I saw a sign today hanging on someone's tree that read: "No Hope; No Change; No Democrats" and couldn't help but ponder that statement. After some critical thinking (something few people seem to have the ability to do these days), I decided that the sign was just wrong and whoever it was that hung it for all to see is probably as ignorant as those babbling lunatics on Faux News.
Think about it, the whole "Hope and Change" thing came around when Obama was running for prez two years ago. So have we seen "Hope and Change" in these two years? I say yes. Here's why:
1. We're out of Iraq (for the most part anyway; we're at least done fighting there). Two years ago, we didn't even have an exit strategy. As far as everyone was concerned at the time, we were just going to be there forever. That has since CHANGED. And we have a plan for the war in Afghanistan - a welcome CHANGE from two years that makes me HOPEful we'll actually see an end to that waste of time and lives.
2. Despite constant antagonization from the other party, we've managed to pass health care reform. That makes me HOPEful that we'll actually see some good things in the years to come. If nothing, the CHANGEs it has already brought with it have forced the insurance companies to play nicer and quit denying people with "preexisting conditions." Some twenty-plus million people now have access to coverage who didn't have that option a couple years ago.
3. Our financial system has been smacked with some seriously beneficial regulations. Have you looked at your credit card statement lately? It's easier to understand now, thanks to the new regulations which also just so happen to force creditors to play nicer such as by granting a mandatory grace period and applying payments over the minimum to the highest interest-bearing balances first. Now that's CHANGE I can believe in.
4. Despite the fears many NRA-membership-boasting conservatives had a couple years ago, gun control has actually gone their way via multiple rulings by the supreme court and by the assault weapons ban expiring. In fact, to my knowledge, not a single piece of gun control legislation has been passed by this administration. And at the local level, Iowa, under a democratic administration, has actually made it EASIER to obtain a concealed carry permit. I'd say the archaic view of Democrats being gun-melting, NRA haters is behind us. Give it up, Sarah Palin.
5. Here in Iowa, our governor is a Democrat. Terry Branstad, one of our previous governors, is running against him largely on the topic of state finances. Branstad claims the state budget is in disrepair and it's high time for a change. Not sure where his information is coming from because a recent report revealed that Iowa's finances are run better than 47 other states, and the state's unemployment, though still at 6.8%, is still better than 42 other states'. We closed this fiscal year with $335 million left (even better than the $100 million we were projected to finish with) and another $419 million in reserves. And next year looks even better. I don't know where Governor Branstad thinks the $1 billion deficit is coming from, but it's not from this budget.
So the "No Hope, No Change" claim, I'm afraid, is bullshit. We've had plenty of change lately, most of it for the better. Yeah, maybe things are still tough, but that's life. We're heading in the right direction and a little patience will go a long way. The most negative change I've seen is from the Republican side with all their efforts to incite anger, hatred, intolerance (think NYC mosque, Don't ask/don't tell policy), divisiveness and partisanship (think every day in congress), dishonesty, and ignorance (think every political ad on TV).
Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that Democrats are in real trouble this election because nobody has any fucking patience and the Repubs have done a great job of scaring everyone shitless.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Common theme?
Since things obviously panned out so well for John McCain when he picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Iowa is following suit. Just today I found an article that revealed that Terry Branstad, in his attempt to again hold the Governor's office after a rather lengthy hiatus, has chosen state senator Kim Reynolds as a running mate.
Sen. Reynolds (R-Oceola), is in her first term as a state senator. Prior to that office, she was the treasurer for Clarke County (2000 census pop. 9,133). She's also served as president of the Iowa State County Treasurers Association and served six years on the IPERS board.
Though I know somewhere between little and nothing about this person, I can't help but liken this to what we saw John McCain pull during the presidential campaign. A woman (though in this case not as young) with very little experience being pulled from the ranks of obscurity and thrown into a campain for a position in which she is likely neither ready for nor capable of doing well. Again, the Republican party shows that it has no shame. As if it weren't bad enough that the party had to recycle a governor from a past decade; the Repubs seem to again be counting on a fresh faced woman to win votes - not records or experience. Glad to see they have so much respect for the mental fortitude of their constituents.
I wonder if Senator Reynolds can see Russia from her house too.
Sen. Reynolds (R-Oceola), is in her first term as a state senator. Prior to that office, she was the treasurer for Clarke County (2000 census pop. 9,133). She's also served as president of the Iowa State County Treasurers Association and served six years on the IPERS board.
Though I know somewhere between little and nothing about this person, I can't help but liken this to what we saw John McCain pull during the presidential campaign. A woman (though in this case not as young) with very little experience being pulled from the ranks of obscurity and thrown into a campain for a position in which she is likely neither ready for nor capable of doing well. Again, the Republican party shows that it has no shame. As if it weren't bad enough that the party had to recycle a governor from a past decade; the Repubs seem to again be counting on a fresh faced woman to win votes - not records or experience. Glad to see they have so much respect for the mental fortitude of their constituents.
I wonder if Senator Reynolds can see Russia from her house too.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Obama looking forward to a "Post-America World"?
This photo is from a forwarded email I received from a staunch Republican friend who commonly sends me shit like this. The first lines of the email read: "If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around."
The email goes on to say: "The name of the book Obama is reading is called: The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world After America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!"
Well, I couldn't agree more. This should be sent to everyone in America...with the right information to accompany the photograph. And it should be sent back to every ignorant, mindless propaganda-forwarder with a caption that reads, "Get the facts, you moron."
A little research (accomplished in less time it takes to have a sip of coffee) reveals that yes, the book is real (no surprise there) but the rest of the information in the email is bullshit.
According to a Snopes article, the book is neither Muslim nor does it have anything to do with the fall of "our beloved America." Quite the contrary actually. The book, written by an Indian-born (but now a naturalized, legal US citizen) political journalist is actually an optimistic view of the 21st century and its future. It's not about the decline of America, but the rise of everyone else: the growing prosperity of developing countries, the associated decline of violence...things of that nature. In fact, the book predicts that despite some blunders at home and abroad, America will stay strong.
