The T-Rex’s preference for the sweet, clap-ridden flesh of the wicked aside, carbon dating roundly proves that humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years apart. Want more proof? Well, nobody has ever found the bones of a hapless cave man who for all we know, may have pissed God off by coveting his neighbor’s rock collection or something, inside a fossilized Tyrannosaurus.

The folks at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ken., where the wife, some friends and I visited a couple weeks ago would tell you that they probably exist, but God is just waiting for the right time to reveal them.

We went for a laugh, and in a lot of ways got exactly what we expected. There were a lot of modestly dressed Southern Baptist families pouring out of 15 passenger vans. There were dinosaur statues, dioramas of Adam and Eve interacting with a velociraptor and of course, a whole room filled with pictures showing us doing all the things we do these days to secure our place in hell, including, apparently, playing video games.

Then again, there were a lot of things I didn’t expect. For one, there was a noticeable absence of anything to do with Jesus, Moses or any Bible story besides the creation and the great flood. The idea being that they don’t want us to think they’re just a bunch of anti-science nutjobs. It wasn’t long ago, after all, that many of these same folks were telling us that dinosaurs never existed, but instead that fossils were placed in the ground by the devil to test our faith.

So here is a quick list of the “science” we learned at the Creation Museum:

• • The Earth is only 5,000 years old.
• • The Earth was flat until the great flood, the raging waters of which created the Grand Canyon, mountains, rivers, etc.
• • Noah took two of everything on the Ark, including dinosaurs (an animatronic Noah told us so.)
• • Dinosaurs are the same thing as dragons (also according to robot Noah.)
• • Until Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden of Eden, all animals were vegetarians and lived happily together.
• • After Adam and Eve discovered their love of applesauce, the animals started feasting on each other.
• • Tyrannosaurus Rex had a diet that consisted of leafy vegetation and the flesh of sinners (seriously.)
• • Cancer and other diseases didn’t exist while Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden.
• • Once the Earth dried up and all the animals left the ark, some floated across the oceans on trees that had uprooted during the flood. The “raft theory,” explains how all the wild turkeys and koalas and anacondas from Noah’s large wooden boat could make their way from the top of a mountain in Turkey to Argentina and Australia and Michigan.

Slideshow not working? Click here to see it.

Of course this was all hidden behind a thin veil of “science.” These folks don’t dispute intra-species evolution, it’s the whole humans evolving from monkeys thing that they have a problem with. It blows their mind that something so complex as humans could come from something as simple as a single-cell organism. God put everyone and everything on this planet for a purpose, they argue, after which Adam flopped around the Garden of Eden pointing and shouting “Elephant, nectarine, duck-billed platypus!”

To take it a step further, their theology/pseudo-science jumble includes natural selection and helps them explain away the extinction of the dinosaurs.

I can only imagine that some of them are really bummed out about dinosaurs going extinct. If they were still alive, we could just turn them loose in Afghanistan and win this war once and for all. Hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we just let some eat up all those heathen, atheist, liberal elites up in New York and Boston. I wonder if we could train them to go after just Democrats. Hurry, someone call Steven Speilberg, I’ve got a great idea for a Jurassic Park sequel. I’ll bet we could get Kirk Cameron to star in it.

But I digress.

The fact of the matter is, I think this was all just a silly, ill-conceived way to explain away how many proven scientific theories conflict with stories told in the Bible. Then again, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs (unless you’re Muslim and want to build a religious building in New York.) In that spirit, on the way in to the parking lot, we even set some ground rules so as not to offend. My favorite was a ban on t he word “actually.”

Now, I knew we were on their turf, but when the displays started talking about all the hatred and violence that has come as a result of people’s belief in and teaching of evolution, I must admit that I got a little angry. The worst one was a video that strongly insinuated that World War I was not only started by the Germans, but that it was done because of the German governments decision to teach evolution to its schoolchildren.

In trying to cram their religious ideology into a modern scientific construct, the museum curators displayed a blatant disregard for historical accuracy. World War I was started by evolutionists in Germany and the Scopes-Monkey Trial set off the Great Depression were just two of the lessons they told. It seems the Texas State Board of Education aren’t the only people who don’t want history and science to get in the way of their narrative.

What makes it worse is that the people who gobble this stuff up not only believe it, but are so violently opposed to anything that falls outside of the belief system dictated to them by people like the museum founders that they will fight anyone who disagrees tooth and nail, regardless of the preponderance of evidence that contradicts it all.

In the end, we got out of it what we thought we would, and we had a good time. It was an amusing and frightening place.

