A High Schooler Was Asked, "If There Was A Plague in LA, Where Would You Go?"

My dear cousin was enlisted in writing a daily blog for her high school English Class. Unfortunately, it was an English Honors class, further showing the degredation of our nation's Public School System. I'd hate to know how mediocre the regular class is.

Here is the prompt: If You Heard There Was a Plague in LA, Where Would You Go?

THE RESPONSE:

"Ummm, since I am totally terrified of death, I would have to think of a really good place to go, really far from LA and from the epidemic plague thing and the undocumented immigrants who probably brought the disease through one of the Los Angeles area ports and spread it through the sewer system and the burritos. It couldn't be Victorville either because there's a bunch of freakin' hillbillies there.

So, ummm, I would gather all of my things, especially my brand new Gucci shoes, my phone, my dog Leonardo Christopher Shannanay Nicoli Jimenez Ricardo, and my boyfriend, cause he's a keeper - well, after he looses a couple pounds and learns how to not ejaculate prematurely.

But anyways, I would take my prized possessions, and buy my own island, if I didn't already have one at the time, because that is something I have always wanted to purchase. Haha. Like the ones off the coast of Dubai that are shaped like the world, yeah that is where I would go if a plague came to LA.

I think it would be pretty cool. Just me, my man bitch, and my most important baby Leo. If for some reason food became scarce, my dog Leo and I would eat him first, because he is a disposable commodity after I become pregnant and repopulate the island. It would be called [my cousin's name] island because I am a princess, and since the island would be off the coast of Dubai, when my boyfriend pisses me off I would send his ass away to get more shoes or makeup or whatever other necessities I need to be replenished.

Although come to think of it, I would like to go to a wet mountainous region. I would want it to be sort of like the jungle, kind of like the jungle book except Mowgli or that tarzan guy would be over eighteen and look fine fine fine and not like that one prepubescent twerp in the animated movie. It would have lush surroundings with very green vegetation. It would be a fertile land and have plenty of water in the form of streams, waterfalls, pond thingies and the water would be filtered so I could drink it and bathe in it. Although if Evian Corp. wanted to send me a gazillion cubic foot tank that might also work too, as long as the water is not bottled anywhere near Los Angeles or Latin America, cause this one time in Venezuela I got really really sick from whatever bacteria they have in the water and the locals are unfortunately accustomed to.

However, in that mountainous region, like my island, there would be a beach nearby just in case I wanna tan, and so I could have fresh sushi but close enough where it didn't bother me. So my fantasy place would be like the island of The Incredibles. I would want it to be very very simple...but technologically advanced and top of the line. Something like a device to cool the sand so I could walk on it in a hot day would be nice, while the island still looked lush and primitive like the beaches on the Mexican West Coast or Nicaragua.

The most important thing would be little treehouse cabana type things, covered with white linens, and equipped with champagne and cabana boys who feed me frozen grapes. It would be just me and my lover on the island with our male servants so I don't have to worry about him cheating. If he cheats on me with one of the cabana boys, or at worst, my dog, he will totally be executed.And I would have perfect boobs and all the relaxed linen Tommy Bahama clothes, shoes, and accessories I could ever want!

Man, that would be the life. I would do this regardless of the plague."

2008 Endorsement: John McCain

by Justin La Grange

I'm writing to you not as a Republican. I'm writing to you not with any racial mindset. I'm writing to you not with riches or richly in-debt. I'm writing to you as an American; from Warren Buffett to Joe the Plumber to Betsy the Smoking Homeless; from Harvard's Joseph Ocklesworth IV to Holland's Joe the Plumber to Huntington Beach's Jose Rodriguez; from J. Lo repping the Bronx to Mary-Jo repping the South to Scar-Jo repping SoCal. I'm writing to you as an American who wants to see the best of present and future. As an American, who wants to preserve the tradition and sanctity of the presidential office. As an American, who values a leader with only the top notch representation of American values and character. As an American, I can think only of John McCain as an option to represent this country going forward.

First and foremost, I would like to start out by paying tribute to and saluting Barack Obama. After witnessing the vicious, slanderous, unfounded, and hurtful attacks hurled at Governor Sarah Palin, I decided to take the upper ground in terms of fair political discourse. Senator Obama should be applauded for potentially becoming the nation's first black president. He's a man of unparalleled brilliance, style, and inspirational qualities. I don't want to take away from the magnitude of that achievement, and I think he has the character and durability to be a good leader.

