Even if McCain's P.O.W. story or Ms. Palin's looks melt hearts, their not gonna be getting my vote. Here's a couple of alternative places to live in, if, and only IF they do make their way to the White House.

Machu Picchu, Peru - From Wikipedia:

7,000 feet above sea level and nestled on a small hilltop between the Andean Mountain Range, the majestic city soars above the Urabamba Valley below. The Incan built structure has been deemed the "Lost Cities", unknown until its relatively recent discovery in 1911. Archaeologists estimate that approximately 1200 people could have lived in the area, though many theorize it was most likely a retreat for Incan rulers. Due to it's isolation from the rest of Peru, living in the area full time would require traveling great distances just to reach the nearest village.

Separated into three areas - agricultural, urban, and religious - the structures are arranged so that the function of the buildings matches the form of their surroundings. The agricultural terracing and aqueducts take advantage of the natural slopes; the lower areas contain buildings occupied by farmers and teachers, and the most important religious areas are located at the crest of the hill, overlooking the lush Urubamba Valley thousands of feet below.

I've always wanted to go to Machu Picchu - plus, as long as McCain isn't planning on waging a war / bringing a fight to them - I'm there.

Panama - If you watch Prison Break, you've probably heard this place mentioned with such reverance for the first three seasons. I mean, if fictional prisoners who break out of prison get to run away from their troubles here get to hide out and be free somewhere else, then why not?

The lush greens, the environmental variety (you could pop into different fringes and face the ocean different ways … in a day!) I'm all up for it.

It's been a full year since that Free Trade Agreement thing, and neither place is taking action - which tells me I'll be safe here to go under the radar.

Anchorage, Alaska - Even if Palin is from Alaska, it doesn't seem like she has the proper gauges on what people here want in a government. Besides, this is probably the last place they'd look.

Regarding the recent rallies:

Obama-Biden rally- Approximately 1200 rally-goers, lots of homemade signs, voter registration, postcard writing, live band, t-shirt/button sales with long lines, lots of families and dogs (some with signs), outside on the Park Strip. Noticeable racial diversity in the crowd.

Focus of rally: Hope, change, moving forward, getting out the vote, labor, women's issues, health care, the economy, veterans, Alaska natives.

compare that to:

McCain-Palin rally - Approximately 250ish rally-goers, hundreds of empty chairs, pre-printed campaign signs, t-shirt/button sales, high school band, very few kids, no dogs, inside in a cavernous convention hall.

Focus of rally: Terrorism, military, fear of those who "hate us", Obama rally is angry and filled with hate, think of all that Alaska will get if Sarah is elected, oil, get out the vote, war. Noticeable lack of racial diversity in the crowd.

I think that says: one, people want change, the country to move forward and that includes the younger voting crowd. Two: you can't not think of a pink elephant. As long as the McCain-Palin camp keep mentioning the words, 'war,' 'terror,' 'fight,' etc - it can't be kept out of people's minds. Perception is projection, after all. I'd like to focus my energies on hoping for a better future for this country, not being paranoid under the desk, thinking of other people to wage war on.

***

I believe in Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine; she did, after all, make it to the top Global Intellectuals poll before, meaning, she probably knows what she's talking about.