Happy Halloween

Its gonna be a scary one indeed!
love,
Zobox and Sarah!

New Blog

Check me out over at Twolia.com!

http://twoliablog.com/zoboxrox/

Ever grapple with the Second Ammendment? Me too.... lets grapple together!

The Delight that is Cindy McCain

If Senator McCain seems hesitant to attack Senator Obama for personal issues, such as Jeremiah Wright and his angry-black man preaching, it may be because he's hiding some of his own skeletons in his proverbial closet. One very prominent skeleton in McCain's life is his very well dressed wifey, Cindy McCain.

When it comes to Cindy, a smearer, like myself I suppose, just doesn't know where to begin. Being an old fashioned kind of girl, I like to take it from the top. One, two, three, four...

• Cindy Lou Hensley was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1954, the same year John Sidney McCain III entered the Naval Academy. Her father, James Hensley, was one of the wealthiest men in Arizona when he died in 2000, having made his fortune as a liquor distributor and founder of Hensley and Co, the third largest distributor of Anheuser-Busch. Prior to his successes, however, Jim Hensley had a habit of breaking the law, and was in trouble with the authorities for fraudulent business behavior on more than once occasion, including a six-month Federal sentence in 1948. Nonetheless, his affluence afforded Cindy an elite lifestyle, and she went on to receive such honors as "Junior Rodeo Queen of Arizona" in 1968 and "Best Dressed" in high school her senior year

• She met John McCain in 1979 while he was still married to his first wife of fourteen years, Carol. By April 1980, John had divorced Carol and he and Cindy were married in a lavish wedding May of that year.

• This was neither the first affair John had had nor the first marriage he had broken up, as Carol was married too when she and John had first met, back when Cindy was 3.

• In 1988 Cindy created her own charity NGO called The American Voluntary Medical Team , which organized trips to disaster-struck or war-torn areas of the third world. It also provided her with easy access to a plethora of opiates to help support her twenty-pill a day addiction.

  Cindy was a serious narcotics addict who created a charity for sick children (American Voluntary Medical Team or AVMT), then used it to get fraudulent prescriptions for Vicodin and Percocet. And a whistleblower from her staff says that John McCain and his senate staffers helped Cindy smuggle her ill-gotten narcotics through customs. Tom Gosinski was fired from AVMT after expressing concerns about her addiction and habit of writing prescriptions in other people's names to get drugs. He says that John McCain himself got her a diplomatic passport, which prevents customs officials from searching her bags... McCain claims he didn't know Cindy was an addict when he got her a diplomatic passport, but that's hard to believe since she had a stretch in rehab back in 1991. Cindy McCain faced 20 years in prison for obtaining "a controlled substance by misrepresenting, fraud, forgery, deception or subterfuge." With a wealthy father, high-priced lawyer and Senator husband, she got the lightest possible punishment -- charges were dropped in return for her entering rehab. Any regular, much less poor person who had written fraudulent prescriptions, stolen narcotics from a charity and smuggled them around the world would have received several years in prison. Her doctor, for one, lost his license and never practiced again.

• That Charles Keating scandal, well Cindy had a hand in that too. In 1986, Cindy and her father James Hensley, invested over $450 thousand in one of Keating's shopping centers, a year before McCain intervened on his behalf with the regulator. The following is a quote from Cindy herself in regards to this investment.

  Sometime in 1986, I was told by Mr. Delgado, who was Executive Vice President of my father-in-law's company, that they were going to invest in a shopping center and that the investment -- the project -- was being put together by a subsidiary of American Continental ... He later told me that they -- that that had happened. And I had no interest in it and just noted in passing that this investment took place.

As you can see, Cindy Mac is the gift that just keeps on giving. I can't wait for her next move!

I honestly feel sorry for John McCain

McCain just cannot catch a break.