However, I do have some significant reservations.

Senator Obama rose to fame and power after appearing at the 2004 Democratic Presidental Convention, during which time he gave a rousing speech that catapulted him to the United States Senate after serving for a few years in the Illinois State Senate. During his four years in the Senate, he focused two of those on his run for the Presidency.

The biggest question in all of this is why? Why now? There's a certain level of audacity to saying that you're going to run for President after such a short stint in major public office, notably one without any executive experience. Isn't there a certain level of effrontery to want to be President without waiting your turn and gaining more experience? Isn't there a certain level of effrontery to shoving yourself into the Presidental nomination without having a clear ostensible record for the American people to judge you on? One has to wonder why Barack Obama hungered to do all of this so quickly? One has to wonder if the ascendancy of Barack Obama to this level without much experience or record speaks to a dangerous cult of personality? One has to wonder if Barack Obama can get away with too much as President with such a dangerous cult of personality and an irresponsible subservient swooning media?

One of my best friends articulated this very well as he was fluxuating on who he will support in 2008:

"I must be at peace with my conscience. I am no longer a supporter of B. H… well you know the rest. My heart is full of regret for abandoning my beloved H. Clinton and falling victim to the empty promise that is Obama. Mr. Obambi has recently shown his true colors and demonstrated that he is no super hero, but simply a heartless and dispassionate politician. Obama’s thirst for power and popularity is unrivaled and frankly it scares me. Obama has acquired international fame and recognition and I fear that his first priority is no longer the interests of the American people..."

First and foremost however, we are in a center-right country that tends to average out to having center-right values, whether they be economic, foreign, social, etc. The fact of the matter is that Barack Obama is on the left. Perhaps, but questionably, not on the hard-left, but consistently left. Whether it's "spreading the wealth around", talking to rogue states without preconditions, relentless support for unfettered abortion rights, reasonable hostility towards free trade, massive union support including open voting, excessive support from labor unions, affirmative action support, anti-voucher or anti-significant European style competition overhaul of the education system (in favor of throwing more money at the problem), being strongly against gun rights, too much government intervention in healthcare programs, spending proposals ($1T in new spending), getting a grade of "F" by the National Taxpayers' Union, a poor grade by the "Citizens Against Government Waste" group, or a lack of commitment to immigration reform, his record is decisively left and arguably out of the mainstream. With the aforementioned record, policy proposals, and endorsements I find it probable that Barack Obama will certainly move towards the "implimentation" of policies outside the American mainstream, and with the trifecta of House and Senate control, there's a horribly large possibility that this unholy setup without checks and balances can lead to severe pushes of agenda outside the mainstream. Most Americans don't want this, and these policies don't align with mainstream values.

While I don't think Senator Obama shares deep sympathies with any of his controversial associations, I fault him heavily for deceiving the American people by throwing these associations under the bus when it was politically convenient to do so. Obama flat out lied to the American people when he denied launching his state senate career in domestic terrorist Bill Ayers living room. He has lied to the American people when he claimed that he did not know that his pastor of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright, was an anti-American and anti-white zealot who said that the government gave black people AIDS as a way to kill them off. He presumably has lied to the American people about his Aunt Zeituni's illegal immigration status (or for writing about her so much in his books, he sure is a sucky nephew). He's dishonestly downplayed his associations with Farrakhan and Tony Resko. He admitted to flirting with Marxist ideology and doing drugs in college, certainly not becoming for America's commander-in-chief. In summary, I think Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton said it best:

"The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training."
-Joe Biden

"Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002"
-Hillary Clinton

In contrast, recognizing that Senator John McCain is a significant and intelligent departure from President Bush, who Senator Obama shamefully and wrongfully puppets as a would be extension of Senator McCain, I very strongly endorse Senator McCain as President for 2008.

Senator McCain has an extraordinary record of leadership dating back to his days as a naval war hero who refused to abandon his men in his Vietnamese POW camp and extending to his present triumphs of extraordinary bipartisanship and running an underdog campaign in a toxic Republican climate.

Senator McCain has had an extraordinary amount of experience dating from his naval service over 40 years ago to his many years in the US Senate.

In an era of excessive partisanship, Senator McCain has been proven to be far more bipartisan and less divisive than Senator Obama, dating back to McCain-Feingold and calling religious-right leaders "agents of intolerance".