Well, that's hardly fodder for the likes of Limbaugh and Beck. Yet their disciples continue to forward crap like this photo, complete with outright bullshit descriptions to accompany it. No wonder fewer and fewer people are taking the Republican party seriously these days.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Pray it away
No doubt the oil spill in the Gulf is causing a lot of despair among folks, especially those in the coastal states directly affected by the oil reaching their shores. Despair leads to desperate measures and, as would be expected, the government is always willing to oblige the public's cry to do something. Problem is, nobody really knows what to do. What can be done is supposedly being done to the fullest extent possible by the most capable people...or so we're told. Yet the oil still flows. So now what?
As humans have done for pretty much its entire existence, when something is out of our control, we resign to putting it in the hands of whatever deity we subscribe to. So, in all its willingness to help, but not having legitimate means of doing so, the Louisiana legislature unanimously passed a resolution - SR145 - "To recognize and declare Sunday, June 20, 2010, as a Statewide Day of Prayer for Louisiana and for the population and region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, in particular those people affected by the environmental and economic disasters that erupted in the
aftermath of BP Deepwater Horizon oil leak."
By golly, that ought to fix it! Because I'm sure God didn't really grasp the full magnitude of the disaster. Several million people all saying prayers asking for more or less the same thing should get his attention. I don't know exactly what everyone expects him to do. Should he part the Gulf in a circle around where the oil slick is, the divinely suck the oil out of the waters before letting them settle back in place? While he's at it, maybe he can suck up the BP execs whose greed helped spawn the problem in the first place. That would be divine justice right? I suspect the result will be more fitting to the natural functions of the planet He supposedly created. Like a Category 5 hurricane to disperse and dilute the oil. After all, we've proven time and again that the solution to pollution is dilution...not prayer.
Sidebar: Isn't it a bit ironic that the legislators that proposed this Resolution are the same (conservative) lawmakers who are screaming for the President to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling? I wonder how much of BP's money helped put those legislators in power?
As humans have done for pretty much its entire existence, when something is out of our control, we resign to putting it in the hands of whatever deity we subscribe to. So, in all its willingness to help, but not having legitimate means of doing so, the Louisiana legislature unanimously passed a resolution - SR145 - "To recognize and declare Sunday, June 20, 2010, as a Statewide Day of Prayer for Louisiana and for the population and region surrounding the Gulf of Mexico, in particular those people affected by the environmental and economic disasters that erupted in the
aftermath of BP Deepwater Horizon oil leak."
By golly, that ought to fix it! Because I'm sure God didn't really grasp the full magnitude of the disaster. Several million people all saying prayers asking for more or less the same thing should get his attention. I don't know exactly what everyone expects him to do. Should he part the Gulf in a circle around where the oil slick is, the divinely suck the oil out of the waters before letting them settle back in place? While he's at it, maybe he can suck up the BP execs whose greed helped spawn the problem in the first place. That would be divine justice right? I suspect the result will be more fitting to the natural functions of the planet He supposedly created. Like a Category 5 hurricane to disperse and dilute the oil. After all, we've proven time and again that the solution to pollution is dilution...not prayer.
Sidebar: Isn't it a bit ironic that the legislators that proposed this Resolution are the same (conservative) lawmakers who are screaming for the President to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling? I wonder how much of BP's money helped put those legislators in power?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Leveraging a new infrastructure
As I write, oil is spewing into the Gulf of Mexico at the rate of 210,000 gallons a day just as it has been for weeks now. And there's still no solution in sight. Meanwhile, as should be expected, oil execs are playing the blame game; trying to pin the tail on whatever skapegoat donkey they can find (contractors, subcontractors, Halliburton...). No doubt this is costing BP some astronomic amount of money by our standards. But really, what is a few hundred million or even a couple billion when your company is knocking down an annual profit of $40 billion annually? The first oil exec that bitches about how much money this is costing them should be flown over the spill zone and dropped. Repeatedly if necessary.
This disaster, which now is likely the largest oil disaster in history, is just icing on the cake. We've known that we need to get off the oil train for a long time. And thanks to a Democratic majority and a president who is more intelligent than a 4th grader, public opinion has begun to swing that way as of late. Car companies are taking note, realizing that new innovation is likely the only way to save their financial ass. Every car company in the world is not only increasing fuel mileage in their standard production vehicles (granted, probably in light of stricter fuel efficiency regulations, but nevertheless...), but they've all started dabbling in cars that don't use oil. I've seen everything from hydrogen to natural gas to pure electric powered vehicles come across the news tickers as the possible "Next Generation" of passenger vehicles. Unfortunately, for these vehicles to become mainstream, the entire world's infrastructure must be overhauled at the same time these cars come widely available. There won't be the demand it takes to get the technology worked out and affordable without making the vehicles as easy to fuel up as they are now. Without huge financial backing, that infrastructure won't likely come at the pace needed to save our species.
So where could that financial backing come from? Hmm...what is the backbone of that infrastructure now? Oh yeah, oil. That stuff that's pouring into the Gulf right now at almost a quarter million gallons a day. And who's oil is it? The oil companies'. So by extension, it's only logical to posit that the only way we can ever hope to build (or if nothing else, remodel) the infrastructure needed to make standard the "Next Generation" of vehicles is if the oil companies use their huge wallets and immense political power to drive the transition. God knows they have the resources to do it. They just need the inspiration. If only we had something we could hold against them to leverage such a change...maybe 210,000 gallons a day worth of leverage...
This disaster, which now is likely the largest oil disaster in history, is just icing on the cake. We've known that we need to get off the oil train for a long time. And thanks to a Democratic majority and a president who is more intelligent than a 4th grader, public opinion has begun to swing that way as of late. Car companies are taking note, realizing that new innovation is likely the only way to save their financial ass. Every car company in the world is not only increasing fuel mileage in their standard production vehicles (granted, probably in light of stricter fuel efficiency regulations, but nevertheless...), but they've all started dabbling in cars that don't use oil. I've seen everything from hydrogen to natural gas to pure electric powered vehicles come across the news tickers as the possible "Next Generation" of passenger vehicles. Unfortunately, for these vehicles to become mainstream, the entire world's infrastructure must be overhauled at the same time these cars come widely available. There won't be the demand it takes to get the technology worked out and affordable without making the vehicles as easy to fuel up as they are now. Without huge financial backing, that infrastructure won't likely come at the pace needed to save our species.
