Why I'm going to vote for Sarah Palin

I've been more and more disillusioned with President Obama in the last few months. He's not representing any of the things I thought he stood for during the election and his latest stance on environmental issues and energy policy has been egregious. I understand that running a country as complicated as the U.S. is a difficult job, but that's no reason to completely backslide. In the end, you aren't satisfying anyone. No Republican will vote for him in the next election and, at this rate, no Democrat will either.

Which is why I'm going to vote for Sarah Palin in the next election. You know what you are getting when you vote for Sarah. Nobody is going to mistake her for being an intellectual who commiserates with the common man, no matter what she claims.

So, here are my top 5 reasons why I'm voting for Sarah Palin:

1. She knows how to make some cash
Between the books deals, speaking engagements and the reality shows, she (and her family) has shown time and again that she can rake in the money when it counts. I'm hoping she can apply the same sort of monetary skills to lowering the budget and, hell, just plain eliminate the entire deficit in her first term. I'm confident she can do that.

2. She can charm the pants off of anyone
Okay, maybe that anyone has to have an X and a Y chromosome, but with her powers of persuasion and good ole aw' shucks personality, she's sure to bring peace to the middle east, wrap up all those pesky wars and turn the White House into an international Party House.

3. She's self-reliant
Sarah will make Michelle Obama and her lawn garden look like a kindergarten seedling project. Forget raised beds and backyard bees, try some elk, moose and wolf hunting right there on the White House lawn. And let's pop that lawn open and get ourselves a stocked pond for fishing. People would pay out the nose to go hunting and fishing on White House property, especially when their least favorite legislators are visiting. (Refer to point #1 for hunting fees to bring down the deficit.)

4. Science is the real problem
All the world's ailments can be reduced down to one thing: too much science. With Palin in office, we can look forward to a life more simple, more biblical, less messy. While it will be difficult to argue that a woman's place is in the home (er house, I mean White House), life will be so much easier when women are in their place, stem cells are just a mere blip in the history of biology and the human race is again divine and there's no more of this monkey business.

5. She's hot
No self-respecting person likes to admit it, but she's easy on the eyes. Even if there is shit coming out of her mouth. But all those good looks won't be going to waste. In times of fiscal crisis, good looks (and a g-string) can be used at state dinners to collect some extra cash for the coffers. (Again, see point #1.)

All kidding aside, we haven't talked politics much lately, but how are you feeling about our president and his choices these days? Are you glad you voted for (or against) him?

Conservatives vs. Liberals: The Movie

I got this lovely email from a relative this morning (truth be told, most of my relatives are quite conservative) and felt the need to respond. Here is the missive in its entirety:

The Fence
So Simply put and Right On Target . . . . Enjoy . . . .

You can’t get any more accurate than this!

Which side of the fence?
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns banned.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he chooses not to eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect, and special considerations.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Liberal expects the government and tax payers to take care of him as an entitlement.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or chooses a job that provides it.
A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his as an entitlement.

If a Conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Liberal will delete it because he's greatly "offended".

Well, I forwarded it. What are you going to do?

What do you think? If you call yourself a conservative, is this what you think liberals believe? If you are a liberal, how accurate do you think this describes your beliefs?

I'll add my response to the comments of this post.

Was Van Jones getting too uppity for Glenn Beck?

Well, I suppose this should come as no shock to those who have been following along in the Glenn Beck smear campaign against Van Jones, the Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Given his very left-wing politics and extreme comments made in the past, it's no surprise that the Obama administration dropped him like the hot potato that he is. No matter what you think of his comments, it is fairly unrealistic for any other outcome than his resignation particularly since the administration hasn't really done much to defend him.

Unfortunately, the right has created this atmosphere of fear-mongering and, if Obama and his team plan on getting anything accomplished, they have to be squeaky clean. Not that Van Jones played a pivotal role in any regard in the administration, but hacks like Beck have to have something to ride and this example was easy pickings, unfortunately.

When Van Jones was given the post, I was pretty excited about it. Given his history, I'm sure he will do just fine, although I find it highly annoying that these sorts of silly games are still played by the media. I mean, really, is having two highly intelligent, articulate, and fine-looking black men in the White House too much for people like Glenn Beck to bear? [Last sarcastic joke removed for propriety's sake.]

What's your opinion on this whole debacle?

American population control

As somewhat of a follow-on to last week's post, I wanted to discuss the issue of demographics and population control outside the emotional considerations made in last week's comments.

