, with good posture and a clear voice. McCain, with his hunched shoulders and mumbled voice, looked like a comedian about to deliver a zinger of a punchline.

That being said, the substance of what McCain was saying outweighed his lack of style. for example, when he suggested renegotiating all the bad mortgages the treasury has bought, adjusting them to the new house values (and removing negative equity) I thought he'd landed an election winner.

Interpreting the facts through all the rhetoric is difficult. Obama's version of the events leading up the demise of Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae was fictitious. Similarly, McCain was wildly misleading with his promise of tax-cuts across the board (they'd be negligible unless you were very rich.)

In the end, though, McCain delivered the message he needed to and avoided the jabs Obama sent his way. But while the Republican candidate did well, I don't think it'll be enough to sway the vote in his favour.

My Dad: John McCain by Meghan McCain (illustrated by Dan Andreasen)

I'm not entirely convinced that My Dad, John McCain hit the New York Times bestseller list entirely on it's credentials as a children's book. The fact that it's about Republican presidential candidate John McCain - and penned by his daughter, Meghan - might have given sales a push!

But that doesn't mean it should be relegated to the realms of political puffery. My Dad, John McCain is a cute kid's book (that promises to be quite a collector's piece if John McCain actually wins the Presidency.)

Meghan McCain penned a very touching book that oozes love and admiration for her father. She reverently retells the story of his days as a troublemaker in the naval academy, his heroics on the flight deck of the USS Forestal and his resilience as a prisoner of war - arguing that this strength of character makes him an exceptional candidate to become the President of the United States.

Except she doesn't use all those long words.

Meghan writes for children well - she has a very effective way of illustrating difficult concepts through examples that youngsters will relate to. For example, she explains that McCain got into trouble at Naval Academy for 'skipping school' (leaving out the drinking and hell-raising) and illustrates the horrors of McCain's incarceration by the Viet Cong by telling us how he once found a chicken's foot in his lunch (which is more kid-friendly than telling them about the beatings, whippings and torture he endured.)

The story is brought to life through full colour illustrations by Dan Andreasen, who does a serviceable enough job, although the pictures lack the details kids love to peer at and some of them - especially his illustration of the fire on the USS Forestal - are a bit vague and confusing. The clouds of noxious smoke he painted looked more like trees in the background, making the whole picture look like it was set in a park, rather than the deck of an aircraft carrier.

All in all, though, the book is a satisfying package and I think young kids will enjoy learning a bit more about the grumpy-looking 'McCain' guy they see on television (and who their parents are always talking about.)

Meghan's book highlights McCain's character strengths - his honesty, his bravery and his resilience. For kids (and quite a few registered Republicans) it's values like this that make a man a good candidate to run the country - not his politics and policies.

Palin Smackdown

Nobody's going to deny that there's bias in the media - just flick on Fox News and you'll see daily disinformation on a scale Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of.

But when it comes to Sarah Palin... Enough is enough.

I'll admit, I'm on the fence when it comes to Sarah. I like her plucky spirit and determination. I'm not so keen on her religious fervour or questionable opinions on the environment.

(To illustrate my conflict; as keen on hunting as I am, the 'ariel shooting' Palin advocates seems a little unfair. I mean, tracking down a wolf or moose with a high powered rifle makes hunting one sided enough. Targeting them from low-flying airplanes is just thoroughly unsporting!)

But whatever my reservations about Ms. Palin, I have noticed a landslide of negativity being sent her way by the press and media.

It's true that the media tends to have a liberal bias (with the exception of the Fox Propaganda Network.) But I can't remember it ever being quite so blatant before.

Sarah Palin is a nice enough lady. She's got a lovely family and a successful career - one she achieved all on her own, without any of the 'positive discrimination' feminists are screaming for. Sure, she's not perfect. But she's not bad, as far as it goes.

Yet the media is merciless in their attacks against her. Just this morning, I saw her being dismissed as 'a bucket of fluff.' People are openly questioning her political ability, her commitment to her family and even her dress sense.

Come on, guys. It's not only not very nice. It's also dumb. The more the liberal left attack Sarah Palin, the more they galvanise the moderates and the right wing to back up 'that nice little Alaskan lady.'

Not to mention, some of the attacks are just damn stupid.

Seriously, why would the Democrats make such a thing about Palin's perceived 'inexperience' when she's at least as experienced as their own Presidential candidate. I'm sorry, but that's just playing into the right wing's hands.

Whichever way you look at it, McCain pulled an ace from his sleeve when he selected Sarah Palin to stand for the vice presidency. The only way the Democrats are going to trump this clever move is by shelving the attacks against her - completely.

They need to play nice - to recognize Sarah Palin's refreshing perspective, her family values and her political ambitions. They need to pat her on the head, tell everybody what a good job lil' Sarah is doing and dismiss her as a political unimportance. Only then they can concentrate on the main target - McCain.

If they play nice, they won't seen to be mean spirited bullies. It'll pull the carpet out from the Republican's campaign and put them back on a level footing.

But I don't think the liberals are capable of that level of political sophistication. They're just going to team up on this friendly, family woman and bombard her with the sort of mean-spirited maliciousness they wailed about the Republicans aiming towards Hillary.

The scary thing? This election was the Democrats to lose - and a damn fine job they're doing of exactly that.

Death and Taxes...

Let's get something straight. The Republicans are not the party of 'low taxes.'

Oh, they sell themselves as exactly that and many blue collar voters fall for it.

Many angry working-class Republicans I know go apoplectic when they hear somebody is thinking of voting for the Democrats.

"Do you want them to raise your taxes? 'Cos that's what they'll do..."

But let's get something straight. For the working and middle class, it's the Republicans who have raised taxes pretty much consistently:

Ronald Reagan's 'Reaganomics' involved MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthy, but payroll taxes for the working man actually increased.