Senator McCain is as committed to combating climate change and dedicated to environmental issues as Senator Obama, and coupled with Governor Palin's extraordinary experience with energy issues, the McCain/Palin ticket is as formidable a ticket as the Democrats in leading America towards energy independence.

Senator McCain is one of the most experienced and respected leaders in America in terms of foreign issues and foreign policy. While the Democrats and Senator Obama would have sent Iraq into a cascading quagmire, Senator McCain demanded a troop surge as put forth by General Petraeus, which has now preserved and vindicated all the effort, blood, money, and tears Americans have put into Iraq. Iraq is now seeing its lowest levels of violence since combat began and the combined 53 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan now have a chance at a stable democracy instead of the excessive tyranny they lived with under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban.

Last, but most importantly, I'd like to discuss with you why Senator John McCain is the only choice for President in these troubling economic times.

Let's start with this idea of extra taxation, which in this case includes Senator Obama's proposed raising of the dividends tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax rate, and taxes on those that make over $250,000 (although that is changing day by day). When you are in an downturn slash economic environment in which people are not willing to take risks to further stimulate the economy, you have to incentivize people to take risks in a glum economy, and that includes tax cuts and not tax raises. All of these groups in which Senator Obama seeks to tax are the groups which have the potential capital to build, restimulate, and grow the economy, and create jobs.

It's NOT ABOUT RICH VS. POOR, it's about common sense and growth. It's no secret that when Reagan cut the upper class tax rate from 70% to 28%, revenue to the government doubled. People who are at the upper rungs of the economy need to be rewarded for their increased ability for entreprenurial output and innovation.

In regards to McCain's plan to lower corporate taxes, take note that our corporate taxes are the second highest in the world. During a potential recession, why would you scare international or internal investment in the US away from creating businesses and jobs in America? Why develop a business in the US, taxed to high hell, when you can open up shop in Ireland for 1/3 the tax rate? It's not simply about oil and other corporate fat cats. It's not about class warfare. Lots of businesses are struggling and if you make hostile business climate taxation policies, businesses don't grow and leave US shores, setting up in more business friendly economies, and our economy tanks. In our potential recession, we need to keep businesses in the US and lure more businesses here, and we can do that by lowering corporate taxes.

We've lived too long with a government that is not a good steward of our taxpayer dollars. John McCain, unlike President Bush, has vowed to streamline government programs and take out the veto pen to cut down drastically on wasteful congressional pork-barrel projects.

Here are some comments I've made recently about John McCain's general mantra to grow the economy:

"There's so much waste in the government. Republicans aren't about cutting programs like healthcare and medicare. We are about streamlining them, making them less bureaucratic, finding waste and cutting it, and operating government organizations more efficiently like a business. While Bush hasn't been responsible about cutting pork-barrel, McCain and most Republicans will be. Democrats will not allow that because they have to bend over to union interests and have no concern for spending Americans' hard earned money. No one in America should have to pay one cent more of taxes for an inefficent government that IS NOT RESPONSIVE TO THEM or RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS!"

"Unfortunately, it's not just as easy as tax those above $250,000, not to mention Barack raises taxes on everybody with the doubling of the capital gains tax. 110,000 small businesses in America make revenue about $250,000, and raising taxes on them stifles growth and hurts their bottom line. In addition, citizens who make over $250,000 are generally more intelligent, innovative people who will cycle money back into the US market either through creating more businesses or buying products. They fuel the economy and create growth, innovation, and jobs - in a potential recession, it's better they have the money and not the inefficient federal government where a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats decide what to do with it."

"I know being poor in America sucks, but I am of the opinion that wealth is created for everyone in a very free market (semi-regulated to the point of enforcing contracts, external factors, and exchange of information) that heavily rewards innovation, growth, and risk-taking. The US took off because people were allowed to do that en-masse, and other countries with heavier redistribution paradigms are far more stagnant. In other words, we can live in a society where we have a gap between the rich and the poor or we have a tiny gap between the less poor and poorer. There are optimum tax rates for generating overall wealth, rewarding risk taking and innovation, and creating economic balance and fairness, with the acknowledgement that life just can't be fair and equal for everyone, but it can be reasonably decent for all. I believe tax rates are too high, and unreasonable when we have a government that wastes 40 cents of every dollar with bureaucratic negligence and inefficient waste. It's not just programs, although lots of those are ridiculous. It's about the need for streamlining."