Given that Americans use, by far, considerably more resources per capita than any citizen of any other country in the world, should population control measures be introduced (a la China) to acquire better control of environmental and resource impact? Since Americans seem rather unwilling to substantially lower their carbon footprint on their own, perhaps controlling things on the other end of the coin makes more sense.

By controlling the number of Americans on the planet, or those living a high impact lifestyle, do we achieve the same goal of resource preservation and reduction in environmental degradation? In other words, by advising (or requiring) that Americans only reproduce at the replacement rate of approximately 2 children per mating couple (that is, maximum two offspring per person), can we mitigate disaster? This is sometimes called a birth permit system (1.05 permits per person, where each couple gets 2.1 permits), thereby essentially allowing a cap and trade system on reproduction.

I know that many will argue that the biggest upcoming threat to the environment are developing countries such as China and India, but the reality is that the individuals in those societies use far less resources than Americans do. And, when you stop to consider it, a large proportion of pollution generated by countries like China is due to demand of manufactured goods by Americans.

Our demand for cheap products drives the industries that pollute. For us to turn around and complain that this pollution is unfair is really, actually, unfair. The Chinese individual, for the most part, does not benefit from the cheap Elmo toys and dollar goods being generated. Quite the contrary, they suffer immeasurably due to polluted air and water. You can argue that the demand is providing jobs, but given the pittance they are actually getting paid for that labor, it is an arguable benefit at best.

So, what's the solution? If we don't voluntarily and drastically reduce our per personal carbon and resource consumption, is population control of high impact societies a realistic alternative? Would you support a restriction on reproduction?

A mandate

The results of this election have been so astounding on a number of different levels. Not only am I pleased with the results, but I am, frankly, proud of America.

I never thought that Americans would get over their prejudices to elect an African American into office, at least not in my lifetime. Of course, it was my hope that that would be the case, but I believe we've gotten to the point where we look beyond race and can actually focus on more concrete things that matter. This wasn't just an election for president, this was a turning of the tide for so many things for Americans and for the world.

Since we're all going to be reading about the election, I want to keep this brief. But, here's to four years of removing the damage that has occurred over the last eight. Here's to four years of repairing the standing that the United States has in the global eye and here's to four years of actually having an intellectual in the White House. Someone who actually understands and respects Constitutional law in the White House? Go figure.

What's your wish for the next four years?

Getting all mavericky with the Senate

What exactly does the Vice President do anyway? Well, Sarah Palin had this answer for an inquiring third grader named Brandon:

"[The Vice President is] in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job."

Oh, really? Well, let's all take a peek back at Article I of the Constitution for clarity: "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."

Essentially, the Vice President presides over the Senate and, for the most part, it is more of a ceremonial position and one that really only gets called into play in order to break a tie vote. In other words, the Vice President has no official role in developing legislation or determining how it is presented to or debated by the Senate. It is the leader of the majority party that is in charge of the Senate, not the Vice President.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want this woman babysitting my children, let alone getting all mavericky with the Senate as the Vice President.

For further insight into how being the mayor of Wasilla unequivocally prepares you for being President, check out this interview with current Wasilla mayor, Diane Keller (the interview is about halfway through the clip).

If you don't have the patience or bandwidth, let me provide a transcript:

Jason Jones: Do you think being a small-town Mayor prepares you to be president of the United States?
Mayor Dianne Keller: An unequivocal yes.
JJ: How?
Mayor: How?
JJ; Let's say you have a problem with the fire department? What would you do?
Mayor: The city of Wasilla doesn't manage the fire department.
JJ: Ok, fine. Let's say there's something wrong with the school system?
Mayor: We don't do the school system.
JJ: Just pick any social service.
Mayor: We don't do social services in Wasilla...
JJ: Um, what do you do?
Mayor: What do we do in Wasilla?
JJ: Take me through the Mayor of Wasilla's day.
Mayor: (nod, nod, nod), Just different, different things on different days...um, well Mondays at 10 o'clock we always have a staff meeting, and then, um, um, (long pause) every Thursday is a check-signing day, so I sign all the checks for the city of Wasilla--pay the bills...

And there you have it! Executive experience.

Clean coal or dirty politics?

I'm so sick of hearing about clean coal. It's such an enormous oxymoron it's almost funny - it's right up there with "sexy back hair" and "edible poop". No matter how you spin it, it just doesn't work.

The candidates keep pulling this one out and touting it as the next great step to energy independence. But the real issue is that there's nothing clean about coal.

So, what is clean coal? The industry-sponsored American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity defines it as "any technology to reduce pollutants associated with the burning of coal that was not in widespread use" prior to regulations from 1990. As a result, you can call any newer coal-based power plant clean.

