It's a fake, of course, or is it the supposedly 'original' one that's fake? There's no easy way to tell without better software than I have (or have any desire to buy), but logic says it's this one that's not for real - shame about all the fantasies that conjured up ... sigh. Anyway, so now she's a "VPILF" and no, I'm not going to spell out what that means if you can't guess, although, on a purely gut male level, I'd have to admit to understanding the sentiment. Fake or not, when you look at all the other, less contentious photos of her, she clearly is what's generally regarded in male circles as a babe. By the way, don't you just love the unPC guy in the background with the cigarette and the tinny? Nice touch!

For those of you who are interested, I've added the supposedly real one here, which is just a normal fun photo of a very pretty young woman at a poolside and it was reportedly "borrowed" without permission from a Facebook or similar site. Beware what you put on such sites (my personal view, but valid I think).

Just as an aside and from a totally sexist point of view, it also sort of overshadows the UK's so-called "Blair Babes" a bit, doesn't it?

The real point is, though, that politics was always a very dirty business and I guess nothing's really changed, except that the Internet and modern technology makes things like this a whole lot easier. It's not even easy to see which side the original author and/or publisher of the fake actually supports. Quite a lot of men will undoubtedly be more disposed to support her (and therefore McCain) as a result of the photo, whilst others will accept the face value comment that she's a babe and therefore that's why she was chosen as an admittedly apparently inexperienced VP candidate.

The thing that really worries me is that, McCain being one of the oldest US Presidential candidates for a long time, this woman could quite easily become US President by default. So, her credentials as a possible President are a hell of a lot more important to the whole world than what she looks like with, or even without, her clothes.

If a significant amount of the vitriol that's being spread around the Internet about her is true, or even partly true, then we should be worried, but is it? Is she a tax and spend, self-seeking, pit-bull who is only interested in her own advancement? Is this PTA politics gone nationwide? Or is she just another unfortunate hopeful that the political machine is trying to devour and spit out, or digest?

I expect the truth lies somewhere in the middle, because (sadly) you don't progress in politics from nothing even to US State Governor, without being pretty bloody minded and able and willing to walk all over opponents, usually crushing them as you go. Yet it's also difficult to believe that someone doing as badly and as apparently crooked, as she supposedly was, would be as popular with local voters as she appears to have been and keep on getting re-elected as mayor and even then go on to become State Governor.

You can't blame the Internet for this either; the new technology helps both those who would bring a candidate down and those who support him or her. So, in my view, you have to come to the conclusion that, once more, politics is being shown up as one huge (and dangerous) game that all these people are playing and it has little or nothing to do with ordinary folk who just want someone decent to represent their interests within the country.

What a f*** up democracy has become!

The blogosphere is crackling with static. Feelings are running high. You can sense the electricity of it all, curdling the internet, jamming the wires.
Sarah Palin has polarized America in a stunning display of rhetoric that was carefully crafted for her by the Right Wing. She mouthed their words like a perfect puppet.
It is a cunning stunt that would well backfire before long.
So much for the 'United States'... we're back to a cold war between Red and Blue, between 'outsiders' and the 'elite', between resentment and hope.

McCain laps this all up like a self-satisfied grandfather as Guiliani sneers and Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the fascist brat pack pat themselves with glee.

Well this is it now. America's future hangs in the balance. And, if there is a true, democratic election on November 4th (that is without fiddling the count) then we can only hope that the People of this amazing country actually get wise and choose Democracy.

For a McCain-Palin ticket is a Trojan horse of Neoconservative values that will stall America's future and divide, divide, divide.

It would be back to the Red States and the Blue.

Barack Obama and Joe Biden offer so much more than this.

An oldie, 'Wonderful World', that reminds you that a good grasp of history can help you to avoid making horrible mistakes in life.

***

This debate has got many of you talking: Should men who pay for sex be jailed? Would you like to talk about this today?

***

The people of Angola are voting in their first election for sixteen years. The last election re-ignited Angola's civil war. Angola has the world's fastest growing economy. Can today's election provide a model of peace and tolerance for the whole of Africa? Southern African observers say they can, despite concern from Human rights observers...What do you think?

***

Australia's first female governor has been sworn in. She breaks a 107-year-long male stranglehold on the vice regal role. Here in the UK the number of women reaching the top of their profession has fallen, according to report. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the number of women holding senior posts in areas including politics, the law and the media has fallen. Do women where you are, still face discrimination, when going for top jobs? And can women ever break the "glass ceiling" at work?

Readers may recall my question three days ago regarding the apparent failure of the South Tyneside Independent Alliance group of councillors to register themselves with the Electoral Commission. Spurred on by Mr. Monkey's suggestion (I can sympathise, I too would want to remain secretive about my identity after some of the things he's written) I have taken the liberty of asking our Independent councillors in South Tyneside just when they intend to put the matter right.

Here is the text of the email which I have sent to each of them, I'm eagerly awaiting a positive response from either their Leader, Cllr. Jane Bradley or their Deputy Leader, Cllr. Ahmed Khan.

Dear Councillors,

there are many many independent non aligned non political groups of councillors operating in councils throughout England and Wales, as revealed in this post in my blog.

I am as keen as you are for more openness and accountability in local government, and believe that transparency is a great asset to local representatives, the public deserves access to information that helps to inform and educate and give a clearer insight to the workings and machinations of local councils and councillors.

I am therefore disappointed that so far the South Tyneside Independents have not decided to register themselves with the Electoral Commission, the appropriate body that regulates and guides much of our democratic process.

Can you explain why this is so? Better still after more than two years of campaigning, can the South Tyneside Independent group of councillors give a firm committment to registration with the Electoral Commission and let us know when the first set of accounts will be lodged with the Electoral Commission, as has previously been accomplished by the South Tyneside Progressives?

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

And aren't the stakes that much higher in a case like Sarah Palin, an outspoken idealist who has been in the national spotlight less than a month, but who could conceivably be elevated to the highest office in the land with 3+ years until the next election? Remember that VP John Tyler became president only 30 days after his running mate took the oath of office. Pope John Paul I served only 33 days in office and didn't even have 4 bouts with cancer under his belt.

