With people turning to gun violence during times of desperation and with the recession increasing incidents of desperation the MSM has been covering incidents of gun violence frequently lately. Of course in the MSM this topic always is an opportunity to discuss gun control. At the same time the Obama administration has been discussing gun control in relation to Mexican drug cartel violence on the border. In the MSM this leads to discussions that assume the return of the Brady Ban. I get the feeling that this is a wag the dog situation. Especially since it seems that reports in the MSM of violence on the boarder are inflated beyond all proportion.
My suspicions are raised even more that the MSM is just getting their gun control rocks off when Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says that a renewed assault weapons ban would not be effective in reducing Mexican drug cartel violence.
In the first few weeks of the Obama Administration, it is becoming increasingly clear that he can't please everyone. Unfortunately, some in the military establishment have gone almost to the point of blackmail in attempting to place controls on U.S. Defense Policy.
With the word "stimulus"in the air, and every corporation with operations in the United States smelling bacon, an effort has emerged in Washington seeking to extend production of the F-22 as a sort of stimulus spending. A webpage sponsored by manufacturer Lockheed-Martin alleges that 95,000 jobs can be saved by continuing to manufacture the F-22 Raptor, without mentioning a specific cost in additional military spending. Undoubtedly, the Air Force itself is hoping for this increase as well, considering reports that the F-35 can't stand up against Russian air defense systems. However, this is the least of Obama's military problems.
Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledging the change of focus for the Defense Department from Iraq to Afghanistan, has a laundry list of potential military problems which are very far-reaching.
For instance, [Adm. Mullen] said, the United States needs to help Iran develop stability instead of fomenting terror.
Other sticking points abroad, Mullen said, are assuring stability in places like Russia and China, dealing with issues like famine and genocide in Africa, and the drug trade in Mexico.
This news report on Adm. Mullen's full lecture is well-worth reading. Obviously, the Department of Defense is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of government funding, especially considering the costs of expanding operations in Afghanistan, despite efforts to curb U.S. strategic objectives.
Two other reports regarding the military-industrial complex could serve as an early test of the new administration. The first, that the military is attempting to accuse Obama of reducing military spending, by not giving them all that the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted, smacks of career military officials attempting to establish their role in crafting defense policy. While bureaucratic squabbling is hardly anything new, this second report, is far more disturbing. If senior military officials are truly attempting to pressure Pres. Obama into accepting a misleading plan to rename apples oranges, they are certainly making a political decision instead of respecting the orders of their new Commander-in-Chief.
Defense policy, especially spending decisions, are fundamentally political decisions, and thus the exclusive province of elected civilian leaders. Even if General Petraeus is worried that he is losing his hotline to the White House that he enjoyed in the days of the Bush Administration, it would probably be more useful for him to pursue a good working relationship with the incoming administration, rather than engaging in bureaucratic in-fighting over issues which have already been addressed.
Whether you supported John McCain, Ron Paul, or even Brian Moore, the real Socialist candidate, congratulations are certainly in order for the winner of the 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, there are more than a few questions he needs to answer almost immediately. Sure, he can have a few days to bask in the glory of the acceptance of an entire nation-state, if not the entire world, but try to keep it short. Some of these questions may have already been answered in campaign promises, but as the last few presidential campaigns have demonstrated, promises can be forgotten so easily, and so these need to be asked. So without further avail, in no particular order, are the list of questions we here at the Fringe Element would like to see Barack Obama answer.
Will you promise not to lie to the American people, even if the truth will hurt your political aspirations?
Will you move the U.S.A.'s foreign policy away from the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes into foreign countries?
Will you free the West Memphis Three and Mumia Abu-Jamal?
Do you plan to amend the FISA Act and discontinue the NSA's domestic surveillance programs?
Will you use neutral experts to evaluate science and policy before committing tax money to any specific plans and regulations?
Your running mate is famous for having been the reason for the creation of PGP encryption. Will you enunciate a series of principles governing your administration's relationship to the internet, and will you continue to support net neutrality? Furthermore, will you enforce net neutrality regulations with civil and criminal penalties?
Do you realize and acknowledge that infrastructure, the environment, the economy, taxes, energy, crime, prisons, and drugs are all interrelated facets of one national domestic problem that must be solved with a cohesive effort and a comprehensive policy?