Oh, I suppose you can argue that it's possible to capture the gunk released from burning coal for energy generation even though carbon capture and sequestration is still an industry pipe dream. You can also argue that, since about 50% of America's electricity comes from coal, we might as well pursue all those extra scrubbing bubbles. The fact of the matter is that coal is still somewhat plentiful and it's cheap. What's a cash strapped America to do? Work with what it's got. And that's coal.

But, let's not kid ourselves into believing that coal is clean. The whole process of extracting coal is still a dirty, dangerous job. The mountain top removal and strip mining process doesn't go away. And huge water usage and contamination is still a big part of coal extraction.

So, while the candidates are pandering for votes from the swing "coal states" of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Virginia, let's not all get wrapped up in the idea that coal is clean. It's about as clean as a mouthful of mercury.

The sky is falling! Living through economic upheaval.

I guess it seems a little silly to be posting about mundane things like pumpkins, salmon spawning and dehydrating apples when the world's stock markets are tanking like crazy.

I would imagine that a lot of you readers out there are probably better mentally equipped to handle the bumps in the road simply because you have already chosen, to some extent, a more simple lifestyle. A lifestyle that is less damaging to the earth tends to also be one that is more self-sufficient and less consumeristic and prepares you for relying on yourself and your local community, if need be.

I'm hoping that the changes you have made in your lives have made some of the political and economic shenanigans going on seem less frightening than those out there who have been completely blind-sided by all of this. I suspect it must be harder for people who have been carrying on as if the money train would keep running forever.

I'm sure there are also people who are finding some sense of satisfaction in watching the come-uppance for all those folks out there who have been living rather recklessly in terms of consumption and spending and its resultant effect on the environment.

In spite of all that, this situation is extremely unnerving for even the most hardened of us since we all rely on economics to get by. So, unless you are living in a cave (one with Internet access), you are dependent on the stock market whether you think you are or not.

Have the last few weeks made you more determined to live a simple, self-sufficient lifestyle or are you just too scared shitless to even think about it? Do you fear losing your job or home during this or are you fairly immune because you have paid off your house and have low living costs?

VP Debates or why 2 + 2 = Chicken

I have to tell ya, I'm excited about the Vice-Presidential debates that will be on tonight. Not that I'm expecting anything intelligent to be uttered on either side, but man I'm hoping that we can get some more quotes to top these gems (from Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric):

On the $700 billion financial bailout:
"That’s why I say I, like every American I’m speaking with, we’re ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Helping the — it’s got to be all about job creation too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans and trade — we’ve got to see trade as opportunity, not as competitive, scary thing, but one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today — we’ve got to look at that as more opportunity."

In response to what newspapers Sarah Palin reads to get her news:
"I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media." When asked which ones specifically: "Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years." When pressed further: "I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news, too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it’s kind of suggested, 'Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?' Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America."

On explaining how her proximity to Russia enhances her foreign policy credentials:
COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--

COURIC: Mock?

PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.

PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--

COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

On what Supreme Court decisions she disagrees with:
"Well, let's see. There's, of course, in the great history of America rulings there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are, those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but ...."

Asked again: "Well, I could think of, of any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today."

Alrighty then!

So, what does 2 + 2 equal? Well, maybe it's a question we should ask the candidates. Who do you think will have a coherent answer?

MODERATOR: Governor Palin, what is two plus two? You have 90 seconds to respond.

PALIN: (Pause) Chicken?

MODERATOR: Chicken? Is that your answer, governor?

PALIN: I'll have to get back to ya on that one there, Gwen.

A woman in the White House

As much as I should be excited about the possibility of having a woman in the White House, it's hard to muster up much enthusiasm. Sure, one can easily argue that Sarah Palin is smart, has an interesting background and story and she sure can motivate the base, but I have qualms about that background and her conservative stance on a number of issues.

Of course, one can also argue that (and several people have in the comments of this blog), regardless of who is in office there is the potential for not much changing going on. One can point out that during the last week, in regards to the financial industry's falling off the deep end, McCain is now trying to reach out to the middle class with promises of $5,000 to cover health care and additional child tax credits.

[What's missing from this promise is the fact that the (also mentioned) increased taxation on companies for the health care benefits they do provide, encourages said companies to drop or reduce those same benefits. Most companies shell out over $10,000 per individual. Try finding the same sort of coverage as an individual for $5,000. It's farcical. But, I'm digressing here.]