Sarah Palin is an advocate of "abstinence only" education, but is above criticism when her own daughter's pregnancy is evidence of what happens when we strive to keep our children unprepared and ignorant. What is the wisdom of a policy that has no backstop? And what do we think of leaders who don't think a Plan B (no pun intended) is necessary?

Sarah Palin is against all forms of abortion. She certainly is entitled to that opinion, but she has also chosen to make it a political position that no other woman should hold an opposing point of view. Except for her daughter. It seems that on the topic of her daughter's unplanned pregnancy, Gov. Palin volunteered that it was her underaged daughter's decision whether or not to take the pregnancy to term.

While respecting her daughter's right to privacy (after all, Bristol Palin didn't choose to be a public figure), isn't it a fair question to wonder what would've happened in the Palin household if the governor's daughter actually chose to have an abortion? And what if she made that decision a few years from now, after a McCain-Palin administration endeavored to overturn Roe vs. Wade?

[Just a thought, but would a male governor get the same accolades for having a daughter who made a politically convenient decision in the public sphere? Would soccer moms get that uncomfortable sense of an overbearing, shotgun-wielding father while Mom gets a break when dealing with Sissy's "woman issues"? Why didn't anybody ask Daddy Spears what he thought of Jamie Lynn's bundle of joy after Mama Spears was done hogging the spotlight?]

And now details filter out regarding Palin's personal crusade against state trooper Mike Wooten, her estranged brother-in-law. In her defense, Trooper Wooten sounds like a pretty bad guy, and apparently Palin was trying to get him fired (as a concerned citizen) before she was elected governor.

But isn't this the same candidate who takes pride in her battles against statehouse corruption? And now she's too tone deaf and color blind to see how a personal inquiry by the governor into one particular state employee might be perceived as an abuse of power?

And wouldn't you expect that somebody driven by a desire to reform the insidious flaws of our government would be motivated to fight for the bigger cause? What was it that she said in her convention speech, that parents of special needs would have a friend in Washington since she's got a disabled kid, too?

Wouldn't an honest reformer with a personal axe to grind (and we all have them, no problem there) seize upon the opportunity to use political power in order to turn her personal vendetta into a greater cause?

Where is the legislation to give the community the authority to fire rogue police officers? Where is the desire to reform all police agencies that are too broken to terminate officers who drink on the job and use their service weapons on innocent children? Where is the basic human cry in support of powerless women who are abused by powerful men on the state's payroll?

Why is it that Sarah Palin finds it so difficult to translate a simple, personal passion into a broad-reaching common good? Why does she instead prefer to employ government aides to do good only for her family while leaving the rest of us to wonder why only the powerful get things done?

Why would such a person go before 40 million people and claim to be a reformer when so clearly that's not her primary motivation?

Using On the Issues.org I will demonstrate why John McCain is the more worthy candidate for President this year. There are a handful of issues which are going to be important in the next four years, those are: Energy, Foreign Policy, Gay Rights, Abortion, Economy and Immigration. The most perennial of these issues has to be Abortion and so it will be dealt with first. John McCain is a pro life candidate, which is more than can be said for either Barack Obama or Joe Biden. McCain is against public funding for abortions, which will make it less cost efficient for abortion clinics to remain open having to depend on the money brought in by their customers. McCain recognizes that if Abortion clinics are not receiving public aide for their operation, the cost of operating will fall on the women who seek abortions. The rise in cost in Abortions will ultimately force many women to forgo having an abortion and of course will close free abortion clinics which cater to the lower income women and teens in general. Likewise, McCain supports the prosecution of Abortion doctors rather than the women who seek them out. A doctor who knows they will be prosecuted for performing an Abortion is less likely to do so than if they know they are permitted. Many will argue that as doctors refuse to perform Abortions many women will revert to back alley abortions. John McCain also supports adoption and foster care in order to help give women an alternative to abortion. McCain has shown this willingness to support adoption has he himself has an adopted daughter named Bridget, and adopted his first wife's two sons Douglass and Andrew. McCain's voting record demonstrates his support for Pro Life stances, including voting to continue the ban on abortions on Military bases, and making it a crime to harm a fetus when committing another crime.

The second issue, which has for sometime now been building to what will possibly be a national issue, Gay Rights, specifically Marriage. Senator McCain believes that the issue of homosexual marriage should be left up to the states, believing it to be unrepublican for the Federal government to decide. However, he has also voted against making sexual orientation a part of the hate crime definition. While he does not support a Federal definition of marriage as one man, one woman, he has shown support for California Proposition no. 8 which would do just that for the state of California. McCain is also in favor of maintaining the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy of the United States Armed Forces. For many Conservatives, though not this one, McCain's stance on Gay Marriage is exactly what they wish: he is against it personally, but does not believe it is the Federal government's place to deny it.

Since the beginning of the American Republic there have been two key issues that we have struggled with: Immigration and Foreign Policy. The two issues are interconnected and thus will be dealt with here together. Immigration today is largely focused on Hispanic immigration, primarily from Mexico. There is always a threat, whether laughable or not, that Mexican immigration could be a part of a larger ploy by Mexico to reclaim the lands lost during the Mexican-American War (Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona.) Recognizing this, and the need to ensure immigration is kept orderly, Senator McCain voted for a fence to be built along the Mexican-American border. In 2007, John McCain voted in favor of making the English language the official language of the United States Government, though this was primarily viewed as a ceremonial jester by Congress. He is in favor of a Guest Worker program and granting visas to skilled workers. He also has voted in favor of allowing limited health care to be provided to immigrants. In July of 2001, McCain came out in support of English immersion rather than bilingual education. Overall, McCain is in support of immigration reform. Border security, his primary concern in reforming immigration, is intrinsically connected to foreign policy. While the Mexican government is allied with the United States, drug dealers and rogue nations like Venezuela are always threats to our national security.