GOP supporter and volunteer Ashley Todd of College Station, Texas, was working for the Mac campaign in Pittsburgh, where she is a student, when, she claims, she was attacked by an Obama supporter. The tall black man, angered by the McCain sticker on Todd's car, reportedly, "punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, and he continued to punch and kick her while threatening to teach her a lesson for being a McCain supporter." He then robbed her and carved a B into her face, backwards... for Barack I guess? or oBama...?

Conservative pundits jumped on the news as if Obama himself had attacked Ashley. McCain and Palin both personally called the "victim" and her family. Even the Obama/Biden camp issued statements wishing Ashley a "speedy recovery." Only problem is, Ashley was lying.

Poor silly Ashley Todd apparently never learned about mirrors. After a few days of making up stories for the police, Todd admitted there was no attacker and that she carved up her own face because of her previously documented mental problems. She's now sitting in jail with and backwards B on her face and $50,o00.00 of bail, trying to figure out if her stunt was politically motivated or emotionally triggered.

I mean, honestly, could it be any worse for John McCain?

Joe McCain's 911 call

So, apparently John McCain has a brother named Joe (of course), and he looks like a turtle. He's also a sissy boo-hoo pants who can't wait 15 minutes. While stuck in some typical 95 traffic, Joe McCain dialed 911 to discover the source. The following is a trascript of the phone call:

Operator: 911 state your emergency

Caller: It's not an emergency, but do you know why on one side at the damn drawbridge of 95 traffic is stopped for 15 minutes and yet traffic's coming the other way?

Operator: Sir, are you calling 911 to complain about traffic? (pause)

Caller: "(Expletive) you." (caller hangs up)

This could be considered both good news and bad news for John McCain. Senator McCain is known for his own bouts of expletive use and general grumpy old man syndrome, though apparently he's always been this way. (Come to think of it, McCain really does have a Judi Dench quality about him). Many people attribute this quality to his time in a POW camp in Vietnam, which was dreadful and would definitely make me fucking crazy, but good old Joe the Brother revealed for us that its actually a homegrown thing. I don't know what this means really, but if you go here, there's audio of the call and it sure is funny.

CosmoVeep

So there's been some stink about Palin's recent shopping excursion, where she reportedly spent a cool $150,000.00 on new clothes and accessories, including almost $50,000.00 at NEW YORK Saks 5th Avenue, and at least 5gs on new duds for the First Dude. Mostly, the spree is critiqued because the Republican campaign has been so gung-hoe Joe Six Pack, anti pork barrel spending, anti New York elite, never mind the fact that Palin mostly purchased non-American brands, including those ugly Japanese glasses.

Everyone has had their say, from politicos to fashion experts, but I think Melinda Henneberger, a blogger for Slate.com's XX factor, put it best in an interview with NPR on Thursday:

I don't blame her for the clothes. If someone gave me a credit card and pointed me towards Neiman Marcus there is a 0% chance I'd come back and tell you I found some very durable things at JC Penny. But I do blame her for dividing us into elites and non-elites, and real America and fake America. Now we knew she was elite before we saw the clothing bill. She hired a Washington lobbyist for her town of 5000. Who does that? [to quote McCain]. And she has access to $1.5 million herself, which doesn't put her in Cindy McCain territory [estimated at around $100 million, conservatively, no pun intended] but it doesn't make her Josephine Six-Pack either.

This is just one example of the hypocrisies that have tarnished the GOP in recent years. This is not my history lesson blog, so I won't explain exactly how this happened, but around two generations ago the Democrats lost about a third of their base, mostly in the South, to the Republican Party, when they adopted the platform of the civil rights movement, and then again, around a generation later, when the Christian Right and the GOP merged and we elected a Born Again. What no Republican President in recent years seems to have taken into much consideration is that the majority of these voters are working-class blue collar types. And what attracted them to the Democrats in the first place was the stark difference in the economic policies between the two parties, the one constant that has more or less endured since FDR (up until a Republican Executive oversaw the greatest government intervention in the financial market, again, since FDR).