How do you plan to address the ongoing global economic crisis? Do you want to convene a Bretton Woods II, or try to create a novel set of policies?
How will you direct your appointed Treasurer to manage the funds under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act? Will you direct these funds to help homeowners or businesses?
Will the focus of whatever economic plan you craft be to create jobs, like Franklin Delano Roosevelt with his New Deal, or to help corporations?
How do you plan to regulate big business? That is to say, how do you plan to regulate corporations so that no corporation is "too big to fail"?
How do you plan to encourage the creation and growth of small businesses while protecting the public interest?
Do you plan to trim down the budget of the Department of Defense? Or, if not, at least demand better accountability of funds that are spent?
How will you encourage private, self-interested companies to develop alternatives to fossil fuels and solutions for our energy crisis?
How do you plan to address the shortage in funds in the Social Security trust that were promised to the now-retiring baby boomer generation?
Do you plan to continue the War on Drugs?
To what extent, if any, are you going to restructure the military-industrial complex?
To what extent, if any, are you going to restructure the prison-industrial complex?
What measures do you plan to take in fostering a so-called green economy?
What is your plan for addressing America's crumbling infrastructure?
Do you plan on re-tasking the FBI from its current counter-terrorism mission to being more focused on domestic crime, such as white collar crime and political corruption?
Do you promise not to politicize the Justice Department and the various U.S. Attorneys?
What type of Judge will you appoint to the Supreme Court if given the chance?
How do you plan to address the Bush Administration's last minute changes to federal regulations governing such matters as consumer safety and the management of federal lands, and such bureaucracies as the Environmental Protection Agency?
Do you plan to drill for oil and natural gas offshore and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge?
How do you plan to address the growing shortage of lending for college students and their families?
Do you have any plan to provide health care for all American citizens?
Are you going to follow-up on Vice President-elect Joe Biden's promise to prosecute former members of the Bush Administration for their various allegend misdemeanors and felonies?
Do you plan to continue to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons?
Would you be interested in negotiating a multilateral treaty governing Space, the Internet, and other facets of information warfare?
Will you continue to address terrorism as a national security issue, or view it as a problem of criminal justice?
Do you plan to rehabilitate ties with Russia?
Are you going to continue with the installation of the missile defense shield, especially in the Czeck Republic and Poland?
Do you plan to change America's foreign policy in regards to the Republic of Georgia?
Do you plan to change government policy as it relates to selling weapons to foreign nations?
What will be your administration's policy towards Israel? Are you going to take meaningful steps in creating a Palestinian state or otherwise realizing peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians?
Will you denounce Israeli settlements in the West Bank that have been recognized as illegal under international law?
You have already expressed a willingness to negotiate with the government of the Republic of Iran directly, but will you continue to enforce unilateral sanctions placed upon that country by the Bush Administration?
How long is your timeline for pulling American troops out of Iraq?
What is your plan for Afghanistan? Will you follow-up on your promise of deploying additional troops to the region? How will you address the concerns of the Afghani government about civilian casualties?
You have also addressed a willingness to address the various problems in Pakistan, such as the Taliban haven along its shared border with Afghanistan, but will you direct the Department of Defense to continue using Predator drone missile strikes into Pakistani territory to kill militants? Will you continue to support the Pakistani government's campaign to fight the aforementioned militants in the form of cash payments and limited training, or will you try a different approach? Do you have any plan for addressing Pakistan's foreign exchange problem?
Do you plan to convene peace talks between Pakistan, India, and the People's Republic of China over the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir?
Do you have any plan to address the ongoing civil war in Sri Lanka?
Do you plan to engage in talks with the military government of Myanmar?
At the risk of asking too large of a question, what will be your administration's policy towards the People's Republic of China? Will you continue to sell armaments to Taiwan?
Do you have any plan to address the ongoing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo?
How do you plan to address piracy in the Gulf of Aden based in Somalia?
Do you have any plan to engage in talks with Robert Mugabe's government and alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe?
Do you plan to continue the DEA's coca eradication program in South America?
Do you plan to lift the embargo on Cuba?
How do you plan to mend ties between the U.S.A. and Latin America?