Bush Snr promised 'No New Taxes' and immediately reneged when he hit the office.

Bush Jnr's tax cuts made rich people richer - but even if he didn't tax the middle and working classes more, his economic mismanagement has them on a tighter budget than ever before.

Basically, the Republicans have failed to make good on their 'low taxes' promise at every opportunity - but they still wheel out the same old dog-and-pony show and gullible voters lap it up.

Well, let me set the record straight. If you're voting this election on taxes alone, here's how McCain and Obama match up, according to The Tax Center, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution:

If you're in the bottom 20% of taxpayers (making less than $20,000 a year) the 'low tax' Republicans will save you just $21 in taxes. Compare that to Obama's tax strategy, which will see an additional $567 in your pockets - almost 30 times more (and real money, as opposed to less than the cost of a family sized bucket of fried chicken.)

That's in addition to a lot of welfare programs being set up to help poorer people with the cost of health care, housing and education.

The next 20% of tax payers, making up to $66,400 a year, would be given back $325 under McCain's strategy - but get an extra $1,100 under Obama's plan.

In fact, the only time McCain trumps Obama is in addressing the top 1% of American tax payers, making $600,000 a year or more.

Under McCain, they'd claim back almost $50,000 a year. Obama would actually tax them more - an average of just under $94,000.

The Break Down

The strategy is simple.

McCain knows that to keep his campaign coffers full, he'll have to extend an olive branch to the big spenders and large corporations. Nobody who makes $600,000 a year wants to be hit with a nearly hundred-grand tax hike, so it makes sense to do whatever they can to get McCain elected (including donating to his campaign.)

The smoke-screen appears when it comes to the working and middle class - including the core regiment of blue-collar, red-state voters who help keep the Republican party in office.

They get hit hard every time they vote a Republican into office - but keep doing so because of the hyth of 'trickle down' Reaganomics.

Basically, the theory that the less that rich and the big companies have to pay in taxes, the more will get filtered back into the economy to increase wages and create jobs.

The problem is - Reaganomics doesn't work. The rich don't 'trickle' their money into anywhere except their savings accounts. That's why they're rich. Corporations don't 'spread the wealth.' They might make more profits, but that doesn't prevent them axing jobs and 'streamlining.'

The fact is, poorer people feed more of their tax rebate back into the economy because they have to. Take the bottom 20% of Americans, who make just $20,000 a year. If they got an extra five hundred bucks, do you think they'd just keep it in the bank?

No - they'll spend it. On groceries, gas and utilities. If they were lucky, on vacations and summer camps. They'll use that money and it will trickle up.

Added complexity...

It's not quite as simple as I've made it appear. Obama's got some pretty silly ideas about distributing corporate profit and McCain's got some pretty practical ideas about reducing other costs - like health care.

Both of their tax-cut schemes do something dumb - they dip the country even further into debt. Obama's tax cuts land America with a cheque for $3.5 trillion. McCain, despite representing the part of 'fiscal responsibility' (another Republican misnomer), would rack up $5 trillion in debt with his plans.

Who to vote for...?

Obama's tax cuts might not mean much if the economy tanks. McCain might float your boat in other areas, like the right-to-life, national security or cleaning house in Washington.

But it's worth asking yourself when you're in the voting booth this November: If somebody offered you $1,000 in cash to vote for Obama over McCain, would you do it?

Because for 40% of Americans, that's exactly what it equates to.

Maverick McCain

You'd think, following Obama's speech to over 80,000 loyal Democrats, that all attention would be on America's first African-American presidential candidate - but in a perfectly executed manoeuvre, rival John McCain just yanked the carpet out from under Obama's feet by announcing his surprising pick for Vice President.

It wasn't Lieberman or Romney, like people suspected. In fact, McCain gave the nod to a little known Alaskan politician who has proven herself to be almost as much of a maverick as he is.

The Republican Vice Presidential Nominee is Sarah Palin, the current Governor of Alaska.

Both the left and the right are going to be reeling from this decision, but I think McCain's hit a home run. Palin is an incredibly shrewd choice - notching up the rivalry between the Obama and McCain camps.

Don't know anything about Sarah Palin? You're not alone. Despite being governor of the largest state in the union, not that many people are familiar with her. For the benefit of the uninitiated, therefore, here's a very brief bio:

Sarah Palin was born in Idaho, but moved to Alaska when she was an infant and has never looked back.

She grew up in the small town of Wasilla, where she hiked and hunted with her father and earned the nickname 'Barracuda' on the basketball court, where she captained the team and won the championship in 1982 despite playing on a broken ankle.

As charming and beautiful as she was competitive and athletic, Sarah came second in 1984's Miss Alaska competition and won a scholarship to college and the title of Miss Congeniality. Her degree in Journalism, combined with her good looks, rewarded her with a sports reporter job on local television, before she entered local politics as a councillor in Wasilla.

This is the point at which Sarah's story really gets interesting - and her strengths as a VP become apparent.

Palin complained of corruption and wasteful spending by Wasilla's mayor and challenged his for his seat in the 1996 election - winning the close race based on her promise of reducing property tax in the town by 60%. Unlike most politicians, Sarah actually made good on her election promise and was voted in for a second term by a huge margin.

Palin's political star rose stratospherically. Shortly afterwards, she became Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission - a position she was meant to keep nice and quiet in. Instead, Palin fulfilled her duties admirably, exposing the corruption of Republican state chairman Randy Ruedrich and former Alaska Attorney General Gregg Renkes.

They both resigned - and Palin cemented her reputation as a scrupulously principled politician who didn't mind facing off against corrupt elements within her own party.