So it's possible, upon hearing how much money Palin's team (Cindy McCain?) spent on her wardrobe, she will lose a few more of those disaffected voters who can't quite remember how they got to where they are. While its not a large number, and you probably won't see it affecting the polls, its just one more example of why its even possible that there are still a few SWING VOTERS out there, who are having a hard time abandoning the party they were raised on, but just can't reconcile voting for someone who is not saying anything they need to hear.

Dissecting the Bradley Effect

The Bradley Effect has been a hot topic of discussion in the last few weeks, as pundits question whether it will diminish Obama's substantial lead in the polls. There are those who say it could cost Obama as many as 6 points on Election Day.

In 1982, Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, who ended up serving five terms in this position from 1973-1993 (makes you think about New York's current situation) and incidentally looks like a wax figure, ran for Governor of California. Polls were generally in his favor, and on the eve of the election, as voting stations were closing, Bradley was the projected winner in the media. The next day, however, it became apparent that his opponent, the Republican Attorney General George Deukmejian was actually the victor in the race. At the time, this failure of the polls to predict the outcome was perceived as a deep and festering racism on the part of the voter majority, who said one thing to the pollsters, but then voted the other way once they were in the booth, you know, out of fear of the black man. Thus the effect was conceived.

Of course, this is not the sole case in the study. In 1989, African American L. Douglas Wilder barely beat out his Republican counterpart Marshall Coleman to win the gubernatorial seat in Virginia, even though polls predicted his margin to be much larger. Also in 1989, Former Mayor of the Great City of New York, David Dinkins barely eeked out a victory against the next Former Mayor Rudy Guiliani, though only a week before he had held an 18 point lead in the polls.

So, in the years since these races, has race taken a back seat in dictating the electoral process? It seems the answer is both yes and no, and that it may not fit the formula the Bradley Effect has provided.

While no one, not one single person who discusses this effect, denies that race absolutely plays a factor in an election, many critics of the perceived trend cite individual reasons to re-examine the idea. In both an NPR Interview and a NY Times op-ed piece, former Bradley campaign staffer Blair Levin discusses the academia known as the Bradley Effect against the actual events that unrolled that election race. He explains it better than I, so here are his words:

While it’s no surprise that this has become a topic of discussion as John McCain and Barack Obama near the finish line, as someone who worked for Bradley’s campaign, I think it’s worth pointing out that the effect has been widely misunderstood.

On election night in 1982, with 3,000 supporters celebrating prematurely at a downtown hotel, I was upstairs reviewing early results that suggested Bradley would probably lose.

But he wasn’t losing because of race. He was losing because an unpopular gun control initiative and an aggressive Republican absentee ballot program generated hundreds of thousands of Republican votes no pollster anticipated, giving Mr. Deukmejian a narrow victory.

Deukmejian turns out was Armenian; his parents were born in the Ottoman Empire in places that are hard to pronounce, like Gaziantep and Erzurum. If Californians felt like being racist that year, they probably would not have elected the Ottoman.



I'd like to include two slightly less eloquent excerpts in this post to help illustrate the other side of the point which is this: while there are many people who are openly racist and will not vote for Obama because of this, there are also people who are openly racist and will vote for Obama anyway, and the reason why is not hard to find, its called THE ECONOMY STUPID. While I do not condone the language used in either of these, I can't help but find the idea really fascinating.

The first comes to us from, of all places, the Cafferty File. Crazy old Jack asking lefty questions, this time around his question was the following: Has the financial crisis changed your mind on who to vote for?

Mitchell from Arkansas writes:

yes. absolutely. i will be changing my vote to the intelligent black fella.
president bush failed us, and john mccain will finish the job. we must have someone who is at least on top of these things. a more transparent executive branch is the most important issue of all ,after the last 8 years. i’m fed up with the elitists who have overran my beloved GOP. i’m still republican ,but, i will be voting for obama

Well, at least Mitchell from Arkansas in honest. The second excerpt comes from my favorite Pollster blog, FiveThirtyEight, and describes the experience of a canvasser walking door to door in Western Pennsylvania,

So a canvasser goes to a woman's door in Washington, Pennsylvania. Knocks. Woman answers. Knocker asks who she's planning to vote for. She isn't sure, has to ask her husband who she's voting for. Husband is off in another room watching some game. Canvasser hears him yell back, "We're votin' for the n***er!"

