We’re in a long line here, so it’s hard to do full blog posts. So, check out our twitter feeds: Dave Dayen: http://twitter.com/ddayen Brian Leubitz: http://twitter.com/sfbriancl

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

Adam and I are hardened old cynics at this point.

But Terry was born on December 7th, 1999. He has never NOT KNOWN a time when George W. Bush wasn’t President.

And we’ve been sitting on the couch after Adam gets home from work, watching the DVR playback of the convention highlights… both of us WEEPING LIKE CHILDREN. Holding hands, looking at each other occasionally, realising that we LOST OUR GODDAMNED COUNTRY when they stole that election… and we knew it, we knew we knew it, but we DIDN’T KNOW what we didn’t know.

Oh, we railed, we thundered at the television, we shushed each other because the baby was sleeping, then we’d go out to the patio and whisper-shout at the heavens at the INJUSTICE of it all…

But we just DIDN’T REALISE what would happen — HOW COULD WE???

And we sit on the couch watching this Democratic Convention…

And we weep.

And I’m ALREADY pissed off about the Republicans. Jeff Lieber started me thinking and I haven’t stopped. Because YOU KNOW IT’S FUCKING TRUE.

Here we all are, paying APPROPRIATE TRIBUTE to John fucking McCain and his honourable fucking service to his country, and the horrific tortures he underwent in Vietnam…

And all I can think about now is what the goddamned Republicans would do to him if he were the Democratic nominee. The purple fucking bandaids they’d be parading around at their convention, mocking that service and that torture. The talk radio blowhards’ belittling and questioning of his being shot down.

And, in a personal parallel, I think of my father, and what might have happened to HIM, had he survived and gone into politics as a Democrat. The SAME FUCKING THING that happened to John Kerry, that’s what. And the same fucking thing that WOULD happen to John McCain if HE were a Democrat — the thing that HE CANNOT or WILL NOT see, that his TOTAL LACK of empathy allows him to ignore.

They are fucking SCUM, these goddamned so-called “conservatives.” These motherfucking REPUBLICANS. They will waltz into Minneapolis or St. Paul — which is it, anyway? — and they will puff up their faux-patriotic chests and call themselves “lovers of country” and think THEMSELVES the TRUE PATRIOTS — all the while HATING HALF OF AMERICA.

And the Democrats in Denver will have stood to attention during the raising of the flag and the singing of the National Anthem and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance — and they will have bowed their heads and nodded solemnly – AND SINCERELY — while Democratic politician after Democratic politican reminded them and the national audience that John McCain DOES love his country and DID serve his country honourably and suffer terribly for her…

And next week HORDES of “conservative” Republicans will JEER and LAUGH at Democrats and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and his RADICAL WIFE — those FOREIGN, WEIRD, BLACK BLACK BLACK LEFTISTS — and MOCK their LIBERAL, QUEER, UNAMERICAN-NESS and their LIBERAL, QUEER, UNAMERICAN supporters…

And THEY’RE the PATRIOTS???

And the fucking corporate media will lap it up and stoke the flames and goddamn if half this motherfucking country will go to the polls and vote for John motherfucking McCain and the party of HATE.

The LDS Church has recently released a statement under the title: “The Divine Institution of Marriage”

Notably, in this statement, the LDS Church seems to be suggesting that it does not oppose rights protected under civil union or domestic partnership laws:

“The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.”

If this is the official LDS Church position, it leads me to wonder why Gary Lawrence, the California LDS Grassroots Director, is distributing “Yes on 8” campaign literature (PDF) to Mormons that includes advice like this:

“We must help ordinary people to wake up to the role of incrementalism and language manipulation in law and policy so that domestic partnerships and civil unions, which are exactly like marriage but in name only, do not become the laws in the states.”

Translation: the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” campaign are distributing campaign material that expresses opposition – not only to gay marriage – but to domestic partnerships and civil unions as well.

What’s up with that? Anyone care to explain the true LDS position here? Because, at this point, I’m confused. As far as I can tell, what Salt Lake is now saying doesn’t seem to square with what I’m reading from the Mormons directing the “Yes on 8” effort in California.