McCain's healthcare plan will insure 21 million more people in America, versus Obama's 26 million. However, McCain's healthcare plan is far more efficient because it doesn't involve federalizing more healthcare and new federalized programs in America. This is not the time for larger government.


I'd also like to address Governor Sarah Palin's VP Candidacy. Sarah Palin is the only candidate on either ticket to have executive experience, which includes running the largest state by land size as well as a $40 Billion Dollar economy. It is unfair to judge her entire future on a couple of bad interviews only days after she arrived on the national scene. If you look back to her debates for the Alaska governorship you'll see her performance is tremendous when versed on the issues. Look at her progress from those interviews to the Vice Presidential Debates. Look at her performance as the most popular governor in America. Think how far she'll go when she arrives as VP at the White House. Think how amazing she'll be once she's sat in on foreign policy and staff meetings on all the issues. Sarah Palin no doubt has a reformer's heart and an incredible intelligence that some people refuse to see because folks like Keith Olbermann diminish her because they're scared of her and they patronize people who don't talk like they just came back from an elite Washington cocktail party.

People - I understand we desperately need change! I promise from the bottom of my heart that John McCain will offer the change you are looking for and represent you with the utmost honesty and integrity with which he has served this country for nearly half-a-century.

Please, vote for John McCain on Tuesday. From California to Maine. From men to women. From rich to poor. From straight to gay. My friends, I love you all and I feel strongly about this.

______________________________________________
Obama's Redistribution of Wealth Discussion Back in 2001:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

Obama's Record on Voting 96% of the Time with his Party/Biography:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/

Key Votes:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Project Vote Smart - Obama on the Issues:
http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490

Interest Group Support:
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490

Quick State by State Electoral Update (Current as of 7P Nov.1.08)

by Justin La Grange

As we know by now, it is not the national polls that matter (although they are important trend indicators), but state polls that determine the outcome of the electoral college. Obama could be registering 60% to 40% nationally (theoretically), but if he's getting 100% support in California, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, etc, it is still hypothetically possible to lose the electoral college (just an illustrative example that national polls aren't necessarily king).

Funny things are starting to happen. States that McCain should have absolutely solidified like North Dakota, Arizona, Georgia, and Arizona are becoming bonafide swing states with Obama trailing by exactly 3-4% in all of these states. But states that McCain was trailing in recently that he needed to solidify have been tightening, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina. Indiana and Missouri have actually switched back into McCain's column.

With all these polls, keep the following in mind:

In 2004, President Bush was trailing 13-17 points behind John Kerry in Pennsylvania right before the election. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by roughly 2 points. Today, John McCain trails by only 7.5% in Pennsylvania, after being behind about 10-12% early last week. Remember that Obama was also ahead in the Pennsylvania primary polls, and absolutely tanked in the primary outcome.

John McCain is the "safe candidate", especially in backwater states in places like Western Pennsylvania. And 1 in 7 voters are still undecided. This is the reason why John McCain's attacks on Ayers and "socialism", and GOP PAC's attacks on Resko, Wright, and Khalidi are not totally in vain. They solidify doubts in undecided voters who will view John McCain as the safe candidate: the white naval hero who has the bipartisan record. To illustrate, it was reported in Texas that 23% still incorrectly thought that Obama is Muslim. While I don't think that's specifically the case with these undecided voters, people will often vote for the candidate that they have the least questions and doubts about in the voting booth.

Also, these polling outfits take into account heavy turnout by African-American and youth voters. While African-Americans have been coming out en-masse, the youth vote this year is a little more dubious. Also, these polling outfits have not taken into account increased turnout among Republican voters, which if speaking to any Republican I know has been any kind of anecdotal indication, Republicans and many moderates will be out full force mobilized against Obama.

I've been looking at these polls, and a lot of them just don't seem right. For instance, California is a state far more prone to success for McCain than Bush, and yet the numbers are showing 57%-33% in favor of Obama. While it's true California is not that heavily polled, I can promise you that those numbers are inaccurate, especially when Bush has lost California in numbers like 57-43 and 55-45. If California is absolutely incorrect from an outfit like RCP/Yahoo Political dashboard, what does it say about the other polls in undoubtedly the most accurate polling outfit which averages all the other major polls.

And as a verbatim mention from my other note:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=33243837333&id=1219649&index=0

Possible Reasons for Polling Error:

Voters who are more enthusiastic about their candidate tend to respond to pollsters. More often than not, that candidate would be Barack Obama, perhaps making him overrepresented in the sample.