John McCain supports a healthy defense budget, including modernizing outdated military technology such as the C-130, B-2 and Seawolf. He also wants to raise the salary of the United States Armed Forces in order to help divert the need for a draft. McCain also finds it embarrassing that we have soldiers or former soldiers living on food stamps. He did not vote in favor of limiting time in Iraq for soldiers to 12 months. McCain also supports the closing of unnecessary bases, finding it ludicrous that we leave bases open simply for political reasons. In March of 2005 McCain sponsored a bill which banned torturing of terrorists in U.S. Custody. In February of 1999 he voted in favor of raising the military salary by 4.8%. John McCain is the most logical choice for President in a time when we are at war and potentially could be at war with Russia or Iran within the next four years. Obama lacks military or foreign policy experience, John McCain has both. We need a person in office with military knowledge, over the last 16 years we have had individuals in office without true military knowledge leading us in war. We cannot afford, with the prospect of a true declared war, to have an individual in the Oval Office that lacks knowledge of military and foreign affairs.

On the Economy, John McCain is very important for our country. In 2006 he voted to permanently repeal the death tax. Then in 2008 he voted to raise the exemption from 1 million to 5 million on the death tax. In 2000 he voted in favor of eliminating the marriage tax and in 2001 voted to reduce the marriage penalty. John McCain is also against unions, believing that they are monopolies and voted in favor of giving employers the power to interfere in unions. McCain is also an advocate of free trade, voting to extend free trade to Oman, Singapore, Chile, and the Andean Nations. McCain has also voted in favor of normal trade relations with China and Vietnam. Finally, McCain is for less government spending and voted in 1997 in favor of the Balanced Budget Amendment. He is in favor of using the veto to stop over spending by Congress and has voted against pork barrel bills and pork spending.

Finally, we are faced with a problem of energy in this nation as we have become more and more dependent on foreign oil suppliers to support our nation. As a result we have become subject to nations which wish us ill including Venezuela who is our largest oil supplier. Senator McCain is in favor of nuclear power, which I personally believe is the most logical way to deal with our energy problems. In 2005 McCain voted in favor of banning oil drilling in ANWR, while his running mate and current Governor of Alaska is in favor of drilling in ANWR. McCain does believe that the climate has changed and is in support of reducing green house gases. McCain recognizes the need to cut our dependency on foreign oil and finding alternative methods to provide energy for this nation.

McCain has shown, throughout his time in Congress, an ability to work with both sides of the aisle and help reform our government and protect our nation for future generations. On the major that are presenting themselves for the next four years, John McCain has answers that are more correct than Barack Obama. He has the knowledge necessary should our nation engage in wars with Iran or Russia. He understands our nation's immigration problems as he represents the state of Arizona, one of the most hard hit states from illegal immigration. He recognizes the need for finding alternative fuel sources and supports the development of Nuclear power. John McCain supports the pro life stance and has sought to criminalize abortion in the most legally sensible methods possible. He recognizes the problems with our economy and knows that we must be willing to freely trade with other nations to help protect our own economy. Barack Obama has offered empty promises and has nothing in his voting record to demonstrate his steadfast character on the issues.

Chea Sim was welcomed by some Cambodian senior officials and Chinese Ambassador to Cambodia Zhang Jinfeng at the Phnom Penh International Airport.

At the invitation of Jia Qinglin, chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Chea Sim left Cambodia Monday for China to pay a five-day visit.

During his stay in China, Chea Sim respectively met with Wu Bangguo, chairman of the National People's Congress Standing Committee, and Jia Qinglin on Tuesday.

"This I gotta hear," I thought.

With the rhetorical question "is our government liberal or conservative?" framing his RNC speech, Romney attempted to claim that we live in a country that leans far too far to the left, that we have a liberal Supreme Court (yeah, Alito et al or SOOO liberal), and that we are all under the spell of ‘big government liberals.'

Now, it would have been nice if Romney had defined for his listeners exactly what he meant by ‘liberal' and ‘conservative' as these are very slippery, complex terms. For now, let's suffice it to say that ‘liberal' seemed to be used by Romney in the catch all insulting way it is by many Republicans and neo-conservatives - it supposedly means one is too easy on "terrorists," that one supports "government dependency" (yes, because believing social services like education and healthcare are the purview of the government is so sadly dependent...), that one cares WAY TOO DAMN MUCH about the environment and wants to make the US "dependent on Middle Eastern Tyrants" (MR's words, not mine!). Romney even suggested that liberals are to blame for high gas prices. Yeah, Mitt, that has nothing to do with the big oil industrial complex, global militarization, and CONSERVATIVES blockage of getting the US off of the oil sauce. (See, for example, the wonderful documentary Who Killed the Electric Car. As a hint: it wasn't liberals.)

While many would call me ‘liberal,' (my dad, in fact, likes to call me a ‘bleeding heart liberal'), I choose to call myself progressive. This is partly due to the fact that many self-proclaimed liberals and leftists have of late widely diverged from tenets I hold dear, and also because I think ‘progressive' more correctly sums up my beliefs. You see, we progressives want to PROGRESS society forward by bringing about changes that benefit all people, not just people in the United States, not just people with white skin, not just people with sausage and waffles (my son's way of referencing penis and testicles). Conservatives, on the other hand, want to CONSERVE the status quo. They want to keep things as they are. Heck people, it says it all right there in the word!

But, let's get back to good ol' boy Mitt. What if the question wasn't one of "liberal or conservative" (as in his speech) but one of "democratic or fascist"? Well, if he was asked "Is this country right now democratic or fascist?," I am quite sure he would loudly proclaim that we are a democratic nation, that we are, as the closing words of his speech proclaimed "the hope of the world."

Yet, as you can read and view here, here, and here, the United States currently exhibits all of the warning signs of fascism. In fact, Romney's speech inadvertently conceded this fact when he characterized the US as an Orwellian society. As he said, "It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother." Now, Romney used this line to insinuate that the ‘liberals' who supposedly rule this country are the party of ‘Big Brother' (he apparently has never read the novel 1984 or he would now that BB is far from liberal). Yet, what is true in this line (although I am sure he didn't mean it in this way) is that we indeed are under the leadership of 'the party of Big Brother.'