Sources:

Meridian Magazine: How to Help Pass Proposition 8

WHY A MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY (PDF linked to in the Meridian article)

Of course, that said, knowing that the LDS Church has already fought against civil unions in places like Vermont, it’s not surprising to find Mormon staff on the “Yes on 8” campaign payroll arguing against domestic partnerships in California. It is merely confusing, since I assume they’d want their “Yes on 8” campaign materials to conform with the latest statements coming out of Utah. As things stand, it looks like LDS HQ is saying something that does not correspond to what their California operatives are doing.

There’s a general discussion about this question over at BCC (a Mormon blog): A change on Domestic Partnerships?

The specific question I’m posing here is: do the “Yes on 8” campaign materials that the Mormons are using in California hew to the same line that’s now coming out of LDS Church Headquarters? The answer, at least for now, would seem to be “No” …

Until they do, it looks like a case of the church and the campaign trying to have it both ways, saying one thing and doing another, treating their own members and their California neighbors like chumps, playing nice with the official church statements, while playing hardball in the campaign literature. I’m sure someone will let me know if I’ve jumped to the wrong conclusion here. I mean, it is possible that the “Yes on 8” campaign has simply fallen into complete disarray and all central messaging control capability has been lost. However, I think it’s much more likely that this is what’s happening here:

This whole Prop 8 charade is part of a Republican GOTV (get-out-the-vote) effort. The GOP needed a way to fire up their California base without offending the mushy (and generally fair-minded) middle. So, on the one hand, you get Mormon volunteers delivering campaign materials (promising a rollback of gay rights) directly to target voters, while at the same time using other channels to release statements that adopt a more tolerant tone.  The base gets angry and moderate voters get shielded from the uglier aspects of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

In other words, a creepy GOP version of PURE GENIUS.

Not to mention that Falwell had already pitched Salt Lake previously on the merits of joining his Trinitarian Christian army in this contest, and so – with Mitt in the running for the White House – to Mormon HQ, Falwell’s proposal sounded like a no-brainer at the time.

At least, that’s my take on all of this.

In any event, here’s a bit of news to brighten your day:

Support is weak for anti-gay ballot measure

In a Public Policy Institute of California survey released Wednesday, 54 percent of likely voters said they opposed Proposition 8, which would ban same-sex marriage. The initiative has the support of 40 percent of voters.

Yay! The “Yes on 8” folks aren’t even spinning these poll results (they already tried that with the Field Poll) … this time around, they’re just glumly suggesting that Jerry Brown had it in for them from the get-go. Whatever. Whiners.

By contrast, no whining from the leaders of the “No” side, who embrace reality and are bracing for the fight ahead:

Steve Smith, campaign consultant for Equality for All, the coalition leading the No on 8 campaign, said the group was encouraged by the Public Policy Institute poll but is still preparing for an expensive and emotional fight in the coming months.

He expects opponents of same-sex marriage will try to sway public opinion by misleading voters into thinking that churches will be forced to recognize gay relationships if the initiative fails.

My only quibble: the misleading has already begun, Steve.

Otherwise, all in all, a good day.

And while I’m hanging out, celebrating, and waiting for clarification of the question raised up top, here’s a bonus conundrum:

One of the pamphlets the Mormons are distributing in California is called “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails”

Here’s the final claim they make in this execrable handout:

6. [The defeat of Prop 8] will cost you money. A change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits. Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money, your church contributions – that will have to be spent on legal fees.

Too funny. Let’s stop and think about this for a second: how would church contributions ever get spent on legal fees related to Prop 8? Perhaps because the churches themselves are bringing the lawsuits? BINGO! In fact, in that very same PDF distributed by Mormon grassroots director Gary Lawrence, the “Yes on 8” strategy is clearly stated:

As we have many times before, we must continue to use legal muscle and aggressively make our arguments in the courts in definition of marriage cases.

So, on the one hand, the “Yes on 8” groups are using their “legal muscle” to make their arguments in the courts, while on the other hand, they’re trying to scare their followers and gullible voters into believing that it’s the “No” side who deserve the blame for the potential waste of precious church funds. The audacity of their mendacity is stunning. If Brother Lawrence really wants to prevent this waste of church contributions, here’s a tip: ask your “legal muscle” to stop filing lawsuits! Problem solved.