Woman turns back to canvasser, and says brightly and matter of factly: "We're voting for the n***er."

So you see, and as 538 goes onto explain, "in this economy, racism is officially a luxury." When people step into the booths this time around, their minds are not on the social issues that once dominated the national political arena. Issues that dragged war heroes like John Kerry through the mud until he came out looking like Bill Ayers, are now more or less obsolete, and even if they don't like it, Americans trust the middle-class looking Obama on the economy more than they trust 7-house, 13-car John McCain.

After all, who could ever not trust this face?

I will give them this...

John McCain and Sarah Palin have each, at some point in their lives, been extremely good looking. I mean, McCain now looks like a sack of potatoes, but back in the day... Whoo!

Sarah Palin = Fatal Cancer

You didn't hear it from me folks.

In early October, long time and well respected right-leaning op-ed columnist and television pundit David Brooks made the following statement during a lunch interview with fellow reporter Jeffery Goldberg. The Huffington Post loved it:

[Sarah Palin] represents a fatal cancer to the Republican party. When I first started in journalism, I worked at the National Review for Bill Buckley. And Buckley famously said he'd rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty. But he didn't think those were the only two options. He thought it was important to have people on the conservative side who celebrated ideas, who celebrated learning. And his whole life was based on that, and that was also true for a lot of the other conservatives in the Reagan era. Reagan had an immense faith in the power of ideas. But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Tuesday evening, I had the unique pleasure of hearing Brooks speak to a crowd of less than 150, as we happened to be fellow alumni of both the same summer camp and elementary school (which is funny in itself as we were two Jewish kids from New York and these institutions are both Episcopal). Mr. Brooks was asked to speak at a fund-raising event for the camp.

He was eloquent and charming, complementing Obama for what he called, an intelligence level superior to most of his colleagues -- all of his colleagues -- as well as an ability to connect personally with people, compared to the congress of dinosaurs and robots he had as peers. He offered anecdotes that would cause even the Reddest old ladies to ooh and aah at the manners and class of this young man.

And the other thing that does separate Obama from just a pure intellectual: he has tremendous powers of social perception. And this is why he's a politician, not an academic. A couple of years ago, I was writing columns attacking the Republican congress for spending too much money. And I throw in a few sentences attacking the Democrats to make myself feel better. And one morning I get an email from Obama saying, 'David, if you wanna attack us, fine, but you're only throwing in those sentences to make yourself feel better.' And it was a perfect description of what was going through my mind. And everybody who knows Obama all have these stories to tell about his capacity for social perception.

He was, of course, complimentary of McCain, who he obviously has great love and admiration for, but has grown deeply disappointed with in recent months. He described him as honorable and witty and loving and hyperactive, but was quick to discuss the many failures of his campaign, as well as a distaste for fellow GOP members who were perhaps, taking things a little too far. We have of course observed this attitude in other prominent moderate republicans lately, such as Colin Powell and Christopher Buckley (who's father,William F. Buckley founder of the conservative publication The National Review, Brooks credits with inspiring his own pathway towards the right, back when he was a young liberal from Downtown Manhattan...)

But what I found most admirable was his defence of Joe Biden, who's greatest fault, Brooks fairly pointed out, is his penchant for brutal honesty. I can see why some conservatives might consider this a fault, as Nixon more or less destroyed the ability to trust in the GOP (... and whatever trust Reagan restored was quickly diminished by the Bush Dynasty), and therefore honesty has not been a topic they have really focused on for the past 40 years. But recently a growing distaste for Washington as usual from the common folk, has seen Biden's blunt nature in a positive light. He, like Obama, represents a change, something very different then what we've had. And David Brooks is virtuous enough in his conservative shell to both observe this and document it openly.