It was that reputation that allowed her to defeat incumbent Governor Murkowski in the gubernatorial primaries - and then claim the position herself despite being outspent and outmaneuvered by her Democratic rival. In 2006, Palin became Alaska's youngest governor at just 42 years old.

Since then, she's been exemplary in that position - killing wasteful projects like the famous Bridge to Nowhere and showing that same maverick spirit by distancing herself from fellow Republican politicians like Ted Stevens (which was an excellent decision, since he's being indicted on federal charges for financial indiscretion.)

In Alaska, Sarah Palin is a well respected - and well loved - figure. I don't think it'll take long for the rest of America to share that opinion of her.

McCain's Maverick

The biggest weakness in McCain's current campaign are the accusations that he's 'Bush 2.0.' The appointment of Sarah Palin to his campaign will help deflate that accusation, since she's about a removed from the Republican party elite as it's possible to get.

Her career has been fueled by throwing corrupt or lazy Republican colleagues onto the fire. She's illustrated time and time again that she has zero tolerance for party political bullshit.

That being said, her appointment will also be an olive branch to the more conservative elements of the Republican party, who are concerned about McCain's stance on abortion rights and same-sex marriages. Sarah Palin is staunchly pro-life, pro death penalty and helped push for an amendment to the Constitution of Alaska that defined marriage as between 'a man and a woman.'

That being said, she's also in support of equal rights for gays and mentions that she has 'several gay friends,' which might go some way towards placating any moderates scared off by the more bigoted extremes of the Republican party.

On a more personal level, Sarah Palin is simply a great gal. She's a good Christian lass, which will appeal to the evangelical voters, and is a huntin', fishin', meat eating outdoors girl with a lifetime membership to the National Rifle Association.

Plus, did we mention that she's really rather yummy? Tall, slender, athletic and brunette. I think I share the opinion of many red-blooded men - we wouldn't be too upset if we were trapped on a mountain with Sarah Palin and had to snuggle with her for warmth.

The Election

Sarah Palin is an astoundingly astute choice for McCain's VP. A capable, confident woman with good, old fashioned Republican ideals. Once people get wind of her colourful life story, I wouldn't be surprised if a few of Hillary's supporters lean towards voting for her.

Could she tip the balance in McCain's favour? Probably not - history has shown that the Vice Presidential nomination rarely makes much of an impact on the election.

Regardless of what happens during this election, though, I think it's raised an interesting possibility. Hillary Clinton was determined to be America's first woman president. My bet is on Sarah Palin instead.

Republicans don't play fair...

Jerome Corsi is a truly despicable human being.

In 2004, when Vietnam veteran John Kerry stood against George Bush in the presidential election, he published a book called 'Unfit for Command,' which was a cynical pack of lies aimed at discrediting the decorated officer's wartime record.

'Unfit for Command' was the inspiration for the 'Swiftboat Veterans for Truth' - a group of right wing Vietnam veterans who raised money and campaigned against John Kerry in the lead up to the election - and possibly contributed to Kerry's defeat.

Just like 'Unfit for Command,' the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were largely discredited - but not early enough to prevent the damage they did to Kerry's campaign.

Well, it's a new election and the Democrats have a new candidate - but it's business as usual for Jerome Corsi.

He's just published 'The Obama Nation' (abomination, geddit?)

Just like 'Unfit for Command,' this book is nothing but a cynical attack against the Democratic candidate, filled with page after page of bullshit.

For example, that Barack Obama currently uses marijuana and/or cocaine (because, in Obama's biography, he admitted experimenting with the drugs in college.)

Or that Barack Obama is a 'secret Muslim' (because he spent a few weeks at a madrassa while living abroad.)

These aren't lies exactly. More just wild, erroneous, malicious speculation based on the most tenuous sliver of fact. And the scary thing is that stupid people are going to believe them.

Currently, after the Georgian crisis highlighted his canny eye for the international scene, John McCain's managed to clamber to a level footing with Obama in the polls. He can win this election all by his own damn self - he doesn't need the cheap lies and petty slander of the likes of Corsi.

I hope John McCain does what he did with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth - and disassociates himself from Corsi and his cronies.

He's what he said when the Swift Boaters paid to slander Kerry on the television:

"I condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong."

As for Obama? Well, the quality of a man's character is often revealed by the people who revile him. He's gone up a notch in my book.

More on Georgia...

Like a toddler fighting a heavyweight, Georgia isn't putting up much of a fight against Russia's troops. Despite calls for a ceasefire, Russia is brutally advancing through the small country and has successfully bisected it.

This is quite astonishing. It's not a diplomatic matter any more - a squabble over a couple of rogue provinces. It's an invasion, plain and simple. Within hours, Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, might be captured. Will that be before or after the last of the Georgian resistance is eliminated with typical Russian efficiency?

I think it's clear what Russia's intention is - to teach Georgia (and any other former Soviet republics) that friendship with the US and support of the United Nations will not be tolerated. I imagine a new government (friendly to the Russians, rather than the West) will be put into power soon enough to eliminate the 'problem.'

In addition to neutering a potential NATO ally, Russia's diplomatic (if not military) control of Georgia will give them access to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, which pumps millions of gallons of oil to the Black Sea.

We've all just seen how easily manipulated the price of oil can be (and how devastating the effect on America's economy it is.) It fills me with dread to think of the unscrupulous Russian government with a stranglehold on 'America's addiction.'

NOTE: Some people are already talking about a third tactic explaining Russia's wildly disproportionate military response. With war in the headlines, oil prices creeping higher and more uncertainty in the world, it's almost certain that an increasing number of America voters will lean towards a presidential candidate who they feel has experience in 'national security.' i.e. John McCain.

McCain pulls another one out of the hat...