In any case, since I’ve now mentioned that “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” flyer, here are some links to a few blogs that answer these “Six Lies from the ‘Yes on 8’ Campaign” …

Marriage Equality Foes Peddling Lies

Hateful, Lying Scumbags

Bearing False Witness

If you have the time, do a Google blog search of “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … these six lies are being posted all over the Internet by Mormon families who have received this info from Gary Lawrence and other LDS directors of the “Yes on 8” campaign.

Regardless of how you or I may plan to vote on Proposition 8, there is never any justification for deliberately spreading blatant falsehoods to support your position.

Of course, the biggest lie is that this amendment is about “protecting marriage” … But maybe once you’ve begun selling that whopper, any additional lying required to make your case against gay marriage feels like no big sin?

What a sad and (spiritually) worthless campaign the LDS leadership has called its members to join.

Sadder still, I’ll probably never get to ask Gary Lawrence (or any other Mormon “Yes on 8” campaign operative) these three questions:

In terms of your religious commitments, is it acceptable for a member of the LDS faith to lie in order to achieve political objectives?

In terms of your responsibilities as a citizen, aren’t you betraying your civic duty as an American by resorting to lies to scare up votes for your side?

In terms of your church’s own self-interest, this election will be over in November, but the memory of your shameful “Yes on 8” campaign tactics will linger much longer … don’t you worry about the damage your false witness is doing to the public image of the LDS Church?

But, hey, I’m against this infernal amendment, so … who cares about a few sad sacks and their misguided political adventures? We’re gonna get mad, and then we’re gonna get even.

In the immortal words of Ron Prentice, Grand Poobah of the “Yes on 8” campaign:

“Unless the people are angry, nothing will happen.”

Congratulations, Ron. Lord knows you’ve been working hard to get folks riled up about this whole gay marriage business. In light of this latest poll, if it’s any consolation, you may not be getting the votes, but at least your little trope about angry people is gonna get proven correct: I’m people, I’m angry, and I’m gonna help make sure plenty happens between now and November 4th. That said, not much of what’s gonna happen from here on out is gonna be any good for the “Yes on 8” side of things.

I mean, I know your group has ordered 1 million yard signs to be put up in unison next month, but considering how angry you’ve made me, I think you might want to consider ordering a million more.

Not that it would make any difference.

Vote No on Prop 8!

—————————————————————————

Sudden death double bonus question:

Which four letters are shared in the names of the two states that boast the country’s lowest divorce rate in one and a perennially above-average young male suicide rate in the other? [hint: the same four letters can be arranged to form the name of a certain Western state]

If you guessed Massachusetts and Utah and came up with U T A H as your answer … you’re a winner!!

Comment below to claim your prize.

Contest not available to former presidential candidates from Arkansas. Restrictions may apply.

—————————————————————————

So, this post is quickly devolving into one part j’accuse, another part cri de coeur, with a generous dollop of Hallelujah.

In other words, a rant.

In 1948, the California Supreme Court became the first state court to declare unconstitutional that state’s ban on interracial marriages.

If you’ve ever wondered what LDS (Mormon) leaders had to say on the subject of interracial marriage in the years that followed that 1948 California decision, wonder no more. As you’ll find out below, this crowd has always had plenty to say on the subject of marriage …

In the spirit of the Yes on 8 campaign’s bogus “Six Consequences if Proposition 8 Fails” … I’ve thrown together “Six Quotes on Interracial Marriage from Mormon Leaders”

Actually, I’ve got seven, but I’m gonna give BRIGHAM YOUNG a break, what with him being from the 19th century and all.

One (1) From the current LDS manual for young men (12-18 years old – i.e., the Aaronic Priesthood):

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question.”

Two (2) From the 90’s: RUSSELL M. NELSON:

“The commandment to love our neighbors without discrimination is certain. But it must not be misunderstood. It applies generally. Selection of a marriage partner, on the other hand, involves specific and not general criteria. After all, one person can only be married to one individual. The probabilities of a successful marriage are known to be much greater if both the husband and wife are united in their religion, language, culture, and ethnic background.”

