Good riddance to 2008! It's been a particularly awful year. I lost one of my beloved cats, Claire, after 16 1/2 years. The economy went to hell in a handbasket. The company I work for got bought out in an emergency fire sale. We lost some great people, such as Paul Newman, Tim Russert and Heath Ledger. And once again I've failed to lose any weight!
On the plus side, though, we are finally getting rid of Bush and Cheney, replacing them with Obama and one of my faves, Joe Biden. Obama has picked a pretty good team of folks to help him, and he will need all the brainpower they collectively have to try to get out of the messes Bush has created. But hey, another benefit of this year's election is that the GOP imploded!! Woohoo!! During 2008 I found a great TV show I should have been watching (Burn Notice), and a new show I love (The Mentalist). Batman took on a particularly chilling Joker in what is arguably the best movie of the year. My friends and family members are all still around for the New Year. And my three remaining cats are healthy (knock on wood).
As far as 2009 goes, I don't think the economy is going to get much better. Maybe toward the end of the year, but I'm not counting on it. I think we will see a lot of stores close, but then we have been overstored for some time and didn't know it. There will be higher unemployment. The stock market won't see 10,000 for quite some time. This is not a short-term correction. I believe someone has hit the big cosmic economic reset button. We had a fake economy driven by too easy credit and deregulation that let the financial institutions run amok. We're now coming down to earth, and it is proving to be a really rough landing.
But let's hope that by the end of 2009 we begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel. Cross your fingers and toes that we all get through this in one piece. We're living through a time that will make the history books, and if nothing else, perhaps we will learn some lessons from it so we don't make the same mistakes again.
So buh bye, 2008, don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out. Happy New Year, everybody! If you drink, don't drink and drive!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Best hot chocolate I've found yet
I'm a hot chocolate connoisseur. I'm one of those few people who made it to adulthood without becoming a coffee fan. I love tea, but I can leave coffee in the dust. But hot chocolate?? Now that's the drink of the gods!
Starbucks has a decent hot chocolate, and I thought it was pretty good until I happened to stop in at Seattle's Best Coffee for some. OMG. Holy cow!! That's some good hot chocolate. They put the hot chocolatey milk in the cup, squirt on the whipped cream, drizzle on the chocolate sauce -- so far like Starbucks... but then they add white chocolate shavings and a stick of dark chocolate to boot. Oh, man.... grab yourself a spoon, it's more like dessert than a drink! The only downside is that I can't have it too often, I'm sure it's not particularly dietary...
Starbucks has a decent hot chocolate, and I thought it was pretty good until I happened to stop in at Seattle's Best Coffee for some. OMG. Holy cow!! That's some good hot chocolate. They put the hot chocolatey milk in the cup, squirt on the whipped cream, drizzle on the chocolate sauce -- so far like Starbucks... but then they add white chocolate shavings and a stick of dark chocolate to boot. Oh, man.... grab yourself a spoon, it's more like dessert than a drink! The only downside is that I can't have it too often, I'm sure it's not particularly dietary...
Friday, December 26, 2008
My Sweet Baby Claire
Some posts are tougher than others to write. This is one of them. Last Saturday I lost my 16 1/2 year-old kitty, Claire, to kidney failure complicated by hyperthyroidism.
Claire and her littermate Katie have been a part of my life for longer than any other pet I've ever had. She was a sweet and loving little kitty. She never gave me a minute's trouble, unless you count the lockjaw she always got when you tried to give her a pill!
Unfortunately Claire had numerous medical issues during her lifetime, but I'm very happy she made it to 16. I have known people who won't take older pets to the vet, but the way I look at it pets need more medical care as they age, not less -- just like people. When you take on the responsibility of a pet you also take on the responsibility of their medical care. I have veterinary insurance for my younger cats, but of course they would not insure Katie and Claire due to their age and Claire's previous medical history. The extensive vet bills for Claire wound up coming out of my pocket, but I could not bear to have her put to sleep for financial reasons.
I would encourage anyone who cares about their pets' health to get veterinary insurance. I carry insurance from the ASPCA, which I think is better than the company whose pamphlet you see quite often at veterinary hospitals.
I have loved all my pets, but it seems to me that during the course of your lifetime there are some that are just a pinch more special to you. Katie and Claire are like that for me. I hope everyone has the opportunity at least once in their lifetime to have a pet as sweet and lovable as Claire. I will miss her always.
Claire and her littermate Katie have been a part of my life for longer than any other pet I've ever had. She was a sweet and loving little kitty. She never gave me a minute's trouble, unless you count the lockjaw she always got when you tried to give her a pill!
Unfortunately Claire had numerous medical issues during her lifetime, but I'm very happy she made it to 16. I have known people who won't take older pets to the vet, but the way I look at it pets need more medical care as they age, not less -- just like people. When you take on the responsibility of a pet you also take on the responsibility of their medical care. I have veterinary insurance for my younger cats, but of course they would not insure Katie and Claire due to their age and Claire's previous medical history. The extensive vet bills for Claire wound up coming out of my pocket, but I could not bear to have her put to sleep for financial reasons.
I would encourage anyone who cares about their pets' health to get veterinary insurance. I carry insurance from the ASPCA, which I think is better than the company whose pamphlet you see quite often at veterinary hospitals.
I have loved all my pets, but it seems to me that during the course of your lifetime there are some that are just a pinch more special to you. Katie and Claire are like that for me. I hope everyone has the opportunity at least once in their lifetime to have a pet as sweet and lovable as Claire. I will miss her always.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Breaking News... "Breaking News" is waaaay overused
Can we institute a new broadcasting rule? You can't use "breaking news" unless it's really BREAKING. Like within the last hour or two. After that, it's no longer BREAKING, it's old. Honestly, it seems like I can't watch cable news without "breaking news" on the screen, even if the "news" is several days old! Just my latest pet peeve.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Rest In Peace, Caylee Anthony
It now appears that the remains of Caylee Anthony have been found, pending DNA testing.
I'm glad for two reasons. While there has been sufficient evidence that Caylee has been deceased since she went missing, and that her little body had once been carried in the back of her mother's car and then disposed of, her grandparents have been unable or unwilling to accept it. When the body was found yesterday they were on a plane flying back from California where they had gone to chase yet another "Caylee sighting." They have been living in such denial that they would have continued to chase ghosts for the rest of their days if her remains had not been found. Now they can go through the proper process of grieving that has been delayed so long.
I'm also glad because this makes the case for the prosecution much stronger. Without the remains there may have been just that one juror who could have been persuaded that there was a possibility Caylee was still alive.
So rest in peace, little Caylee. What a tragedy that your life turned out to be so short. But at least now your family has the certainty of knowing your fate, and your killer can be brought to justice.
I'm glad for two reasons. While there has been sufficient evidence that Caylee has been deceased since she went missing, and that her little body had once been carried in the back of her mother's car and then disposed of, her grandparents have been unable or unwilling to accept it. When the body was found yesterday they were on a plane flying back from California where they had gone to chase yet another "Caylee sighting." They have been living in such denial that they would have continued to chase ghosts for the rest of their days if her remains had not been found. Now they can go through the proper process of grieving that has been delayed so long.
I'm also glad because this makes the case for the prosecution much stronger. Without the remains there may have been just that one juror who could have been persuaded that there was a possibility Caylee was still alive.
So rest in peace, little Caylee. What a tragedy that your life turned out to be so short. But at least now your family has the certainty of knowing your fate, and your killer can be brought to justice.
Jen, be a good girl and put your clothes back on
Jennifer Aniston, what in the world are you doing? Posing with only a tie on for the cover of GQ? Seriously?? Come on, you may still be in good shape, but you are too old for this kind of behavior. Seems to me that you've spent a lot of time agonizing over Brad and Angie and trying to get his attention. He and Angie have more kids than you could fit in a Volkswagen bus. Besides, it's Angelina Jolie, for cryin' out loud! I think you need to hang it up now. He's not coming back, and you're just looking silly. Besides, I'm just getting weary of famous women posing for magazine covers in the nude, like that's something new. Enough already. Don't you know your father could see that??
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Looking for a great dog? Try Greyhounds!
You may find this post curious coming from a cat lover, but when I retire (at some point in the future, I hope), and my kitty population is no longer with me, I may be going Greyhound.
There are a lot of misconceptions out there about greyhounds. You don't need to have a house with a football field-sized yard for them, and they aren't constantly on the move. Most greyhounds up for adoption will be retired racers, anywhere from 1 to 5 yrs old, but they are sprinters and don't need as much exercise as you think. They're happy to spend most of their time indoors curled up on the couch or on a big dog bed. They are even good dogs for people who live in apartments or condos, as long as the owner is willing to walk them and give them a run in a dog park a couple of times a week. Another exercise option for them is to take them lure coursing, which allows them to run flat out and is just amazing to watch. Most adoption groups either sponsor lure coursing or could point you to a group that does. These dogs are very sweet tempered and many get along just fine with cats and other small critters. They are also very good with children, although some may need to be restricted to older kids.
Many dog racing tracks euthanize a lot of these beautiful animals just because of their sheer numbers, particularly after the racing season ends. This is such a tragedy, and so unnecessary. Unless dog racing is outlawed these dogs will continue to be bred only to race a short time and then be put down. If you are interested in adopting a dog, please look into one of these sweet animals. There are many organizations out there who round up dogs from these tracks and find families to adopt them. I would suggest also that you consider adopting more than one -- they're used to being around a lot of dogs and they're like potato chips anyway!
I have added a couple of links to Greyhound adoption organizations in North Carolina. You can Google for some in your own area.
There are a lot of misconceptions out there about greyhounds. You don't need to have a house with a football field-sized yard for them, and they aren't constantly on the move. Most greyhounds up for adoption will be retired racers, anywhere from 1 to 5 yrs old, but they are sprinters and don't need as much exercise as you think. They're happy to spend most of their time indoors curled up on the couch or on a big dog bed. They are even good dogs for people who live in apartments or condos, as long as the owner is willing to walk them and give them a run in a dog park a couple of times a week. Another exercise option for them is to take them lure coursing, which allows them to run flat out and is just amazing to watch. Most adoption groups either sponsor lure coursing or could point you to a group that does. These dogs are very sweet tempered and many get along just fine with cats and other small critters. They are also very good with children, although some may need to be restricted to older kids.
