What does Isaac Chotiner know? Probably nothing more than you and me, but he brings up an interesting point.

First, an uplifting, encouraging speech from the United Steel Workers Union:

The below video shows just SOME of the problems Obama could face on election day. It also shows the problems our country has. The fact that some people still will not vote for Obama because he is black… is astounding.

And, an in depth article that you can really sink your teeth into.

Obviously, there are tons more. But, these are some of the things I saw lately (except for the NR article, that’s old).

So Biden did very well in the debates. He had tons of facts and numbers, he slammed McCain. And I go back to what The New York Observer said about his debating style:

There is an inherent respect for the intellect of his audience—and his skeptics—in Mr. Biden’s presentation, a welcome contrast to the insulting manipulation often evident in [other politicians] canned evasions.

But, he seemed to go almost too negative, too fact-ish, and didn’t talk enough about Obama. However, again, he still did very well. A contained Biden makes for a great debater. On a 1 to 10 scale, while Biden can easily reach the top level of anger – 10 (yelling and making mistakes), tonight he was at about a perfect 6.

As for the polls on the debate?

CNN’s poll gives the debate to Biden, 51% to 36%…..Frank Luntz’s focus group found Palin’s performance to be most effective…CBS News’s poll: 46% of uncommitted voters surveyed gave the debate to Biden, where 21% thought Palin won. But 55% said their opinion of Palin changed for the better; 53% said their opinions of Biden changed in the positive direction as well. 18% of uncommitted voters are now committed to Obama; 10% are committed to McCain.

Here is what a few pundits had to say about Palin (Compiled by Time.com’s ‘The Swamp’ blog):

David Gergen on CNN: Says Palin “erased” the potential risk of being seen as an “embarassment” to the campaign.

Harold Ford on MSNBC: Palin “held her own in many ways tonight….”

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC: “I thought she was sensational. She wiped up the floor with Joe Biden, quite frankly.”

Howard Fineman on MSNBC: From Palin “it was attack, attack, attack. Resort to Alaska when necessary, not listen to the questions or answer them when necessary….”

David Brooks on PBS: “I thought she was every bit his equal. I thought she was fluid, confident, she struck her theme, just the regular old mom.”

The Week Overall?

Obama’s first debate was decent, and the polls seemed to go in his favor, even though the CNN poll was of the audience, and they were made up of more Democrats than Republicans. Overall, the last week has been great for Democrats.

And what was that little sneak in on the Bridge to Nowhere? Clever Joe! However…Biden may be working on getting his own Bridge to Nowhere, AND he and Senator Obama voted for the Alaskan’ Bridge to Nowhere – twice!

McCain will go off TV in Michigan, stop dropping mail there and send most of his staff to more competitive states, including Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. Wisconsin went for Kerry in 2004, Ohio and Florida for Bush.

…

McCain and his running mate Sarah Palin spent the first night after the GOP convention at a large rally in Macomb County, just outside Detroit. The two returned later last month for another sizable event in Grand Rapids.

But recent polls there have shown Obama extending what had been a small lead, with the economic crisis damaging an already sagging GOP brand in a state whose economy is in tatters.

A McCain event planned for next week in Plymouth, Mich., has been canceled.

This isn’t great for McCain, obviously, this was one of those Kerry states he was trying to win back. However, now he will have to focus on New Hampshire and Wisconsin (the other two Kerry states possibly up for grabs).

What Democrats do not seem to be making as big of a deal about is that Obama pulled out of Georgia and North Dakota. Not to mention, Alaska is basically a definite loss with the Palin VP pick.

Obama put major resources into Georgia, and some questioned that decision, and now it has come to beat him in the but. However, if you follow polls and projections, Obama is still doing very well.

Sarah Palin, who has been governor of Alaska for two years and is now the presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, is not merely opposed to abortion. She is not merely a cultural conservative. In the right-wing Christian landscape, she stands as far to the right as possible. Palin wants abortion to be criminalized even in cases of rape and incest (a position where some conservative Christians won’t go). Do you think there is any real possibility that disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters — whom McCain is clearly hoping to attract by picking a woman — will vote for a ticket with a woman who stands against everything Clinton has fought for? Will this pick hurt McCain’s reputation as a “maverick” among secularists who consider themselves political independents?

To flesh out Palin’s religious biography, she supports teaching both creationism and evolution in public schools. She has been associated throughout her life with right-wing fundamentalist Christian causes and churches. There have been attempts to blur Palin’s right-wing religious commitments by calling her a “non-denominational Protestant.” In fact, she is nondenominational only in that she will worship at any Christian fundamentalist church. She was baptized as a Pentecostal and frequently worships both at Pentecostal churches and at The Church on The Rock, a non-denominational institution that adheres to Biblical literalism. (Unlike Republican front groups, liberal organizations tend not to run lying attack ads, or they might try to confuse The Church on the Rock with the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim shrine in Jerusalem, and suggest that Palin is a Muslim.) Palin’s selection by McCain has been highly praised by long-time leaders of the religious right, including Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and James Dobson of Focus on the Family.