Three (3) From the 80’s: SPENCER W. KIMBALL:

“We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs.”

Four (4) From the 70’s: BOYD K. PACKER:

“We counsel you…to marry…within your race. Now interracial marriages are not prohibited but they are not encouraged, for the blood that’s in your veins is the blood of the children of the covenant.”

Five (5) From the 60’s: BRUCE R. McCONKIE:

“…[I]n a broad sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.”

Six (6) From the 50’s: MARK E. PETERSEN:

“The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth….We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject…. “I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorbtion with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, ‘First we pity, then endure, then embrace.’…. “Now let’s talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? when the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation…. When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation…. “Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them…. “The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse — as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there…. “Now we are generous with the negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing — what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.”

Six LDS leaders, a good half-dozen reasons to never ever pay any further attention to anything that these folks might have to say on the subject of marriage.

Maybe it’s all BRIGHAM YOUNG’s fault. I wasn’t gonna quote him, but maybe if I do, it’d help us all appreciate how relatively progressive LDS leaders have become in their thinking:

“… Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Based on the six 20th-century quotes from LDS leaders that I’ve listed above, it’s at least somewhat reassuring to note the progress that’s been made since Brigham Young’s 1860’s decree:

White men who marry black women are no longer required to die on the spot.

Progress!

Hallelujah.

End rant.

Chino Blanco

I’m at the Big Tent with Eric Schmidt and Rachel Maddow.  Here’s a liveblog.

Rachel just asked if this is the first internet election.  Schmidt says that it is a developing process, but it’s worth studying.  References the Allen “macaca” incident, which largely occurred on the internet.  The second step is what we see now–the self-reinforcing nature of traditional media meant that a couple of years ago it wouldn’t have been possible to defeat Hillary, but the internet allowed him to come in sideways and do something.

(Continued below).

Rachel asks: I understand how the internet is a bulletin board and a conduit.  What else can it be in politics, and how does Google do it?

Eric: We spend our time figuring out how to live your lives on the internet.  It changes power structures and institutions.  We’re doing a lot of things.  There’s a community–this group–that didn’t have a seat at the table, and this has worked out great.  We’re doing a lot of things–there’s 12 different layers of security and badges, but everyone has access to technology.  We have 3D models, badges, a way to YouTube yourself–everybody wants to be on television, and they can show it to their mom!  And that’s what life is all about.  But even more seriously, we want people who want to vote to be able to figure out where they’re registered.  And all that information is in databases that are on a mainframe, and getting that data collection and putting them on Google Maps and Google Earth is very important.

(We’re then treated to a live demonstration of that endeavor).

Rachel: The idea of making it more difficult to vote has been part of Republicanism, and making it easier is part of the Democratic idea these days.  This might be taken as partisan.

Eric: Voting participation is declining.  People, especially young people, think it doesn’t matter, so it’s better for the country if we can encourage participation.  The right to vote is not negotatiable.

Rachel:  On taking sides: you probably get asked a lot.  In Google land, we live our lives on line.  Google documents, maps, chat, finance, all of which I have used, and therefore, a lot more about me being known.  And on the other side, we have a very aggressive effort by our Government to spy on us.  The fear of these things happening at once is that even if Google isn’t trying to be evil, it may make it easier for the government to be evil than it would if Google didn’t exist.  What’s your responsibility to your customers to be an active force in resisting government efforts?

Eric: The government has guns and we don’t.  So you have to be careful about resistance.  We are required to follow US law, even if we don’t like it, and there can be no other answer.  But the good news about  America is that we have judges and a court system, and if you get an overbroad subpoena for searches that aren’t relevant, you can get it restricted.  Such good things in America aren’t the case in other  countries.  We operate on the first principle of our users’ privacy.  But we worry that our information becomes a treasure trove.  And the scenario you describe, where we know everything you’re doing and the government decides to track you, is worrisome, and it has happened before.  One of the reasons to be optimistic is that in the 40s and 50s, you couldn’t talk about it, but now you can.  So how you know you can trust Google is that if we did something untrustworthy, you would know about it in five seconds and move on to a competitor.