Many dog racing tracks euthanize a lot of these beautiful animals just because of their sheer numbers, particularly after the racing season ends. This is such a tragedy, and so unnecessary. Unless dog racing is outlawed these dogs will continue to be bred only to race a short time and then be put down. If you are interested in adopting a dog, please look into one of these sweet animals. There are many organizations out there who round up dogs from these tracks and find families to adopt them. I would suggest also that you consider adopting more than one -- they're used to being around a lot of dogs and they're like potato chips anyway!
I have added a couple of links to Greyhound adoption organizations in North Carolina. You can Google for some in your own area.
Can we get back to doing retirement the old-fashioned way?
We have all discovered recently that we have been living in a faux economy. We know how just how fast the economy can and will crater, and it looks like things will be some time coming back. It's been a real eye-opener for a lot of people.
Things were different for our parents. They were not only assured of having Social Security, but they knew they would retire with traditional retirement plans, giving them an income for life regardless of how long that life turned out to be. In recent years these traditional plans have been almost completely replaced with 401(k)s. Now we are finding our 401(k)s can shrink faster than a keg of beer at a frat party.
I would like to see Congress rethink 401(k)s and push a return to traditional retirement plans.
Things were different for our parents. They were not only assured of having Social Security, but they knew they would retire with traditional retirement plans, giving them an income for life regardless of how long that life turned out to be. In recent years these traditional plans have been almost completely replaced with 401(k)s. Now we are finding our 401(k)s can shrink faster than a keg of beer at a frat party.
I would like to see Congress rethink 401(k)s and push a return to traditional retirement plans.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Big 3 CEOs plead for bailout
I have an idea. Instead of a bailout, let's give the Big 3 Detroit automakers a clue. It won't cost anything and it might be more useful in the long run.
The big quandry these days is whether we should give GM, Ford and Chrysler $25 billion to tide them over until... until what? Until they start making cars people actually want to buy? Until they stop paying people ludicrously high salaries to screw door handles on trucks? What do they think is going to change six months from now? They're not going to suddenly become viable companies with a good business plan and stellar products.
$25 billion doesn't sound like a lot considering Congress just voted to give financial institutions $700 billion. But the banks know what they did wrong, and I seriously doubt they're going to be writing a lot of subprime mortgages now to people who can't pay them back. Letting a few banks go under may not be a tragedy, but letting a lot of them go under would have been. So what will happen if the Big 3 suddenly become the Big 2? Yes, there will be jobs lost, but there will be anyway. Nobody seriously thinks all three of these companies will go under, particularly Ford, which seems to be in a much better position than GM or Chrysler.
Chrysler is already owned by a private equity firm. GM has been horribly mismanaged for decades. If one of these companies goes belly up, it may give Ford enough new business that they could hold on through this economic slowdown without any help. But Ford would need to get its act together as well -- why, for instance, is there a Mercury brand? Like GM, who needs to jettison Pontiac, Buick and Saturn, I can't figure out why they haven't ditched all these different name plates and their individual management groups a long time ago. These automakers will have to streamline no matter what; it would make sense to me to get rid of these redundant brands which just don't make good business sense and never did.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used to buy nothing but GM cars. My now ex-husband also had Ford trucks. Then one day I went to look at the new models and was so disgusted by them that I took off for the nearest Honda dealership. I have never looked back, and that was 20 years ago. They lost my business like they lost a lot of other people's business through poor design and worse reliability.
In this age it's entirely possible to buy an American-made Toyota that has a larger percentage of parts made in the U.S. than your neighbor's Chevy, which was made in Mexico with an engine from Japan. If you want to be patriotic and "buy American," there is no longer a clear definition of what that means in the auto industry. BMW is expanding its plant in South Carolina; VW is looking at building a plant here because labor is actually cheaper here than in Germany. There will be jobs for auto workers, the only question is what companies can make cars that are reliable and that people want to buy?
The Big 3 need to learn another lesson -- they made a lot of money for many years from the explosion in SUV and truck sales, all the while paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists to keep Congress from legislating higher fuel mileage standards and bypassing the ones that did exist by getting them to exclude SUVs from the mix. Now the consumer is also to blame here, as they bought these monster SUVs and trucks and said "I don't give a damn" to the environment (while conveniently forgetting that our dependence on foreign oil is also a national security issue). It's now time for Detroit to own up to their own sins and create some fuel-efficient, reliable, well-designed cars. Maybe then we'll have American automobile manufacturers to be proud of.
The big quandry these days is whether we should give GM, Ford and Chrysler $25 billion to tide them over until... until what? Until they start making cars people actually want to buy? Until they stop paying people ludicrously high salaries to screw door handles on trucks? What do they think is going to change six months from now? They're not going to suddenly become viable companies with a good business plan and stellar products.
$25 billion doesn't sound like a lot considering Congress just voted to give financial institutions $700 billion. But the banks know what they did wrong, and I seriously doubt they're going to be writing a lot of subprime mortgages now to people who can't pay them back. Letting a few banks go under may not be a tragedy, but letting a lot of them go under would have been. So what will happen if the Big 3 suddenly become the Big 2? Yes, there will be jobs lost, but there will be anyway. Nobody seriously thinks all three of these companies will go under, particularly Ford, which seems to be in a much better position than GM or Chrysler.
Chrysler is already owned by a private equity firm. GM has been horribly mismanaged for decades. If one of these companies goes belly up, it may give Ford enough new business that they could hold on through this economic slowdown without any help. But Ford would need to get its act together as well -- why, for instance, is there a Mercury brand? Like GM, who needs to jettison Pontiac, Buick and Saturn, I can't figure out why they haven't ditched all these different name plates and their individual management groups a long time ago. These automakers will have to streamline no matter what; it would make sense to me to get rid of these redundant brands which just don't make good business sense and never did.
In the interest of full disclosure, I used to buy nothing but GM cars. My now ex-husband also had Ford trucks. Then one day I went to look at the new models and was so disgusted by them that I took off for the nearest Honda dealership. I have never looked back, and that was 20 years ago. They lost my business like they lost a lot of other people's business through poor design and worse reliability.
In this age it's entirely possible to buy an American-made Toyota that has a larger percentage of parts made in the U.S. than your neighbor's Chevy, which was made in Mexico with an engine from Japan. If you want to be patriotic and "buy American," there is no longer a clear definition of what that means in the auto industry. BMW is expanding its plant in South Carolina; VW is looking at building a plant here because labor is actually cheaper here than in Germany. There will be jobs for auto workers, the only question is what companies can make cars that are reliable and that people want to buy?
The Big 3 need to learn another lesson -- they made a lot of money for many years from the explosion in SUV and truck sales, all the while paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lobbyists to keep Congress from legislating higher fuel mileage standards and bypassing the ones that did exist by getting them to exclude SUVs from the mix. Now the consumer is also to blame here, as they bought these monster SUVs and trucks and said "I don't give a damn" to the environment (while conveniently forgetting that our dependence on foreign oil is also a national security issue). It's now time for Detroit to own up to their own sins and create some fuel-efficient, reliable, well-designed cars. Maybe then we'll have American automobile manufacturers to be proud of.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Review of Quantum of Solace
Ohhhhh!!! I soooo wanted to love this movie like I loved Casino Royale, its predecessor. Man, this hurts, but I have to give it only a B, and possibly a B- at that.
This film picks up a few minutes after the last scene in Royale. Bond is out to avenge his beloved Vesper’s death and find out who and what she was involved with.
First, though, just a few words about the theme song and the opening credits. Ugh. OK, one word, 'nuff said.
Marc Forster directed a movie that many critics have said wants to be a Bourne film, and I have to agree with that. The action scenes are filmed with so many quick cuts I thought I might be nauseous. Barbara Broccoli, you've made a boatload of money with these films -- I say pay him whatever you have to pay him, but get Martin Campbell back for the next one.
That said, there is a lot to like here, especially if you were a fan of the last Bond film. Daniel Craig is back and hot damn, that man is smok... er, I mean, as usual he brings the acting chops, not to mention no small dose of cool. Judi Dench is back as M, and as far as I'm concerned she can have this job for as long as she wants it. MI6 has some nifty new tools, and just like in Royale Bond doesn't get any of them. But that's all right, the only tool he seems to need this time around is... wait a minute, you naughty reader... I was going to say the only tool he needs is his gun, which he uses frequently, racking up such a large body count that M (gasp) cancels his credit cards and various passports in the hope she can corral him before he kills all the leads they have.
There is a scene with the only babe in the movie who gets to do the horizontal tango with Bond that's a nod to Goldfinger. I won't spill the beans here, you'll have to see it.
But what I didn't like, outside of the horrible opening credits, was pretty much everything else other than the main cast. And it took me a while to realize what was missing (outside of a decent script)... the glamour! Bond spends most of his time getting shot at, being pursued in car/boat/plane chases, scratched up, bleeding, and looking like hell. Even the beloved Aston Martin ends up in critical condition in the first 10 minutes of the movie and not surprisingly never makes another appearance. The villain in this one isn't very villain-y... he looks like I could take him out with no problem. And his henchmen look like doofuses. Who did the casting for this thing anyway? On top of that, the script is as bland as the would-be villain is.
Let's just say that, if you were feeling the need for a little revenge for Bond's sake after Casino Royale, or if you're a completist who wouldn't miss a Bond film, go for it, but I'd pay matinee price. I hope Craig is back (with a better script) in a couple of years. In the meantime I'm going to go dig out my DVD of Casino Royale.
This film picks up a few minutes after the last scene in Royale. Bond is out to avenge his beloved Vesper’s death and find out who and what she was involved with.
First, though, just a few words about the theme song and the opening credits. Ugh. OK, one word, 'nuff said.
Marc Forster directed a movie that many critics have said wants to be a Bourne film, and I have to agree with that. The action scenes are filmed with so many quick cuts I thought I might be nauseous. Barbara Broccoli, you've made a boatload of money with these films -- I say pay him whatever you have to pay him, but get Martin Campbell back for the next one.
That said, there is a lot to like here, especially if you were a fan of the last Bond film. Daniel Craig is back and hot damn, that man is smok... er, I mean, as usual he brings the acting chops, not to mention no small dose of cool. Judi Dench is back as M, and as far as I'm concerned she can have this job for as long as she wants it. MI6 has some nifty new tools, and just like in Royale Bond doesn't get any of them. But that's all right, the only tool he seems to need this time around is... wait a minute, you naughty reader... I was going to say the only tool he needs is his gun, which he uses frequently, racking up such a large body count that M (gasp) cancels his credit cards and various passports in the hope she can corral him before he kills all the leads they have.