I saw one of your billboards the other day, it said “All life is sacred, from conception to death.”

It was a nice billboard, the typography was clear and easy to read from my car. Well done.

Oh, except for one thing: the message you were trying to portray, that we should all be pro-life and anti-euthanasia, is just a tad contradictory to the battle you are currently waging against health care reform.

You see, there are 43 million uninsured people in this country, give or take. You may have insurance, so you don’t really think about it too much if you get the flu or break your leg. You just go see your doctor or head to the emergency room and it’s all taken care of.

Your 43 million fellow citizens, however, can’t go to the doctor if they get the flu. While you may pay $10 or $20 dollars per office visit, these people are responsible for the entire cost. Trust me, when you’re struggling to make ends meet, you don’t have a couple hundred bucks laying around to go see the doctor, and don’t even get me started on how much the prescription would cost with no insurance.

So you see, because uninsured people can’t afford to go to the doctor, they end up getting sicker and sicker. Statistically speaking, the uninsured live shorter, unhealthier lives than those with access to health care.

Let me say that again: UNINSURED PEOPLE DIE EARLIER THAN INSURED PEOPLE.

So, how can you, the very vocal, very well-organized minority within the Republican party, willfully ignore logic by saying that each and every life is valuable, then turn around and tell the poor that because they lack the resources, they can’t have access to the health care that could help them live a happier, healthier, longer life?

Is winning a political battle over a president you don’t like for some vague, unexplainable reason (I still think it’s because he’s black,) more important than actually adhering to your own morality? Or are you just so ignorant that you can’t understand that being so adamantly pro-life and anti-health care reform, you are holding irreconcilable beliefs?

Don’t know what irreconcilable means? It means your views on abortion and health care are contradictory.

Contradictory? No? It means someone who is pro-life is the opposite of someone who is anti-health care.

I know it doesn’t make sense, it’s because you can’t really be the opposite of yourself, right? I guess what I’m trying to tell you is that you can’t be both anti-health care and pro-life at the same time.

If you are truly committed to your belief that every life is sacred, then you must support health care reform that includes a provision for all Americans to have affordable health care.

You need to stop listening to what Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Joe Wilson and Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley are telling you. These people are manipulating you to gain power and wealth for themselves. Think about it.

Seriously, think about it hard. Why is an unborn child’s life more valuable than those of the millions who have recently lost their jobs and health coverage in this country? Why is it worth more than the families of the unemployed? The working poor?

So what do you do?

Well, if you just can’t bring yourself to support the policies put forth by the Democrats and the president you hate so much (I still don’t get the vitriol, but that’s an argument for another day,) you could always just become pro-choice and say that no lives are valuable.

See, that works, because then you could still be pro-death penalty. Hooray!

Kindest regards,

RS

P.S. Could you please rein Michelle Bachmann in? She’s really getting scary.

Republicans seem to have been tangled up in a few more scandals lately than their Democratic counterparts. Whether it was John Ensign cheating on his wife, Larry Craig doing a homo tap dance in a Minneapolis airport bathroom stall or Mark Foley telling teenage male Congressional pages to “get a ruler out and measure it for me,” the GOP has had a rough time living up to it’s self-proclaimed title as the party of morality and family values lately.

Democrats aren’t immune to these types of scandals. Former President Bill Clinton canoodled with an intern (and a few others) and Elliott Spitzer likes the high-priced hookers.

The point is, recent scandals should show us that it’s time to separate our moral leaders from our political ones.

Now I know what you’re saying. If we no longer look to our political leaders for moral guideposts, Washington will be more out of control than it already is.

I get it, but that’s not what I’m saying.

Every one of us, whether we’re religious or not, goes through each day following a moral compass. Sometimes our values are based on a holy text of some sort, other times they’re simply a set of values handed down from our elders. Whatever the case, our laws are based on these values, and while our leaders are in Washington or the state capitol building or city hall or where ever, they should feel beholden to the laws of the land above all else.

Personal faith is great to have, but the minute that you get blinded by your convictions is the minute you start judging others for not following the same set of values that you do. Our country is based on freedom within the parameters of the law, not within the parameters of the Bible. Religious leaders in this country condemn countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia who enforce strict laws based on the Koran and then in the same breath argue for prayer in schools and gay marriage bans. You can’t have it both ways.

People of faith believe that when you die, you will be judged by the almighty for how you conducted yourself on Earth. So if judgment awaits Clinton, Foley, Spitzer, Ensign and the like, why should we feel compelled to judge them for their mistakes as well? When did we become Gods? When were we endowed by God with the ability to judge our fellow man?