So where could that financial backing come from? Hmm...what is the backbone of that infrastructure now? Oh yeah, oil. That stuff that's pouring into the Gulf right now at almost a quarter million gallons a day. And who's oil is it? The oil companies'. So by extension, it's only logical to posit that the only way we can ever hope to build (or if nothing else, remodel) the infrastructure needed to make standard the "Next Generation" of vehicles is if the oil companies use their huge wallets and immense political power to drive the transition. God knows they have the resources to do it. They just need the inspiration. If only we had something we could hold against them to leverage such a change...maybe 210,000 gallons a day worth of leverage...
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Idiot inspiration
Several weeks since last post.
Been a little uninspired. To say the least. F winter.
But its nicer now. Warming up. Snow's 'bout gone. Now the inevitable muddy slop everywhere. I'll take that over 10 degrees and snow any day of the week.
Inspiration is coming back. And by "inspiration" I mean my desire to tell people how stupid they are.
Like the idiot on the highway on my way to work today. Driving a whopping 45 mph, he had traffic backed up a quarter mile. It was 40 and raining. This is probably the same idiot that drove 60 on the same stretch of highway when it was 29 and icing. Seriously people? This is why it's bad to eliminate the forces of natural selection from any species.
How about the idiots at NASCAR? 2008 - Announce the "Car of Tomorrow" and completely remove any semblance of "stock" from stockcar racing. 2009 - watch the entire sport go farther down the shitter. Drivers can't bump each other. Cars don't handle. Tires don't hold up. Nobody can pass. Five hundred miles of boredom. Everyone's pissed. The drivers, the fans, the sponsors...Jimmie Johnson wins....again. 2010 - "Have at it boys!" they proudly proclaim. They're going to lighten up. Let the drivers get back to what they do best - beating the crap out of their equipment while trying to be the first across the line. Everyone's excited. But they're still driving those piece of crap cars that were supposed to be so great. Until the first guy spins backward and they realize that 200 mph air hitting a wing-like spoiler from behind results in what the Wright brothers discovered a century ago - LIFT! Two flights and one retaining fence later, NASCAR is cracking down on drivers for doing what they were told they could do. Idiots. Put the old spoilers back on and let them race like they did when everyone still loved the sport.
Oh, and I don't need health insurance reform. My insurance is fine. Provided to me by my employer. So to hell with this silly debate. I don't want to hear about it...until I lose my job or until the insurer bumps rates more than what my employer budgeted (like they did this year) and they can't afford it and have to either cut someone or make me pay more...or until my girlfriend gets sick and has to foot the bill on an 8-hour-per-week minimum wage because she can't be on her parents insurance anymore because she's a few credits short of being a full time college student which means she can't work a full time job to get health benefits and can't afford to pay for her own insurance. Seriously, elected idiots. We're not in kindergarten anymore. Do your damn job and give us something to work with here.
That's all for now.
Been a little uninspired. To say the least. F winter.
But its nicer now. Warming up. Snow's 'bout gone. Now the inevitable muddy slop everywhere. I'll take that over 10 degrees and snow any day of the week.
Inspiration is coming back. And by "inspiration" I mean my desire to tell people how stupid they are.
Like the idiot on the highway on my way to work today. Driving a whopping 45 mph, he had traffic backed up a quarter mile. It was 40 and raining. This is probably the same idiot that drove 60 on the same stretch of highway when it was 29 and icing. Seriously people? This is why it's bad to eliminate the forces of natural selection from any species.
How about the idiots at NASCAR? 2008 - Announce the "Car of Tomorrow" and completely remove any semblance of "stock" from stockcar racing. 2009 - watch the entire sport go farther down the shitter. Drivers can't bump each other. Cars don't handle. Tires don't hold up. Nobody can pass. Five hundred miles of boredom. Everyone's pissed. The drivers, the fans, the sponsors...Jimmie Johnson wins....again. 2010 - "Have at it boys!" they proudly proclaim. They're going to lighten up. Let the drivers get back to what they do best - beating the crap out of their equipment while trying to be the first across the line. Everyone's excited. But they're still driving those piece of crap cars that were supposed to be so great. Until the first guy spins backward and they realize that 200 mph air hitting a wing-like spoiler from behind results in what the Wright brothers discovered a century ago - LIFT! Two flights and one retaining fence later, NASCAR is cracking down on drivers for doing what they were told they could do. Idiots. Put the old spoilers back on and let them race like they did when everyone still loved the sport.
Oh, and I don't need health insurance reform. My insurance is fine. Provided to me by my employer. So to hell with this silly debate. I don't want to hear about it...until I lose my job or until the insurer bumps rates more than what my employer budgeted (like they did this year) and they can't afford it and have to either cut someone or make me pay more...or until my girlfriend gets sick and has to foot the bill on an 8-hour-per-week minimum wage because she can't be on her parents insurance anymore because she's a few credits short of being a full time college student which means she can't work a full time job to get health benefits and can't afford to pay for her own insurance. Seriously, elected idiots. We're not in kindergarten anymore. Do your damn job and give us something to work with here.
That's all for now.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Advertisers are avoiding the Crazy Tree
Looks like an awful lot of advertisers want to avoid getting hit by the rotten fruit falling from the Crazy Tree. Somewhere between 20 and three dozen major advertisers (including Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Travelocity) have insisted their ads not run during Glenn Beck's show on Fox News (here's one article on it). Why? Because he took his anti-Obama rants a touch too far and apparently really alienated some people. Seriously guys, cool off a bit and start making some intelligent, fact-based arguments and maybe you'll scrape up some semblance of credibility before 2012. Fail, and you're doomed to another four years of barking up a dead crazy tree.