There is a scene with the only babe in the movie who gets to do the horizontal tango with Bond that's a nod to Goldfinger. I won't spill the beans here, you'll have to see it.
But what I didn't like, outside of the horrible opening credits, was pretty much everything else other than the main cast. And it took me a while to realize what was missing (outside of a decent script)... the glamour! Bond spends most of his time getting shot at, being pursued in car/boat/plane chases, scratched up, bleeding, and looking like hell. Even the beloved Aston Martin ends up in critical condition in the first 10 minutes of the movie and not surprisingly never makes another appearance. The villain in this one isn't very villain-y... he looks like I could take him out with no problem. And his henchmen look like doofuses. Who did the casting for this thing anyway? On top of that, the script is as bland as the would-be villain is.
Let's just say that, if you were feeling the need for a little revenge for Bond's sake after Casino Royale, or if you're a completist who wouldn't miss a Bond film, go for it, but I'd pay matinee price. I hope Craig is back (with a better script) in a couple of years. In the meantime I'm going to go dig out my DVD of Casino Royale.
Monday, November 10, 2008
One step forward, another step back
It feels like we have finally taken a historic step toward equality for all Americans with the election of our first African-American president. And in a lot of ways, we have. This is a moment that a lot of people thought was not possible. Just a few short months ago Hillary Clinton was calling super delegates asking them to back her, arguing that Barack Obama was “not electable.” That coming from a woman whose own husband was referred to as America’s “first black president.” Even they did not think it possible for a black man to win the White House, much less with such a large margin of victory.
But there are other segments of society that still face tremendous discrimination, namely gays and secularists. Do you think a gay person could become president? Or a non-believer? Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal, and that we have religious freedom in this country?
Those of us who are not gay do not have the right to tell those who are that there is something “wrong” with them for having been born that way. We may not understand it on a personal level, but we don’t have to -- we just have to accept them as they are, the same way they accept that we are heterosexual. It is un-American, un-Democratic and just plain wrong to enforce your personal beliefs on others’ lives. Yet it seems that believers are determined to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone, as if only they know what’s best for the people of this country.
I remember when John McCain guested on Ellen DeGeneres’ show, before California allowed gays to marry (a law which unfortunately has apparently now been overturned). When she asked him how he felt about gay marriage, he gave the standard line about not having an issue with gays visiting their partners in hospitals, etc. etc…. and Ellen responded that it sounded to her like he was saying “You can sit there, you just can’t sit there” (gesturing to one chair in the audience and then another). And she’s right. It’s a halfway measure that isn’t really fair. Obama hasn’t been in favor of gay marriage, either, so this isn’t just a Republican prejudice. It does make me wonder, though, if the majority of the electorate were in favor of gay marriage, would that change whether Obama publicly came out in favor of it? Maybe… it’s certain that McCain would not have, though, lest he lose his evangelical base.
As for secularism, the right to this is already guaranteed by the Constitution (see Article VI and the First Amendment). Yet I think it would be virtually impossible to elect a non-believer President, just as it would be almost impossible to elect a Jewish person, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Remember when Mitt Romney was running… the question became whether or not his Mormon faith (which some still consider to be more of a cult than a true religion) would hold him back from being elected. Candidates from Barack Obama to Kay Hagan felt they had to stress their Christian faith in order to be elected. Why is there a religious litmus test for office when this is clearly anti-Constitutional? Moral fiber is not determined by whether or not a person attends church or believes in a supernatural higher power. There have been many politicians who claim to be good Christians caught doing very non-Christian things.
On the very same day that we took a big step toward racial equality in this country, California took a step backward by overturning gay marriage. In the same month, Sen. Elizabeth Dole put out two shameless ads trying to win reelection by pointing out Kay Hagan’s slim ties to an atheist PAC, as if being a non-believer was something so horrible than anyone who even broke bread with such people could not be trusted to be a United States Senator.
Obviously, we still have much work to do to make this country a place where everyone truly has the same opportunities.
But there are other segments of society that still face tremendous discrimination, namely gays and secularists. Do you think a gay person could become president? Or a non-believer? Despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly states that all men are created equal, and that we have religious freedom in this country?
Those of us who are not gay do not have the right to tell those who are that there is something “wrong” with them for having been born that way. We may not understand it on a personal level, but we don’t have to -- we just have to accept them as they are, the same way they accept that we are heterosexual. It is un-American, un-Democratic and just plain wrong to enforce your personal beliefs on others’ lives. Yet it seems that believers are determined to enforce their religious beliefs on everyone, as if only they know what’s best for the people of this country.
I remember when John McCain guested on Ellen DeGeneres’ show, before California allowed gays to marry (a law which unfortunately has apparently now been overturned). When she asked him how he felt about gay marriage, he gave the standard line about not having an issue with gays visiting their partners in hospitals, etc. etc…. and Ellen responded that it sounded to her like he was saying “You can sit there, you just can’t sit there” (gesturing to one chair in the audience and then another). And she’s right. It’s a halfway measure that isn’t really fair. Obama hasn’t been in favor of gay marriage, either, so this isn’t just a Republican prejudice. It does make me wonder, though, if the majority of the electorate were in favor of gay marriage, would that change whether Obama publicly came out in favor of it? Maybe… it’s certain that McCain would not have, though, lest he lose his evangelical base.
As for secularism, the right to this is already guaranteed by the Constitution (see Article VI and the First Amendment). Yet I think it would be virtually impossible to elect a non-believer President, just as it would be almost impossible to elect a Jewish person, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist. Remember when Mitt Romney was running… the question became whether or not his Mormon faith (which some still consider to be more of a cult than a true religion) would hold him back from being elected. Candidates from Barack Obama to Kay Hagan felt they had to stress their Christian faith in order to be elected. Why is there a religious litmus test for office when this is clearly anti-Constitutional? Moral fiber is not determined by whether or not a person attends church or believes in a supernatural higher power. There have been many politicians who claim to be good Christians caught doing very non-Christian things.
On the very same day that we took a big step toward racial equality in this country, California took a step backward by overturning gay marriage. In the same month, Sen. Elizabeth Dole put out two shameless ads trying to win reelection by pointing out Kay Hagan’s slim ties to an atheist PAC, as if being a non-believer was something so horrible than anyone who even broke bread with such people could not be trusted to be a United States Senator.
Obviously, we still have much work to do to make this country a place where everyone truly has the same opportunities.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
To Gov. Palin - please run in 2012!!
I am one person who is hoping for a Sarah Palin candidacy in 2012. See, I have heard that several comedians are fearing a dearth of material for the next four years. To them it's looking like the Sahara Desert out there. We have elected an intelligent, serious President in Barack Obama, a man who knows how to pronounce "nuclear, " for crying out loud! All of a sudden their chances for good comedic material has shrunk dramatically! This is serious, we are in an employment crisis already, what if we add comics to the ranks of the unemployed?
Besides, sales at Neiman Marcus have slumped 27% since the end of the RNC shopping spree, which is about how much Saturday Night Live's ratings will drop post-Palin. So give it some serious thought, Governor, and let us know sometime 'long about 2010. In the meantime we'll try to make do for entertainment by watching your party melt down.
Besides, sales at Neiman Marcus have slumped 27% since the end of the RNC shopping spree, which is about how much Saturday Night Live's ratings will drop post-Palin. So give it some serious thought, Governor, and let us know sometime 'long about 2010. In the meantime we'll try to make do for entertainment by watching your party melt down.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Congratulations, Obama and Biden!!
The presidential race is now over. Congratulations to Senators Obama and Biden for their victory in this historic election!
Now the hard work begins, and there will be plenty of it. The landscape is much more difficult for President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden than it was when this journey started 21 months ago. However, the Democrats have expanded their lead in Congress, and this should help get things done. Washington has become so divisive that gridlock has become the norm. Let's hope that some important things from Obama's to-do list can finally get done (and I hope alternative fuels and the environment is somewhere close to the top of that list).
Democrats have a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a majority that will last quite a while. The Republicans have tried to win this election by pandering mostly to their white evangelical base, and it didn't work. This base will shrink as time goes on. If the Republicans want to be a viable party they need to abandon the divisiveness and negativity of this campaign, and quite possibly also abandon their voters on the far right. They need to stop worrying about cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. And they need to stop trying to use social wedge issues to win elections.
John McCain chose a running mate that he thought would help get him elected; Barack Obama chose a running mate that would help him govern. I believe this was recognized by many voters and is one of the reasons why Obama and Biden won. They will make a great team.
Now the hard work begins, and there will be plenty of it. The landscape is much more difficult for President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden than it was when this journey started 21 months ago. However, the Democrats have expanded their lead in Congress, and this should help get things done. Washington has become so divisive that gridlock has become the norm. Let's hope that some important things from Obama's to-do list can finally get done (and I hope alternative fuels and the environment is somewhere close to the top of that list).
Democrats have a golden, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a majority that will last quite a while. The Republicans have tried to win this election by pandering mostly to their white evangelical base, and it didn't work. This base will shrink as time goes on. If the Republicans want to be a viable party they need to abandon the divisiveness and negativity of this campaign, and quite possibly also abandon their voters on the far right. They need to stop worrying about cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. And they need to stop trying to use social wedge issues to win elections.
John McCain chose a running mate that he thought would help get him elected; Barack Obama chose a running mate that would help him govern. I believe this was recognized by many voters and is one of the reasons why Obama and Biden won. They will make a great team.
Thanks to everyone who voted, regardless of who you voted for!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Religious freedom not part of Sen. Dole's beliefs
Sen. Elizabeth Dole, Republican from North Carolina, has put out the most disgusting ad of this entire election season, and that's saying something considering what has come out of the McCain campaign. She accused her Democratic rival, Kay Hagan, of being "godless" and taking "godless money" because she attended a fundraiser that was sponsored, in part, by someone associated with the Godless Americans PAC, an atheist group who works toward separation of church and state (because we sure don't have it now, even though we should). The insinuation, of course, is that someone who is an atheist is someone she would never associate herself with. Godless, therefore, is to Sen. Dole disqualifying.
For her part, Dole is getting desperate to hang onto a seat she has no business occupying. She has done virtually nothing for North Carolina, is ranked as one of the most ineffective Senators in Congress, and has spent virtually no time in the state. Her ads have almost universally been negative and misleading. Now she apparently has decided that the Constitution has no place in her political world. Like many evangelicals, she wants to try to subvert the Constitution and turn this country into a "Christian nation."
Let's review what the Constitution says about religion, shall we?