The Bradley Effect: People don't want to tell the pollster they're voting McCain or they put themselves in the undecided category for fear of seeming racist. This intimidation effect seems plausible, as I don't feel terribly comfortable going around Berkeley toting my McCain/Palin pin (but I do), but will be very comfortable toting McCain/Palin in the ballot box.

Safe Candidate Syndrome: People are not afraid to go with the more controversial and less safe choice (if their a moderate swing voter) when chatting with a pollster or doing some online survey. However, there's a certain finality and seriousness of the ballot box that makes people re-examine their concerns and fears and vote with the "safe" candidate

The Numbers
Taking into account how grossly wrong all these polls could be from the factors I've listed above, look at the current swing state percentages from RCP/Yahoo Political Dashboard, keeping in mind McCain can afford to lose a couple of these states:

Missouri: 48.3%/47.7% (McCain/Obama)

Indiana: 47.3%/46.8% (McCain/Obama)

North Carolina: 48.3%/47.0% (Obama/McCain)

Florida: 49.8%/45.7% (Obama/McCain)

Ohio: 49.2%/43.6% (Obama/McCain)

Virginia: 51.0%/45.0% (Obama/McCain)

Pennsylvania: 51.2%/43.7% (Obama/McCain)

Nevada: 50.5%/44.0% (Obama/McCain)

Colorado: 51.5%/45.3% (Obama/McCain)

New Mexico: 50.3%/43.0% (Obama/McCain)

Keep in mind the margins in these states are all below 7.5%.

While I definitely don't think McCain has an equal shot at winning, and he's certainly on the defensive with an uphill battle, I'm here to say that for anybody that thinks Obama definitely has this in the bag might just be a little too hasty. McCain has a chance here, and if he had no shot, Vegas wouldn't be riding 84-16 on Obama. They'd be riding 99-1. McCain has always been the underdog, and he's always come back from behind. They declared him dead in the primaries, and here he is today running strong against a major Democratic tide. Never count out John McCain.

McCain Tightening Up The Race and Positioning His Path to Victory

by Justin La Grange

I will write an endorsement note soon; not that it will be any surprise, but I just wanted to articulate why I'm endorsing who I am endorsing so I'm not further accused of being any of the following:
a. racist
b. stupid
c. devoid of hope
d. all of the above

At this point, October 22, Obama leads by slight margins in a lot of key states that McCain needs to pick up, according to RCP/Yahoo Political Dashboard (where you can find all this data). These are Florida, Missouri, Ohio, and North Carolina. And when I say slight margins, I really mean slight margins like 1-3% in all of these, within the margin of error. With two weeks to go, McCain gaining momentum, and growing worries of the Bradley Effect and polling error taking place in mid to high single digits on final poll outcomes, it is now looking likely that those states could easily and likely go to John McCain. When you have margins like this, I anticipate that these states, driven by the propensity of the undecideds to swing to the non-controversial candidate, will go to the "safe" John McCain.

Current Polling In FL, NC, MO, and OH:
Florida (27EV): Obama 48%/McCain 46.5%
North Carolina (15EV): Obama 49.2%/McCain 47.2%
Missouri (11EV): Obama 48%/McCain 45.3%
Ohio (20EV): Obama 48.3%/McCain 45.8%

Okay, that assumption tallies to 247 electoral votes for McCain and 291 votes for Obama. McCain still needs 22-23 electoral votes from somewhere. Below are some of the options.



Nevada (5 Electoral Votes)

Obama is leading McCain 49.3% to 46% in Nevada, which factoring in statistical error could make Nevada even. I don't think McCain is trending as well in the west as he is in the East Coast states I've listed above which is why I haven't given it to him as I have FL, NC, OH, and MO. However, when the polls start tightening up near the end of the race and given the factors I've listed for tightening above, I think McCain is in a very comfortable position to possibly win Nevada.

Pennsylvania (21 Electoral votes)

McCain is still campaigning very hard in Pennsylvania despite high single digit to low double digit trailing in the polls. You would think that this seems very odd as McCain has near abandoned states like Michigan and Iowa where he trails by a similar margin. Interestingly enough, Pennsylvania is a major anomaly, with pollsters and campaigns on both sides admitting that the margin in their internal polling is significantly tighter than national polling. In addition, Pennsylvania has a history of dramatic poll shifts in the final days, and the final results tend to favor Republican candidates heavily, albeit the polls had the Democrats at twenty point leads in those races (for example; so they ended up winning by narrow margins). Obama was absolutely trounced in Pennsylvania primaries by Hillary Clinton, likely by more socially conservative Democrats who saw right through his covering up of those Chicago and San Francisco liberal values. In that trouncing, Clinton saw a larger margin of victory than the polls had been predicting.