Defending Barack Obama is all very well, but it's tough to beat this new campaign contribution from John McCain - official 'McCain' brand chocolate!

This is the real deal, hot off the press from McCain's gorgeous daughter (and eminent blogger) Meghan McCain (pictured here on board the Straight Talk Express - the bus her dad will hopefully be throwing the social conservatives under come November.)

Personally, I think the only way to top McCain-brand candy would be an Obama-brand beer (preferably dark and rich, just like the candidate himself.)

Oh, wait! There already is one! Pity you can only get it in Kenya.

Guest Post by Editorial Bear

Hello! Editorial Bear here, with some quick thoughts about the election!

Voting is VERY important. Anybody who can legally vote, but chooses not to, should be soundly beaten with a wet fish. People fought and died for your right to vote and you disrespect their memory when you chose to remain politically impotent.

REMEMBER! There is only ONE reasonable excuse for not voting. You don't want to put your name on the Electoral Roll because you don't want to get picked for Jury Service.

I do understand that some people just don't know who to pick in the upcoming election. For that reason, I've compiled the handy 'Editorial Bear Political Spectrum Analysis.'


Simply plot your position on the chart (somewhere between pothead and redneck) and the candidate closest to where you land is the one you should vote for.

For example, if you're a typical boring leftie, with delusions about 'sharing the wealth' and driving hybrid cars, you should clearly vote for Obama.

If you're in the middle of the spectrum - you really couldn't give two hoots about politics, gays are alright in your book, you want lower taxes and you believe in the death penalty than you're slightly left of middle-of-the-road McCain - and you should vote for him.

If you're a shotgun wielding hick with a pick up truck emblazoned with NRA bumper stickers, you might think McCain is a too darn liberal - but you should still vote! Even though he's FAR to the left of whatever back-wood you're standing in, he's still a damn sight closer to your tobacco-chewin' political opinions than ol' Obama!

If you chose not to vote this election, I can only promise you one thing. The candidate you don't want will get elected (especially if you don't want either of them.) So get up off your La-Z-Boy and do your duty. Vote for the candidate you hate the least!

But getting all serious for a second - I can't stand the political pessimism at the moment. Both Barack Obama and John McCain are the most exciting and promising presidential candidates for forty years. If this election has proven anything - it's that the left keep whining and the right won't stop bitching.

Shaddap and vote!

Oh, and thanks for stopping by.

Love and vodka,

Editorial Bear

Tarred with the same brush?

Coffee Bean has been giving me a run for her money over on her blog, with a very brave and honest post about her faith and how it's ebbed and flowed throughout her life.

From what she wrote, I learned it's very easy to tar one group by the same brush as its more extreme members. For example, as April pointed out, not all people who identify as conservative Christians believe the world was created 6,000 years ago and condemn homosexuals.

This proves one important thing - that Christians are clearly more evolved than politicians. Apparently, to be a Democrat or Republican you must - MUST - believe in certain things to meet the approval of your party.

I find this very frustrating as we march towards the 2008 election.

Mostly because John McCain, who I respect enormously, is getting more and more ensnared by party political bullshit.

What I really admire about John McCain (apart from the fact that he can fly a fighter plane) is that he's a maverick. He has his own beliefs and for most of his political career, he wasn't afraid to share them.

Immigration. The Environment. Abortion. Homosexual rights. John McCain bucked the Republican trend on all of them and that made him an outstanding candidate in my book. A man who had sensible Republican financial ideals, but was able to rise about the social conservatism that I despise.

Sadly, now he's won the nomination for President in the face of more 'conservative' Republicans, John McCain faces the challenge of not only winning over undecided voters, but the more right-wing members of his own party as well.

That's meant he's been forced to compromise on some pretty important issues. His campaign website has shown a u-turn on certain issues - which is bad. Not just because it scares off more moderate voters. It also makes people concerned that McCain is buckling under the pressure of a party that has spent the last eight years making a litany of poor judgement calls.

McCain's biggest asset (aside from his gorgeous and brilliant daughter, Meghan) is his history of bipartisanship. If he loses the ability to cross party lines on decisive issues, he'll lose his appeal to the more moderate voters and that will cost the Republicans the election.

You have to ask the more right wing Republicans - what's more important? Sticking to your (hand)guns on all your so-called 'values?' Or actually winning the election?

Because until the right wing is willing to swallow their pride and stump up support behind their candidate, they have little hope of defeating Obama.

Patriotism by the Dashboard Light

Given that both presidential candidates are fairly exceptional and admirable individuals, it's only natural that their detractors have to clutch at straws when it comes to finding 'dirt' to fling at them.

Obama

The perennial issue with Barack Obama is his 'patriotism.' The right wing have attacked him for not wearing a U.S. flag pin on his lapel.

"The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin," Obama said in response. "Shortly after 9/11...that became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security."

I absolutely understand Obama's position. True patriotism doesn't come from wearing a pin, or having a 'God Bless the USA' badge on the tailgate of your pick up truck. Those are merely things and I think it's rather sad that certain people feel they can attack another's 'patriotism' merely because they don't chose to wave the same things that they do.

It's a stupid and inane attack. Now Obama's elected to sport a lapel pin, what's next? Are the right wing going to stick two pins to their lapel and attack anybody who only has one as being 'half as patriotic?'

There are many opinions and actions that make somebody patriotic - but conforming to the dumb mentality of the masses is not one of them. The lapel pin argument is based on St Patrick's day logic. In reality, wearing a green hat doesn't make you Irish.

McCain

In a similarly inane attack, General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, yesterday attacked McCain's military service record as proof that the senator is 'untested and untried' when it comes to national security.

"He's never been responsible for policy formulation. He's never had leadership in a crisis, or in anything larger than his own element on an aircraft carrier or his own congressional staff."