Article XI says in part: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Just in case you didn't understand that, Senator Dole, the First Amendment should make it pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is no mention of God, Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers of this document make it clear that this nation is founded on religious freedom.
Senator Dole -- you are supposed to represent all your constituents, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or non-believer. This is NOT a "Christian nation." If you don't like that, you are free to leave.
But I'm not letting Kay Hagan entirely off the hook, either. In response to Sen. Dole's ad, Ms. Hagan found it necessary to stress her religious beliefs and assert that she was not, in fact, godless. The correct response should have been that she herself was a Christian, but that the United States of America is a democracy founded on religious freedom, that this is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that she intends to be a senator for ALL North Carolinians, regardless of their beliefs.
I for one hope that someday our politicians actually read the Constitution before running for office.
For her part, Dole is getting desperate to hang onto a seat she has no business occupying. She has done virtually nothing for North Carolina, is ranked as one of the most ineffective Senators in Congress, and has spent virtually no time in the state. Her ads have almost universally been negative and misleading. Now she apparently has decided that the Constitution has no place in her political world. Like many evangelicals, she wants to try to subvert the Constitution and turn this country into a "Christian nation."
Let's review what the Constitution says about religion, shall we?
Article XI says in part: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Just in case you didn't understand that, Senator Dole, the First Amendment should make it pretty clear: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is no mention of God, Christianity or Jesus in the Constitution. To the contrary, the framers of this document make it clear that this nation is founded on religious freedom.
Senator Dole -- you are supposed to represent all your constituents, whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu or non-believer. This is NOT a "Christian nation." If you don't like that, you are free to leave.
But I'm not letting Kay Hagan entirely off the hook, either. In response to Sen. Dole's ad, Ms. Hagan found it necessary to stress her religious beliefs and assert that she was not, in fact, godless. The correct response should have been that she herself was a Christian, but that the United States of America is a democracy founded on religious freedom, that this is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that she intends to be a senator for ALL North Carolinians, regardless of their beliefs.
I for one hope that someday our politicians actually read the Constitution before running for office.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Republican Party to fracture?
The chattering class has been chattering about the possibility of the Republican Party being fractured into tiny pieces after this election. The apparent victory of Barack Obama over long-time Republican President wannabe John McCain has caused division and back-biting in the GOP. Going down for a large loss of seats in the both the House and Senate as well as the probable loss of the White House, the finger-pointing has been ramping up before the election is even over.
It appears that some people in the Party think Palin will be a shoo-in for the nomination in 2012. Others are in the "if only we had nominated Romney instead" camp. I think it will break down this way -- Palin will grab the far right evangelical Christians and the white people who would never have voted for a black person anyway. The fiscal conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders may gravitate back to Romney. And the conservative Democrats and Independents who are looking for a Republican to vote for (if they decide they don't like Obama by 2012) will be looking for... anybody else.
We'll see how things shake out. But right now it's looking like the Democrats are sitting pretty. Now let's just not screw it up!
Remember to GO OUT AND VOTE!!
Here's an article from the HuffPo re the GOP disarray:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/gop-draws-internal-battle_n_138303.html
It appears that some people in the Party think Palin will be a shoo-in for the nomination in 2012. Others are in the "if only we had nominated Romney instead" camp. I think it will break down this way -- Palin will grab the far right evangelical Christians and the white people who would never have voted for a black person anyway. The fiscal conservatives and middle-of-the-roaders may gravitate back to Romney. And the conservative Democrats and Independents who are looking for a Republican to vote for (if they decide they don't like Obama by 2012) will be looking for... anybody else.
We'll see how things shake out. But right now it's looking like the Democrats are sitting pretty. Now let's just not screw it up!
Remember to GO OUT AND VOTE!!
Here's an article from the HuffPo re the GOP disarray:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/27/gop-draws-internal-battle_n_138303.html
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A little advice for John McCain
You might think it's a little odd, my giving advice to John McCain. But if he's going to get trounced like I think he will be on Nov. 4th, then I can't resist at least trying to help him out so he can come out of this thing with a little bit of dignity intact. After his nasty, dishonest, snarky campaign he will likely end his political career with one of the largest losses in modern presidential campaign history. So forgive me for feeling a little magnanimous for a minute.
What he should do is this -- first and foremost, he should fire all those Karl Rove-ian operatives, the guys who created the dishonest robocalls (the very same guys who perpetrated those horrible robocalls against himself in 2000), and save his campaign a little bit of money. Then he should pull every negative ad he has, which is most of them, and replace it with one ad and one ad only -- a pull-out-the-stops patriotic, Vietnam War hero, tug at the heartstrings ad. Throw in some comments about his family, and show a picture of all of them (don't leave out the adopted black daughter, now!), and do not mention one word about Sarah Palin. Not a picture, not a "McCain/Palin" sign, nada. Just johnmccain.com.
Would it win him the election? Probably not. But at least he could end this thing with some small bit of dignity intact. Because the bulk of his campaign, particularly since he picked Palin as his VP, has been a disgrace.
Barack Obama has almost stubbornly refused to get into personal attacks, letting slide a lot of nefarious contacts John McCain has had (with the exception of a short mention of Charles Keating, which the MSM did virtually nothing with and considering what's happening with the economy, was a perfectly legitimate thing to look into). There's been nothing about McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy (among others), despite their focus on Obama's tenuous ties to Bill Ayers; nothing about Cindy McCain's past drug issues despite the fact that some of McCain's advisors have wanted to get into Obama's admitted past cocaine use; nothing about McCain virtually hiding his adopted black daughter, something Obama could have made hay with; nothing about the oddball pastors Palin has associated herself with despite their past focus on Jeremiah Wright; and nothing about Sarah and Todd Palin's associations with a party that wants Alaska to secede from the United States, despite her repeated charges that Obama is anti-American! There's been nothing about a lot of things. It's too bad that John McCain didn't recognize that Obama was pulling his punches and pull some himself. Don't get me wrong, if John McCain won this election I would give up that the voters in this country have a clue... but it's sad to think that a Vietnam war hero has sunk to these levels and will end his political career with a campaign such as this. It would have been a refreshing change if this contest had been a fair and honorable one on both sides.
What he should do is this -- first and foremost, he should fire all those Karl Rove-ian operatives, the guys who created the dishonest robocalls (the very same guys who perpetrated those horrible robocalls against himself in 2000), and save his campaign a little bit of money. Then he should pull every negative ad he has, which is most of them, and replace it with one ad and one ad only -- a pull-out-the-stops patriotic, Vietnam War hero, tug at the heartstrings ad. Throw in some comments about his family, and show a picture of all of them (don't leave out the adopted black daughter, now!), and do not mention one word about Sarah Palin. Not a picture, not a "McCain/Palin" sign, nada. Just johnmccain.com.
Would it win him the election? Probably not. But at least he could end this thing with some small bit of dignity intact. Because the bulk of his campaign, particularly since he picked Palin as his VP, has been a disgrace.
Barack Obama has almost stubbornly refused to get into personal attacks, letting slide a lot of nefarious contacts John McCain has had (with the exception of a short mention of Charles Keating, which the MSM did virtually nothing with and considering what's happening with the economy, was a perfectly legitimate thing to look into). There's been nothing about McCain's ties to G. Gordon Liddy (among others), despite their focus on Obama's tenuous ties to Bill Ayers; nothing about Cindy McCain's past drug issues despite the fact that some of McCain's advisors have wanted to get into Obama's admitted past cocaine use; nothing about McCain virtually hiding his adopted black daughter, something Obama could have made hay with; nothing about the oddball pastors Palin has associated herself with despite their past focus on Jeremiah Wright; and nothing about Sarah and Todd Palin's associations with a party that wants Alaska to secede from the United States, despite her repeated charges that Obama is anti-American! There's been nothing about a lot of things. It's too bad that John McCain didn't recognize that Obama was pulling his punches and pull some himself. Don't get me wrong, if John McCain won this election I would give up that the voters in this country have a clue... but it's sad to think that a Vietnam war hero has sunk to these levels and will end his political career with a campaign such as this. It would have been a refreshing change if this contest had been a fair and honorable one on both sides.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Palin's RNC clothing allowance: $150,000!!
Holy cow! The Republican National Committee spent $150k on outfits at places like Saks and Neiman Marcus for Sarah Palin and her family to wear during the campaign. (Barbie clothes have certainly gone up!) They say they will donate them to charity when the campaign is over. Mmmm hmmm... I bet that's news to Sarah! YIKES!!
If somebody gave me $150,000 I'd come home with clothes, a car and a house.
Let's break it down:
Sarah -- Saks Fifth Avenue - $50,000
Neiman Marcus - $75,000
clothes for baby Trig and husband Todd
Me -- $25 blouse from Kohl's
Sarah -- over $4,700 (to date) on hair and makeup
Me - $12 twice a year at Great Clips (less if I have a coupon) and makeup from Target
Sarah -- designer shoes
Me -- does Rack Room have a 50% off sale going on??
Is there something wrong with a nice suit from Dillard's or Talbot's, for crying out loud?
I guess when John McCain wears $570 Italian loafers he doesn't blink at this stuff, but jeez...
So let's see... McCain announced she was his VP pick on August 29th. The election is November 4th. That's 9 1/2 weeks. So if you take $150,000... divide by 9 1/2... that's $15,789 a week, or $2,255 a day. Whew!!!!
I wonder if the RNC would have bothered to spend $150,000 on wardrobe and makeup if McCain had chosen Tim Pawlenty or even Olympia Snowe as vice president. I know the guys in my office love Palin, and it's not because they think she's an economic or foreign policy genius. Are all those Manolo Blahnik heels and the red leather jacket for them, I wonder? Hmmm.... maybe they're targeting the testosterone vote!
If somebody gave me $150,000 I'd come home with clothes, a car and a house.
Let's break it down:
Sarah -- Saks Fifth Avenue - $50,000
Neiman Marcus - $75,000
clothes for baby Trig and husband Todd
Me -- $25 blouse from Kohl's
Sarah -- over $4,700 (to date) on hair and makeup
Me - $12 twice a year at Great Clips (less if I have a coupon) and makeup from Target
Sarah -- designer shoes
Me -- does Rack Room have a 50% off sale going on??
Is there something wrong with a nice suit from Dillard's or Talbot's, for crying out loud?
I guess when John McCain wears $570 Italian loafers he doesn't blink at this stuff, but jeez...