Rachel: Maybe Google has the biggest database  in the world, and maybe I’m uncomfortable about that, but we love the free software, and there’s a tradeoff.  People may compete with you on the grounds of privacy.  How long do you hold information?

Eric: 18 months.

Rachel: Would someone compete with you on that?

Eric: I would welcome that.  Google is not in a position to make a decision about privacy.  That’s a societal decision.  A cultural decision as much as a legal one.  In the UK they have more CC cameras than in the entire rest of the world.  They also have a huge libel office.  There’s a cultural factor there and they made decisions different from the US.  And we have to follow their law.  Google is focused on what end users care about, which is why we have aggressive privacy laws.  We’re talking about making things more restrictive.  We anonymize cookies and we forget logs.

Rachel: One more needling question.  Given Google’s values and reflecting the desires of your customers, what’s going to happen with Google in China?  Will Google always have censored search results to allow you in?

Eric: It’s worth viewing this in context.  There’s a great firewall in China.  China has organized the internet with a set of servers and a foreign firm  has to go through these firewalls.  It is illegal for me to describe the details even if I knew them.  The secrecy laws are draconian and would make anyone upset.  We faced a choice.  1.3 billion people on the other side of it–220 million internet users.  And the question is, would they be better off with Google under that law or better off without it?  And we thought the former.  But the number of censored results–as long as you don’t say the word Falun Gong, you’re fine.  But seriously, when you do a query like that, we publish a link that says “the information was removed” in Chinese.  So what do you think they do when they see that?  I think the very smart Chinese people that I know would use mechanisms that allow them to get to that information.  And now, the local competitors in information do the same thing.  So I’m proud of that.

Rachel: Talking about living your life online, you can also run countries online.  There are national and state governments trying to move their nations into an online framework.  Are you afraid of cyberwar?

Eric: It’s already happening.  There were denial of service attacks against Georgian websites.  There’s a question of who was responsible, but it’s a very real threat.  We worry about this as a community as a whole.  Almost everything is so redundant it would be difficult for larger companies and sites to be affected.  There’s a historic vulnerability for domain root servers.  A few months ago, there was a defect found in one of the main servers.  But the odds of cyberwar really mattering in a major conflict is pretty low.  the tools are pretty good now.

Rachel: I’m reminded of Eisenhower saying that the interstate system was for national security.  This online highway is also part of our security and infrastructure.

Eric: ARCAnet–Advanced Crisis Research Agency–was founded as a national security enterprise, and put various war metaphors around their computer science proposals.  That’s  part of how I got funded.  there’s a large set of examples of that kind of money being used.  In fact, when the original designs were done, they were designed to handle link failure.

Rachel: Is google a defense contractor?

Eric: In the legal sense, no, but we do sell search devices to the government, and governments around the world.

Rachel: In what sense is Google American?

Eric: Interesting question.  If you were outside the US, we would get questions of American hegemony.  The social values–the values we have about free speech and other things we take seriously, aren’t the same values everyone else has.  google is American, but our values would be seen as so biased in favor of American values that it’s almost embarrassing.  There are about 1.5 billion users.  China has more users than the US, and most  people believe that eventually India will be the lead in internet users.  The US is a small component of internet activity.  And our goal is to continue that.

Rachel: I wanted to ask what your first thought was when you heard “series of tubes” Stevens?

Eric: There’s always a person who’s first, and a person who’s last.  We found who’s last.

Q&A: first question from the editor of Mother Jones.  My concern is what Google is doing to Journalism.  Putting information up there without generating a revenue stream for us.  What happens to us under this model?  It’s expensive to produce.  It’s bringing the work we do to a wider audience, but how do we make sure the economic rug isn’t pulled out?