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Dying Party
Seriously, what is the deal with the frenzy that the health care issue has caused? I see on the news where people are screaming and yelling at congressmen in "town hall meetings" or whatever you want to call them. Then there are people out there claiming that the new legislation promotes euthanasia (or as Sarah Palin put it, "Obama's Death Panel") and takes away Medicare, and...you name it, someone has made the claim. I even heard that the new legislation has Nazi influences. Euthanasia? Nazis? Really?
Obviously, by sheer merit of there being so many conflicting claims of what the legislation actually posesses within its pages, there must be some misinformation out there. But why? Who makes up those faulty claims? And who perpetuates them? Why?
Who: Republicans mostly.
Why: 1) because they're pissed that, if this passes, and works, they won't get credit for dealing with a f***ed up system when they should have (i.e. sometime between 2000 and 2008)...and 2) because if this passes, and works, their already floundering party will be rendered completely irrelevant and they'll have next to zero chance of regaining any significant political power for at least a generation.
That's just my opinion - formed largely on the basis that with every new effort, the Republican party looks more and more desparate. Rush Limbaugh sunk so low (as if "lower" was possible) as to claim the Dems have Nazi ties; Fox News had some guy in a "Crazy Tree" with a whiteboard basically claiming Obama was a Communist; and Rep. Virginia Fox (R-NC) was shown on C-SPAN claiming the legislation promotes euthanasia. And to think some people buy this crap...and still vote for the people who make it up.
All the while, these same people are doing everything in their power to prevent the single most beneficial piece of legislation this country (and maybe world) has ever had the opportunity to put in place to solve an awful lot of our problems: The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Through this bill, we could create millions of jobs in the clean energy sector, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and actually make strides toward combating global climate change. That one bill has the potential to pull us out of the recession by creating jobs that cannot be outsourced, transition us to a clean energy economy, break our slavery to oil-producing nations (another benefit to the economy), and start addressing the single biggest threat to the human species we've ever faced. But the Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent this bill from passing.
Even if the Republicans do get their way, and Obama fails...it will be too late for them to do anything about it and their party will collapse anyway...only it will bring the rest of the country with it.
Obviously, by sheer merit of there being so many conflicting claims of what the legislation actually posesses within its pages, there must be some misinformation out there. But why? Who makes up those faulty claims? And who perpetuates them? Why?
Who: Republicans mostly.
Why: 1) because they're pissed that, if this passes, and works, they won't get credit for dealing with a f***ed up system when they should have (i.e. sometime between 2000 and 2008)...and 2) because if this passes, and works, their already floundering party will be rendered completely irrelevant and they'll have next to zero chance of regaining any significant political power for at least a generation.
That's just my opinion - formed largely on the basis that with every new effort, the Republican party looks more and more desparate. Rush Limbaugh sunk so low (as if "lower" was possible) as to claim the Dems have Nazi ties; Fox News had some guy in a "Crazy Tree" with a whiteboard basically claiming Obama was a Communist; and Rep. Virginia Fox (R-NC) was shown on C-SPAN claiming the legislation promotes euthanasia. And to think some people buy this crap...and still vote for the people who make it up.
All the while, these same people are doing everything in their power to prevent the single most beneficial piece of legislation this country (and maybe world) has ever had the opportunity to put in place to solve an awful lot of our problems: The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Through this bill, we could create millions of jobs in the clean energy sector, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and actually make strides toward combating global climate change. That one bill has the potential to pull us out of the recession by creating jobs that cannot be outsourced, transition us to a clean energy economy, break our slavery to oil-producing nations (another benefit to the economy), and start addressing the single biggest threat to the human species we've ever faced. But the Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent this bill from passing.
Even if the Republicans do get their way, and Obama fails...it will be too late for them to do anything about it and their party will collapse anyway...only it will bring the rest of the country with it.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Aw, Crap! Not again!
Well it looks like Sarah Palin is getting smacked with ethics violation charges again.
What?! You mean charging the taxpayers to fly your kids around with you on "official business" to places they've not been invited or even have any business being at is wrong? Gee, I never would have guessed.
Seriously? If she can't keep from abusing her power as Governor, how does anyone expect her to not abuse her power at VP of the United States?
What?! You mean charging the taxpayers to fly your kids around with you on "official business" to places they've not been invited or even have any business being at is wrong? Gee, I never would have guessed.
Seriously? If she can't keep from abusing her power as Governor, how does anyone expect her to not abuse her power at VP of the United States?
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Is misinformed better than completely ignorant? Part 1
There are several issues that are all over the media lately and will likely come up in tonight's third and (thankfully) final presidential debate. Top on the list is Barack Obama's supposed "association" with the "domestic terrorist" William Ayers.
I'm all for rooting out past corruption on any candidate. What I'm not for is the main stream media (MSM), or the other candidates' campaigns spinning these stories and making them national issues when they don't really merit being so, or vice versa.
I decided to try to find for myself what Obama's association was with Bill Ayers, and for that matter, who the hell this Bill Ayers guy was. Washington Post had a decent summary here. Apparently in the late '60s and early 70's, Bill Ayers was part of a radical group called Weather Underground which claimed responsibility for a dozen or so domestic bombings between 1970 and 1974. Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime but told the New York Times in an article published in Sept. 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
So the guy was obviously quite the radical in the early '70s. Now I wasn't alive then, but if I remember history and some stories I've heard from elders, that was a pretty tumultuous time. Does that excuse violence? No, of course not. But let's keep the era in mind here. Ayers is/was obviously big on politics, albeit maybe TOO big at times.
Now, what is the connection between Obama and this Ayers guy? These days, Bill Ayers is a well-respected professor at University of Illinois-Chicago and well established in the "intelligencia" community. Obama's only real ties to the man are that they live in the same general area of suburban Chicago and move within the same liberal-progressive circles. Early in Obama's political career, Ayers contributed....wait for it....a whopping $200 to his congressional re-election campaign. Aside from that, the only real "interaction" they seem to have had is that they both served on the board of a Chicago anti-poverty group called the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002.