Pennsylvania is a state that stretches into the midwest and has a very large contingency of Republicans in Western Pennsylvania as well as socially moderate/generally moderate suburban voters all over Pennsylvania - exactly the kind of voter that caters to McCain (less so than President Bush, who lost the state by a very narrow margin). Rep. John Murtha also called Western Pennsylvania "very racist", which can only work the "Bradley Effect" in McCain's favor.

New Hampshire (4 Electoral Votes)

New Hampshire is a very libertarian state, and McCain had a large fan base there dating back from 2000 in which he called religious leaders backing George W. Bush "agents of intolerance". Despite a roughly 9% trail in the polls (52-BO/43-JMC), this is a state that was tied for McCain just a few weeks ago and could easily tie again with national shifts trending towards McCain. Keep in mind that New Hampshire is not a bonafide East Coast liberal state, much like Pennsylvania. Incidentally, McCain has been campaigning quite amply in New Hampshire as of late.

Virginia (13 Electoral Votes)

McCain is trailing by 7 points (51.5-BO/44.5-JMC). Again, national swings and polling error can put this state further into play. Virginia is also a traditionally Republican state, although it does have lots of blacks coming in full force for Obama as well as a lot of folks moving from DC into Northern Virginia. However, the 2004 election underrepresented Bush's actual support by a decent margin in the polls, meaning that it's possible such a thing could happen here.

Colorado (9 Electoral Votes)

Obama is currently leading McCain 50.4% to 45% in this traditionally Republican state. Again, national swings and polling error can put Colorado into play come November 4th. Somehow, I'm not terribly bullish on Colorado, but if McCain can continue to tighten it up a little, it may be possible to pull off a win.

Getting to 270

Making the assumption that McCain pulls off the aforementioned 247 EV's in OH, FL, MO, and NC, let's assemble some likely scenarios to 270.
247 + 21 PA + 1 in Maine = 269 tie
247 + 21 PA + 4 NH = 272 win
247 + 21 PA + 5 NV = 273 win
247 + 21 PA + 9 CO = 277 win
247 + 13 VA + 9 CO = 269 tie
247 + 13 VA + 21PA = 281 win
247 + 13 VA + 5 NV + 9 CO = 274 win
247 + 13 VA + 5 NV + 4 NH = 269 tie

As you can see, the road to the White House for John McCain lies in winning either Pennsylvania or Virginia, and then peeling off a small bit of something else to tip it over.

Reasons for Polling Error:

Voters who are more enthusiastic about their candidate tend to respond to pollsters. More often than not, that candidate would be Barack Obama, perhaps making him overrepresented in the sample.

The Bradley Effect: People don't want to tell the pollster they're voting McCain or they put themselves in the undecided category for fear of seeming racist. This intimidation effect seems plausible, as I don't feel terribly comfortable going around Berkeley toting my McCain/Palin pin (but I do), but will be very comfortable toting McCain/Palin in the ballot box.

Safe Candidate Syndrome: People are not afraid to go with the more controversial and less safe choice (if their a moderate swing voter) when chatting with a pollster or doing some online survey. However, there's a certain finality and seriousness of the ballot box that makes people re-examine their concerns and fears and vote with the "safe" candidate

References:

WSJ: Are the polls accurate?:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463210033356561.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

News Outlets Sweat Over Exit Poll Accuracy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081021/pl_politico/14778

BBC: Will Closet Racism Derail Obama:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7675551.stm

Is UC Berkeley Subverting State Law? It Sure Looks Like It

UC Berkeley has made no secret of its desire to eliminate Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996 to eliminate discrimination against certain races in the California public university admissions process. Specifically, Prop 209 made it illegal to continue the practice of giving applications with "minority" designations preference and a boost up in the admissions process despite having inferior "numerical" (GPA and SAT) qualifications. You could tell the process of discrimination was rampant before Prop 209 because minority enrollment plunged and their numerical data points surged upward, as evidenced by the data in the links I have provided.