What Craig and John Edwards have taught us is that good men who do good work in the service of the American public can let lust get in the way. How is that different than your neighbor who cheated no his wife with his secretary?

We should allow these men, who have willingly destroyed their own families and careers, to be judged by God. We should allow men — and women — to make mistakes and not throw stones when they stand before us and admit their mistakes.

Now of course this isn’t all to say that we shouldn’t hold our public servants accountable for their mistakes, I’m simply saying that as long as we continue looking to them to not only be good public servants, but to be moral leaders as well, our faith will continue to be shattered time after time as they inevitably falter.

We need to learn to look at these people as the fallible humans they are and let them make governance decisions based on reason, not on looking virtuous all the time for fear of being judged on anything but their performance as a legislator.

These men and women should be judged for what they do in the halls of our public buildings, not behind the closed doors of their bedrooms.

I remember hearing the news that Saddam Hussein had been executed and thinking “It’s about time, that bastard got what he deserved.”

I mean, c’mon, the guy murdered hundreds of thousands of people. He deserved to die, right? What about the Nazi leaders after World War II? What about Pol Pot? These men were monsters who committed genocide, right?

So I read a blog entry from a classmate of mine in college who said he’s having mixed feelings about the murder of Dr. George Tiller this past Sunday in Wichita. You can find the blog entry here. Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions and because of that has been a lightning rod for the abortion issue for many, many years.

In any case, my classmate, a staunch conservative, said that while he thinks the murder was a tragedy (too strong of a statement, Eric?) he doesn’t feel sympathy for Dr. Tiller. The man, he said, was responsible for thousands of deaths.

Now, I don’t agree with my friend, but I think to effectively argue the other side, you have to understand where your opponent is coming from. The argument he and many others on his side of the issue are trying to make is that they view an unborn fetus as a viable human life (ones who can grow up to become American citizens, Bill O’Reilly is fond of saying.) This is the crux of the issue for many, many people, so they feel that doctors who take those lives away by performing abortions are snuffing out one of God’s children and as a result, are no better than Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, et al.

It’s a hell of a way to think about it. I don’t agree with it, necessarily, but it at least gets me to a place where I can see where they’re coming from.

The thought of the genocides committed in places like Darfur disgust me and I think the people responsible should face justice. Given the chance to affect some kind of change, I wouldn’t sit back. That’s how people like my friend feel about abortion and I can’t begrudge them for it.

That’s as far as I can go in their shoes, however, because people like Dr. Tiller think they are helping people. In many cases, in fact, they are. A large number of Dr. Tiller’s patients came to him because there were compelling medical reasons to need this procedure. I know what it feels like to lose a child before it’s even born. It was soul-crushing enough in our case when there was nothing we could do, so to have to actually make that decision? I can’t imagine that’s a  decision you make lightly. This man wasn’t evil. He’s no Mengele. He’s not a mass murderer, he’s a doctor.

So that’s the difference, and that’s why I can’t get on board with the pro-life crowd. I understand that the choice to have an abortion is not one everybody would feel comfortable making. Hell, there’s no way I’d ever want my wife to have one, regardless of the circumstances.

On the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to say “Well, if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one, but leave your hands of my body.” That’s like saying “If you don’t want to see people slaughtered in Sudan, don’t go to sub-Saharan Africa on vacation.” People who feel so strongly about the issue can’t in good conscience turn a blind eye.

So where does that leave us? Well, we’re at an impasse, I suppose. Neither side is going to give in because there’s no room for compromise when you’re talking about a moral issue of this magnitude. Right now the pro-choice crowd has the advantage and will continue to do so as long as it maintains its tenuous hold on the Supreme Court.

I’m glad my side is winning — for now — as I believe that in this country we have as much right from religion as we do for the freedom of religion, and this is very much a religious argument. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think the other side’s voices should be stifled. Let them try to convince me and others that this procedure is wrong. They have just as much write to state their case as I do mine. That’s what this country is all about, after all, freedom.

No, Moslems don’t believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Think of it like a movie. The Torah was the first one, the New Testament was the sequel. Then the Qu’ran comes out, and it retcons the last one like it never happened. There’s still Jesus, but he’s not the main character anymore, and the Messiah hasn’t even shown up yet.

Jews liked the first one but ignored the sequels. Christians think you need to watch the first two, but the third one doesn’t count. Moslems think the third one was best. And Mormons liked the second one so much they started writing fanfiction that doesn’t fit with ANY of the cannon.