As far as lame attacks go, this one is utterly limp.

McCain might not have been a 'great general' like Presidents Eisenhower or Grant. However, he had a distinguished military career, served with great honor and proved himself to be a hero several times over.

Compare that to Barack Obama, who has had no military service whatsoever. Compare it even to George W. Bush, who ducked out of service in Vietnam thanks to his family connections and went AWOL from the 'champagne squadron' he was assigned to.

McCain has a credible record of active military service - but more than that, he has a credible record of making tough decisions and supreme sacrifices.

In 1967, when the aircraft carrier McCain was assigned to was engulfed in flames, the 30 year old Lieutenant Commander suffered serious injuries trying to save the life of a fellow pilot.

In 1968, after spending nearly a year in the hellish 'Hanoi Hilton' as a prisoner of war, the horribly injured McCain was ruthlessly tortured when he refused to accept the offer of repatriation to America and instead stayed with his fellow prisoners.

That decision cost him five years of his life in a brutal prison, suffering torture that has left him with life-long disability. What John McCain endured is beyond the comprehension of most people. I read about what happened to him and know that I could never have survived what he did.

But John McCain didn't just survive it. For the sake of honor and comradeship, he remained a prisoner when he could have had the opportunity to leave.

I don't believe anybody - especially not a fellow Vietnam veteran like Wesley Clark - has the right to attack McCain's qualifications to be president based on his military service. If anything, John McCain's experiences have proven him to be a brutally tough, disciplined, principled man who has experienced the ugly reality of war in a way no other presidential candidate in forty years has.

Whatever weaknesses McCain's campaign has, lack of experience is not one of them. As he himself admits: "I'm older than dirt and have more scars than Frankenstein."

Nuclear Family

America has a problem.

Despite being the nation that put the first man on the moon and pioneered the technology behind the Perfect Pancake Maker, compared to most European countries, American infrastructure is pretty pathetic.

Take, for example, the power-cut that crippled the North East back in 2003. That was all caused by a single branch falling into a single power station somewhere near Canada.

Even today, places like California commonly suffer 'brown outs' as the beleaguered power plants struggle to supply all the juice needed to run millions of air conditioners and televisions. In my home, I find it slightly scary that plugging in a hairdryer causes all the lights to dim!

Money that's wasted on foreign wars, bridges to nowhere and shadowy foreign internment camps could be much better spent fixing the wiring and bringing America up to the standards of the 21st century. We're the world's greatest superpower - surely there's no excuse for people in the suburbs of Los Angeles not having electricity!

One excellent suggestion that John McCain is advocating involves building another 45 nuclear power stations.

It's not rocket science [Actually, it pretty much is - Editorial Bear]. Nuclear power is safe, clean, cheap and efficient. Yet because of bad press and the legacy of Chernobyl, people in America shy away from the concept and prefer to rely on dirty old coal power plants (compare coal-mining deaths to the casualties of Chernobyl and it's pretty clear which is safer.)

In fact, America hasn't built a nuclear power station for thirty years - and John McCain admits that the major hurdle in building new power plants will be the fact that the technology and expertise has largely been lost!

That in itself reveals something scary - that to some extents, America is in the midst of a technological 'dark ages.'

Places like France have proven that nuclear power is effective and efficient in delivering a nation's energy needs. What's more, switching just 1/5th of America's power from coal to nuclear would save the entire world from carbon emissions equivalent to every single automobile in the United States.

Environmentalists claim the key to overcoming the energy crisis is to embrace new technology. A little research reveals that, in fact, the technology doesn't even need to be that new.

Why can't the Democrats be more Democratic?

Let's be honest here - the 2008 Presidential election is pretty much sewn up for the Democrats, whichever candidate they choose.

Or, at least, it would be if they didn't continue being such idiots about the whole thing!

The longer this primary drags out, the more chance the Dems have of blowing the whole shooting match.

On the other side, you've got to hand it to the Republicans. They are an incredibly focused and capable political machine. They've accepted the idea of doing whatever it takes to achieve victory; including compromising their conservative polemic and standing behind a man like John McCain (who crosses party lines on several key issues.)

They're a losing party with a winning strategy.

Dumbo Dems

What's highlighted by the skirmish for the Democratic candidacy is just how undemocratic the Democratic party really is. A lot of the angry rhetoric conservative pundits throw at the Democrats compares them to 'Stalinists.' Normally I find that comparison laughable - but dammit if there isn't a grain of truth buried in there somewhere!

Take, for instance, the decision to disenfranchise Democratic delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Those states chose to bring their primary dates forward, in order to make their state more important in the selection process. For breaking 'the rules' the Democratic party removed their right to send delegates to the Democratic Convention. They basically stopped their votes from counting.

Hardly very democratic!

Secondly, take the concept of the Super Delegates. These are 'important' Democrats, like state governors and the like, who have a 'bigger' vote than the standard Delegates at the convention. Basically, all Democratic Delegates are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

In a close knit race like the battle between Hillary and Obama, the Super Delegates are 'king makers.' Whatever the election results declare, the Super Delegates can go in and reverse the decision if they don't like it.

Again, hardly very Democratic! What's the point of having months of state-wide primary elections if the Super Delegates can swoop in and change the final count if they feel that democracy hasn't provided the 'right' answer.

And that's the core of the issue, isn't it? Despite being called the 'Democratic' party, the Democratic party elite are determined to control the electoral process so they end up with the result they want - the will of the voters be damned.

The fact that we're only two months away from the Democratic Convention and we're no closer to having a definitive winner has shown the American public only one thing - that the Democratic party is incapable of governing itself. Is that really the sort of organisation we want governing the country?