The question in front of us now is whether UC Berkeley has disobeyed state law as mandated by the people of California by subverting the non-racial application review process in its admissions office. The evidence is quite overwhelming to support this.

Here's a pretty non-shocking yet explosive allegation made by an admissions committee member at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), who claims in his report that UCLA has covered up the fact that it takes race into account in its admissions process through this really dodgy process called "holistic" application review, or basically the notion that the application reader's touchy feely opinion of the student is king. The major charge is that application readers look at the application more favorably if there is a mention of race, and that is not likely preferable as a applicant if your father is a diplomat from Hong Kong and your major hardship was getting a lesser BMW than you wanted for your sweet 16. The report also charges that UC Berkeley uses similar admissions review processes and is more touchy feely; therefore is also quite likely to be subverting state law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/education/la-me-ucla30-2008aug30,0,776059.story

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/CUARS.Resignation.Report.pdf

Now here is the primary beef at UC Berkeley. Look at the admissions data by SAT Score for applicants who were admitted and decided to come to Berkeley. The margin between the median SAT Score by race from Black/Hispanic and White/Asian is enormous. Furthermore, the margin between Chinese and everyone else is even more enormous. This data is unfortunately pre-2006, but it still says a whole lot about what's been going on these last few years. From what I've heard, the present data trends are similar.

Year 2005 Median SAT Scores For Freshman Registrants: 135
• American Indian: 1335

• White: 1360

• Asian American Average: 1380

• International: 1430

• Chinese & Korean: 1410

• East Indian: 1410

• Filipino/Pacific Islander: 1290/1300

• African American: 1080

• Hispanic: 1140

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STAFFWEB/KW/sat.percentiles/median_tables/tbl10.html

Look at that enormous discrepancy! What factor specifically caused the average admitted and enrolled Hispanic and African-American groups to get in despite scoring an average of about 200-300 points below the major White and Asian peer groups? What elements were so spectacular in their applications that made up for the obvious deficiency in test scores? Did these groups have an abundance of extra curricular or leadership attributes that the average Asian or White did not have? It certainly can't be GPA, as the school's provided tables show a lower average GPA for these groups as well. Maybe it is just me, but I'm going to say that, in the words of David Letterman, "something doesn't smell right."

This is a civil rights issue. This is a government entity discriminating against its citizens. This is a whole group of people in that 200-300 point SAT margin that did not get into Berkeley. Citizens have a right to an investigation of UC Berkeley's admissions office for these potentially high crimes.

More Links on the Issue

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/08/25_fall08-stats.shtml

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2008/04/14_admits_table.shtml

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STUDENT.DATA/PUBLICATIONS/UG/ugf07.html

https://osr2.berkeley.edu/Public/STAFFWEB/KW/sat.percentiles/median_tables/tbl6.html

Really Hilarious McCain Quotes = I Heart John McCain

"Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? Because Janet Reno is her father." --at a 1998 Republican fundraiser

•

"Washington is a Hollywood for ugly people. Hollywood is a Washington for the simpleminded."

•

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who is still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."

•

"I said, 'The nice thing about Alzheimer's is you get to hide your own Easter eggs.'"

•

"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." -to his wife, Cindy, after she playfully twirled his hair and said "You're getting a little thin up there,"
•

"You know the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a scum-sucking bottom-dweller. The other is a fish."

•

"My Social Security number is 8." --joking with Jay Leno
•

"You know, by a strange coincidence I was not elected Miss Congeniality in the United States Senate this year." --after being asked by Rev. Rick Warren about going against his party

•

"The good news is that we now have enough money to run the entire campaign in Colorado. The bad news is, some of that money is still in your wallets and purses." --speaking at a fundraiser in Aspen, Colorado

"Fuck you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room." --to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), during a testy exchange about immigration legislation

•

"I had something picked out for you, too - a little IED (improvised explosive device) to put on your desk." --to Jon Stewart
•

"In case you missed it, a few days ago Senator Clinton tried to spend $1 million on the Woodstock Concert Museum. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time." --on the years he spent as a P.O.W. in Vietnam

•

"Thanks for the question, you little jerk." -- John McCain, after being asked by a high school student if he was too old to be president. For good measure, McCain then threatened to draft him.
•

"Remember the words of Chairman Mao: 'It's always darkest before it's totally black.'"

•

"Presidential ambition is a disease that can only be cured by embalming fluid."

