McCain forces my hand - Obama is it..

I've previously indicated my discontent with both candidates for distinct reasons. Today, McCain has forced my hand - I'm going to vote for Obama.

Not only does McCain have a wild maverick foreign policy which has the potential to trigger a new cold war, but he also admittedly has no clue when it comes to the economy - a scary combination.

My decision on who to vote for was going to be based upon McCain's VP choice - If he chose Romney, I would have had to think long and hard. Out of all the candidates, Romney was one of the few non-career politicians. And I don't like career politicians - for their entire life they've lived on the state and have no real world experience in my opinion. Romney actually contributed to the economy - he had experience running corporations throughout his life. In today's economic climate, this kind of background is an asset.

Instead, McCain chose some little known woman from Alaska who has 5 kids - 4 of whom are young, with little relevant experience - she was a sportscaster, and held various governmental jobs. She hasn't been governor for more than 2 years. How can we elect McCain - who is old and may very well leave the presidency to a woman who has such feeble experience? Scary. His idea was to seize on discontented Clinton supporters - a feeble attempt to garner their votes simply because a woman is on the ticket. Instead of choosing the man who was right for the job - he chose the person that was wrong.

Obama said a couple things the other day that resonnated with me - tax reductions. That's what I had been fearing the most - tax increases in a weak economy inline with tax and spend policy of the democrats. It appears that he has shifted away from this ideology and seems to suggest a balance - one personal responsibility, lower taxes, and encouraging individuals to contribute to the economy, with the Government there to help when needed. Of course, I believe that the Government should have minimal involvement, but thats satisfactory for now.

The US-Russia Foreign Policy Quandry

When Russia invaded Georgia, the U.S. had a difficult time trying to characterize their objection. They were down this road not too long ago - when they wanted to invade Iraq and only a handful of nations would go along. They listened to no one.

Today, Democrats and Republicans (no difference) have expressed their 'outrage' over Russia's actions. I heard a wide array of statements that were borderline hypocritical including, but not limited to, the following:

"The days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe -- those days are gone."

- US Ambassador to UN Zalmay Khalilzad - Emphasis added on the "in Europe" part. Apparently, the Middle East is still fair game...

“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

- John McCain

"This is not 1968 and the invasion of Czechoslovakia where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, overthrow a government and get away with it. Things have changed."

- Condoleeza Rice

I'm not going to insult the intelligence of those who read this blog by further explaining the apparent hypocrisy of these statements.

I'd like to make a couple of points here - there is a damn good reason why the international community is not rushing to the defense of Georgia as quickly as you'd expect - they fired the first shots! South Ossetia has been demanding independence, and Georgia saw an opportunity to try to take back the breakaway region. They did so by force, killing scores of civilians prior to the intervention of Russia. Why did Russia intervene? 90% of South Ossetia's inhabitants are Russian citizens - and the Russian constitution calls for the defense of Russians wherever they reside. Therefore, they are following their constitution (which, by the way, is something that the current US government fails to do). It is for this reason, and for the fact that Georgia attacked the Russian peace keepers who were there.

Another point I'd like to make - the US Government keeps saying that Georgia is a country with democratically elected leaders. But what if the people of a certain region do not agree with the leadership and these leaders don't represent their interests? Democracy is deficient in these areas - right now, there resides an individual in the White House who does not represent me - right here in the U.S. In my opinion, he has no legitimacy. In South Ossetia, the whole region has made a collective decision that Mikheil Saakashvilli does not represent them nor does anyone in the Georgian government. And they are demanding their independence and welcome the Russian intervention. Don't forget the words of our own Declaration of Independence before you pass judgement on this matter -

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The FreeCreditReport.com Commercials piss me off....

I'm getting annoyed at these Freecreditreport.com commercials. They're ridiculous and make no sense.

Take for instance, the commercial in which a teenager isn't able to buy a car because of credit issues, and settles on a dilapidated hatchback. If that's all the cash he had on hand, then its a damn good thing he didn't take out a loan anyway.

Then there's the commercial where a guy is forced to work as a bar entertainer/guitarist (?) because of poor credit. Having good credit does not increase your cash flow, nor preclude you from a good paying job - it's just a mechanism which enables you to overextending yourself. This commercial insinuates that its healthy to wontonly take out loans to fulfill an extravagant lifestyle, and that without credit somehow you are poorer.....?????

And then, the one that pisses me off the most - the one in which the lead character sings about marrying his 'dream girl.' Essentially, he claims that because his now wife's credit was bad they could not get a loan on a house or otherwise and was forced to live in the basement of her parent's house. And the kicker is that he says that if he had known - he would have rather remained single. This argument does not hold water - what about your own credit, jackass? You must of f-ed up too!

Essentially, what these commercials portray is that sad state of society - the excessive overextension of credit and American's inability to survive without it. I don't know about you, but I right now have 0 debt - no student loans, no car payment. That's my cash management strategy.