Unless the Democrats get united and organised, the answer to that question will come on election day.

Obama's Upper Hand

Speaking of elections, stupid people are still under the belief that the next president can do something about gas prices.

With the price of petrol spiking even higher (my local station raised the cost of regular by 3 cents overnight) many people are starting to feel the pinch - but what can a president do about the price of oil?

Well, short of a time machine and a decision not to invade Iraq, not a lot, really. OPEC has the oil-industry by the throat and I can't see petrol prices ever dropping down to their pre-Iraq lows (the heady days when it took just $20 to fill a Firebird's petrol tank.)

The fact that they're powerless to do anything about it hasn't stopped presidential candidates McCain and Clinton jumping on the 'gas price' bandwagon and making what must be the most stupid election pledge of all time - to drop the federal tax on gasoline sales.

Here in America, there are two tiers of taxation. Federal, which hits everybody, and State, which only effect people from a particular state. That's why people from New Jersey pay $3.50 for a gallon of regular petrol while it's $3.93 in neighbouring Pennsylvania.

Federal tax - the stuff McCain and Clinton want to drop for three months during the summer, cashes in at around 18 cents a gallon. They have no control over State taxation, so the most they could reduce fuel prices would be 20c - meaning every time I fill up my Firebird's tank I save about $2.50. Over the course of the summer, that will save me a grand total of fifty bucks (which is not going to make or break the bank.)

The fact is that I, like millions of other residents of the United States, don't really care about the odd 20 cents here and there. We want the price of petrol to drop down to what it was before we invaded Iraq - kicking around at about $1.50 a gallon.

Nothing's going to bring those prices back again - certainly not a three month moratorium on petrol taxation. I'd rather a candidate tackle the real problems behind the energy crisis, instead of trying to fool us into thinking they're doing something positive by throwing us a few nickels and dimes.

Only Barack Obama has stood in opposition against the idea of dropping taxation on gas - and that gives him a lot of credibility in my book. He sees the scheme for what it is - and he also sees that the average American voter isn't as easily bought off as McCain or Clinton think they are.

Election Fever 2008!

I haven't had a post about the election in ages - because it's been pretty boring so far.

John McCain might as well be sitting in a hammock drinking cocktails, since his job is done. He's wrapped up the Republican primary and a good job too, since fundamentalist nutjob Mike Huckabee and crazy mormon Mitt Romney would have been scary if they'd been given a shot at the White House.

I like John McCain. His age doesn't worry me, since he's only slightly older than my dad and papa is still sharp as a lick of paint. McCain also wins points because the extreme left despise him (labelling him 'McSame' and accusing him of being 'Bush Mk.II) only slightly less than the extreme right of his own party despise him (calling him a 'leftist' and a 'token Republican' for crossing party lines on certain issues.)

If the far left and the far right can't stand him, he's probably doing something right.

As far as the Democrats go... well, that whole scene's a bloody mess, isn't it?

Republicans are rubbing their hands together at Obama and Clinton locking horns. This whole battle should have been over long ago, but plucky old Hillary is refusing to let Obama win and that's dragging the primary on... and on... and on...


On the face of it, Obama's got her licked. He's got the majority of delegates on his side and is clearly the most popular candidate. Hillary isn't going out without a fight, though, and has awkwardly managed to win states like Florida (even if it didn't count) and Pennsylvania, which are the 'swing states' that will win (or lose) a Presidential election.

The more bitter the battle gets, the more damage Clinton and Obama are doing to each other's chances of victory in the Presidential election.

The consensus is that Hillary will have to use her support amongst the 'super delegates' to secure the candidacy - and if she does that, she'll have basically disenfranchised every person who voted in the Democratic Primaries (since she'd have rejected the popular vote and won through political clout alone.)

If Hillary does that, I can't see how she'd hope to win the 2008 Election.

Some Thoughts about Universal Health Care

When it comes to the ongoing debate about American health care, I'm definitely in the privatised, American camp. I've seen the British version of 'universal health care' and it's not pretty.

So far, Tina and my experiences with the American health care system have been much more positive than what we experienced in England - even if they cost more.

Our experiences

Tina's expecting a baby - so that means plenty of visits to Robert Woods Johnson Hospital for scans, checkups and advice. After the contributions of my job's health insurance package, we've been left with about $1,000 to pay out of our own pockets.

In England, the NHS would not have charged us any money. However, the treatment we've received in America has been in a beautiful, clean, well-appointed new hospital with very modern equipment. We weren't left waiting for very long and the doctors and nurses have held our hand through the entire process.

At the Royal Hampshire Infirmary, in Winchester, we had a couple of terrible experiences, being expected to wait about four hours for treatment in a dirty hospital, with old equipment and a doctor who once gave Tina a potentially life-threatening misdiagnosis (delivered in a rude and offhand manner.)

Even worse, two new mothers from Winchester recently died from the same form of streptococcal infection they'd coincidentally picked up while in the maternity ward of the Royal Hampshire Infirmary.

Clearly, private health insurance offers us (Tina and myself) a much higher standard of health care that we could receive back home

The Downside of Private Health Care

That being said, Tina and I are in the enviable situation of having a good health care package and living close to an excellent hospital.

The reason health care is such an important issue in the upcoming presidential election is because almost 50 million Americans - close to 20% of the entire US population - have no health care coverage at all.

This is because private health care is rocketing in price - and many companies, like Wal-Mart, don't offer an adequate health care package even to full time employees.

Now, even if you're a stuffy old Tory, like me, you can't help but admit that this is wrong. Adequate health care is a basic human right. That shouldn't be a political issue for either the Democrats or Republicans. It's only the best means to accomplish this goal which should be up for discussion. In theory...

In theory.