Which brings me to a ridiculously annoying letter that appeared in the Muskegon Chronicle yesterday.

Letter: Why didn’t flight crew mention God?

Dena Malda, Muskegon
On the Feb. 8 “60 Minutes” program, we were captivated while viewing the Katie Couric interview of the crew and passengers of Flight 1549.

However, we were struck there was not one mention of God, who directs pilots of planes and secures the safety of passengers.We have written CBS and asked them for more realistic programming. Help protect our freedoms. Write CBS about this.

I fly a lot, and the last time I checked, completely human, fallible air traffic controllers direct pilots and TSA officers control our safety. God may have created the people, but we built the institutions, developed the technology and are in control of the day-to-day situations that help us land planes safely and keep the people on them safe.

As a person of faith, I believe there is a God out there somewhere who got the ball rolling. Perhaps he was the one who nudged those first fish out of the water and got this whole evolution thing cracking. Who knows? Certainly not me. Of course there are people who believe there was an Adam and Eve and snake and garden and blah blah blah. I don’t buy it, but that shouldn’t make me any less of a person. Shouldn’t it be all right that I believe the Bible isn’t a history book, but rather a compilation of tales of morality aimed at helping us live righteous lives? Shouldn’t it be all right that my views on matters of faith are different than yours?

Of course, I know that most people of Christian faith fall somewhere between Mrs. Malda’s and mine, and that’s all right. One of the things that has made this country such an groundbreaking event in the history of man is that we live in such a heterogeneous society, one of many colors, traditions and faiths, and yet we’ve been able to hold it together for more than 200 years.

Yet the cohesiveness we feel in spite of our differences isn’t good enough for people like Ms. Malda. She has no idea what Captain Sullenberger and his crew — whom Ms. Malda references in her letter — believe. And yet, she wants them to get up in front of a national television audience and make proclamations of faith based on what she believes is a realistic view of the world around her. Of course, we should mention that more than likely (and this is pure speculation) that a Christian God ‚ and only a Christian God, would do. I’m sure one of the crew members talking about Muhammad or Buddha or his Holiness the FSM would be as bad, if not worse, than no mention of God at all.

She asks for more “realistic programming,” but doesn’t one presume that in a pluralistic society such as ours, that programming reflecting a realistic point of view would include some shows that would be completely devoid of mentions of faith, just like many people in this country’s lives are devoid of faith? Of course this point is probably too deep for Ms. Malda.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to people proselytizing, spreading the “good word” as it were. I don’t see it as any different me being really pleased with a restaurant or my Blackberry and telling you about it. That said, shouldn’t it be my prerogative to say “thanks, but no thanks”?

The problem is, that’s not good enough for people like Ms. Malda. They feel as if it is their God-given mission to convert you, not matter how badly you don’t want to be converted. I wish, when Jesus told the Disciples to be “fishers of men,” that he also said, “but if they don’t want to be dragged up onto the boat, leave them with the bait but let them off the hook. Someday, they may change their minds.”

In other words, Ms. Malda is free to tell me about her God all she wants, I may change my mind and decide that Jesus did, in fact, ride around on a velociraptor. But like the story Ms. Malda is sure to tell you, she had to come to God when it was her time. I just wish that people like her would remember that when they’re trying to push their beliefs on the rest of us.

We live in a free society and we are all endowed with certain inalienable rights, including the freedom of religion. It’s gone too far, though. Sometimes people have to recognize that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, should we so choose.

The Bible — the Word of God itself — says we are right in this cause. These people are not equal, nor shall they ever be.

This was the argument James Jackson, a representative from Georgia to the 1st Congress in 1790 and Revolutionary War hero, used in defending slavery. The Bible says it’s all right.

It’s safe to say that time has proved Jackson — an otherwise intelligent, able Patriot — to be on the wrong side of history. I know it’s been beaten to death, but stick with me here. Two hundred and nineteen years later, we’re inaugurating our first black president. Someone who Jackson, a man who was there when our Constitution was created, would consider no better than a piece of property. Someone to pick the cotton and drain the swampland.

This post isn’t about race or Barack Obama though, it’s about religious leaders hiding behind their misinterpretations of scripture to defend their ignorance and hatred.

Recently a Lutheran School in California expelled two girls because they were suspected of being lesbians. The California Supreme Court backed the school up because it isn’t a business. Here is the story.

So, fair enough, it’s not a business and not legally bound to the same anti-discrimination laws government agencies and businesses are. School officials argue, as do many religious leaders of all stripes, that the Bible condones homosexuality as a sin.