Big Brother and the fascist society depicted in Orwell's novel thrived on perpetual war, on keeping the masses overworked and undereducated, on controlling not only all media but language itself, on demonizing sexuality, on hatred, prejudice, sexism, racism, etc. Sound familiar? Sound a little bit like the US? Would you like to CONSERVE these ‘values' or might you be interested in PROGRESSING society - changing society - in ways that benefit all humans, not just those with money, power, white skin, certain religious leanings, and who belong to certain clubs (Bohemian Grove, PNAC, etc).

Indeed, reading 1984 feels more like reading non-fiction these days.

Sadly, the key question we need to be asking is not "Is the US liberal or conservative?" but "Is the US becoming, or is it already, a fascist state?" How about posing that much more important question in your next speech Mitt? Or, do you wish to continue to allow "retreat in the face of evil extremism"? (A hint here Mitt, the ‘evil extremism' I refer to is that of the corporate elite and their lackeys that rule the globe, NOT to the people you so broadly paint as evil - i.e. liberals, people of the Islam faith, and people of Middle Eastern descent.)

If I needed reminding why I am progressive (which I didn't), Mitt certainly gave it to me... (In fact, listening to the coverage of the RNC makes my ‘bleeding heart liberal' self want to cry, throw up, revolt, move to another planet...) If McSaim and Pain win, oh goodness, well it will be just as depressing (if not more so) than the last two stolen elections.

So, to end on a more positive note, let me close with a progressive shout out: "Go McKinney!"

Ukraine is reenacting its annual political crisis. It is not constitutional yet, but the instability of the ruling coalition was foreseen at its inception (a government with a majority of ONE vote is ...eeeh unstable).  Thus far, the rhetoric has been raised to the level of "parliamentary coup" and "Dictatorship of the Prime Minister."

How did this all start? A short answer:  the Georgian-Russian war provided an external political context which was used by President Viktor Yushchenko and his underlings to attack PM Yulia Tymoshenko.

Tymoshenko, rightly or wrongly, was accused of national treason due to her taking a very low profile position on the war (in contrast to Yushchenko).  This ticked off the PM, and she finally came out in public ridiculing attacks on her (see Ukrainiana for detailed video coverage).

The full force response came when Tymoshenko's BYuT party crossed coalition ranks and joined with the opposition leader Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions to castrate emasculate the president in all kinds of ways by, for example, taking away the power of local state appointments (for the latest on this see pravda.com.ua).

What happens next? We wait.  There is a "waiting" period of about two weeks when the government can be salvaged, but yet another set of pre-term elections is a distinct possibility.

All of this is around the upcoming EU-Ukraine summit in France on September 9th.

The repeat (annual) political crises in Ukraine have already made Ukraine look as a Belgium relatively young democracy.  But while governmental crises are part of a natural democratic process through which political interests attempt to find an equilibrium, they inevitably hurt Ukraine's negotiating position.  For example, EU might open the door for membership to Belgrade as soon as next year (i.e. candidate status).  Kyiv meanwhile cannot even secure a pathetic "European perspective" statement.

Blogs

For one reason or another, Ukraine has been the subject of the blogosphere discussion.  Nosemonkey looks at how the country is positioned between the East and the West, and while I don't agree with his analysis, it nevertheless is an opportunity for those in the EU to get to know its eastern neighborhood better.

European Avenue also picked up an interesting short documentary in French about the history of Ukraine.  Even if you don't speak French, you can follow the story by relying on the map visuals.  And Certain Ideas of Europe blogs about Cheney's visit to Eastern Europe.

Finally

The Ukraine List (UKL) run out of University of Ottawa by Dominique Arel has issued another of its "crisis editions."

UKL's primary contributions are (1) to collect official statements and commentaries related to important political events in Ukraine, and (2) if those statements require translation into English, the UKL undertakes this as a public service.

The latest edition can be downloaded in PDF format here.

Amy Goodman discusses why they were arrested:

Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.

It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.

There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.

Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, "Get down on your face." You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing "Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?" She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole's screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.

I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.

Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.

The attack on and arrest of me and the "Democracy Now!" producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, "By embedding reporters in our mobile field force."

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080903_why_we_were_falsely_arrested/

We live in a world where everything is turned upside down.  Bad is good and good is bad.  Those who are a part of the secret combination machinery are praised and looked upon as the salt of the earth, whereas the true salt of the earth are trampled beneath the feet of riot police.

The government may again review petrol prices in October, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said today.
He said if global crude oil prices stabilise at US$109 per barrel until the year end, the government may reduce pump fuel prices.

“Now, the global crude oil price is at US$109 per barrel. If it stays at that level, then of course I will be very happy to reduce it by 15 sen than the current RM2.55 (fuel pump) price,” he told reporters after chairing the Finance Council Meeting here today.

“Pray that it (crude oil price) does not go up, and that it will go down more. We are monitoring all the time,” said Abdullah, who is also Fiance Minister.

On Aug 23, fuel price was reduced by 15 sen to RM2.55 a litre from RM2.70.

Yesterday, stuck in traffic, I got two SMSes, informing me of Pak Samad's demise. He was hospitalised a couple of weeks ago. He passed away yesterday evening, aged 84.

But Tan Sri Samad Ismail left a legacy. This was a journalist who was never afraid of standing up for what's right, even if it meant trouble from the authorities.

He was arrested three times...

During the Japanese occupation, he worked with the Japanese-sponsored Berita Malai and became the editor when he was 21.

After the war when the British returned to Malaya, they jailed Samad briefly, in 1946. Later, he returned to Utusan Melayu as an assistant editor.

Samad fought for independence from the British through his writings and met with anti-colonialists of all races, including Indonesian revolutionaries fighting for their own independence against the Dutch.

This led to his second arrest in 1951. When he was released two years later, he rejoined Utusan Melayu and with Lee Kuan Yew, founded the People's Action Party.