Because currently, the debate's taken a rather surreal twist and more and more conservative Republicans are railing against any notion of 'universal health care' as proposed by Barack Obama, Senator Clinton or even their own candidate, John McCain.

In fact, in his daily radio show, conservative pundit Mark Levin often claims that Obama and Clinton are pitching a 'socialised' medical system along the same lines as Britain's National Health Service - and he enjoys using the dismal state of the NHS as an example of why it would never work.

But the problem with the conservative argument (as is increasingly common with any conservative argument is that it's utter rubbish.

American 'socialism.'

Pundits love to label the likes of Hillary Clinton as a 'socialist' or 'Marxist' when they have no real concept of the term. For a Brit - at least one who's lived long enough to remember the socialist Labor party (before Tony Blair came along) - the idea of calling Obama or Clinton a socialist is completely laughable.

Neither Democratic candidate wants to introduce a nationalised health service along the lines of the NHS. Instead, the 'universal health care' they're suggesting would simply mean that everybody in America (hence 'universal') would have access to affordable medical care (hence 'health care.')

For those in poverty, that could be some kind of system like Medicare or Medicaid. For low income families, it could be some form of subsidized or Federal health insurance.

Additionally, Obama, Clinton and McCain want the consumer cost of private medical insurance to be reduced by opening up competition - meaning consumers wouldn't be limited to the health insurance package their employer offers - and could seek more competitive quotes out-of-state.

Also, big companies like Wal-Mart would be forced to do what they should have done from the very beginning - offer their full-time employees adequate health care.

Whatever happens, the intended result of universal health care would be a system in which everybody in America has access to medical treatment. And apparently the conservative Republicans loath this idea!

Why?

The major argument conservatives have against any form of universal health care is that it would be tax-payer funded. They're worried that their hard-earned income would be taxed in order to pay for the health care of low income families (read: other people. Conservatives don't like giving money for the benefit of other people.)

There is a simple and indisputable reason why this argument is idiotic. America already has a system of 'universal health care' that's funded by the tax-payer (and subsidized by the health insurance consumer.)

Federal law forbids hospitals from turning away patients. If a visitor to a hospital doesn't have health insurance - or the means to pay their bills - it's the government or hospital that eventually has to pay up for that patient's treatment.

Which means the tax payer already pays $15 billion a year towards the health care of people without insurance. What's worse, hospitals and doctors cover the expense of 'writing off' uninsured patients by charging paying customers more - which in turn dramatically hikes up health insurance premiums.

So whether it's through tax-dollars or an increase in health insurance premiums, at the end of the day, the bad-tempered conservatives are already paying for other people's health care.

It seems stubborn and idiotic for them not to open their minds to a more efficient (i.e. cheaper) way of doing what they're already doing now.

The Simple Maths

Health insurance premiums have skyrocketed over the last few years - and one of the major reasons is because hospitals and doctors have needed to recoup their losses from treating uninsured patients.

Since about 20% of Americans have no health insurance - plus the millions of illegal immigrants and undocumented workers - the current situation works something like this:

Four people go to the hospital and have treatment that costs $300.

One of those four people has no health insurance. So to cover their costs, the hospital is forced to split that loss amongst the other three paying customers.

$300 ÷ 3 = $100 each added to their bill.

That bill ends up being $400 instead of $300. Basically, they're paying 25% more.

And it's a spiralling problem. As health insurance premiums increase, more and more people can't afford insurance, which means doctors and hospitals have to increase their costs to cover them.

That, in turn, increases insurance premiums again, which again means that more people 'drop out' of health insurance programs...

And do you see where I'm going with this?

Something needs to be done.

This situation needs to be addressed - and conservatives can't stick their head in the sand and pretend otherwise.

Currently, all three of the presidential candidates have interesting and promising solutions to the health care crisis.

Senator John McCain

John McCain's solution is within Republican party lines.

While he rejects any form of government funded or subsidized universal health care, he wants to offer a $5,000 tax rebate for families with private medical insurance (helping considerably towards the cost.)

In addition, he wants to reduce health insurance premiums by opening up competition between states. Currently, health insurance providers can operate in one state alone - meaning there are a limited number of suppliers in each state.

McCain's idea is to allow consumers to select insurance from companies based all across the United States, forcing suppliers to offer more affordable premiums.

In addition, Senator McCain wants to allow consumers to opt-out of their company's health-insurance package and take their employer's contribution elsewhere - again forcing health insurance companies to offer more competitive rates, rather than 'signing up' big businesses and forcing a big, fat premium out of every employee.

"In health care," John McCain explains, "I believe in enhancing the freedom of individuals to receive necessary and desired care."

Basically: We help those with the means to help themselves.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Even though her opponents (like talk show host Mark Levin) accuse Hillary of being a socialist, the universal health care package she champions is very different from the National Health Service in England.

In fact, she spent [wasted - Editorial Bear] millions of dollars while her husband was in the White House investigating - and ultimately ruling out - a single-payer health care system like we have in Britain or Canada.

Clinton advocates government subsidies for low-income families, meaning that they will be able to afford health insurance.

She also wants to set up a federal health care system, which Americans can 'buy into' instead of their employer's health insurance package. This will force private health insurance companies to make their premiums more competitive and offer health care coverage to people with pre-existing conditions - people who would normally be refused private health insurance.

Because of the subsidies and the setting up of a federal health care system, Hillary Clinton's solution to America's health care crisis is the most expensive. However, with costs of $110 billion per year (in contrast, the war in Iraq costs $144 billion per year) this can be paid for by eliminating the controversial 'Bush tax cuts.')

However, it's the thought of killing this tax break which makes Hillary's plan so unpopular with the conservatives.

Clinton's election promise: "One of the goals that I will be presenting is health insurance for every child and universal health care for every American."