Anyway, if it doesn't necessarily matter who is in office, then what's the problem? Well, wanting to have a female in office is a great thing, similar to wanting to have an African American in office. Some say that either way, minorities win.

But, as much as I'd like an Hispanic in office too, I'd have problems with the ticket if Cheech Marin were selected as somebody's running mate. Sure, he fits the bill as Hispanic. He has an honorary Doctorate of Fine Arts and he's a maverick to some extent, but is he really the most qualified Hispanic for the job? Of course, this is a gross analogy, but you get the point.

In other words, let's not get caught up in the potential "firsts" in this presidency and not settle with "good enough". We need people in the White House that can really affect change and get this country back on track. So, make sure you know what your candidates stand for and try to avoid the hyperbole that is flying around on all sides.

Political poll and a pig picture

I just realized that I haven't had a poll in, like, forevah! And, I haven't gotten you grinding your crackers on the political front in a whole week. What is wrong with me?

So, I thought I'd throw in a political poll, thereby killing two birds with one stone. That and, well, I don't have a whole lot of time to write a post, but I've got some more serious ones in the hopper. I just need to find the time to write them.

Anyhoo, since we've all had time to recover from the national conventions, it's time to take the pulse of the Crunchy readers. I framed the question to allow non-U.S. citizens to participate as well. Since we are all part of this here global community and all.

Let the people speak! Or, rather, click!



Unfortunately, my freebie polling software limits my choices to seven, but one thing I wanted to include but couldn't was whether or not people were voting for "their" party based on platform even though they weren't too pleased with the people running.

Finally, I'm quite upset at all the fuss over the Olivia smear campaign. Leave this children's book character alone! She's just a pig for crying out loud!

Why I love Sarah Palin

As the Republican National Convention wraps up I thought I'd take a moment to publish this list. I think it's very enlightening.

Top 5 Reasons Why I Chose Sarah Palin as my VP
by John S. McCain

1. She knows how to cook a mean wolf steak with polar bear sauce

2. She's young and hot and well, who knows whether or not Cindy will be in a disfiguring accident - it's good to have a backup plan

3. When I go hunting with her, I don't have to worry about getting accidentally shot in the face

4. She's good at eliminating, I mean, firing people, so I don't have to get my hands dirty if someone doesn't, well, work out

5. Cindy, Sarah and I would make a great threesome

The biggest environmental threat

What constitutes the biggest environmental threat to the world today? Is it climate change run amok or the gutting of the Endangered Species Act? Is it China's coal-fired power plants? How about destruction of the Earth's oceans resulting in record low fisheries, oxygen depleted areas and great swirling hoards of plastic? How about deforestation of the world's "lungs" and carbon sink by removing forests in order to plant biofuels?

I'm going to argue that the biggest environmental threat known to man right now is the John McCain / Sarah Palin ticket. How can I be so bold as to say such a thing? Is it really all that ridiculous? Bear with me a moment while I try to explain.

Yes, all those things I mentioned above do present a threat to the health and balance of our environment. But, the entity that has the single most power to influence how the U.S. and, in the end, the world go forward in maintaining, repairing and reducing humanity's impact on the environment is what is represented in the oval office.

Now, of course, this sounds probably a little too high and mighty for those living outside the U.S. and they would argue that the U.S. influence has slipped considerably as of late. But, it is with the U.S. economy and military machinery that we influence the rest of the world and the environmental aspect of it is no less important. How we stand and deliver regarding our environment influences much of the rest of the world.

So, having an environmentally unfriendly president in the White House means a great deal for environmentalists as well as the environment. Or pretty much anyone who lives on Earth. You can just take a look at the last 8 years to get a feel for that. Now, add to that an additional 4+ years with an even more conservative, more environmentally unfriendly platform and what does that mean?

We are at (and have been for a while although the government has been sitting on its hands for years) a crossroads in terms of global climate change and energy issues. How we move forward to resolve those issues is led out of the White House.

Now, I'm not going to argue that the Obama/Biden team is proffering itself up as being incredibly environmentally conscious. But, what it does have (an interest in environmental and clean energy issues as well as an interest in partnerships with the rest of the world) and what it doesn't have (ties to big oil) certainly makes them the more environmentally friendly choice.

So, regardless of their stance on abortion, religion in schools, immigration and a whole host of other concerns, when you look at their policies regarding the environment and energy, the McCain/Palin ticket is the biggest environmental threat we've got going.

The bleep on this veep

Senator John McCain just announced his choice for running mate: Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. The following is a statement by Rodger Schlickeisen, president of Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

Senator McCain’s choice for a running mate is beyond belief. By choosing Sarah Palin, McCain has clearly made a decision to continue the Bush legacy of destructive environmental policies.