More...

Samad was arrested again in 1976, under the Internal Security Act. He was released in 1981, after which he re-joined the NSTP group as its editorial adviser. He retired from journalism in 1988 and was honoured by the King in 1992.

He was also awarded the title Pejuang Sastera (Literature Champion) for his literary and journalistic accomplishments.

In 1994, he received the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Journalism, Literature and Creative Communications Arts in recognition of his role in championing national independence, cultural revival and democratic nation building. - The Star

This towering man's stature was such that it was natural for two of his daughters to follow his footsteps into journalism. I meant Maria and Nooraina Samad.

Both were successful journos who today are also well-known in the Malaysian blogosphere. Knowledgeable, principled women who also share their dad's principles.

Those times are largely gone.

But we Malaysians can honour his legacy by claiming back this country. This country was something he thought was worth fighting for.

I'm reminded of the saying, Harimau mati meninggalkan belang, manusia mati meninggalkan nama.

Rest In Peace, sir.

1. Canada loses shelf... not self

Well it seems as if the head of steam being built up here in the US is at last hitting Canada. Yes, the hot air created by the Republicans at the convention seems to contribute to climate change for their neighbors up north. Can't be any other reason now can it? Republicans don't believe in global warming so it must be the hot heads down in St Paul who did this. Or windbags. Poor old Canada. They have so little going for them when it comes to history and now they just lost an ancient ice shelf that is almost the size of Manhattan. Luckily Canada isn't as populated as that little island off the east coast. They suspect only one person died but the nation is in mourning because about 7,286 moose died. That is the same ratio of moose per person in Canada. The Canadian authorities are still counting all Canadians to try and confirm the death of the unlucky fellow. One person is counting every Canadian and is expected to be done by early Saturday. All Canadians was asked to stand in a straight line but there was a delay because the counting guy had to go to a blubber fest first. He'll start counting on Friday evening.

2. "Uncertainty looms in Sudan"

That is the actual headline of the report - "Uncertainty looms in Sudan". WTF? What was there before? Hope? Love? Peace? Stability? Democracy? Ubuntu? Change? Certainty? I think not. Can "uncertainty" be a weather pattern? The Sudan version of a monsoon? It comes in and destroys everything in its path. Or maybe "Uncertainty" is some god we never heard of. You know, like Apollo or Zeus or Atlas. Wonder what "Uncertainty" does? Squash all sense of justice in his path and murder the innocent for breakfast. Sound about right. Also known by another name. President Omar "The Bastard" al-Bashir. No. Sorry. "Uncertainty" would be a step up for most Sudanese. At the moment they only have "Genocide".

3. Obelix with no Astrix?

The great Obelisk of Axum returned home at last. Okay. It's been there for a while already. About 3 years. It was unveiled this week. Come on people, it's African time. You know. "Just now" means anything between within the next two hours and 2 decades. But we should be happy the Axum Obelisk is back. Now if we can only find the great Astrix of Governance somewhere...

4. From Palin to Pale-One

You thought Palin was more than just a pretty face? Think again. The McCain campaign now says that she won't be talking to the media on foreign or domestic policy. Apparently "the American people don't care whether Sarah Palin can answer specific questions about foreign and domestic policy... the American people will learn all they need to know" (and all they deserve to know) from Palin's scripted speeches and choreographed appearances on the campaign trail and in campaign ads. Talk about Hollywood moments and acting like a celebrity. Mr McLame and Pale-one, this is called acting and not leadership. Maybe scared that she can't hold her own? Here is your problem. She might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of (some of) the average American voters out there but you might have a bit of a problem if she travels outside these US borders. Haha! Actually, I wouldn't mind being a fly on the wall. Putin will have her for lunch. Oh man you are in so much trouble with this one. Not quite the PTA now is it?

5. Let's be honest... hum, maybe not

Citibank used to have a nice little racket going. And hardly anyone noticed. What they did was to remove the positive balances on the credit card accounts of their poorest and "deadest" clients. Yes, they targeted the vulnerable (poor) and really vulnerable (dead). But those damn pesky little whistle blowers. Someone thought that stealing money from their clients might be going too far. And that damn liberal State Attorney of California agreed. And won! Yes, poor Citibank lost settled the case and paid all the money back. And a bit of a fine to top it off. The clincher? An executive trying to justify their decision really went all out with the "feel sorry for me" line. With difficulty. He said, "Stealing from our customers is a business decision, not a legal decision." The same executive later said that the sweep program could not be stopped because it would reduce the executive bonus pool. I don't think he gets the humanity part that well. Maybe he was taking a bit off the top because he is missing a bit on top. For some or other reason I don't feel that sorry for Citibank.

See you all next week.

Among those arrested include Democracy Now! host and producer Amy Goodman, who left the convention floor in the middle of an interview with delegates from Minnesota and Alaska to respond to the news that her producers were being arrested (Goodman grills St. Paul Police Chief about the Arrests). Not only were they arrested, but it is possible that producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar may be charged with felony rioting.

Not only that, but the convention hq for I-Witness Video was apparently raided. The police surrounded the house before a warrant was obtained, informed people they would be detained if they left the house, and then got their warrant (with one problem - it was for the WRONG ADDRESS) and raided the house, taking would-be police watchdogs into custody and confiscating equipment. I-Witness was extremely effective in exposing police violence during the 2004 RNC in New York, and it appears the St. Paul authorities did not want this to happen to them. Glenn Greenwald writes on the arrests, with substantial comment on the I-Witness raid. Eileen Clancy of I-Witness, wrote an emergency press release from inside the house while it was surrounded on the I-Witness blog.

Apparently if reporters aren't "embedded" within the police corps or only covering subjects the authorities want them to see, they're subject to arrest. So much for freedom of the press and the neutrality of journalists, and the supposedly basic assumption that journalists should be shielded from harm in conflict zones, or at least that every attempt should be made to do so. The same seems to be the case for other independent observers - in other words, if you're not with the powers-that-be, you're subject to arrest, to classification as a "criminal".