So it seems to me that Obama's interaction with Bill Ayers doesn't merit being put on the national stage. Unfortunately, much of the media, and definitely a lot of the McCain campaign (ahem, Sarah Palin) is painting Obama as one who hangs out with terrorists. Yet, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Sometimes I wonder if complete ignorance on the issue isn't better than the misinformation and ridiculous spin being put on it because I can guarantee that few people will actually search out the truth. Obama didn't exactly 'pal around' with a 'terrorist' who was never actually convicted of anything and was part of an organization that operated when Obama was about six years old.
I'm all for people being well informed but I think people should be "well" informed. To be "well" informed, one's information should not come from stirring, fear-deriving, fanatical chain emails and half-stories in the all-to-often biased media.
Done ranting for now. See part two.
I'm all for rooting out past corruption on any candidate. What I'm not for is the main stream media (MSM), or the other candidates' campaigns spinning these stories and making them national issues when they don't really merit being so, or vice versa.
I decided to try to find for myself what Obama's association was with Bill Ayers, and for that matter, who the hell this Bill Ayers guy was. Washington Post had a decent summary here. Apparently in the late '60s and early 70's, Bill Ayers was part of a radical group called Weather Underground which claimed responsibility for a dozen or so domestic bombings between 1970 and 1974. Bill Ayers was never convicted of any crime but told the New York Times in an article published in Sept. 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
So the guy was obviously quite the radical in the early '70s. Now I wasn't alive then, but if I remember history and some stories I've heard from elders, that was a pretty tumultuous time. Does that excuse violence? No, of course not. But let's keep the era in mind here. Ayers is/was obviously big on politics, albeit maybe TOO big at times.
Now, what is the connection between Obama and this Ayers guy? These days, Bill Ayers is a well-respected professor at University of Illinois-Chicago and well established in the "intelligencia" community. Obama's only real ties to the man are that they live in the same general area of suburban Chicago and move within the same liberal-progressive circles. Early in Obama's political career, Ayers contributed....wait for it....a whopping $200 to his congressional re-election campaign. Aside from that, the only real "interaction" they seem to have had is that they both served on the board of a Chicago anti-poverty group called the Woods Fund of Chicago between 1999 and 2002.
So it seems to me that Obama's interaction with Bill Ayers doesn't merit being put on the national stage. Unfortunately, much of the media, and definitely a lot of the McCain campaign (ahem, Sarah Palin) is painting Obama as one who hangs out with terrorists. Yet, the Chicago Sun-Times reports that "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Sometimes I wonder if complete ignorance on the issue isn't better than the misinformation and ridiculous spin being put on it because I can guarantee that few people will actually search out the truth. Obama didn't exactly 'pal around' with a 'terrorist' who was never actually convicted of anything and was part of an organization that operated when Obama was about six years old.
I'm all for people being well informed but I think people should be "well" informed. To be "well" informed, one's information should not come from stirring, fear-deriving, fanatical chain emails and half-stories in the all-to-often biased media.
Done ranting for now. See part two.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
NASCAR and Politics, Again
It's becoming increasingly difficult to get excited about the upcoming election. Not that I was all that excited about it before but I at least looked forward to utilizing my right to have a say in who my leaders are. But now, exactly one month before the big day, I barely look forward to watching the second round of debates.
It's always the same ol' crap. "Change" and "Hope" and "Victory" and "middle-class" and "Wall Street versus Main Street"...crap, all of it pure crap served on a silver platter to ravenous pundits and talking heads. So much crap that it's not worth even hoping for something substantial to come out of either candidates' mouth. I would consider watching something else if the Big-3 networks would televise anything different (I only get CBS, NBC, and Fox). It's not like I won't have ample opportunity to get the gist of it from Youtube. But since they don't, I have no choice but to tune in.
Sometimes it feels as though I'm watching the event not so much to determine a winner, but to determine the biggest loser. It's almost like watching NASCAR just to see the wrecks - I watch the debate to see who has the biggest blunder, who tells the biggest lies, and who can avoid directly answering the most questions. And in the end, both competitors will have blown tires, scraped the wall, and had their fenders crushed in. Yet each will leave with a handshake and a smile and wait to see how much new material they've provided to the brilliant minds at Saturday Night Live.
It's always the same ol' crap. "Change" and "Hope" and "Victory" and "middle-class" and "Wall Street versus Main Street"...crap, all of it pure crap served on a silver platter to ravenous pundits and talking heads. So much crap that it's not worth even hoping for something substantial to come out of either candidates' mouth. I would consider watching something else if the Big-3 networks would televise anything different (I only get CBS, NBC, and Fox). It's not like I won't have ample opportunity to get the gist of it from Youtube. But since they don't, I have no choice but to tune in.
Sometimes it feels as though I'm watching the event not so much to determine a winner, but to determine the biggest loser. It's almost like watching NASCAR just to see the wrecks - I watch the debate to see who has the biggest blunder, who tells the biggest lies, and who can avoid directly answering the most questions. And in the end, both competitors will have blown tires, scraped the wall, and had their fenders crushed in. Yet each will leave with a handshake and a smile and wait to see how much new material they've provided to the brilliant minds at Saturday Night Live.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Of NASCAR and Politics
Not long ago, before I was jaded by the system, I believed in the democratic way. Voting was a sacred right that gave each and every person the opportunity to decide who they thought, as a nation, was best to lead them. I now realize that that's bullshit.
I am not a big sports fanatic. I don't have any one favorite football team. I have a favorite NASCAR driver but I am often just as happy to see others win as I am seeing my driver win a race. What I find more often than not when I watch sports is that I'm not so much into who wins as I am into who loses. There are more NASCAR drivers that I want to see finish last than there are who I want to see win. When I watch football, I usually find myself pulling for the team that I don't give a damn about simply because they're playing a team I want to watch lose.
It makes sense when you think about it. There are 43 drivers at the start of any NASCAR race. Only one will win but 42 of them will lose to some degree. You're odds of coming out "victorious" are higher if you're pulling for any one driver NOT to win. It's a bit different with football in that there are only two teams at the beginning so essentially there is a 50/50 chance that your team may win or lose (all things being equal). But there is little chance of your team winning every game throughout the season (last year's Patriots notwithstanding) but having multiple teams you want to lose will give you more opportunity to stay engaged in more games throughout the whole season.