His Sarah Palin rhetoric was not nearly as tough as it had been the night before, but there were about eight Episcopalian Reverends in the room, so I think generally the evening was a uniquely civil one. That said, he was not at all reserved about expressing his distaste for the choice, and while we all agree that she's a babe and may not be as dumb as people think she is (GWB style), there are too many other contributing factors that drive his displeasure with the nomination.

Now, here comes the point of the post. Brooks' main argument is that Sarah Palin is not ready to be President of the USA. I disagree with this assessment. I think Palin has about as much readiness as, lets say, former movie actor Ronald Reagan, or former Texas oil man and drunk driver, George W. No, it is not the inexperience that drives men like Brooks and Powell to disavow the choice, it is her pure evil that they despise. And, to put a slight twist on this, it gives me a greater fondness for a party I once completely rejected. Not all Republicans are the same, just as not all Democrats are the same. As I reject the image of a fundamentalist left wing Che Guevera poster, LSD inspired ranting lunatic, so do many of my conservative peers object to the idea that all Republicans are against Gay Marriage and Abortion, or disapprove of public education and social progress. What I don't understand is why they aren't more honest about their reasons?

So here is my question to you David Brooks: Why don't you tell it like it is? You don't like Sarah Palin because you are smart enough to see that she is crazy. You disagree with her fundamentally on many topics and you despise her ignorance and downright intolerance regarding people of other faiths and colors. You don't respect her lack of involvement on the issue regarding violence towards women, nor do you agree with her Global Warming stance. You have observed her failure as a mother and her dishonesty on the campaign, as well as her inherent lack of understanding of economics, labeling a fairly standard tax cut as socialist in nature. And we believe, though you would never admit to it in writing, that you think the current tax brackets have to be re-worked anyway. You believe our infrastructure and education systems are too important to ignore any longer. You don't believe we should teach our children Creationism or Abstinence. You think guns, and aerial wolf hunting, and caribou stew are less crucial right now than a sense of security in our leader's ability to understand the crisis we are in. You are willing to say, perhaps, that sometimes, in fact, America does make mistakes, and instead of pledging allegiance and black-listing unAmerican congressmen, the best policy would be to admit to the problem and try to amend it.

David, why wouldn't you own up to this? I think history will show, its the right move to make.

I would make that face too if there was diarrhea coming out of my mouth

A verbatim John McCain quote from the final debate with my thoughts in RED

“…Now Joe, you’re rich, congratulations, and you will then fall into where you’ll have to (i mean, is he kidding me with that phrase?) pay a fine if you don’t provide health insurance that Senator Obama mandates, not the kind that you think is best for your family, your children, your employees, but the kind that he mandates for you. This whole sentence is a mess, nearly impossible to edit, should probably be wiped. That’s big government at its best. Now, 95% of the people in America will receive more money under my plan because they will receive not only their present benefits, which may be taxed – which will be taxed– but then you add five thousand dollars onto it. IT is most likely referring to the present benefits, and should therefore be THEM, as benefits are plural. But really, what is he saying here? Except for those people that have the gold-plated Cadillac, ugh, pro-, ugh, insurance policies that have to do with cosmetic surgery and transplants plastic surgery and transplants are apparently equatable and all of those kinds of things. And the good thing about this is, they’ll be able to go across America. Who? The transplants? The average cost of a health care insurance plan in America today is $5800.00. I’m gonna give them $5000.00 to take with them wherever they wanna go. Wait, who? Where are they going? I wanna go! And this will give them affordability, this will give them availability, this will give them a chance to choose their own futures. Not have Senator Obama and government decide that for them. This really gets down to the fundamental difference in our philosophies. If you notice that in all of his proposals, Senator Government… Senator Obama wants government to do the job… Senator Obama wants government to do the job. Unnecessary repetition. I want Joe, you to do the job. McCain wants Joe the Plumber to fix the health care crisis.”
- John McCain, 10/15/08



I say if by some miracle Senator Government loses this race and McCain is elected, can I take my $5000.00 to France with me? I hear they have great socialized health care!