In addition, student journalists from the University of Kentucky were also arrested. The cynical part of me wants to say at least they're getting a true look at what they will be in for if they seek to pursue their chosen vocations with integrity and the desire to report more than just the "official story".

Cynicism aside, the sad truth is that if the integrity and independence of journalism is not respected and actively supported, there can be no meaningful public discourse. Officials have said again and again that people are welcome to voice their opinions, that demonstrators have the right to air their griefs publicly, but the actions of those in power mitigate against the possibility of any real public dialogue that could lead to an actual accounting on the part of the leaders who are supposedly the servants of the people. There is no space for the vox populi to be heard, unless, apparently, the voice of the people comes through particular channels, in triplicate, bound and tied in red tape. Amy Goodman wrote an op-ed piece about how government crackdowns on journalists threaten democracy. I suggest you read it.

The voice of the people in colonial America took the form of the Boston Tea Party in 1773, though the lead-up to the Party was of course the Boston Massacre of 1770. Will people realize the things they've given up and seek to take back for themselves the power that is rightfully theirs? Or will we meekly accept our position as consumers, passively "choosing" between those products that are shown to us in storefront windows, on television screens, on our computer monitors? Will we take a stand and fight for the ability to truly govern ourselves and manage our own affairs, or will we continue to march to the beat of flags and pledges and patriotic songs, allowing our own identities to be submerged within the totality of the 21st century United Jingoistic Police State of American Empire?

In other news, eight members of the RNC Welcoming Committee have officially been charged under terrorism laws. I have more to say about this, but it will wait until tomorrow when I've had more time to reflect and process.

Video of Nicole Salazar's arrest:

Video of Amy Goodman's arrest:

Initially in America voting rights were limited to white males who were at least 21 years of age and owned property. Today we are aghast to find out that the Founders, these champions of liberty, sought to limit elections to white property owning men. Their justification was that only those who owned property, which was limited to white males, could possibly need to concern themselves with the affairs of Government. Furthermore, property owners, unlike the poor, are not subject to be influenced by their employers to vote a specific way. The Founders believed that voting should be a private matter, not subject to the whims of employers and city bosses. John Adams argues in his letter to James Sullivan, "Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…" The same holds for women and children, they are dependent upon the man of the house who can influence their voting decisions. The fixing of voting requirements to white males who are 21 and own property according to Adams was, "Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons."

However, as we all know the Government changed voting laws with the passage of the 15th Amendment, which allows the right to vote to all males no matter their color. As we all know the right to vote was limited among blacks by Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction was ended by requiring individuals to be literate, and own property though they were forbidden from owning property or going to school in some cases. These laws would eventually change and today all men, of any color has been granted the right to vote. The Constitution was further amended by the 19th Amendment which made it unconstitutional for government to limit the right to vote based on sex. The 24th Amendment of the Constitution forbides poll or voting taxes, essentially doing away with property requirements. The 26th Amendment, passed in 1971, was the last of the Constitutional Amendments to change the understanding of voting rights when it lowered the voting age to 18. Adams once again indicates why the voting age was initially set at 21 by most States, " The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public." In a recent Death Penalty case before the Supreme Court, the High Court defined the age of reason and therefore the age at which one is able to be punished with Death for a crime as 18 years old.

All individuals who are at least 18 years of age must take advantage of their right to vote, granted to them by the Constitution itself. But whether or not voting is merely a right or a requirement of citizens is something more to look at. The basis of government is, as has been said before, the people and it is only through the people that government can be limited through periodic elections. Therefore, the "right" to vote is not merely a right as freedom of religion, or the ability to own guns. Voting is a requirement of citizenship, to be a good citizen one must engage in the public affairs via voting. It is the duty as Americans to educate oneself about public matters in order to make the best, most well informed decision possible in the voting booth in November. Adams states, "For government is a frame, a scheme, a system, a combination of powers, for a certain end, viz the good of the whole community. The public good, the salus populi is the professed end of all government, the most despotic, as well as the most free." The only way that the people can ensure and maintain the public good is to prevent corrupt and unjust rulers from holding office. The only way in which the frame, scheme, system, and combination of powers aimed at the good of the community can be achieved is if the people, the foremen of the Great American Experience, keep a solid eye on their government so that it does not grow cancerous and destroy the people.

The exercise of the body is the only way in which the body can remain healthy. Likewise, the exercise of rights is the only way those rights remain intact and useful to a people. The only way to maintain the health of a nation is if the people exercise their rights and duties regularly. Voting is as a physician for the regime, curing it of its infections so as to not kill itself. Only through exercising their right to vote can the people of a good regime keep that regime good and healthy.

It's worth thinking about what "change" amounts to. Things change in many ways -- by accident, by the inevitable workings of natural processes, or as a result of the actions of people and groups. The eruption of Mt. Krakatoa in 1883 changed many things in the world, for better or worse. But this isn't what "change" means in this context.

When people talk about "change" in a political or social context, they are referring to outcomes that can be influenced by human agency and choice. We want to change the pace of global warming -- that is, we want to take deliberate steps that will result in a slowing of the buildup of greenhouse gases globally. We want to change the "pay to play" mentality that many city governments have permitted to develop between contractors and politicians -- that is, we want to create a new set of regulations and laws that do a better job of controlling corrupt practices in city government. We want to change the level of threat of terrorist attack that the United States faces -- that is, we want our leaders to design a set of strategies for diplomatic, military, and intelligence agency actions that will reduce the motivation of potential attackers or interfere with the execution of their plans. We want to change the degree of disparities of income and quality of life that is found among Americans in this century -- that is, we want a set of government and economic policies that have the effect of increasing income and quality of life for the least-well-off.

So the relevant meaning of "change" has to do with actions, goals, and strategies. Calls for change in this sense generally mean one of three things: we need to change direction -- the things we're aiming at aren't quite the right mix. We need to change strategies -- our plans for intervening in the world on the basis of which we are pursuing our goals aren't working well enough. Or we need to change the way we operate -- to embody greater transparency, greater allegiance to human rights, greater honesty. Change is about agency in the world -- the things we aim at, the means we use, and the principles we adopt.