Eric: It’s self-evident.  We have a major national crisis around investigative journalism.  You just worry as a citizen that it’s going away under the economic pressures.  Newsprint is more expensive, and the lack of ad revenue in newspapers is a problem.  We now have a movement from traditional classifieds to online, which Google also does.  We’re working hard to try things and this is an opportunity for experimentation.  google news is successful and drives a lot of traffic.  But the online sites don’t generate as much gross or net as the newspapers they’re replacing.  And there’s evidence this is going to get worse–just ask someone in their 20s how they get news, and the answer is, online.  The idea is to develop online news products with an advertising or subscription component that works.  The other comment I’m going to make about online news is that it’s typically so targeted that you miss the other  function of the newspaper, which is to learn things you weren’t supposed to know.  When you write a blog, you  write about what you care about and I learn  by reading your blog.

Q: Sheryl Conti, Jack and Jill politics.  What do you have to say about those who have raised concerns about diversity about Google’s hiring?

Eric: We’ve looked at this carefully and we’re happy with the way recruiting works.  We have an aggressive outreach program and we measure bias where we can.  We studied male vs. female engineering recruiting, and the ratings we  did about the male engineering candidates was predictive, and the model we had for females was not correlative.  So we had a bias in our system and we corrected that.  We’re good enough to look at practices and outcomes to find systematic biases.  And that’s going to be the standard going forward for most companies.  We’ve done this with women, but it’s harder for African Ammericans and Latinos because it’s such a small set.  You literally have to do special sourcing for those categories.  It’s important for our workforce to reflect the diversity of the world.  You get a better product and a better workplace culture.

On cutting through the clutter on the internet: “Everyone thinks they are Thoreau, but we help you sort out who the real Thoreaus are.”

Is google news the least profitable?  To laughter, “The are no profit.”

Elections verification: can google do anything with google maps to help deal with election protection?  Answer: we can make changes that will make your question a moot point, and those reports have been given to congress and the president and they have to be either paid off, or incompetent, etc.  But people can change that.

I don’t think google is in the business of investigating polling places, we’ll have to let others do that.

What should future administrations do to address the digital divide and what is google doing toward this end?  It is a declining cost issue.  These technologies are getting cheaper.  Physics and science is on our side.  the US is one of the slowest broadband countries.  Number 1) is japan, 2) is france and the us is like 15th o 17th.  The countries with the best broad band have an easier time with business.  That is govt policy.  With the FCC we were able to open up some mobile communications.  We are not ahead in America even having invented this stuff.

As a blogger I have brought google apps to a non profit with your c3 grant.  Where are you looking to take your philanthropy?  We have a group called Google at work: renewable energy is getting lots of attention.  Get the cost of coal up and the equation changes.  We have had a lot of success with ad word grants for non-profits and we are very very proud of this.  

Last question: google bombing, people using tools in ways you did not anticipate?  They are link farms and we decided that when these things occur that when we detect them we don’t allow them.  they have certain signals we can detect and the unusual view is we dont take them down manually.   we want people to talk about them and we want them to be a joke.  We think SEO is against the values of google.

Bonus question: apps.  We provide the tools and help you build the community and the better we can serve you.  Google is beholden to high quality content, people go to find out things they need to know.  

Nancy Pelosi officially goes through the motions of nominating Joe Biden, followed by a video montage focusing on Biden’s working class roots in Scranton as a stuttering young man, through his dedicated family life, and finally turning on his experience and accomplishments as a legislator.

Bo Biden, Joe’s son and Attorney General of Delaware, introduces his father (I didn’t catch much of it, as I was distracted shaking hands with Scott Kleeb…)

Biden thanks the crowd, thanks the crowd.  Says how proud he is of his son, and how his wife leaves him both “breathless and speechless.”  Proud to be on the same stage with Bill Clinton, and proud of Hillary Clinton, “a woman who has made history and will continue to make history.”

Honored to live in a country with the bravest warriors in the world, and honored to represent his state of Delaware.

Accepts the nomination.

“For every american trying to do the right thing…no longer will you hear the eight most dreaded words in the English language: The Vice-President’s Office is on the phone.”

Biden brings up how he and Obama come from different backgrounds.  Calls out his father (whose advice for young Joe was “when you get knocked down, son, get up.  Get up.”), then calls out his mother.  Failure at some point is inevitable, but giving up is unforgivable.  When I stuttered, she said, “Joey, it’s because you’re so brilliant you can’t get your thoughts out quickly enough.”  And when I got knocked down by guys bigger than me, she said “Bloody their nose so you can walk down the street the next day.”  And after the accident, she told me, “God doesn’t send you a cross you can’t bear.”