Do you have any ideas for combating the rise in drug-related violence in Mexico?
It hasn't been often in the last 7 plus years of the Bush Administration when one could truly say that the power of people defeated the people of power. When special interests took a back seat to those who really run the country, Mr. and Ms. Average. Since the bailout was originally announced, there have been numerous campaigns to stop it, academic disputes, and even the rarest of the rare, a public battle among the normally tightly disciplined Republican party. But, in the end, those who have to face up to the voters on November 4th realized that voting yes was potentially one of the biggest threats to their political careers, regardless of party. If you look at the list of how people voted in this historic vote, those on the 'yes' side will probably have a rough time of it, if not lose their seats to those who chose not to approve the still horrible re-negotiated version of the bailout proposal. In particular, I'm sure Dennis Kucinich (OH-10th) is feeling a little smug, knowing that he predicted the outcome of the vote.
On a slightly different note, I'm not sure why everyone in the world of pundits is characterizing this rejection of the bailout proposal a failure of governance. In common parlance, bills are said to have failed, but that is almost a bureaucratic term. In real terms, this bailout was an ideological battle between those who are in favor of and those who are against nationalization and similar bailouts in the United States. Moreover, this is not a vacuum of leadership in which the U.S. government is flying down a country road like a '62 Corsair without a driver., as that has been happening for the last 7 years.
Of course, in a vacuum, comes the punditry. Perhaps the most offensive piece I've read thus far about the political process that brought about this conclusion comes from Rupert Cornwell from the U.K.'s Independent. My favorite metaphor in the article compares the mechanisms of American democracy to Alice Through the Looking Glass. Putting that aside, though, the author clearly doesn't understand the huge popular backlash against the bailout. Sure, in the U.K. and other parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister isn't approved by the people at large, but in the U.S. the leaders need to be especially accountable. And to say that the bill died in partisan sniveling is obviously disregarding what was essentially a bipartisan effort to keep the American people from having to shovel out $700 Billion or more on a plan that was only designed to correct the dangerous excesses of the richest segments of society. Perhaps, too, the American people have become wary of those who warn about apocalyptic disaster and offer a solution that meets a certain biased politican agenda.
Kevin Connolly from the BBC, in looking at the reasons behind the bailouts defeat in the House of Representatives, expresses a strange sentiment, that after this bill's defeat and the sense of crisis that it engenders will offer a way out for the bailout proposal, that Main Street hasn't suffered yet. Unfortunately, the people of the United States have been suffering, which is the underlying cause for this economic crisis. With the inflationary impact of cheap money, combined with tepid job growth, primarily in the services sector since the recession of 2001, people were forced to choose between living and surviving, which meant that the mortgage had to go unpaid. Thus, in a trickle up fashion, the banks and other financial institutions, who were holders of arcane financial securities into which these poorly written mortgages were conglomerated, began to suffer the counsequences of their poor lending practices. I think Mr. Connolly underestimates the intelligence of Mr. and Ms. Average and their understanding of this situation, as Mr. or Ms. Average are probably already unemployed, underemployed, or facing the prospect of losing their job in the failing economy.
From the campaign trail in Iowa, Sen. John McCain who, infamously, suspended his campaign to not show up in Washington for negotiations, has called upon Congress to return to the drawing board and to get back to work right away. Sen. Barack Obama, from a rally outside of Denver, called for calm, saying that things in Congress are never smooth, and instead of imploring or demanding that his colleagues work on the proposal to shore up the wealth of the financial sector, he used a baseball metaphor.
So panic thus gripped the financial markets, and the Dow Jones suffered its worst lost ever in terms of points. But, have no fear for liquidity, because Helicopter Ben Bernanke has come to the rescue, increasing the amount of dollars in the global financial system by a whopping $630 Billion dollars. To show you a frightening graph that indicates inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is just around the corner, here is the Adjusted Monetary Base, courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The highlight of a series of moves in the banking industry, Citigroup has purchased Wachovia, after the stock lost more than 80% in trading on Monday.