Government -- its policies, its strategies, its priorities -- is at the center of what people are concerned about when they call for change. This is true primarily because governments have the greatest ability to influence the outcomes that we care about the most; but it is also true because governments have badly disappointed us at various junctures in our history, by pursuing the wrong goals or bungling their efforts to achieve the right goals. So it's not a bit surprising that a debate about the need for change would crop up around the moment of this critical election in the United States.

People are calling for change today because they are dissatisfied with the outcomes, trends, strategies, and manner that current public actors are achieving. They see outcomes that are the result of deliberate policies -- but that are highly undesirable. They see policies that are intelligently related to the achievement of certain goals -- but the goals are the wrong ones. They see policies and initiatives that are ill-conceived and bungled. And, often enough, they see public actions that are morally defective in a variety of ways -- dishonest, devious, illegal, anti-democratic, self-interested, or hateful.

So when people call for change, it would appear that they're asking for one of several possible kinds of change: a change of goals, a change of strategies, a change in the manner in which a government or corporation behaves, and perhaps a change in the personnel carrying out these actions. They want to see public action to be aimed at goals that the majority in society can support when honestly conveyed. They want to see policies and strategies that are well suited to achieving these goals, and supported by facts and analysis. They want to see coordinated efforts by their governments that will lead to better outcomes and will put the trends onto a more acceptable course. And they want to see a manner of action that respects the law and the requirements of a civil democracy.

Let's hope that the next several months of political debate can really focus on these core questions: what problems do we most urgently need to solve in the next ten years in this society and this world? What strategies and initiatives do the candidates propose to address these problems? What evidence can we marshall to assess the likelihood that they will follow through with their stated intentions? These are exactly the right debates; and once we think clearly about the goals and priorities we have as a nation, perhaps the choice we make among candidates will be less about personality and more about confidence in the program and the team that will implement it.

Now some people will not even accept my premise, so I will be talking to that wall inside them, maybe fold up a little note to tuck into a gap in the mortar. From my viewpoint, it is bad enough that the more intellectually engaged political party, has to pander to stupid-think. The other has a list of ongoing assumptions, most based on one overriding ideological slant, that never allows in contrary concepts for the same phenomenon, unless it is in their shoes.

Stupid-think here, is that whole menagerie of behaviors that one has to pass for the test of acceptability for public office. This ritual based image pandering is enforced by reactionary thought, which the media actually loves for all of its maddening contentiousness. We go through conceptually engineered "proofs" for how people look or seem; what they wear, their manner of speech, actually, whatever can be cast into that us and them mold. Presidents to be, must show how they like kids, for instance, since they surely were never one themselves. Liberals have to demonstrate their flag collection, since it is assumed for some reason that they hate America.

Now reactionaries have raised this whole process into an art form. If anyone seems to fail one of these instant poison pill pose test, an elaborate explanation of nuanced context and definition usually ensures, which itself, meets the quick judgement test of suspicious rationalism. It seems that an imagery but real loaded judgment, is achieved instantaneously. The following explanations made to counter it, more often than not, are made to seem as its most viable inditing evidence to true pose test followers.

There is not a saying that "ignorance is bliss" for nothing. Unfortunately, with ignorance holding a drug like power, the whole political process becomes reduced to its visual, or concept pandering acceptance level. This flag waving like instant identification, makes new approaches to, or refusal to play these litmus test games for cultural stupid-think, seem suspicious, simply for their non robot like "freedom" to answer the biased assumptions symbol..

This is particularly dangerous to freedom and democracy, for it opens the path for religious symbols or those of nationalism, to overwhelm the truthful dialogue. Welcome to election 2008.

THE CONTINUOUS IGNORANCE THAT GUARANTEES DISAPPOINTMENT

This is the nature of my malaise; the one sensible option I have to vote for, is itself compromised by all the stupid-think it must respond to. After a while, it seems that party itself has been conditioned to some degree of stupid-think. Oddly, it producing its own form of conformity to stupid-think, makes it look suspicious to that group whose whole world is contorted by these appearance test and conformity mandates. Many of which were contritely engineered in high brain power think tanks and focus groups. We now have a political system that uses the arts and sciences of deception, to direct perception into loaded mine fields of persuasion and tortured fact.

Somewhere recently, the report came to my attention that Jon Stewart's Daily Show was considered the most reliable source of news. I thought; Really? Well on that show, they often make a point of calling it a fake news show. But just today I saw why it may well be a source of actual news, even though it treats it in ways established news shows had not until recently.

On the show today they buttressed my opinion here. I had started this piece the day before, only to have my jaw drop at the examples of blatant hypocrisy they showed right on tape. These were positions on issues that were what they were regardless of context, supposed absolutes, but when the shoe was on the other foot, melted away into accusations made toward their opponents. The only solid ground left was manipulations opportunism itself. No moral or ethical truisms whatsoever.

They showed the critical clips the conservatives, including Palin, recently had during the Democratic Convention, or pontificated on to harassed presumed liberals. They contrasted these previous clips with their now opposite allegations for allegedly doing exactly what the liberals were accused of doing just days ago. From the Faux News unbalanced show host, to just another one on the right doing the same duplicitous self righteous pandering to their situation, this showed up clearly as duplicity in the now hypocritical contradictions.

Seems that on the right, they can lie about their opponents, then use those very same lies as positives for their own "side", without any sense of a hypocrisy blatant to their "reasoning". Observations from these talking heads seems made of positive and negative distrotions, and it never need be owned up to. It is the self serving atmosphere these proclamations create at the time, that gives deception its lasing perception from momentary opportunistic power over the ill informed or kept out of context audience.