So let's see... McCain announced she was his VP pick on August 29th. The election is November 4th. That's 9 1/2 weeks. So if you take $150,000... divide by 9 1/2... that's $15,789 a week, or $2,255 a day. Whew!!!!
I wonder if the RNC would have bothered to spend $150,000 on wardrobe and makeup if McCain had chosen Tim Pawlenty or even Olympia Snowe as vice president. I know the guys in my office love Palin, and it's not because they think she's an economic or foreign policy genius. Are all those Manolo Blahnik heels and the red leather jacket for them, I wonder? Hmmm.... maybe they're targeting the testosterone vote!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
To John McCain: THIS is class warfare
John McCain accused Barack Obama of class warfare in wanting to roll back the tax cuts George Bush gave disproportionately to the wealthy. Obama is proposing rolling back the tax rates to where they were under the Clinton adminstration for someone who makes over $250,000.
Maybe $250,000 isn't much to John McCain -- after all, his wife made over $4 million last year. But to those of us in the real world, $250,000 is a lot of money. But let's review, shall we, the Republican version of class warfare:
It's no secret that the unspoken platform of the Republican party has been to give more to the already wealthy and large corporations and if some of it "trickles down" to the little guy, well, that's OK. Keep in mind that most corporations pay NO income tax at all. The wealthy generally pay less, percentage-wise, than do their nannies and administrative assistants (even Warren Buffett finds it ridiculous that his admin pays a greater percentage than he does). So it begs the question -- why would George Bush put in tax cuts that went so disproportionately to the wealthy if this is not, in fact, class warfare? Did you even feel a blip in your paycheck when Bush's cuts went in? I didn't.
Now comes John McCain, he of the wife worth $100 million and so many homes he can't remember them all. He charges Barack Obama with class warfare because Obama wants to roll those tax cuts back for people making over $250,000. He calls it a tax increase -- but it's really only undoing some of the unfairness created by Bush's tax code in the first place.
John McCain should go back and review what happened with the savings and loan scandal (i.e., his connection with Charles Keating) and remind himself what happens when the wealthy steal from those less fortunate.
Class warfare is former Republican Speaker of the House Tom Delay jury-rigging Texas Congressional districts to separate out the wealthier areas in one of his many attempts to create a permanent Republican majority in Congress so they can write legislation favoring -- guess who -- the wealthy who voted them in.
Class warfare is John McCain's idea of taxing, for the first time in history, the health care benefits of people who get a paycheck. Sure, he wants to turn around and give you a tax credit to help you pay for a health care plan (which, if you are older and/or have health care issues will probably not cover the cost)... but does he think all this added complexity doesn't come with a price? How many companies will dump their health care plans entirely rather than deal with all the extra costs involved in collecting those taxes?
Class warfare is George Bush asking the middle class to shoulder the burden for a national debt that is out of control because the Republican Congress that has been in power over the budget for most of his presidency has spent money like a drunken sailor on short leave.
The Republicans have made an icon of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, a staunch proponent of the trickle down economic theory, tripled the national debt during his term. And when his original tax cut (again, disproportionately to the wealthy) created such economic havoc, he put in a huge tax increase, and shifted more of the tax burden to people who have a paycheck (the middle class) and took it away from people who get their income from securities (i.e., the wealthy). Sounds like class warfare to me.
Class warfare, John McCain, is not proposing that the wealthy in this country give their generous "gimme" from Bush up. Class warfare would be not doing so.
The Republicans want to label fairness as socialism. But if the middle class is struggling, and losing jobs, then we stop spending. If nobody's buying anything, then stores close, plants shut down, company stocks lose money, 401(k)s shrink, and everyone is hurt. The middle class is the economic engine of this country, not the wealthy. This is a lesson the Republicans have never learned.
Maybe $250,000 isn't much to John McCain -- after all, his wife made over $4 million last year. But to those of us in the real world, $250,000 is a lot of money. But let's review, shall we, the Republican version of class warfare:
It's no secret that the unspoken platform of the Republican party has been to give more to the already wealthy and large corporations and if some of it "trickles down" to the little guy, well, that's OK. Keep in mind that most corporations pay NO income tax at all. The wealthy generally pay less, percentage-wise, than do their nannies and administrative assistants (even Warren Buffett finds it ridiculous that his admin pays a greater percentage than he does). So it begs the question -- why would George Bush put in tax cuts that went so disproportionately to the wealthy if this is not, in fact, class warfare? Did you even feel a blip in your paycheck when Bush's cuts went in? I didn't.
Now comes John McCain, he of the wife worth $100 million and so many homes he can't remember them all. He charges Barack Obama with class warfare because Obama wants to roll those tax cuts back for people making over $250,000. He calls it a tax increase -- but it's really only undoing some of the unfairness created by Bush's tax code in the first place.
John McCain should go back and review what happened with the savings and loan scandal (i.e., his connection with Charles Keating) and remind himself what happens when the wealthy steal from those less fortunate.
Class warfare is former Republican Speaker of the House Tom Delay jury-rigging Texas Congressional districts to separate out the wealthier areas in one of his many attempts to create a permanent Republican majority in Congress so they can write legislation favoring -- guess who -- the wealthy who voted them in.
Class warfare is John McCain's idea of taxing, for the first time in history, the health care benefits of people who get a paycheck. Sure, he wants to turn around and give you a tax credit to help you pay for a health care plan (which, if you are older and/or have health care issues will probably not cover the cost)... but does he think all this added complexity doesn't come with a price? How many companies will dump their health care plans entirely rather than deal with all the extra costs involved in collecting those taxes?
Class warfare is George Bush asking the middle class to shoulder the burden for a national debt that is out of control because the Republican Congress that has been in power over the budget for most of his presidency has spent money like a drunken sailor on short leave.
The Republicans have made an icon of Ronald Reagan. But Reagan, a staunch proponent of the trickle down economic theory, tripled the national debt during his term. And when his original tax cut (again, disproportionately to the wealthy) created such economic havoc, he put in a huge tax increase, and shifted more of the tax burden to people who have a paycheck (the middle class) and took it away from people who get their income from securities (i.e., the wealthy). Sounds like class warfare to me.
Class warfare, John McCain, is not proposing that the wealthy in this country give their generous "gimme" from Bush up. Class warfare would be not doing so.
The Republicans want to label fairness as socialism. But if the middle class is struggling, and losing jobs, then we stop spending. If nobody's buying anything, then stores close, plants shut down, company stocks lose money, 401(k)s shrink, and everyone is hurt. The middle class is the economic engine of this country, not the wealthy. This is a lesson the Republicans have never learned.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
McCain's temperment disqualifying
Re the third presidential debate, I have to tell you I fell asleep before it started, which tells you how interested I was! But having woken up around 1:30 a.m. I turned on CNN and MSNBC, watched a little bit of the debate and the analyst chatter, and perused parts of the transcript. So I will limit my comments to McCain's temperment, which is scary, and I believe totally disqualifies him to be President.
Although he finally actually looked at his opponent this time, mostly because it was unavoidable due to the configuration of the table, it was obvious that his disdain for Obama continues. He tried several attacks, from Bill Ayers to "pro-abortion" that Obama dispatched pretty well. But what became obvious to me was that McCain is a man who carries a grudge unlike anybody I've ever seen.
He has had an obsession with having ten town hall meetings, and was so pissed that Obama would not agree to them (why would he when town hall meetings is not Obama's best format?) that he now brings it up constantly. It's raining today! That would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! The stock market is crashing! That would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! I've had to get really ugly in this campaign, and that would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! (He actually did say the last one in the debate.) Holy cow.
It reminds me of his pique at the President of Spain. Spain!! Our NATO ally in Europe, that Spain! The country of the flamenco and hot guys (but I digress...) He has said he might not meet with the Spanish president -- why? Because Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq four years ago. McCain is still pissed. How dare a sovereign nation do something he doesn't want them to do! Hence if he becomes President the grievance will continue. Frightening.
If you carry grudges like this, where would our foreign policy be if angerball McCain is President?
By the way, his running mate, Politician Barbie, has been out on the campaign trail accusing Obama of some pretty awful things regarding abortion rights. Apparently Barbie has gotten ahold of one of those internet e-mails written by a wacko named Jill Stanek. I've gone off on this woman in a previous post. Just suffice it to say that it appears that Barbie didn't vet this woman like McCain didn't vet her. If she would have bothered to look her up, she would have found out what a nutcase she is (for instance, claiming the Chinese eat aborted babies as delicacies -- all righty then!) In the face of almost certain defeat, McCain and Barbie are presenting internet e-mails as fact?? I agree with Tina Fey -- if these two win the White House, I'm leaving the planet.
Although he finally actually looked at his opponent this time, mostly because it was unavoidable due to the configuration of the table, it was obvious that his disdain for Obama continues. He tried several attacks, from Bill Ayers to "pro-abortion" that Obama dispatched pretty well. But what became obvious to me was that McCain is a man who carries a grudge unlike anybody I've ever seen.
He has had an obsession with having ten town hall meetings, and was so pissed that Obama would not agree to them (why would he when town hall meetings is not Obama's best format?) that he now brings it up constantly. It's raining today! That would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! The stock market is crashing! That would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! I've had to get really ugly in this campaign, and that would never have happened if Obama had agreed to these town hall meetings! (He actually did say the last one in the debate.) Holy cow.
It reminds me of his pique at the President of Spain. Spain!! Our NATO ally in Europe, that Spain! The country of the flamenco and hot guys (but I digress...) He has said he might not meet with the Spanish president -- why? Because Spain pulled their troops out of Iraq four years ago. McCain is still pissed. How dare a sovereign nation do something he doesn't want them to do! Hence if he becomes President the grievance will continue. Frightening.
If you carry grudges like this, where would our foreign policy be if angerball McCain is President?
By the way, his running mate, Politician Barbie, has been out on the campaign trail accusing Obama of some pretty awful things regarding abortion rights. Apparently Barbie has gotten ahold of one of those internet e-mails written by a wacko named Jill Stanek. I've gone off on this woman in a previous post. Just suffice it to say that it appears that Barbie didn't vet this woman like McCain didn't vet her. If she would have bothered to look her up, she would have found out what a nutcase she is (for instance, claiming the Chinese eat aborted babies as delicacies -- all righty then!) In the face of almost certain defeat, McCain and Barbie are presenting internet e-mails as fact?? I agree with Tina Fey -- if these two win the White House, I'm leaving the planet.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Weathermen prosecutor outraged at Obama link
In a letter printed in the New York Times William Ibershof, lead federal prosecutor of the Weathermen, the anti-Vietnam war group that included Bill Ayers, the "domestic terrorist" that McCain and Palin are trying to make into a character assassination of Barack Obama, says he is "amazed and outraged" at the attacks against Obama.
