Simple Math

I am sick so this will be quick plus I have not had a chance to read any reports today so this is simply based on the portions I was able to see which make up approximately 60%

Let me start by stating that although ‘experience’ comes with age, at one point so does salinity and fatigue. After enjoying most (ill needed rest) of last nights debates it seems clear to me who is the more impressive candidate.

First off; Obama knew coming in that his economic policy is viewed to be lacking and his foreign policy to be weak and suffering from premature withdrawal. These were the two issues he needed to thump last night and the verdict was positive.

Obama answered 90% of the questions I saw with insightful, and articulate answers but also with impressive foresight on stating HOW he would attempt to rectify the market place and help suffering nations without committing 15 billion dollars a month and more importantly human blood on the war on ‘terror’ –that BS still makes me queasy.

Although his policies and platform are strong and positive there are obviously weaknesses as with any political position. But one thing I found to be impressive, along with his platform was one defining factor that could not be used since Clinton. Charisma. John F. Kennedy was the quintessential president who personified charisma, intelligence, and was a leader who had the ability for positive change and overall good. Last night Obama provided proof that he contained all the aforementioned characteristics and is in the upper stratum of good politicians, who with the chance could prove to be a great president.

Second; McCain. Where to start? well first off I know it is easy to make his age a negative aspect and everyone else is saying the same thing but I have to say after watching last night’s performance, or lack there of in his case, you have to realize that McCain’s age is a MAJOR issue in this campaign that could truly hinder the white house and the US for the next 4 years.

I mean honestly the house and senate sessions will have to break for mid-morning and afternoon naps. Supper will have to be held at 4:30PM followed by a nap. Late night bath time will be 7pm followed by sleepy time tea and digestive cookies during reruns of Matlock and off to bed by 8:30pm.

That aside he looked like a stiff wind could blow him over while he stood next to his chair, which I am assume he was doing to keep from falling asleep. His responses were convoluted and hardly ever addressed the question and many just didn’t make sense. He often had to ask for parts of the question over and had to write them down. Obama spoke from the heart with confidence and more importantly with the appearance that he knew through and through what he was going to attempt to achieve and not once had to write a note for rebuttal -from what I saw.

McCain’s platform is based on maintaining the economic market by funding military FIRST while freezing essentially every other expenditure possible. Most specifically was his response to alternatives to high energy costs in financial and environmental terms. Now before I say it I have to state that I took some economics while studying political science, but by know means am I an expert on the matter.

Now McCain specifically stated that an alternative is to commence "domestic off-shore drilling" to save spending massive amounts on oil from foreign countries, ok follow you there. Then he stated that "once they (Americans) see that we (the U.S) have a great deal of it (oil) they will use less" thus helping the environment and removing dependence on foreign oil resulting in reducing the deficit.

Ok that is kind of where you lost me Maverick. That last section about ‘if Americans realize there is ‘more’ domestic oil to be used then they will use ‘less’’. WTF? Mr. McCain while you gained your education in the late 1800’s did they not cover macroeconomics or at least supply and demand?

The way I see it if people, A, know they have a surplus of X, the trend is to use X through many forms of consumption, B, consistently and excessively as the understanding, or better yet, assumption, (a), is that there will always be a steady supply of X for use through B. In addition if X is made cheaper, because X is produced domestically, then X will be consumed by A through B at an much higher increased rates.

So what does this mean? Well essentially this is McCain’s comment in algebraic form;

A x (a) x ∞X =

But as I state in reality if we look at my algebraic breakdown it is quite simple to see that he is incorrect;

A x B x (*) x ∞X = -X resulting in reduced O3, which ultimately = WAF*
*A mathematical term most are not aware of; We are fucked, relating to us and environment.

McCain/Palin = negative values, Obama/Biden = positive possibilities.