During Gov. Lingles speech at the RNC tonight the crowd could be heard chanting "Zero," when Lingle attempted to answer accusations that Sara Palin is inexperienced by pointing out that neither Obama nor Joe Biden has any experience in an executive office. The red herring aside, I was immediately inspired. The number zero and the letter "O" are similarly shaped and to distinguish between the two, people and computers will frequently put a slash through the zero. I thought this could be a clever way for the Republicans to say "No," to Obama while also implying that he has no experience as a leader. It could be spelled as 0bama or as zer0bama and pronounced "Zer-obama." Hands off that, I am going to try to sell the idea to the RNC.
The NRA recently sent out a political advertisement that purports to be a survey of members political attitudes regarding gun control issues among other things. They say that this will be used to dispel myths about gun owners and to prove that gun owners are a voting block that needs to be catered to by the political elite. They obviously don't respect the intelligence of their own members since gun owners attitudes regarding gun control are not going to vary significantly enough to require a survey by a lobbying entity that they are members of. What is really going on here is the NRA is sending out anti-Obama propaganda to its membership. I filled out the survey and sent it back with a letter that chastises the survey makers for undertaking such an Orwellian propaganda campaign against their own members, and for filling the "survey" with straw men and red herrings. This type of propaganda is more insidious in a private communication like a letter since there is noone there to point out to the reader what is being done.
I am no fan of Obama but the far right wing nature of the politics of the NRA disturbs me. To me, being pro-gun is about freedom verses fascism, not about left verses right. The fact that John Bolton is a prominent member of the NRA and was given a hero's welcome at the national convention would be enough to raise questions about the motives of the NRA but that fact that they gloss over John McCain's anti-gun votes in their American Rifleman interview where he receives the NRA's endorsement leads me to believe that the NRA is more about promoting a Barry Goldwater type of politics rather than looking out for the Second Amendment freedoms of all Americans.
That's what they used to call Wal-Mart where I grew up. I worked for Wal-Mart for two years in various departments so I know first hand about their anti-union practices, among other things. When I was first hired I was taken into the HR office where I was shown some orientation videos. These were poorly written propaganda where the opinion the company wished you to have was told to you with the not so subtle undertone that your job depended on not openly disagreeing. Mostly these videos cheered how great the founder was and how powerful and efficient the company is. Next they claimed that the dead-end job you were hired into was a golden ticket to the high life as long as you keep your head down and keep your mouth shut. The most inelegant of the propaganda videos was the anti-union video. It laid out Wal-Mart's corporate line on unions: unions will lie to you, you will pay huge dues and loose all your company benefits, unions don't help workers they are just out to run national political campaigns that are against your best interest. Even as a kid the threat wasn't lost on me. Wal-Mart was saying directly to each new hire, if you try to unionize we will take away the meager benefits we have graciously seen fit to give you. Any idiot could see that the benefits were terrible, dead peasant insurance and health care that only the management could afford. Wal-Mart is so anti union that they even closed a store where the employees voted to unionize in order to prevent the unions from getting a foot hold in the company. The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article detailing how Wal-Mart warned its employees against voting Democratic this fall while matching that with a renewed parroting of the company line against unions. The funny thing is that these speeches are probably the first thing most of these employees heard about the Free Choice Act. From my experience working at Wal-Mart the people there aren't particularly political and would have to be pretty fed up with working there to even be considering the union option enough to know about the Free Choice Act. I know its the first I have heard of it and extra publicity for the act is probably the last thing Wal-Mart wanted. What can you expect from a company that has such an unrefined propaganda machine?
It is repeated many places on the log cabin so I wont go into much detail here but it is important to recount what is bad about Wal-Mart. The low prices at Wal-Mart aren't from some magic that Sam Walton pulled out of his ass. Lowering prices to out perform your competition is an old tactic. the problem with it is that you cant do that forever unless you have some way of making your cost go down. Two ways Wal-Mart saves cost(lowers overhead) is by getting lower prices from manufacturers and reducing labor costs. They cut prices from manufacturers first by buying in huge volume, Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the world and has the power to negotiate(dictate) their own prices from their suppliers. The problem with this is that the suppliers and manufacturers have their own costs to cover and in order to lower prices they have to close factories in the U.S. and send them overseas. Master lock is one brand this happened to, Wal-Mart also drove the entire television manufacturing industry overseas. This is one way Wal-Mart destroys American jobs and lowers the wage of the American worker. Wal-Mart keeps its labor costs low by paying a wage that is below the poverty level (a living wage in the U.S. is over $11/hour) and offering few benefits and pricing the benefits they do offer out of the reach of their average employees. Then they force the American taxpayer to subsidize their employees by referring them to state and federal well fare programs. Think that over, you are subsidizing Wal-Marts low prices and their astronomical profits with your taxes, whether or not you shop there. At about 4:30 into the video it gives you numbers on this.