Just as with football and NASCAR, I view my choice in this upcoming election as a choice between who I want to see lose more than the other. I fully believe that for the majority of people who have a stance on (and knowledge of) multiple issues, there will never be any one candidate who has the same view on EVERY issue. In fact, there is a good chance that both candidates will have some stance in common with most multi-issue people. I know that's the case with me and most everyone I know (aside from the one-issue voters, anyway). So, for me, it comes down to an issue of choosing the candidate who I want to lose the election and then voting for the other.
Here's how I see it: This nation is headed down a slope and accelerating. I don't exactly know what's at the bottom of the slope, or what we'll encounter along the way but I know it's not good. The country's economy is crashing and well on its way to another Great Depression. We have a global climate crisis that threatens the entire human species that this nation is doing nothing about. We have a growing disparity between those who possess the most wealth and those who just barely scratch by and the former is growing perpetually more greedy at the expense of the latter who are growing perpetually more desperate. We owe so much money to, and are so dependent on other countries that we're practically owned by them. And some of those countries are becoming increasingly powerful and resource-depleted and will soon need to either find other means of providing for their massive population domestically, or start taking from someone else.
This snowball has been rolling for quite some time now and it's going to be hard to stop...or to even slow it down. But I know that the current administration has done nothing but smooth and pave the path for the snowball, allowing it to accelerate more. I also know that one of the choices in this upcoming election will only continue that acceleration with more of the same policies and biased priorities. That doesn't mean that I believe that the other choice will really implement even a fraction of the changes he promises - I know he won't. Our current government doesn't allow for wholesale changes to the country's energy portfolio or economic system in a single administration...or even two of them. We're a good decade, or two, or even a generation away from realizing real change. But what I do believe is that there is one choice that will at least try to throw some speed bumps onto the slope and maybe, just maybe, start to turn public opinion around to mobilize the nation, as a whole, to start levelling the slope somewhere below where this snowball is heading so that maybe we can turn this around sometime in the future.
The other choice is a guarantee that this snowball will continue to accelerate - A pair of candidates that want more drilling that won't do a damn thing about our economic or climate situation except worsen it; A pair of candidates that want to keep our armed forces over-extended, weakening us even more than we already are (in the name of "national security"), a pair that pays little mind to the precariousness of the climate issue; A pair that doesn't seem to understand what the current economy is doing to the common person.
So my choice seems to be either vote for a pair of candidates that I'm not real thrilled about voting for in an effort to keep the other pair from winning...or not vote at all. I suppose I could waste a vote and vote third-party but thanks to the wonderful two-party system we've developed here in this great (?) nation, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to just not vote at all. Since I'm probably not going to be able to keep from throwing my two cents into any discussion on the actions of the winners over the next four years, I better have had a say in whether or not they got in there in the first place. So I'll be using my sacred right to vote not to elect who I think is best to lead us for the next four years - I don't think either choice fits that description - I'll be voting against who I think is least fit to lead this nation. It's a bit sad that it's come to that but unfortunately that's how it is.
I guess I'll see you at the polls.
I am not a big sports fanatic. I don't have any one favorite football team. I have a favorite NASCAR driver but I am often just as happy to see others win as I am seeing my driver win a race. What I find more often than not when I watch sports is that I'm not so much into who wins as I am into who loses. There are more NASCAR drivers that I want to see finish last than there are who I want to see win. When I watch football, I usually find myself pulling for the team that I don't give a damn about simply because they're playing a team I want to watch lose.
It makes sense when you think about it. There are 43 drivers at the start of any NASCAR race. Only one will win but 42 of them will lose to some degree. You're odds of coming out "victorious" are higher if you're pulling for any one driver NOT to win. It's a bit different with football in that there are only two teams at the beginning so essentially there is a 50/50 chance that your team may win or lose (all things being equal). But there is little chance of your team winning every game throughout the season (last year's Patriots notwithstanding) but having multiple teams you want to lose will give you more opportunity to stay engaged in more games throughout the whole season.
Just as with football and NASCAR, I view my choice in this upcoming election as a choice between who I want to see lose more than the other. I fully believe that for the majority of people who have a stance on (and knowledge of) multiple issues, there will never be any one candidate who has the same view on EVERY issue. In fact, there is a good chance that both candidates will have some stance in common with most multi-issue people. I know that's the case with me and most everyone I know (aside from the one-issue voters, anyway). So, for me, it comes down to an issue of choosing the candidate who I want to lose the election and then voting for the other.
Here's how I see it: This nation is headed down a slope and accelerating. I don't exactly know what's at the bottom of the slope, or what we'll encounter along the way but I know it's not good. The country's economy is crashing and well on its way to another Great Depression. We have a global climate crisis that threatens the entire human species that this nation is doing nothing about. We have a growing disparity between those who possess the most wealth and those who just barely scratch by and the former is growing perpetually more greedy at the expense of the latter who are growing perpetually more desperate. We owe so much money to, and are so dependent on other countries that we're practically owned by them. And some of those countries are becoming increasingly powerful and resource-depleted and will soon need to either find other means of providing for their massive population domestically, or start taking from someone else.
This snowball has been rolling for quite some time now and it's going to be hard to stop...or to even slow it down. But I know that the current administration has done nothing but smooth and pave the path for the snowball, allowing it to accelerate more. I also know that one of the choices in this upcoming election will only continue that acceleration with more of the same policies and biased priorities. That doesn't mean that I believe that the other choice will really implement even a fraction of the changes he promises - I know he won't. Our current government doesn't allow for wholesale changes to the country's energy portfolio or economic system in a single administration...or even two of them. We're a good decade, or two, or even a generation away from realizing real change. But what I do believe is that there is one choice that will at least try to throw some speed bumps onto the slope and maybe, just maybe, start to turn public opinion around to mobilize the nation, as a whole, to start levelling the slope somewhere below where this snowball is heading so that maybe we can turn this around sometime in the future.