Yesterday McCain finally began to try to tamp down the racist rhetoric at one of his rallies. He did this only after he saw his poll numbers drop further, and had taken a lot of heat from former supporters, some right-wing columnists and the mainstream media. I wish I could say that McCain was doing this out of a desire to be fair, but I think he is not only realizing that it's hurting his chances on November 4, but that it's hurting his own legacy, and that's what's driving this new attempt to tone down the increasingly violent outbursts.
At a time when the country is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we don't need a presidential candidate who is focused on trying to portray his opponent as being un-patriotic and un-American. We need a presidential candidate who is going to lead us out of the mess the Bush administration has put us in. And that candidate is certainly not John McCain.
You can read Mr. Ibershof's letter here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html?
Yesterday McCain finally began to try to tamp down the racist rhetoric at one of his rallies. He did this only after he saw his poll numbers drop further, and had taken a lot of heat from former supporters, some right-wing columnists and the mainstream media. I wish I could say that McCain was doing this out of a desire to be fair, but I think he is not only realizing that it's hurting his chances on November 4, but that it's hurting his own legacy, and that's what's driving this new attempt to tone down the increasingly violent outbursts.
At a time when the country is facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, we don't need a presidential candidate who is focused on trying to portray his opponent as being un-patriotic and un-American. We need a presidential candidate who is going to lead us out of the mess the Bush administration has put us in. And that candidate is certainly not John McCain.
You can read Mr. Ibershof's letter here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/l10ayers.html?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
McCain Palin's dangerous tactic: race baiting
There's a stark contrast between what you see in these debates and what you're seeing at a McCain or Palin campaign event. In a debate you won't hear John McCain refer to Barack Hussein Obama. In a debate you won't hear people in the crowd yelling "kill him" or "terrorist." But this is what you're hearing at McCain/Palin campaign events. More than once recently someone who was introducing one of the Republican nominees has revved up the red meat-eating crowd by referring to Barack Obama's middle name in an attempt to stoke this ridiculous idea that Obama is secretly a Muslim. People in these crowds are starting to yell racial epithets and threats (being investigated, as I understand it, by the Secret Service). And what does McCain or Palin do about it when this happens? Do they tell the crowd in no uncertain terms that that kind of behavior will not be tolerated? No. Because God forbid they lose the racist vote.
What must people in other countries watching this be thinking of us? Isn't America supposed to be the country of opportunity and equality for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity? And what does it tell people in the Muslim world about how people at a campaign event for the nominees of a major party, a current Senator and a current Governor, view them? Is that helpful to our diplomatic efforts to get Middle Eastern countries to trust us?
McCain can't even hide his disgust of Obama in a debate or treat him as though he belongs on the same stage with him. Yet Obama went through 20-some debates and more than 50 primary contests to get where he is. He fought Hillary Clinton, no lightweight there, tooth and nail to get the nomination. And he won it fair and square, despite the obvious obstacles he had to overcome in the eyes of some voters and the view that Clinton was a shoo-in. Obama knows his stuff and deserves to be treated with respect, and yet McCain can't even look the guy in the eye.
The polls show that there are about 30% of white voters who say they can't vote for Obama either because he's (half) black or because they think he's secretly a Muslim. These are the folks whose racial intolerance McCain and Palin are stoking in their ads and at their campaign events. I'm not sure why McCain thinks this is a winning strategy, it's not like these people were going to vote for Obama! Fortunately, I think what it is doing instead is turning off the other 70%, as Obama continues to put distance between himself and McCain in the polls.
Obama should win this contest by a larger margin than he will, due to that 30%. But I think there's little doubt now that he will win, and that will be a victory for this country, for tolerance, and for common sense.
What must people in other countries watching this be thinking of us? Isn't America supposed to be the country of opportunity and equality for everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity? And what does it tell people in the Muslim world about how people at a campaign event for the nominees of a major party, a current Senator and a current Governor, view them? Is that helpful to our diplomatic efforts to get Middle Eastern countries to trust us?
McCain can't even hide his disgust of Obama in a debate or treat him as though he belongs on the same stage with him. Yet Obama went through 20-some debates and more than 50 primary contests to get where he is. He fought Hillary Clinton, no lightweight there, tooth and nail to get the nomination. And he won it fair and square, despite the obvious obstacles he had to overcome in the eyes of some voters and the view that Clinton was a shoo-in. Obama knows his stuff and deserves to be treated with respect, and yet McCain can't even look the guy in the eye.
The polls show that there are about 30% of white voters who say they can't vote for Obama either because he's (half) black or because they think he's secretly a Muslim. These are the folks whose racial intolerance McCain and Palin are stoking in their ads and at their campaign events. I'm not sure why McCain thinks this is a winning strategy, it's not like these people were going to vote for Obama! Fortunately, I think what it is doing instead is turning off the other 70%, as Obama continues to put distance between himself and McCain in the polls.
Obama should win this contest by a larger margin than he will, due to that 30%. But I think there's little doubt now that he will win, and that will be a victory for this country, for tolerance, and for common sense.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Shame on John McCain and Sarah Palin
John McCain is getting desperate. His last attempt at trying to become President, for which he has been willing to sell his soul, is looking irretrievably lost. He has become erratic (witness the "suspending" of his campaign to go to Washington to "help" with the rescue bill), snarky and disrepectful (his debate performance), and now, willing to outright lie. What little respect I had for him and his Barbie running mate is now completely gone.
Seeing the polls, and the election, slip away from him, McCain has decided to unleash Swiftboat-style attacks for the last 30 days of the campaign in a desperate gamble to get enough people to believe made-up crap to get him to the White House. So, the Karl Rove lie-making machine is now putting out ads, and Sarah Palin is now saying on the campaign trail, that the New York Times asserts that Obama has close ties to a terrorist. This is just beyond ridiculous.
Let's review -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a '60s radical group that did set off bombs in order to make a point about bombing in Vietnam. I'm not going to even begin to try to defend that, and neither does Obama. He has rightly condemned it. He was also 8 when it happened, a fact that the McCain campaign tends to forget. Ayers was never convicted of anything, and he went on to become involved in Chicago politics and education-related charity work (where he met Obama), and is now a professor at the University of Illinois. They are not pals, as Palin says, but simply were on the same board that distributes educational grants.
Here is the original New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&sq=barack%20obama%20ayers&st=cse&scp=3
And here is a followup they did today after Palin's remarks on the campaign trail:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05palin.html
Obama has so far played the gentleman and refuses to get into attack politics. I would not suggest that the Obama campaign indulge in this kind of thing -- but I am a little confused as to why they have not brought up the Keating Five scandal which nearly cost John McCain his Senate seat. That is a legitimate thing to bring up, particularly considering the savings & loan scandal has direct correlation to the current subprime mortgage mess. Not to mention, it's true, unlike McCain and Palin's attacks on Obama regarding his association with Ayers.
Maybe the 527's should put out the ad for him... but at least independent bloggers like myself can point these things out. It's up to the voters to Google it and find out exactly what faux "maverick" McCain really is all about.
Seeing the polls, and the election, slip away from him, McCain has decided to unleash Swiftboat-style attacks for the last 30 days of the campaign in a desperate gamble to get enough people to believe made-up crap to get him to the White House. So, the Karl Rove lie-making machine is now putting out ads, and Sarah Palin is now saying on the campaign trail, that the New York Times asserts that Obama has close ties to a terrorist. This is just beyond ridiculous.
Let's review -- Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, a '60s radical group that did set off bombs in order to make a point about bombing in Vietnam. I'm not going to even begin to try to defend that, and neither does Obama. He has rightly condemned it. He was also 8 when it happened, a fact that the McCain campaign tends to forget. Ayers was never convicted of anything, and he went on to become involved in Chicago politics and education-related charity work (where he met Obama), and is now a professor at the University of Illinois. They are not pals, as Palin says, but simply were on the same board that distributes educational grants.
Here is the original New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?pagewanted=2&sq=barack%20obama%20ayers&st=cse&scp=3
And here is a followup they did today after Palin's remarks on the campaign trail:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/us/politics/05palin.html
Obama has so far played the gentleman and refuses to get into attack politics. I would not suggest that the Obama campaign indulge in this kind of thing -- but I am a little confused as to why they have not brought up the Keating Five scandal which nearly cost John McCain his Senate seat. That is a legitimate thing to bring up, particularly considering the savings & loan scandal has direct correlation to the current subprime mortgage mess. Not to mention, it's true, unlike McCain and Palin's attacks on Obama regarding his association with Ayers.
Maybe the 527's should put out the ad for him... but at least independent bloggers like myself can point these things out. It's up to the voters to Google it and find out exactly what faux "maverick" McCain really is all about.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Biden v. Palin = no contest
I'm not going to belabor what everyone has probably already read about -- and who was telling the truth about this thing or that thing... but I do have to climb up on the soapbox for a little bit.
Biden knows his stuff and it showed. Palin crammed and that showed. There were no moose in the headlights moments, and she managed to put coherent sentences together (at least we didn't hear "I'll know when Putin rears his head because I can see Russia from Alaska!"), but unfortunately quite often she didn't bother answering the question but went off on another tangent. But what the heck was all the winking about and the folksy Joe Six-Pack talk? Was that particularly presidential? And why, oh why, do some Republicans have such trouble pronouncing "nuclear"??
At least she looked Biden in the eye, something McCain could not do with Obama.
Congratulations to Joe Biden, who I thought had a great command of the facts and managed to treat Palin like a worthy adversary even though he could have debated her with half his brain tied behind his back. He will be a great Vice President.
Biden knows his stuff and it showed. Palin crammed and that showed. There were no moose in the headlights moments, and she managed to put coherent sentences together (at least we didn't hear "I'll know when Putin rears his head because I can see Russia from Alaska!"), but unfortunately quite often she didn't bother answering the question but went off on another tangent. But what the heck was all the winking about and the folksy Joe Six-Pack talk? Was that particularly presidential? And why, oh why, do some Republicans have such trouble pronouncing "nuclear"??
At least she looked Biden in the eye, something McCain could not do with Obama.