When I first started working at Wal-Mart management at the store I worked at would wait till someone punched out at the end of their shift and then tell them to clean up a department before they left. At least they weren'tlocking us in overnight. There was an audit by the government and that practice stopped only to be followed by a tricky hiring practice. The manager didn't hire any full time employees. That alone saved on lunches since an eight hour employee gets two fifteen minute breaks and a half hour for lunch while a four hour employee gets only one fifteen minute break. It also saved on benefits since only full time employees were eligible for them. These new employees were all hired for the lowest paying job in the store and then trained for the jobs that got paid twenty five cents per hour more. That's a small dick in the ass of each employee but twenty five cents an hour for fifty employees over a an eighteen hour business day seven days a week adds up to over $80,000 in labor cost savings a year.
So Wal-Mart comes to town playing its game of dirty pool, drives local businesses out of business, and forces self sufficient former entrepreneurs to work for poverty wages while taking dollars out of the local economy and sending them to their corporate offices in Arkansas and overseas. That's why when people suggest I shop at Wal-Mart I say, "Sorry, I love America too much."
OK so the previous post was a bit of an act of contrition toward the old media that gets so much of a beating in the blogosphere because for some reason I have been feeling a bit guilty about the hard time they are given. Except the beating the old media gets is usually justified. If there was more first person reporting of actual news and less fluff and opinion then there wouldn't be any reason to bitch.
This post is a specific bitch about the way the old media has been treating Obama's world tour this week. Not only has there been more coverage of Obama's speeches and doings than McCain's, news outlets have dedicated their fluff space to speculation about what he will do next and commentary on whether his speech in Germany was historic or epic. The LA Times tries at some apologetics for the unfairness here. The unfairness is one thing but the outright bias is another. This kind of tour has happened several times before. An international policy tour by a presidential candidate that was not a sitting president has happened a few times in the past and McCain himself has done so. But this is OBAMA! So even when a program recognizes that fact, they still go out of their way to book a guest that insists this is a one of a kind event.
Obama needs to be on his guard with the media. Howard Dean was a media darling for his campaign till he started criticising them. Then the two faced serpent turned around and destroyed his political career.
In the mean time the freedom haters in the old media are trying to make an issue out of concealed carry in national parks. Concealed carry will be the battleground of the future in gun control since an outright ban is out of the question now.
So now there is no one left to vote for. At the beginning of this long election season I could see no difference between Obama McCain and Clinton. They are all the same centrist robot pushed forth by the two big parties. It feels like 1999 again when there was no apparent difference between Bush and Gore. Over time though, like with all politicians, the candidates have revealed which freedoms they hate and what they want to spend our money on.
Yesterday the Green Party announced their presidential candidate will be Cynthia McKinney. Yes, that Cynthia McKinney. Its confusing to me that the Green party would field a candidate that is obviously not capable of being president. This woman has no self control and is fixated on trivial issues. At best, she would be an embarrassment to the country if she were on a world stage, at worst she would spark an international incident with her lack of tact and decorum.
The only reason I mention the Greens here is because I am now at a loss for whom I shall cast my vote. Obama voted for the FISA bill. That's just about the only concrete thing I know about the guy. That and he was a crusader to ban guns until he decided to run for president. McCain is little better. From being the maverick Senator that stood up for what he believed in even if it was against his own party, he has cozyed up to right wing religious fanatics, stood up for the party that betrayed him in 2000, and gone against his own campaign finance laws and ideals. He was an idealistic war hero that stood above the corruption of politics and filth of Washington before he lost the primary to Bush. Now he is just another pandering politician trying to tell you what you want to hear. This election makes me feel like its last call and I am being hit on by a drunk sociopath.