•

"I'm older than dirt, I've got more scars than Frankenstein, but I've learned a few things along the way."
•

"Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it." --to reporters in New Hampshire after being asked him about Mitt Romney

•

"We spent $3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. I don't know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue." --on wasteful congressional spending
•

"I spent several years in a North Vietnamese prison camp, in the dark, fed with scraps. Do you think I want to do that all over again as vice president of the United States?"
•

"We have a lot of work to do. It's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border." --referring to a border that does not exist, ABC News interview, July 21, 2008

•

"I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don't expect to be a great communicator, I don't expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need." --New York Times interview, July 13, 2008

•

"Maybe that's a way of killing them." --responding to a report that $158 million in cigarettes have been shipped to Iran during Bush's presidency despite restrictions on U.S. exports to that country, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 8, 2008
•

"I will veto every single beer, um, bill with earmarks." --speaking at the National Small Business Summit, Washington, D.C., June 10, 2008 (Watch video clip)

•

"Well, basically, it's a Google." --on how he's conducting his VP search, Richmond, Virginia, June 9, 2008
•

"We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies." --Kenner, Louisiana, June 3, 2008

•

"You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran? Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." --breaking into song after being asked at a VFW meeting about whether it was time to send a message to Iran, Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, April 18, 2007 (Watch video clip)
•

"I will conduct a respectful debate. Now, it will be dispirited -- it will be spirited -- because there are stark differences. I am a proud conservative, liberal Republica-- conservative Republican...Hello? Easy there."

•

"I am a illiterate that has to rely on my wife for all of the assistance I can get." -after being asked whether us uses a Mac or a PC.
•

"It's not social issues I care about."

•

"No, I'm calling you a fucking jerk." --to fellow Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, when Grassley asked "Are you calling me stupid?"
•

"Only an asshole would put together a budget like this ... I wouldn't call you an asshole unless you really were an asshole." --to Budget Committee Chairman and fellow Repulican Sen. Pete Domenici, during a Senate budget hearing

SOURCE: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/johnmccain/a/mccain-quotes.htm

Complied by Daniel Kurtzman

Interesting Electoral College Scenarios

Here is today's electoral college map, making the assumption that all swing states go to the person currently leading, no matter the margin. According to this, Barack Obama wins the election 273-265. In order for this to happen, McCain will win Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Nevada - he doesn't have comfortable margins in either Nevada, Virginia, or Ohio. However, this assumes Obama will retain his very uncomfortable leads in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Colorado, and Minnesota (all under 3%). Keep in mind that McCain is likely to keep Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Nevada, meaning he needs to turn over only one other swing state to win (with the exception of New Hampshire). Pennsylvania, Colorado, or another dark horse state could easily go McCain's way.


According to recently released data, Obama could lose roughly 6 percentage points on election day because he is black. In other words, when the pollsters call folks, they feel comfortable being "progressive" because it is not their real vote. However, when they actually get in the voting booth and have to make that critical decision, they will vote for the safe candidate, which is John McCain. Anyway, assuming Obama loses 6 percentage point in each state, above is the resulting electoral victory for McCain - an absolute sweep (this is also assuming McCain gains no points and being very generous towards Obama - just dropping Obama's percentage 6% and keeping McCain's the same, even though that's not really realistic). It's fascinating that Washington currently has Obama leading McCain 49-45, which is an extremely small margin for a state like Washington. Consider New Mexico, a reasonably red state, having Obama leading 50-44. It is unfathomable that Washington is a narrower swing state. Also consider solidly Blue Minnesota, the only state to have not voted for Ronald Reagan, having a 47-45 lead for Obama - that's only 2%, also unfathomable. The point is that if polling behavior is really slightly different from voting behavior, it's going to be a very tough race for Obama.


What if everything is near the current status quo come election day, except McCain wins New Hampshire, in which he is only trailing by a little over a percentage point? That would give both candidates 269 electoral votes. In that case, the House would cast their vote for Obama (for President, the constitutional responsibility of the House), and the Senate would cast a tie for the VP vote since Lieberman (no longer a Democrat), would cast his vote for Sarah Palin. This 50-50 tie would then go to Vice President Cheney, who would most certainly vote for Sarah Palin. Boy, the Democrats were stupid for crossing Joe Lieberman. He's already spoken at the RNC, and now he might swing a VP election to Sarah Palin, with president Barack Hussein Obama! It's called karma Democrats - karma for swinging so far to the left that you oust absolutely respectable, honorable, and moderate Joe Lieberman. Horrible!