These are the same people who got Prop 10 passed in California. The same who pushed for “Pro-Marriage” amendments in Michigan and several other states. It’s people like these, hate mongers cowering behind misinterpretations of God and Jesus Christ’s teachings, who think that homosexuality is a choice and are determined to punish anyone who believes differently.

At its roots, Christianity is a religion of peace and love. It’s been a while since I read the Bible (I read it cover-to-cover some time ago), so maybe I’ve forgotten the part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said “The meek shall inherit the Earth. The homos, however, will inherit a great fashion sense, constant harassment from good Christians – unless we need our hair done — and a trip straight to Hell”

Of course, I’m not lending any insight that somebody hasn’t said before. I guess I just wanted to point out that 200 years ago people were using the Bible to make the same argument against a different group of people. Hopefully this battle for civil rights doesn’t take 200 years more.

Image via Wikipedia

Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton had a plan. James Madison opposed it, and the two sides debated fiercely in the halls of government and out. It was only after the two sat down at a dinner hosted by Thomas Jefferson that a settlement was reached. The two men, although firmly entrenched on their sides of the debate, compromised — Hamilton got his fiscal plan and Madison earned for his native Virginia the site of the nation’s capital.

It’s hard to imagine the demagogues of today breaking bread and reaching a compromise in the interest of the country. Instead, while the Obama administration and leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle toil over a stimulus plan to pull out of this recession, people like Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Malkin stir up the masses in the hopes of increasing their audience and selling books.

First, Rush said he hoped Obama would fail as a President, a statement that has provoked cries of treason from the new President’s most ardent followers. Before they start crucifying Rush, however, I wish they’d go back and revisit some of the things they said about George W. Bush. Freedom of speech, no matter how seemingly vile, is a freedom we all enjoy, regardless of our political leanings.

Fact: Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat, idiot.

See? I’m free to say anything I want! This is America!

Recently, Labor Secretary Robert Reich testified in front of Congress and followed up with a blog entry about his ideas for a stimulus plan. The plan, as Reich explains it, aims to stimulate the economy and create jobs in much the same way that the WPA did. It will fund infrastructure projects across the country — bridges, highways, buildings, etc.

Reich said that although many of the jobs will go to people who are already skilled construction workers, to limit the opportunity to people who already possess those skills misses the point, as those people are better able to compete in the free market for existing jobs than those who lack the skills and opportunities. That’s not to say, of course, that those people will be blocked from jobs created in the stimulus plan, Reich is simply saying the opportunities will be open to all.

Many of these jobs — not all — are ones that you can train people fairly easily to do. Perhaps he could have chosen his words a little better, but it’s hard to miss Reich’s point when he said

But if there aren’t enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most — women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed — will be shut out.

Of course Republitard Malkin twisted the Secretary’s words in such a way to whip up racial tensions (thus creating controversy and building her audience). She says that Reich’s plan will bypass white, male construction workers and unfairly give the jobs to poor, lazy, welfare-collecting darkies. Here is the original blog post from Robert Reich and Michelle Malkin’s column in reaction. Obviously, because now we have a black President, all jobs will go to minorities and white people suddenly face all kinds of discrimination. Get to the back of the bus, Buffy and Chip!

As a side-note, is anyone else as pissed as me that someone as hot as Michelle Malkin can be so fugly inside? I’ll bet when she accidentally cuts herself in the kitchen (while she’s mixing up a cheese and baby soul quiche), black stuff pours out like when Jay hit Jason Lee with the golf club in Dogma.

Anyway…now, I’m not saying Reich’s plan is the right one, in fact it has many detractors whom I respect. John McCain, for one, has come out against it in the Senate. It’s one thing to oppose something on its merits, it’s another to argue against it out of bitterness and use it as an platform to spread hate-filled, race-baiting agenda.

Malkin, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and their ilk need to understand that what they say influences the way millions think. It is their responsibility to raise the level of discourse in this country. If they have conservative beliefs, so be it, but they should seek to make people in this country more informed, more intelligent and better able to make critical decisions on their own. Instead, they roll around in the gutters, spreading stink and filth and fear and hatred.

I can hear it now:

Watch out, white people! You, my friends, the salt of the Earth, the ones who made this country great. Heads up, because now it’s going to be snatched from you by people who think they are entitled to what you have worked so hard for, all because they were able to elect one of their own President!