Now I know the Democrats do their own exaggerations and one way thinking, but not in this nearly complete and all encompassing way; where nothing said in stark and utter self contradiction, carries anything but assumed benefit to their side. What is the nature of this conservative side then? Is this why one of these right wing deceivers claimed that they were not constrained by tedious fact and open journalistic rational analysis? They simply proclaim things, which are negative for your opponent and a glowing positive when appearing on your side. They do this unchecked reality twisting because it works on those kept in reality ignorance, yet presuming their own belief and apparent following a reliable absolute authority. This has terrible implications for the conservative mind, or the reality view of those who accept the conservative tenets seemingly so blindly. For where then, is there room for actual truth checking? There is not!

CITIZENS OF FAIRYLAND

Some citizens are assumed to live in this distorted and abstracted bubble of blind belief. I can see why it is such a valuable commodity; anything can be made a positive or a negative depending on what use the situations makes convenient to you. It is blind because it needs no truthful fact checks, just useful to the situation unchecked manipulation allegation, and subjects with unplugged critical minds, seemingly accepting whatever these leaders pump into the concept-o-sphere. This indicateds there are those unaware, or uncaring if these negatives just alleged of ones opponents, are positives now that they are apparently tagged on to your side.

This is not just politics, it is patently dishonest. It is not surprising that many a conservative belief, carries with it a disdain for the "liberal" or critically honesty probing media. This cult belief the right wing has of the "bad" liberal media, is really a tactic to curtail the critical inquiry of the conservative mind, and instead, have it cued in to manipulative buzz words and loaded phrases that push these deceptive arguments as fact, with no full vetting of the facts in context as they apply to all parties. Ignorance becomes cold hard currency.

It was truly stunning to see this smoke and mirror misrepresentation of fact now based on opportunistic cause, presented on the Jon Stewart Daily Show. That a convention has is its bread and butter be this blatant deceptive context maneuvering, says much about the rest of the news media. What? They cannot look at these leaders statements to see the corruption inherent to them? That would not be fair, as they define that these days. These days, fair considers lies being equal to the truth. Then you have held your journalistic objectivity to not measure statements to the value of their very source? No more investigations need be done, since by their very nature, someone will feel the truth itself is neither fair nor balanced. As they say for good reason in these matters; "The truth hurts.", hence is patently unfair.

CASTING CONCEPTS INTO OPPORTUNISTIC RELATIVITY "MAKES" TRUTH LIES, AND LIES SEEM TRUTH

So this is the proud America many a conservative aspires to serve, speaking oppositely depending upon which side of the mouth they are speaking, the left or right? That a convention is held, just fine thank you very much, under this extreme shadow of intentional confusion, is a damming statement of some conservative leaders intentional or not deceptions. And, presumably, an audience that condones or even expects this sort of perversion of the truth to go on under their name, and their legacy of shame.

We have just endured these near 8 years of unbridled deception, and now the conservatives are going to run against their negative fantasy's of liberals, and the many years of American deconstruction they have just plundered the commons with, both the social commons and the international/environmental one. The choice may be quite clear to thinking people, but to those who vote by assumption and blinded trust; you have nothing to lose but your own honest integrity, if you can locate it.

To think of all the hard work and sacrifice of generations of Americans, to have it reduced to belief
pandering and a contempt for objective fact checking, is indeed a shame. Yet it is a shame that is not owned up to, that is even quantified as faith or patriotic honor, makes these blatant deceptions all the worse.

Put America first? What a contemptuous assumption for all the rest of us. It is like "Support the Troops" was, presuming we automatically do not, for why then command it. This was a way to use the troops to hide behind for unseemly ends, using their love for America and selfless service, altering that motive to be construed as protecting flawed policy, and contempt for honest review of the issues at hand. These are bait and switch techniques of distracting truth from the playing field of perception. It is all too obvious why the conservative mind is so easily led astray, then left dangling off the cliffs of deception, blaming liberals for their predicament. They have no true ground to stand on, so lies and deception stands in for missing in action true moral values.

The sign welcoming people crossing the Pakistan/India border at Attari, Punjab.

So it's been a good month since I haven't posted here. Throughout August I was travelling in India and posting over at Citizenshift. I probably should have cross-posted everything earlier, but... Anyways, to read what I've been up to, visit my blog (which will be wrapping up soon), The Road to Leh.

It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.

With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost, there was no hope for this candidate, who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war. But the pollsters...

The pollsters and the pundits, they overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off. They overlooked the caliber of the man himself, the determination, and resolve, and the sheer guts of Senator John McCain.

The voters knew better, and maybe that's because they realized there's a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.

Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge. And children with special needs inspire a very, very special love. To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message for you: For years, you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that, if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

I might add that, in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they're listening and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening. No, we tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

Suddenly, I realized that sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power-brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.

But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up. And in short order, we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.

I came to office promising major ethics reform to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is a law.

While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for. That luxury jet was over-the-top. I put it on eBay.

I love to drive myself to work. And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef, although I got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her.

And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the State Senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting and never use the word "victory," except when he's talking about his own campaign.

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot... when that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?

The answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.

They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals.

Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speech- making, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things, and then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things.

Harry Reid, the majority [leader] of the current do-nothing Senate ... he not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee. He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain."

Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man.

Clearly, what the majority leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain, and that's only one more reason to take the maverick out of the Senate, and put him in the White House.

My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.

This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.

Read the complete speech here.

And when asked why has he not gone on the offensive against Senator John McCain's running mate Governor Sarah Palin after fierce and snide jabs at him last night, Obama told the press corp "Because John McCain's running for President and I am running against John McCain and as far as I can tell Governor Palin does not have any ideas that are different from John McCain's and that speech she delivered was on behalf of John McCain."

Watch it.

But of course, Obama could not let the community organizing jab slide either. For those of you who did not get a chance to see the speech last night Governor Palin said:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involved. I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

A reporter in the clip below ask Obama to respond by saying "They are talking about work I did right out of college" and asked "Why would that work be ridiculous?" and "Who are they fighting for?" and maybe they are out of touch and don't get it because they (McCain and Palin) have not been working on behalf of those folks.

Watch it.

(H/T: Jed Report)