Tim Kaine remains one of the least effective, least progressive governors this state has had. While guys like Mark Warner and Jim Webb are getting things done, and will continue to (Warner is going to win – just check out the $$ he has, and check the polls), Kaine is still suckin’ it up.

RaisingKaine, ironically named for the opinion of this blog entry, had a good post up about Kaine, and just how much of a failure he has been, and, furthermore, how this can help progressives in the future: Click here to read it, or read it below.

Three years into the Kaine Administration, Virginia Progressives stand aghast at what it has become.  From his repeal of the estate tax to his abandoned plan for universal Pre-K, to his opposition to embryonic stem cells, from his failed transportation plans to cozy relationship to Dominion Power and his reprehensible support of the Wise Coal Plant, the Kaine administration has fulfilled our every early fear and never failed to disappoint progressive Virginia.In order to become the powerful and vital leading force for Democratic politics in the 21st century, the backbone of an enduring Democratic majority, Progressivism needs leaders who are regularly willing to take a critical, principled stand.  This is why the RK community never fails to denounce the failed positions of even our most dogged champions.

The Grey Havens :: We Won’t Get ‘Kained’ Again

Mark Warner is the very model of what will become known as Fiscal Progressivism, the pragmatic, cross-partisan application of intelligent, responsible management.  Jim Webb, in addition to being the Democrats’ most powerful voice on military and veterans’ affairs, is the senate’s greatest champion of economic fairness: the Democratic assertion that a nation must value the health of its economy not at the apex, but at the base.  And Barack Obama is rapidly rising as the personification of an organized, bottom-up progressivism that engages regular citizens to participate in the solutions to the greatest challenges facing the world.  From climate change to economic collapse, from war to healthcare to genocide, Obama leads not by authoritarianism, but by an egalitarian, progressive inclusion that unleashes the best talents of all Americans in a common cause for the Common Good. In light of these shining examples, where is Tim Kaine?  In what way has Tim Kaine embodied progressive ideals?  In what way has Tim Kaine lead or stood up for the critical issues of the day?  Where has Tim Kaine emerged victorious and thus strengthened the Progressive movement, the Democratic party, and the Commonwealth?  Long on plans and short on accomplishments, Kaine has consistently proven that he will not stand up for principle and will not listen to reason.  When Kaine eviscerates progressive taxation, champions a massive new coal plant, or works against the commonsense underground solution to the Rail to Dulles project, he isn’t just throwing the baby out with the bathwater, he’s lingering by the window to set fire to the drapes. Thus, this community and progressives everywhere must remain ever vigilant and never shirk the responsibility of demanding positive, pragmatic, progressive solutions to the daunting problems we face at the national and local level.  We stand up for those leaders who embody the principles of responsible government, universal opportunity and leadership by example, but we never fail to question an office-holder who abandons the critical task of forging a brighter future. In years to come, we will question the likes of Obama, Warner, and Webb on issues, but because they embody the best that Progressivism has to offer, we will always herald their leadership.  But we must look at politicians like Tim Kaine only with deep regret; regret for what could have been if they had not cravenly failed to lead. As essayist Frank Kilgore (no relation to Jerry) writes today: “Kaine could serve as a lesson for progressives to call out Obama early and often through liberal media and blog sources, to prevent their candidate from being “Kained” by corporate America and hemmed in by what they believe to be an uninspired political middle.”

Credit to The Grey Havens for a great post.

This one is ever better, because it’s actually truthful : ):

John Cloud wrote an article for Time Magazine about teenagers drinking with their parents. The story sounds very mainstream media cliche, but it was actually quite interesting. I think teenagers and adults alike would enjoy the article.

Drinking with parents could be good or bad, depending on the parent’s own behavior with alcohol. For example, it would be a real shame if an alcoholic father let his son drink, and his son turned out to be an alcoholic just like him.

Anyways, the stats are a bit eye opening, and you could really argue some of the points both ways, but what John Cloud says on social host laws and some of the data that goes along with that:

“By the early part of the [90’s], alcohol officials had noticed the numbers on binge-drinking, and they embarked on a new kind of prohibitionist strategy to discourage it: the “social host” law, the most sweeping change in American alcohol-enforcement since Prohibition. Social-host laws make residents over 21 responsible for any underage drinking that occurs at their home. The laws vary, but those who break them can be fined, forced to pay for police costs that result from underage drinking or even jailed. Twenty-four states and more than 100 local jurisdictions have passed such laws, the majority of them in the past five years. Many of the laws make no allowance even for parents to drink with their own kids; of the 55 social-host laws passed by California jurisdictions, for instance, only 25 make exceptions for parents.