The other choice is a guarantee that this snowball will continue to accelerate - A pair of candidates that want more drilling that won't do a damn thing about our economic or climate situation except worsen it; A pair of candidates that want to keep our armed forces over-extended, weakening us even more than we already are (in the name of "national security"), a pair that pays little mind to the precariousness of the climate issue; A pair that doesn't seem to understand what the current economy is doing to the common person.
So my choice seems to be either vote for a pair of candidates that I'm not real thrilled about voting for in an effort to keep the other pair from winning...or not vote at all. I suppose I could waste a vote and vote third-party but thanks to the wonderful two-party system we've developed here in this great (?) nation, I don't know if it wouldn't be better to just not vote at all. Since I'm probably not going to be able to keep from throwing my two cents into any discussion on the actions of the winners over the next four years, I better have had a say in whether or not they got in there in the first place. So I'll be using my sacred right to vote not to elect who I think is best to lead us for the next four years - I don't think either choice fits that description - I'll be voting against who I think is least fit to lead this nation. It's a bit sad that it's come to that but unfortunately that's how it is.
I guess I'll see you at the polls.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
At first it was a letter
When Sarah Palin first popped front and center onto the stage of American politics, I came across a rather lengthy letter that talked about her...and not much of it was positive. I posted links to it here simply in an effort to show people (okay, the two people that read this blog) what other folks (supposedly from Alaska) think of this power-mongering governor and potential VP (see "And more Palin goodness" post below).
But as time went on, many of the claims in that letter were fact-checked by the media and the letter started to carry some credence. Upon last check, the site that initially posted the letter had added quite a few links that verify much of the information. Now, this scary letter is really starting to pack a punch.
Then I came across this article on Grist which referenced a NY Times report that outlined how shrewd and secretive Palin has been as governor. For a woman that touts administrative transparency and claims to be a "Maverick" in rooting out corruption, I'm sensing a bit of hypocrisy.
But as time went on, many of the claims in that letter were fact-checked by the media and the letter started to carry some credence. Upon last check, the site that initially posted the letter had added quite a few links that verify much of the information. Now, this scary letter is really starting to pack a punch.
Then I came across this article on Grist which referenced a NY Times report that outlined how shrewd and secretive Palin has been as governor. For a woman that touts administrative transparency and claims to be a "Maverick" in rooting out corruption, I'm sensing a bit of hypocrisy.
Friday, September 5, 2008
What?! I shouldn't trust the media?! No way!
Grist just posted a great article titled, "All the news fit to omit". It's a great little piece that highlights a study [PDF] done by the Center for Economic and Policy Research that reveals how the media has played a major role in pumping (pardon the pun) the domestic oil drilling idea as a way to lower gas prices. It states:
Can I throw the irony flag at all those people at the RNC that ripped so hard on the main stream media, only to turn around and chant, "Drill, drill, drill"?This paper examines television news coverage of proposed drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive zones in the United States. It finds that these broadcasts almost completely ignored data, and conclusions, from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency (EIA). The EIA finds that the benefits from such drilling would be too small to have a significant effect on the price of oil. There is no legitimate reason for this omission in the media. Just as economic reporting regularly uses data (unemployment, inflation, GDP, trade) from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, or Bureau of Labor Statistics, reporting on energy relies on data from the EIA.
The omission of the relevant data from this recent reporting may have contributed to the widespread public misunderstanding of this issue, with polls showing 51 percent of respondents believing that "federal laws that prohibit increased drilling for oil offshore or in wilderness areas" were a "major cause of the recent increase in gasoline prices."
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Tale of the Tape clarification - with sources
So there's this nice little email floating around that compares Sarah Palin to Barack Obama. It can be found on Redstate (and can also be found on this blog - where I posted this rebuttal). The post is very superficial so I had to take the opportunity to address some of those comparisons AND back them up with the sources - something the original post does not do.
Current job: Palin - Governor of Alaska (population 683,478); Obama - Junior Senator from Illinois (population 12,852,548).
Previous public jobs: Obama - Community organizer (of the grassroots kind that won women's suffrage, ended slavery, keeps the Red Cross going, funds the NRA, and gives the 'common man' a voice in DC).
Dealing with corrupt individuals: Palin - Received gobs of media attention by resigning as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission after deciding that she hated the structured hours, commute, and $122,400 salary - a job that was handed to her by then-governor Murkowski even though she had no qualifications for it. Upon finding out that a member of this Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party) had engaged in some unethical behavior, she used her resignation as a strategic media-grab opportunity to garner her the reputation as an 'ethics reformer' (source).
Earmarks: Palin - "Opposed bridge to nowhere" only AFTER supporting it to win votes.
Said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects, yet she employed a lobbying firm to secure almost $27 MILLION in federal earmarks for her town of 6,700 people while she was mayor.
Energy: Palin - believes energy independence is a matter of national security; for drilling in ANWR (even though McCain is not). The problem is that drilling, unfortunately, will not solve anything. According to Energy Information Administration, "It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel [in 2025]." There are 42 gallons in a barrel - so basically that translates into a penny or so per gallon. "Don’t spend it all in one place, American public!"
Environment: Palin - Announced plans to...address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in AK - even though she is "not one to attribute it to being man-made."
Oh and where's the mention of her stance on polar bears and their subsequent federal protection? In her own words, "I strongly believe that adding polar bears to the list under the Endangered Species Act is the wrong move at this time." Oh, so they're not in danger? I must've missed that memo.
Obama on energy - He's surrounded himself with A-list advisors and it just so happens that he has a legitimate, comprehensive, sensible AND sustainable energy plan backed by plenty in the environmental scene.
On a final note, be sure to dig a bit deeper for the facts, then make a decision. Don't base a vote on a shallow, superficial email floating around.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Vote for Paris
Screw it all. I'm voting for Paris!
Okay, that's a lie. I'm not going to vote for Paris but I bet if she legitimately ran for president, a lot of people would.