Senator Barack Obama

Obama similarly believes in real 'universal health care' and on the face of it, many of his ideas are similar to Hillary Clinton's.

Most importantly, the idea that every American should have access to affordable health insurance even if they have a pre-existing condition.

"I am absolutely determined that by the end of the first term of the next president, we should have universal health care in this country."

Critics of Obama have pointed out his lack of specific details when it comes to a proposed universal health care package - but it will still be rooted within the existing system of private health insurance providers (with some government intervention.)

Obama's plan will ultimately hope to reduce health care costs for all Americans, while providing low-income families or those with pre-existing conditions access to the medical care they are currently excluded from.

It's been a long time coming...

Whichever candidate ends up the White House, I'm confident that they will introduce improvements to the existing health care system and allow more people to have access to better care at a cheaper price.

One thing to note is that none of the candidates - not even Hillary Clinton - plans to eliminate the concept of private health insurance. They just want to regulate and streamline it.

Hopefully this means that the advantages of private medical insurance - driving the development of cutting-edge new technology and pharmaceuticals - will remain, while the disadvantages (the high insurance premiums and difficulty getting medical coverage for pre-existing conditions) will be addressed.

Having experienced both socialised and privatised heath care, I am convinced that the private system offers the consumer a better service. However, just like in any privatised industry, the demand to make money often threatens to overwhelm the mandate to provide a service.

I just hope that whichever presidential candidate makes it to the White House, they ensure that the patient always comes before the shareholder.

George W. Bush endorses John McCain for the presidency...

Is Bush.... is he sniggering?

The Importance of Reading...

I recently discovered a blog called Texas Liberal, which makes for interesting reading.

One of the posts was about the Houston Chronicle publishing the answer to a question Texas Liberal had sent in - what were the last three books the presidential hopefuls had read?

The answers were quite interesting.

"Republican Mike Huckabee didn’t respond when asked by a newspaper reader, Neil Aquino of Houston, to list the last three books he has read."

Quelle surprise... It's such a bad cliché that evangelicals don't read (or, if they do, they limit themselves to books related to scriptural topics.) But by furthering that stereotype, I think it's a pretty poor showing for Mike Huckabee. He couldn't think of a single book he'd read recently? Jeeze, the guy could have at least thrown The Bible in there!

"But Republican John McCain said he had recently reread A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway and read, presumably for the first time, The Age of Turbulence by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the Spirit of Churchill by Deborah Davis Brezina."

A Hemingway book? And a book about Winston Churchill? And then Greenspan's new book? If you ask me, these are clearly well rehearsed answers. Hemingway was the rough, tough, man's man. Churchill was the legendary warrior statesman. Greenspan is a legendary Republican policyman. If you were trying to reach out to a cynically targeted audience, I can think of no better answers than the ones John McCain gave!

But then again, McCain's only a little older than my father and he enjoys a good historical biography every now and then (I think he recently completed one about Horatio Nelson.)



"Clinton listed Ike: An American Hero by Michael Korda, The Bourne Betrayal by Robert Ludlum and The Appeal by John Grisham."

Even though Clinton comes across as a devious and cold political Machiavelli, I found her answer surprisingly earnest. Two of the three books she mentioned are populist and sniffed at by the literati, but would make very entertaining reading.

Even more so than John McCain, Hillary appears to actually be a reader and although snobs might disapprove of her choice of 'best selling schlock' it appeals to me because they're the kind of books I enjoy myself (nobody writes a courtroom drama like Grisham.)

"My 9-year-old, Malia, and I read all the Harry Potter books together,” Obama said.

Obama's answer was a bit too twee for me. Obama is a charming statesman, but even he can lay it on a bit thick. This seems like another answer specifically designed to appeal to his audience.

"Aww!" the potential voters gush. "He reads with his little girl! And he reads Harry Potter, just like me! Awww!"

And, besides, the billion-dollar bestsellers of JK Rowling hardly need a potential-presidential endorsement to sell more copies!

Reading Rocks

The importance of what presidents read can't be underestimated. Even back in the sixties, people were peering into the White House bookcases with surprising curiosity. The fact that John F. Kennedy listed From Russia With Love as one of his favourite paperbacks helped significantly boost author Ian Fleming's career - and made Kennedy seem that much cooler.

The books a president reads are important for various reasons.

Firstly, it's just important that a president does read. Somebody who enjoys reading will generally have a broader base of knowledge than somebody who doesn't. That's why Mike Huckabee ducking the question gave me another reason to distrust him.

Secondly, people express a lot of their own personality in the choice of books they enjoy. John F. Kennedy appealed to the original Playboy generation with his choice of a James Bond book. Clinton's choice of a Grisham novel suggests she enjoys taut pacing, a well detailed and beautifully researched 'real world' setting and difficult, thought provoking moral questions to ponder. McCain's choices indicate a man who's interested in history and economics and not too arrogant to pick up a book and learn more about them.

The Texas Liberal's question was brilliant because it stripped away a lot of the media hype and gave us a genuine peek into these politician's lives.

It also made me think about what the books I've been reading say about me.

Because Tina gets Advanced Reading Copies of upcoming books, I tend to read them as and when they arrive (making my choice of reading material rather random.)

The last three books I read were The Justice Riders by Chuck Norris (who endorsed Huckabee... The least Mike could have done in return was read Chuck's book.) Simplexity by Jeffrey Kluger (the book that's simply too complex to describe in one sentence) and Loose Girl by Kerry Cohen.

They don't really say much about my personality (my preferred diet of adventure stories and thrillers probably does) but I certainly feel reading those three books broadened my horizons.

What were the last three books you read? ...and if you were standing for President, what do you think they'd say about you?