…social-host prosecutions can be quite aggressive; in 2002 a Virginia mom and stepfather were sentenced to eight years behind bars for serving their son and his friends for the boy’s 16th birthday. The couple had collected car keys in advance, and no one was hurt. But after years of failed appeals, the mom and stepdad, now divorced, had to report to jail last year. (In the end, they had to serve only five months, not eight years.)

Most social-host laws give police expansive powers. According to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, an organization based in Calverton, Md., that studies alcohol policy, only eight of 67 U.S. jurisdictions with social-host laws require that the homeowner have “actual knowledge” of underage drinking at the house to be charged with a crime. In other words, you can violate most social-host laws even if you are in another country when your kid decides to party. And under many social-host laws, a meal with wine served at a dinner table is treated no differently from a kegger if neighbors are present with their kids. In short, we are encouraging kids to leave their homes (presumably by car) and drink in parks or abandoned warehouses or anywhere else they think they won’t get caught and their parents won’t get arrested.

It’s not surprising that social-host laws don’t seem to work as intended. In 2003, San Diego became one of the first big jurisdictions to adopt a social-host ordinance (both the city and county of San Diego passed a social-host law that year). … Yet according to the San Diego Police Department, patrol-car responses to parties in the city increased from 7,265 in 2002 to 9,383 last year. (This figure includes parties with both underage and of-age drinkers, since it’s impractical for cops to ID everyone once they arrive. But it is teen parties that get the loudest.)

The period since the city’s social-host law was first enacted has also seen an enormous increase in the number of kids going to hospitals with alcohol-related problems. According to data from San Diego County’s health department, the number of minors presenting alcohol and substance-abuse problems at health-care facilities in the jurisdiction rose from 473 in 2002 to 892 last year. At one of the city’s biggest hospitals, Sharp Memorial, 7.3% of underage trauma admissions involved alcohol in 2002; by 2005 the figure was 13.4%.

In other words, the social-host law appears to have broken up big house parties into many smaller ones. Possibly because fewer adults are present, the parties are less supervised, and more kids are getting so drunk they end up in the ER.”

This is only a small portion of the story, and there are many other points made, and lots of great data in the story.

One thing is clear, the system we have now in the U.S., is not working. Because of the laws, especially social host laws, kids are leaving the house and going places where they cannot be caught getting drunk, and in doing so, are getting in more trouble, or because they are far away from the house, they are driving home, and injuring or even killing themselves.

I have always been smart enough to know when to stop drinking, watching out for who should and should not be driving, etc. However, many are not that smart, and one slip up can ruin your life, heck, even end your life.

Some will say we (teenagers) should not drink. Asking teenagers to not drink is like asking them not to experiment with sex, drugs, and all the other wonders of life. So, asking us to just “not drink” is not reasonable.

I urge everyone to look at the drinking ages of other countries around the world, that includes fully developed countries, and also look at how many teenagers are arrested or killed because of alcohol in those countries.

I know it is the last thing on everyone’s minds with the economy, the war, etc. etc. But… how about some alcohol consumption reform?

Well, the bill passed in April.

One of their chief reasons WV passed this was economic – they need hunting to stay profitable. Fine, that’s ok, because it come along with increasing gun safety. Guns are not going away in this country, as further evidenced by the Supreme Court decision last week. So, there are two things we can do:

1.    Stricter laws on illegal gun sales and possession.
2.    Educating our young people about guns.

Part of what makes guns so lethal is that many of the people that use them unsafely have never picked up a gun before. Therefore, the item is very unknown and mysterious to them, especially for kids. With kids, one thing leads to another, and one six year old has accidentally shot his best friend.

However, if we were to teach kids about these guns, in a safe manner, kids would then see guns as something they knew, not some unknown wonder. They wouldn’t be so curious when they first saw them. They would know how to use the gun, and the dangers of using one.

One silly example a D.C. radio show used was that it was like the first time a kid brought a Playboy into school. It was so new to you, so you just had to look at it. Then, you learned when to bring it out, when to hide it, etc.

Guns are much more serious than a silly Playboy magazine, but in kids’ minds, it’s the same mysterious wonder.

So, go West Virginia, even if your main reason for doing it is to keep your hunting business prospering, so be it. If you teach kids a thing or two about how to use a gun, and the dangers of them, fine. It may be better than our “never touch guns ever” way of thinking.