Sarah Palin, whose husband works for BP (formerly British Petroleum), has repeatedly put special interests first when it comes to the environment. In her scant two years as governor, she has lobbied aggressively to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, pushed for more drilling off of Alaska’s coasts, and put special interests above science.

Ms. Palin has made it clear through her actions that she is unwilling to do even as much as the Bush administration to address the impacts of global warming. Her most recent effort has been to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, putting Big Oil before sound science. As unbelievable as this may sound, this actually puts her to the right of the Bush administration.

This is Senator McCain’s first significant choice in building his executive team and it’s a bad one. It has to raise serious doubts in the minds of voters about John McCain’s commitment to conservation, to addressing the impacts of global warming and to ensuring our country ends its dependency on oil.

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse... What are your thoughts on McCain's running mate?

My country, 'tis of thee

For such a young country, we certainly have a lot of history to ponder on this Fourth of July. I am a huge fan of early American history and, while there is a lot to be proud of in our founding fathers, there are a lot of warts to be overlooked as well. No generation is perfect and everyone has their faults, but there are a few big things that concern me as to where our country is headed.

Our political process is so imbued with sensationalism, scandal and sound bites that no actual information is imparted by the general media. What happened to the Lincoln-Douglas style debates? Do you think the modern American would be able to stomach 3 hour long debates? Or really any real discussion of the issues?

I used to believe that the rest of the world looked to America, not as just a superpower both in economic and military might, but also as a friend in need. A country that held high standards for itself and hoped to help others achieve the same as well. The kind of friend you look up to as a model of behavior, leadership and strength and someone to lean on for comfort or even protection.

I haven't felt this pride in my country in almost a decade and it saddens me to see us slipping down even faster into the abyss of self-absorption and self-righteousness. I am, quite frankly, embarrassed by the current administration and how the rest of the world must view Americans. I only hope that others looking in don't think that all of us are the spoiled brats our popular media so loves to follow.

More frightening than the lack of acknowledgement that we've stepped down as a global leader by the leaders of this country is the complete apathy of its citizens. It angers me that, as a country, we sit idly by, letting the privileged few decide the fate of this nation. Yes, I realize it's called democracy, but is it really democratic if hardly anyone bothers to vote? Or if those in power take advantage and erode some of the basic principles of our nation such as civil rights and right to privacy?

When you think back to the blood, sweat and death that generations before us have endured to create a sovereign nation based on equality, freedom from religious persecution, and the right to achieve what is within our own abilities, it is a shame that our generation sits on our hands and, honestly, doesn't give a crap anymore as to whether or not these foundations are preserved.

What about all those Americans that fought against slavery and for civil rights and for suffrage for all Americans not just the landed, educated or wealthy? Why don't we take advantage of this gift and vote? It's fairly ridiculous when you think about it. If we were to go back and tell those who so desperately fought for the right to vote that future generations wouldn't even bother voting for president, let alone local elections, do you think they would be incredulous?

So, please, if you have any respect left for this country, pay attention to how we represent ourselves to the rest of the world. Fight to obtain information about how this country is run. Take advantage of the rights we have to make your say known in how you want this country governed. Then, and only then, can we instill a sense of ownership of our government, a sense of civic duty and participation and a pride in our country not just by its citizens, but by the rest of the world.

Is McCain green or brown?

I really don't like to bring up politics and I generally don't. But, I keep seeing news headlines about John McCain's stance on the environment and global warming and how he's trying to reach out to the green crowd.

Yesterday, McCain was in the Seattle area and even went on a little promo hike. Ehrr.. I mean a "short nature walk". This brings a whole new meaning to the term campaign stumping. Anyway, I guess I really can't criticize since I don't see Hillary out there wobbling around on her cankles.

McCain's talk, to a group of about 100 green businesses, centered around the idea that promoting "green" business practices would be good for the economy because it will encourage ingenuity and new products.

McCain stated, "I just firmly and steadfastly reject the notion that this is going to be something that's harmful to our economy." He also stated that the wind-turbine company in Portland, OR that he visited is employing thousands of people and is "contributing to probably as clean a technology as you'll ever find."

He, apparently, spent some time haranguing the CEO of REI regarding what ideas she had towards greening up businesses, even going so far as to asking her, "What do you want me to do?" Maybe she should have suggested some more suitable hiking boots? Might I suggest some McKeen's?

So, has John McCain suddenly gone green or is he just full of shit?