Sarah Palin is truly remarkable!

This is my first blog, so I'm going to keep the intro short, as you haven't gotten to love me enough yet to tolerate my special form of humor. Don't worry, it'll happen. We'll just take it slow.

Anyrelevance, I'm gonna dive right in. Here are some facts taken from a flier printed by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence in 2007, well into Governor Palin's mavericky career as Executive of the Great State of Alaska. NCADV, by the way, is a government organization dedicated to sheltering and caring for women in physically abusive situations; it is non-partisan and non-political. Ok, here we go, there's some numbers, but not too much math so truck on my friends, truck on...

• One in every four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime (nationally)
• The Alaska rape rate is 2.5 times the national average
• Child sexual assault in Alaska is almost six times the national average
• Alaska has the highest per capita of men murdering women
• Almost 30% of Alaskans were not able to access victim services because there were no services available in their area
• More than 1 out of every 3 American Indian and Alaska Native women will be raped in her lifetime

Wow! That was a lot of facts. Hmmm... how can you explain this type of phenomena?

Let's investigate further, shall we?
Here are a few quotes from the same flier.

"We are operating on a minimal basis. We have the minimum number of staff to get the job done. We have very little money for program supplies, travel, training, and outreach to the villages."

"Increases wouldn't just be nice for programs, they are imperative for them to keep up with utility costs."

Well, I don't know, this seems a little biased. Maybe we can find an organization that's less partisan, as NCADV obviously printed their flier to destroy Governor Palin's chances at the White House, even if it was published in 2007...
Let's check with the FBI.

• Table 5 of the 2007 FBI report on State Crime Rates cites the rate of Forcible Rape in Alaska at 77.4 per 100,000 inhabitants. To get a sense of where this stands nationwide, Michigan, with the second highest rate reports in at 45.5. Nevada, which has its own personal sex industry, reports at 42.7. And my home state of New York, with the largest city in the country, has a rate of 15.2 forcible rapes per 100,00 residents.

• Table 4 demonstrates the fact that between 2006 and 2007, governor Palin's first and second year in office, the rate actually went up. (I know you should never end a sentence with a preposition, but how else was I supposed to say that?!)

Well, maybe Sarah Palin just didn't have the time while governor, after all, she was only elected in 2006 and it does take a couple years to really get your foot in the door. She was probably much more active against this type of problem as mayor of a small town, where its easier to deal with such a rampant issue. Come on, lets check it out!

Here is a lengthy quote from a USA today article. I know its long, but its comprehensive on the issue so read on my friends, read on:

WASILLA, Alaska — In 2000, Alaska lawmakers learned that rural police agencies had been billing rape victims or their insurance companies $500 to $1,200 for the costs of the forensic medical examinations used to gather evidence. They quickly passed a law prohibiting the practice.

According to the sponsor, Democrat Eric Croft, the law was aimed in part at Wasilla, where now-Gov. Sarah Palin was mayor. When it was signed, Wasilla's police chief expressed displeasure.

"In the past, we've charged the cost of exams to the victims' insurance company when possible," then-chief Charlie Fannon told the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the local newspaper. "I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer."....

It is not known how many rape victims in Wasilla were required to pay for some or all of the medical exams, but a legislative staffer who worked on the bill for Croft said it happened. "It was more than a couple of cases, and it was standard practice in Wasilla," Peggy Wilcox said, who now works for the Alaska Public Employees Association. "If you were raped in Wasilla, this was going to happen to you."

Now, I never understood why this didn't get more press. Obviously Palin denied the allegation, saying it was a decision her former police chief made of which she was neither a part nor aware. But saving taxpayer dollars... well that just doesn't sound like the worries of a police officer. Sounds more like the concerns of a Maverick!

In Palin's credit, if you cannot provide the forensic evidence needed to prove a rape has occurred, that crime cannot be prosecuted and therefore not entered into the crime stats for your state. If this was a sly way of lowering Alaska's high rate of sexual assault, well, it was pretty genius.