First, they’ll take your jobs, then they’ll take your homes and cars and marry your daughters! This usurper from Nigeria is going to take your wealth and redistribute it to the welfare-collecting, drug dealing, project-living baby factories in the inner city. Isn’t this America? Isn’t this the land of the free? No! We’ve got a socialist living in the White House! I tell you, my friends, change is coming, and not for the better.

What’s next? Will Cinco de Mayo be the new Fourth of July? Will Kwanzaa replace Christmas? Will the liberal, gay-marrying, PC police out in San Francisco have us celebrating Sitting Bull’s victory at Little Big Horn instead of Thanksgiving?

Next we’ll have laws forcing us to conduct business in English, Spanish and Ebonics! Unless we oppose it, once the Obama racial reassignment plan is in place — this is a plan they are working on, they won’t tell you they are, but it’s in the works — we won’t even recognize this country.

We have an obligation in this country to oppose what we don’t think is just. These people, in some misguided way, think they’re doing just that. The battle lines have been drawn, just as they were in Hamilton and Madison’s day. It’s our job to advance our views, but when it seems the nation needs us, like they did over Thomas Jefferson’s dinner table, we must put our differences aside and do what’s right for all.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCBczUzEb1A&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1]

Taxes
While both candidates have proposed tax plans that would give cuts to large groups of Americans, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Barack Obama’s tax plan would give a majority of those cuts to those who make the least, while John McCain’s would give a larger percentage of the cuts to the wealthiest Americans.

John McCain has gone around calling Barack Obama a “redistributionist,” which is funny, because you know who else was a “redistributionist“?

Mark 12: 38-44 — But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything— all she had to live on.

If progressive taxes — which have been the foundation of our tax policies for more than 100 years — were good enough for Jesus, well, they’re good enough for me.

That’s the thing that gets me. If you’re a member of the middle-class and you are struggling — and aren’t we all — then you’re voting against your own self-interest by casting a ballot for John McCain.

Defense
I’m not going to lie, I support(ed) the war in Iraq. I have friends who’ve been there and I think the mission was just — from a policy standpoint and a humanitarian one. I also strongly believe that the surge is working and that we need to finish what we’ve started.

I’m sure you’re scratching your head now, because that last statement makes me sound like a McCain supporter. Truth be told, if that were the only issue to vote on, I’d be voting Republican.

All that said, I don’t think John McCain has a monopoly on the wisdom necessary to be Commander-in-Chief of our military. Barack Obama has said from the beginning that Afghanistan should be our focus. That view that seems quite prescient now as the war in Iraq hasn’t netted the gains we’d hoped and the mission in Afghanistan seems to be stuck in neutral.

The “Culture War”
John McCain used to be a maverick. He was a fiscal conservative and a hawk, all while favoring the rights of states to decide issues like abortion and gay rights. Personally, I support a woman’s right to choose and the fundamental right to marry for any two people who wish to do so, but I appreciated the fact that John McCain — who has always been pro-life — understood that not everyone shares his opinion, and that people should be able to make their own decisions on this issue.

When McCain got within sight of the White House he sold out. He picked Sarah Palin — whose opposition to women’s and gay rights are well noted — to appeal to the worst elements of the Republican base. As far as I’m concerned, with that pick and the way he’s allowed his advisers to conduct much of his campaign, he lost any credibility he had with moderates.

In allying himself with the Sarah Palins of this world, he put himself squarely on the wrong side of the cultural issues that I feel strongly about. If you have a child and what them to grow up with the freedom to make choices about their own body or marry the person they love — regardless of their sexual orientation — then your vote needs to be for Barack Obama.

Experience
No doubt John McCain has more experience than Barack Obama. Again, all things being equal, if this were the only issue we were voting on, my support would be different.

Let’s be honest though, if McCain — a two-time cancer survivor with a health disclosure document that went on for 110 pages — should die in office, we’re stuck with Sarah Palin. She can harp all she wants about her “executive experience,” but running the Alaska is a far cry from running the country.

What makes it especially scary is how she’s displayed an utter lack of ability to understand the finer points of domestic and foreign policies. We seem to be obsessed with mediocrity in this nation. We’re fascinated with the idea that any one of us could be the President. I don’t want just anyone to be the leader of the free world. I want someone in MENSA. I want someone with an elite education and the intelligence enough to understand the finer points of the complex issues that face our nation each day. I want someone with the temperament to make decisions based on reason, with the wisdom to listen to those around him and yet with the courage to stand by his own convictions when he knows he’s right.

For those reasons, I will vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden tomorrow. I hope you will too.