See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die
Okay, that's a lie. I'm not going to vote for Paris but I bet if she legitimately ran for president, a lot of people would.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
That Takes Balls
As I spent hours today surfing the web and reading up on my favorite blogs about climate change, I came across a refreshing write up on someone in the political world (not in D.C. of course) that actually stood up against the dirty coal industry and denied them permits to build new plants solely on the basis of their being too hard on the environment. Wow! That took some balls! Most governors would have just rolled over and collapsed under the pressure from the state's legislature. Not this governor. No siree. This governor had the cohones to take a stand.
I know what you're thinking and no it's not Ahnuld. We'd expect the Governator to put up a fight like this. He's been waging the environmental war for quite some time.
This governor has balls, yes...but only in the figurative sense. You see...pause for effect...the governor in question here is actually a woman. [Gasp!!]
I don't know what set Kathleen Sebelius off but that is one woman's scorn directed in a positive direction. The article I found (Found in Grist, titled, "What's not the matter with Kansas") cited how Governor Sebelius (D-KS) thrice vetoed legislation that attempted to permit the building of coal plants that the state environmental officials denied granting permits to (interestingly, this legislation was presented AFTER the legislature had consequently stripped the officials of their power to deny permits).
I have to give Governor Sebelius props for standing up to an industry that is slowly but surely losing its grip on this nation's genitalia. We need more politicians like her in this country. Maybe someday we'll get someone to stand up to the oil industry like she did to the coal industry. One can only hope...
I know what you're thinking and no it's not Ahnuld. We'd expect the Governator to put up a fight like this. He's been waging the environmental war for quite some time.
This governor has balls, yes...but only in the figurative sense. You see...pause for effect...the governor in question here is actually a woman. [Gasp!!]
I don't know what set Kathleen Sebelius off but that is one woman's scorn directed in a positive direction. The article I found (Found in Grist, titled, "What's not the matter with Kansas") cited how Governor Sebelius (D-KS) thrice vetoed legislation that attempted to permit the building of coal plants that the state environmental officials denied granting permits to (interestingly, this legislation was presented AFTER the legislature had consequently stripped the officials of their power to deny permits).
I have to give Governor Sebelius props for standing up to an industry that is slowly but surely losing its grip on this nation's genitalia. We need more politicians like her in this country. Maybe someday we'll get someone to stand up to the oil industry like she did to the coal industry. One can only hope...
Monday, July 14, 2008
Digging Deeper
"And then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel...is just a freight train coming your way." -Metallica's "No Leaf Clover"
Gas is $4 a gallon. Actually, today I found that the national average set a new record at $4.11 a gallon. It now costs $20 to mow my damn yard. I'm not the only one who feels the "pain at the pump" I know. Turn on or log on to any newscast and I guarantee that will be one of the stories. And justifiably so - fuel prices are the basis to everything. You can't buy eggs or milk or bluejeans or any Chinese-produced item from Wal-Mart without paying for the fuel it took to get it there or paying for the fuel it took to get YOU there. Fuel is the basis of our economy. Run fuel prices up and everything must follow.
But its okay. Our government has a solution. President Bush just lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling here in the US. Granted, it now takes the same action from Congress to make it official, but surely we Americans will put enough pressure on our elected officials to follow suit. After all, there is an estimated 18 billion gallons of oil off our shores. That's a lot of oil. Unfortunately, it is going to take several years of drilling to get it to the surface. But that's okay because surely that 18 billion gallons will be enough to bring fuel prices down, won't it? If it wasn't such a great solution, we wouldn't be all for it....right?
That depends on who you believe. Candidates and other politicians, notoriously known for feeding the public whatever line of crap they need to to get elected (or re-elected), would like us to believe that lifting a moratorium to offshore drilling will help our situation. On the other hand, scientists, educated people, realists, and those not pushing some political agenda see things differently. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) doesn't believe that offshore drilling here at home is going to help a whole lot. Even drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a place many politicians are just dying to open up because of the "huge" reserves there won't make much of a difference. According a report [PDF] by the EIA:
Gas is $4 a gallon. Actually, today I found that the national average set a new record at $4.11 a gallon. It now costs $20 to mow my damn yard. I'm not the only one who feels the "pain at the pump" I know. Turn on or log on to any newscast and I guarantee that will be one of the stories. And justifiably so - fuel prices are the basis to everything. You can't buy eggs or milk or bluejeans or any Chinese-produced item from Wal-Mart without paying for the fuel it took to get it there or paying for the fuel it took to get YOU there. Fuel is the basis of our economy. Run fuel prices up and everything must follow.
But its okay. Our government has a solution. President Bush just lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling here in the US. Granted, it now takes the same action from Congress to make it official, but surely we Americans will put enough pressure on our elected officials to follow suit. After all, there is an estimated 18 billion gallons of oil off our shores. That's a lot of oil. Unfortunately, it is going to take several years of drilling to get it to the surface. But that's okay because surely that 18 billion gallons will be enough to bring fuel prices down, won't it? If it wasn't such a great solution, we wouldn't be all for it....right?
That depends on who you believe. Candidates and other politicians, notoriously known for feeding the public whatever line of crap they need to to get elected (or re-elected), would like us to believe that lifting a moratorium to offshore drilling will help our situation. On the other hand, scientists, educated people, realists, and those not pushing some political agenda see things differently. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) doesn't believe that offshore drilling here at home is going to help a whole lot. Even drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a place many politicians are just dying to open up because of the "huge" reserves there won't make much of a difference. According a report [PDF] by the EIA:
Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States.
The report goes into a description of potential price impacts of the added production. Taken at face value, the numbers almost seem significant until you extrapolate the savings per barrel to savings at the pump - a whopping two cents!
There are plenty of potential solutions out there but digging deeper and in more places for oil just isn't one of them. We will never be energy independent if we keep relying on oil. So be careful who you listen to. I'm still guardedly confident that there is a light (or two) at the end of the tunnel. My question is when are we going to start derailing the freight train that it currently is?
“Because of the complexity of the problem, environmental skepticism was once tenable. No longer. It is time to flip from skepticism to activism.” – Michael Shermer, in Scientific American: The Flipping Point
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)