Talks about the dignity of work and the America’s promise, the American Dream that anyone can make it if you try hard enough.  “Today that American Dream feels like it’s slowly slipping away.”  “I’ve never seen a time when Washington watched so many people get knocked down, without doing anything to help them get back up.”

Millions of Americans are asking themselves questions they never thought they’d ask themselves: should mom move in with us now?  Did you hear they may be cutting out healthcare company?  We owe more on the house than we can pay.  How are we going to send our kids to college?  How are we going to retire?

That’s the America George Bush has left us.  And that will be the America we will have if George–sorry, John McCain is elected president.”  Hilarious Freudian Slip from Joe–or was it?

“John McCain doesn’t seem to get it.  Barack Obama gets it, though…I believe the measure of a man is not the road he travels, but the choices he makes along that road.  Barack Obama could have done anything after he graduated from college…He chose to go to the South Side of Chicago…He made their lives the work of his life.  That’s what you do when you’re raised by a single mom who worked two jobs and raised a family…It’s about whether you can look your child in the eye and say We’re Going to Be All Right.”

Talks about how Barack Obama got people off welfare, got more healthcare for children,   helped control nuclear proliferation, and helped wounded veterans.

“We don’t have to accept a situation we cannot bear.  We have the power to change it.  And change it is exactly what Barack Obama will do.  That’s what he’ll do for this country.”

Now here it comes.  The attack on McCain.  Obligatory respect for McCain’s service.  “But I profoundly disagree with the direction John wants to take this country.  John says we’ve made great economic progress.  I think it’s been abysmal.  McCain has voted with the Bush Administration 95% of the time.  That’s hard to believe!”  Hits the More of the Same line.

Key line repeated throughout the speech:

That’s not change.  That’s more of the same.

Hits McCain on minimum wage, tax cuts for the wealthy, oil company and pharmaceutical tax breaks, Iraq, energy policy and more.

“These times require more than a good soldier.  They require a wise leader.”  Lots of great quotes throughout this speech.

Now Biden brings up the contrasts with specific Obama policies, including on energy possible, better education, accessible healthcare for every American, more cops on the street, security back in social security, equal pay for women.  “That’s the change we need.”

Calls Afghanistan the “real central front of the War on Terror.”

Ugh.  Throws red meat on the Georgia/Russia business.  Biden should know better–but hell, it probably polls well.

Biden throws McCain’s lack of judgment on Afghanistan compared with Obama’s foresight.  “John McCain was wrong, and Barack Obama was right.”

On talking with Iran, even the Bush Administration recognizes that we have to talk to Iran.  John McCain has been wrong, and Obama has been right.  Same thing for timelines in Iraq–the Administration and the Iraqi government are setting timelines: McCain was wrong and Obama was right.

“Again and again, on the most important national and economic security issues, John McCain has been wrong and Barack Obama has been proven right.”

Finally, he brings it home to his Scranton roots.  This is the time America gets back up.  This is our time.  This is Barack Obama’s time.  This is America’s time.”

All in all, a fantastic speech.  I could have wished that Biden had started hitting McCain a little earlier in the speech before people had the chance to tune out–but that’s just a nit to pick.  Awesome job.  

OBAMA: “I was everyone to understand why I’m so proud to have Joe Biden and Bo Biden and Mama Biden here to help me take America back.  I think the convention’s gone pretty well so far, what do you think?  Michelle Obama kicked it off pretty well, don’t you think?  If I’m not mistaken, Hillary clinton rocked the house last night!  (nice shot of Bill and Hill, obviously smiling).  I think President Bill Clinton reminded us what it’s like when you actually put people first.  Thank you President Clinton!  We’ll be movign to mile High stadium tomorrow.  At the beginning of this campaign, we had a very simple idea, that change dosn’t come from the top down but from the bottom up.  Change comes from ordinary people doing extraordinary things…We’re going to have a great night tomorrow night, and see you there.  Thank you and God Bless America!”