The Libertarians have put forth Bob Barr of all people. Holy fucking mother of everliving fat! Bob fucking Barr! This man was regarded as the most right-wing conservative politician in congress. He was anti-drug, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, he tried to outlaw all non-Abrahamic religions in the military, and he voted for the PATRIOT act. Now he has criticized his vote for the patriot act, advocated the repeal of the income tax, and paid lip service to legalization of pot, which is apparently sufficient for the party heads of the Libertarian party. This is why I call myself philosophically libertarian rather than identify with the Libertarian party. They are more concerned with taxes and free trade than with actual liberty. So now there is no one left to vote for but freedom hating hypocrites.
Its like a bad movie and they are running out of extras. Seriously, Bob Barr and Cynthia McKinney? This is the best we can do? There are hundreds of people in politics at the national level. Senators, Representatives, Judges, Party heads. Most of us know businessmen and fucking actors that would be better choices. I feel like I am in a poorly written political farce that has run low on budget and can't afford more actors with lines.
That is the sound of Obama voting to set your freedom, privacy, and security back to the days before Nixon. Again a major piece of legislation is pushed through with no real discussion and no in depth understanding of what the law does. Instead the Bush administration and the power hungry, do-nothing senators push their message of fear that has inexplicably continued to work for them for seven years. It helps that there isn't any press coverage.
Remember these are the same people who had sufficient intelligence to prevent 9/11 but failed to. Yet they continue to say they need to listen in on to all of our calls. They continue to say that we need to give protection to the phone companies that may have broken the law in their rush to give all of our information, calls, Internet traffic, and emails to the government. They also continue to say that if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about. Ahh the old standby of the people who want a police state and the conformists who support them. In case you weren't paying attention in elementary school that is the kind of shit we don't stand for in America. The fourth amendment was the founding fathers declaration that Americans should not have to be subject to such a weak red herring. I have also explained in previous posts why law abiding persons have every reason to have lawful secrets and to fear a government with too much power or information. For example, what if the Democrats decide to create a political smear machine and hunt out every gay conservative through the massive amount of information this will create? Then the law abiding, republicans will see what they have to fear from the fruits of their own fear mongering and lust for power.
What I really came here to do is rail against Obama for voting for fear and against freedom. I was really excited by Obama after his first speech regarding the racist conspiracies circulating in his church. That speech showed real leadership and had the potential of elevating the national dialogue regarding race. I was particularly excited because after months of hearing nothing but the words "hope" and "change" I finally knew something of substance about Obama. I was beginning to understand the rock star level of excitement that surrounded him. The last week has completely eliminated any enthusiasm I once had. Despite the "embarrassing pejorative" Jessie Jackson leveled at Obama, it is true that he has been giving up his convictions to appear more mainstream. Obama has been a crusader against gun rights, and even though I disagree with him, I was disappointed to hear his quiet measured reaction to the decision by the supreme court that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a handgun. Then later it was announced that Obama was in favor of the death penalty. I don't particularly have an opinion on the issue but I do know that if you want to get elected in this country, especially at the national level, you better be in favor of the death penalty. Combined with his taking the side of the freedom haters in congress this all spells out that Obama is another political robot just to act as a face. He is the dickless face of a party with no balls. Hows that for a pejorative?
Aparently Hillary Clinton was able to drink McCain under the table in Estonia. This raises serious questions for the McCain presidential campaign. How can we expect a presidential candidate to be hard on the terrorists when they go easy on their own liver? While they both only consumed four(4) shots of vodka at least we can assume Hillary could out drink both Osama Bin Laden and Muqtada al-Sadr because muslims are not permitted to drink alcohol and we can assume they would not be prepaired for it. We have yet to hear of any exploits of Obama's capacitiy to imbibe intoxicants and this story raises the question. How much can Obama drink? For that matter how much can Ron Paul drink? Obama looks pretty lanky, and Ron Paul is no spring chicken but experience is what counts. Also, the story lacks information on how large a shot is in Estonia. I would assume that being married to President Bill Clinton would give one plenty of experience with keeping ones composure after consuming mass quantities of alcohol. So I was quite shocked to find that the contest had ended after four shots. Perhaps that is just when McCain threw in the towel. Which brings us back to the question. If McCain gave in to Hillary after just four shots of vodka, how can we believe his talk that he will stand strong against the terrorists and win the war in Iraq?