Congratulations to Joe Biden, who I thought had a great command of the facts and managed to treat Palin like a worthy adversary even though he could have debated her with half his brain tied behind his back. He will be a great Vice President.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Palin not the female candidate women wanted
Tomorrow night will be the one and only vice presidential debate. Sarah Palin vs. Joe Biden is such a lop-sided matchup it's like sending the New York Yankees to play a Little League team. And that's too bad, because Palin is the first woman on a major party ticket since Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, 24 years ago. After this, what do you think the chances are that another woman will be on the presidential ticket again?
I've seen the polls that say women are turning against her. There has always been a big gap in how many men like her (obviously not because they think she's a foreign policy genius) vs. women. But now it appears that women are waking up and realizing that, while it would be nice for a major party to have a woman on a presidential ticket, this is not the woman they would have liked to have had. Will her obvious lack of qualifications and mind-numbing gaffes make it harder for another woman to be chosen again? In other words, isn't she setting women back instead of helping us break the ultimate glass ceiling?
Personal opinion, the fact that this woman is not someone who can really be taken seriously in national politics is a real detriment to women as a whole. Her inability to even give coherent answers, in some cases, to questions that she should have been prepared for just solidifies in men's minds that women aren't smart enough for this job. So thanks, Sarah Palin, but I for one really wish you would have stayed home.
I've seen the polls that say women are turning against her. There has always been a big gap in how many men like her (obviously not because they think she's a foreign policy genius) vs. women. But now it appears that women are waking up and realizing that, while it would be nice for a major party to have a woman on a presidential ticket, this is not the woman they would have liked to have had. Will her obvious lack of qualifications and mind-numbing gaffes make it harder for another woman to be chosen again? In other words, isn't she setting women back instead of helping us break the ultimate glass ceiling?
Personal opinion, the fact that this woman is not someone who can really be taken seriously in national politics is a real detriment to women as a whole. Her inability to even give coherent answers, in some cases, to questions that she should have been prepared for just solidifies in men's minds that women aren't smart enough for this job. So thanks, Sarah Palin, but I for one really wish you would have stayed home.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Goodbye, Paul Newman
Yesterday a Hollywood legend passed on. I kept thinking it was too bad that younger people probably don't know his films -- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Verdict, Cool Hand Luke, The Sting, and on and on. They should go rent them sometime. But Paul Newman was much more than just an actor, he was one of the really good guys. And ain't that hard to find in Hollywood in these days of overblown egos and diva behavior?
Married to Joanne Woodward since 1958, they had a rare long-term celebrity marriage, with nary of hint of infidelity. He once famously said, when asked if he was tempted to cheat on his wife, that "I have steak at home, why go out for hamburger?" He was a philanthropist who donated all the profits from his Newman's Own food products to charity, creating a camp for seriously ill children. And by all accounts, he was a genuinely wonderful father and friend.
Paul, we will miss you.
Married to Joanne Woodward since 1958, they had a rare long-term celebrity marriage, with nary of hint of infidelity. He once famously said, when asked if he was tempted to cheat on his wife, that "I have steak at home, why go out for hamburger?" He was a philanthropist who donated all the profits from his Newman's Own food products to charity, creating a camp for seriously ill children. And by all accounts, he was a genuinely wonderful father and friend.
Paul, we will miss you.
Main Street needs to understand this
All I hear on the news is that the bailout plan is being called a bailout of Wall Street bankers and that people are really mad about it. It is absolutely true that some banks and mortgage lenders came up with exotic mortgages that some people didn't understand and/or shouldn't have taken out. These 100% loans (or even higher), no down payment, balloon payment, etc. type of instruments should never have been allowed by the regulators to exist. It is also true that the Republicans, in order to kowtow to big business as they always have, have been deregulating like crazy in order to "let the market work."
But who took these loans out? And who wrung every dollar of equity out of their homes in the last few years? Who bought houses that were too expensive, that they couldn't afford, putting nothing down and using these kinds of loans, causing this mess to happen in the first place?
Main Street needs to fess up that this is just as much a bailout of them as it is of Wall Street. For those of who bought affordable homes and got traditional mortgages, we will be taking the blow with them even though we did everything right. I think the knee-jerk reaction that it's only Wall Street that's to blame (and yes, they deserve plenty), are missing half the problem. Let's just hope they're not doomed to repeat their mistakes because they never understood that.
But who took these loans out? And who wrung every dollar of equity out of their homes in the last few years? Who bought houses that were too expensive, that they couldn't afford, putting nothing down and using these kinds of loans, causing this mess to happen in the first place?
Main Street needs to fess up that this is just as much a bailout of them as it is of Wall Street. For those of who bought affordable homes and got traditional mortgages, we will be taking the blow with them even though we did everything right. I think the knee-jerk reaction that it's only Wall Street that's to blame (and yes, they deserve plenty), are missing half the problem. Let's just hope they're not doomed to repeat their mistakes because they never understood that.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
First presidential debate
Well, it looks like McCain decided he had gotten the bailout talks in hand and he decided to go to the debate after all, thus clearing the way for his running mate Sarah Palin to have her own debate with Joe Biden next Thursday (can't wait for that one)!
You know I'm biased, but I have to say I thought McCain was unusually snarky and belittling of Obama, completely refusing to look him in the eye. But what really struck me was when he gave Obama the "I don't need on the job training" shot, which immediately made me think of his running mate Barbie. Does he think she could have come anywhere close to making the kind of points Obama made? It should be clear to everyone by now that he chose her because he thought she would help him win the election, not because she could help him govern. Obama, on the other hand, chose the best person to help him govern, or even take over in the unfortunate event something happens to him. And that says a lot about the two men to me.
But back to the debate... I think both men got in some punches, and while I would have liked to hear more specifics about some things I think it's hard to do that in a debate where there is limited time without running the danger of getting bogged down in minutiae. I also noticed that McCain falls into the Chris Matthews trap of referring to historical events and people that a lot of younger voters (who will play a big part in this election) don't know or care about. Obama tried to be magnanimous by saying a couple of times that "John is right..." when he should have said something like "while x did happen, it would have been better if we had done y", but in any case he showed more respect for McCain than McCain did for him.
Now on to next Thursday. If Palin's handlers once again allow her to say that she has foreign policy experience because you can see an island off the coast of Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska, especially when debating the foreign policy expert in the Senate, all that will be left to do is for the Obamas to start packing for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
You know I'm biased, but I have to say I thought McCain was unusually snarky and belittling of Obama, completely refusing to look him in the eye. But what really struck me was when he gave Obama the "I don't need on the job training" shot, which immediately made me think of his running mate Barbie. Does he think she could have come anywhere close to making the kind of points Obama made? It should be clear to everyone by now that he chose her because he thought she would help him win the election, not because she could help him govern. Obama, on the other hand, chose the best person to help him govern, or even take over in the unfortunate event something happens to him. And that says a lot about the two men to me.
But back to the debate... I think both men got in some punches, and while I would have liked to hear more specifics about some things I think it's hard to do that in a debate where there is limited time without running the danger of getting bogged down in minutiae. I also noticed that McCain falls into the Chris Matthews trap of referring to historical events and people that a lot of younger voters (who will play a big part in this election) don't know or care about. Obama tried to be magnanimous by saying a couple of times that "John is right..." when he should have said something like "while x did happen, it would have been better if we had done y", but in any case he showed more respect for McCain than McCain did for him.
Now on to next Thursday. If Palin's handlers once again allow her to say that she has foreign policy experience because you can see an island off the coast of Russia from an island off the coast of Alaska, especially when debating the foreign policy expert in the Senate, all that will be left to do is for the Obamas to start packing for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain's bizarre campaign suspension
Yesterday, in his latest head scratching move, John McCain "suspended" his campaign to focus on the financial crisis. Oh, how magnanimous of him! The other 500+ Senators and Congressmen and women were sitting around twiddling their thumbs and moaning about how they just couldn't do this without him! Thank goodness he has decided to pull all his ads, dump out of the debate, and ride in on a white horse to save the day! Whew!! I just don't know what we would have done without the guy who himself has admitted he doesn't understand economics!
This is such an obvious delaying tactic it's not even funny. Although Letterman got some yucks out of it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html
But seriously... the University of Mississippi has spent $5.5 million on setting up this debate, and they can't reschedule it. Maybe $5.5 million isn't a lot to John McCain (after all, he did say that you're middle class if you make less than $5 million), but it would be unfair to the college to cancel after they've fronted that much money. Besides, we have less than 40 days to go to the election, and he hasn't debated Obama once. I'm beginning to wonder if he's going to try to have Palin bow out of the vice presidential debate because he knows she's in no way, shape or form up to debating Biden, it would be a joke. We'll see...
But why suspend the whole campaign? I've noticed that they rarely let Palin out on the stump on her own, so I guess he had to suspend it rather than let her soldier on by herself. The polls are dipping for them, so is he thinking this is a way to shake things up, like he did when he picked Palin? Personally, I think this is going to backfire big-time for McCain. It makes him look like he's either trying to dodge debating Obama because he's not ready or that it's a political stunt. Either way, he loses.
This is such an obvious delaying tactic it's not even funny. Although Letterman got some yucks out of it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/24/john-mccain-cancels-lette_n_128998.html
But seriously... the University of Mississippi has spent $5.5 million on setting up this debate, and they can't reschedule it. Maybe $5.5 million isn't a lot to John McCain (after all, he did say that you're middle class if you make less than $5 million), but it would be unfair to the college to cancel after they've fronted that much money. Besides, we have less than 40 days to go to the election, and he hasn't debated Obama once. I'm beginning to wonder if he's going to try to have Palin bow out of the vice presidential debate because he knows she's in no way, shape or form up to debating Biden, it would be a joke. We'll see...
But why suspend the whole campaign? I've noticed that they rarely let Palin out on the stump on her own, so I guess he had to suspend it rather than let her soldier on by herself. The polls are dipping for them, so is he thinking this is a way to shake things up, like he did when he picked Palin? Personally, I think this is going to backfire big-time for McCain. It makes him look like he's either trying to dodge debating Obama because he's not ready or that it's a political stunt. Either way, he loses.
UPDATE: Well, what a surprise! McCain is now proposing that the first presidential debate take the place of the vice presidential debate. Ha! Well, they've finally figured out what an airhead Sarah Palin is! (I refer you to the Katie Couric interview where she insists she has loads of foreign policy experience because Alaska is closest to Russia and shares a border with Canada. Wow. She cannot buy a clue, can she?) What do you want to bet they will try to run out the clock and the vice presidential debate will never happen at all? Any takers on 50 bucks?
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
A Big "What If??"
It's amazing how many of our current problems tie back to the environment. Can you imagine where we would be today if we had decided to get off of oil ten years ago? Fifteen years ago? What would have happened if we had taken the environmental view and developed alternative fuels a long time ago?
Climate change would have been drastically slowed, or even eliminated. Polar bears would not be endangered. Gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon. We would have a fraction of the smog we currently have, which has contributed to the explosion of childhood asthma cases and other lung diseases (thus increasing the cost of health care). We wouldn't have coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains and throwing them in our rivers. We wouldn't have to consider spending billions on more nuclear plants and dealing with their radioactive waste. We wouldn't be tied to the oil producing countries that don't like us very much. We wouldn't have to worry about gas shortages due to hurricanes in the Gulf closing pipelines. Our car manufacturers might actually be at the forefront of design and development instead of constantly playing catch-up to the Japanese and the Europeans. We would have had a boatload of new jobs in green technologies. Our economy would be thriving instead of going down the tubes.
And... maybe Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, thus saving us over 4,100 soldiers' lives, hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens, and about a trillion dollars or so, enough to bail out all these mortgages.
I heard today that the leaders gathered at the UN are wondering why the United States is not taking the lead in the development of alternative fuels. Many other countries (including Saudi Arabia, by the way), are vigorously attacking this problem, knowing that the dominance of oil is coming to an end. The United States can either be on the forefront of this development, or it can lag behind and waste the opportunity of a lifetime. Just think what will happen in ten years' time if we don't.
Climate change would have been drastically slowed, or even eliminated. Polar bears would not be endangered. Gas wouldn't be $4 a gallon. We would have a fraction of the smog we currently have, which has contributed to the explosion of childhood asthma cases and other lung diseases (thus increasing the cost of health care). We wouldn't have coal companies blowing the tops off of mountains and throwing them in our rivers. We wouldn't have to consider spending billions on more nuclear plants and dealing with their radioactive waste. We wouldn't be tied to the oil producing countries that don't like us very much. We wouldn't have to worry about gas shortages due to hurricanes in the Gulf closing pipelines. Our car manufacturers might actually be at the forefront of design and development instead of constantly playing catch-up to the Japanese and the Europeans. We would have had a boatload of new jobs in green technologies. Our economy would be thriving instead of going down the tubes.
And... maybe Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq, thus saving us over 4,100 soldiers' lives, hundreds of thousands of lives of Iraqi citizens, and about a trillion dollars or so, enough to bail out all these mortgages.
I heard today that the leaders gathered at the UN are wondering why the United States is not taking the lead in the development of alternative fuels. Many other countries (including Saudi Arabia, by the way), are vigorously attacking this problem, knowing that the dominance of oil is coming to an end. The United States can either be on the forefront of this development, or it can lag behind and waste the opportunity of a lifetime. Just think what will happen in ten years' time if we don't.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Time for a new era of common sense
Yesterday we reached a true financial crisis in this country, brought about largely by the mortgage mess (and deregulation), exacerbated by this administration's tax cuts for the wealthy, and finished off by years of overconsumption and lack of common sense by many Americans.
For the government's part, in exchange for bailing out financial institutions who lent money to people they knew couldn't pay it back, they need to put into action some very strong regulations, and make sure they are enforced so this never happens again. It would be great if we could trust our mortgage bankers to not write loans they know are likely to fail; but when they work on a commission or bonus basis, unfortunately they have just not been doing that. That, along with mortgage plans that should never have come into being, such as 100% or even 110% mortgages, no money down, interest only, balloon payment and other exotic loans, caused this horrible mess. The bankers should never have written them, but consumers should never have taken them out in the first place. If the bank tells you you can afford a $300,000 house, don't buy a $300,000 house! Buy a $200,000 house. Trust me, the bank will allow you to send them as much money as you currently have and as much money as you will ever have in the future, given the chance.
Re the tax cuts that went largely to the wealthy - yeah, that worked well, didn't it?? What Republicans never seem to get is that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. Their philosophy is to give all the money to the wealthy and it will somehow trickle down to the little guy, i.e., the middle class. The middle class is the economic engine of this country, and it is disappearing. Without a middle class having disposable income to spend, this economy grinds to halt, as we have already seen. Unfortunately, what has been happening is that even without cash to spend, even with wages stagnating, some people will buy stuff anyway.... on credit.
So I'm not letting the consumer entirely off the hook in this mess. We have had decades of overconsumption and just a general lack of common sense. I will be the first to admit that there are times I spent more than I should and should have saved more than I did; but I also am not living paycheck to paycheck, and many people are. And where did we get the idea that we should have McMansions for all? I have sat around a table with a group of ladies who were expounding on how it's just impossible to live in a house less than 4,000 square feet these days! Cavernous kitchens with pricey granite countertops and spa-like bathrooms have become the norm. I'm sure these ladies would feel claustrophobic in my little 1,300 square foot home where the master bath is probably the size of their linen closets, and they might be surprised to find that I intend to downsize from that! Quite frankly, many Americans just have too much stuff. I've been laughed at when I tell people my biggest TV is 16 inches and cost about $120. How many people would want to watch my puny TV vs. their $4,000 HD plasma one? But I look at it this way -- if you've got $4,000 sitting around and nothing to do with it, OK, but how many people do vs. how many people bought one of those $4,000 TVs lately? Maybe it's a generational thing, but I think all of us wage slaves need to start saving more (and don't put everything in the stock market!) and come down to earth about what we should be buying. Our parents may have done it the old-fashioned way, but they still have their money while a lot of younger people in this country have taken out balloon payment mortgages and seen their credit card interest rates climb through the roof.
Which brings me to the subject of accountability. Most people of my generation and older would never NOT pay our mortgages if we were capable of doing so, even if the price of our homes (temporarily) fell below what we owed on it. Yet, this mortgage crisis has been seriously worsened by people who are willing to just walk away and let the bank hold the bag for their debt. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, entire companies have gone under, in part because they should never have written the mortgages to begin with, but also because even people who could pay their mortgages just walked away instead. Where's the sense of personal responsibility? We need to be willing to say "NO" to ourselves sometimes, something that is becoming increasingly hard to do in such a materialistic society. It's time for all of us to take stock of just how much we need vs. how much we want.
For the government's part, in exchange for bailing out financial institutions who lent money to people they knew couldn't pay it back, they need to put into action some very strong regulations, and make sure they are enforced so this never happens again. It would be great if we could trust our mortgage bankers to not write loans they know are likely to fail; but when they work on a commission or bonus basis, unfortunately they have just not been doing that. That, along with mortgage plans that should never have come into being, such as 100% or even 110% mortgages, no money down, interest only, balloon payment and other exotic loans, caused this horrible mess. The bankers should never have written them, but consumers should never have taken them out in the first place. If the bank tells you you can afford a $300,000 house, don't buy a $300,000 house! Buy a $200,000 house. Trust me, the bank will allow you to send them as much money as you currently have and as much money as you will ever have in the future, given the chance.
Re the tax cuts that went largely to the wealthy - yeah, that worked well, didn't it?? What Republicans never seem to get is that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. Their philosophy is to give all the money to the wealthy and it will somehow trickle down to the little guy, i.e., the middle class. The middle class is the economic engine of this country, and it is disappearing. Without a middle class having disposable income to spend, this economy grinds to halt, as we have already seen. Unfortunately, what has been happening is that even without cash to spend, even with wages stagnating, some people will buy stuff anyway.... on credit.
So I'm not letting the consumer entirely off the hook in this mess. We have had decades of overconsumption and just a general lack of common sense. I will be the first to admit that there are times I spent more than I should and should have saved more than I did; but I also am not living paycheck to paycheck, and many people are. And where did we get the idea that we should have McMansions for all? I have sat around a table with a group of ladies who were expounding on how it's just impossible to live in a house less than 4,000 square feet these days! Cavernous kitchens with pricey granite countertops and spa-like bathrooms have become the norm. I'm sure these ladies would feel claustrophobic in my little 1,300 square foot home where the master bath is probably the size of their linen closets, and they might be surprised to find that I intend to downsize from that! Quite frankly, many Americans just have too much stuff. I've been laughed at when I tell people my biggest TV is 16 inches and cost about $120. How many people would want to watch my puny TV vs. their $4,000 HD plasma one? But I look at it this way -- if you've got $4,000 sitting around and nothing to do with it, OK, but how many people do vs. how many people bought one of those $4,000 TVs lately? Maybe it's a generational thing, but I think all of us wage slaves need to start saving more (and don't put everything in the stock market!) and come down to earth about what we should be buying. Our parents may have done it the old-fashioned way, but they still have their money while a lot of younger people in this country have taken out balloon payment mortgages and seen their credit card interest rates climb through the roof.
Which brings me to the subject of accountability. Most people of my generation and older would never NOT pay our mortgages if we were capable of doing so, even if the price of our homes (temporarily) fell below what we owed on it. Yet, this mortgage crisis has been seriously worsened by people who are willing to just walk away and let the bank hold the bag for their debt. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, entire companies have gone under, in part because they should never have written the mortgages to begin with, but also because even people who could pay their mortgages just walked away instead. Where's the sense of personal responsibility? We need to be willing to say "NO" to ourselves sometimes, something that is becoming increasingly hard to do in such a materialistic society. It's time for all of us to take stock of just how much we need vs. how much we want.
McCain confused about where Spain is??
See the article below... I can't decide if McCain has confused Spain -- our ally in Europe -- with a troublesome Latin American country, or if he really means to diss that country. Either way, this is the man the Republicans want to be President???
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/mccain-meant-to-reject-sp_n_127449.html
I guess this explains why he keeps referring to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist in 1993.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/18/mccain-meant-to-reject-sp_n_127449.html
I guess this explains why he keeps referring to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist in 1993.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
This is pretty scary...
Maybe it's appropriate that Halloween is coming up. Here's Sarah Palin speaking in Alaska, with a crowd of 5,000 people chanting "drill, baby, drill!" BTW, Alaskans share oil revenues, so they are in it for the $$, and damn the environment! Either way, one of the most beautiful states in the union (and critical habitat) will be ruined if these idiots get their way:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26693683/
Watch them try to drill in ANWR if McCain/Palin get elected. Conversely, there's a boatload of oil in North Dakota we haven't tapped yet:
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._Poised_to_hit_New_Oil_Gusher_080317.html
Not to mention there's a huge find already being worked in Canada. Odd that they never seem to want to mention that! It's all about drilling in ANWR, or offshore (where you will interrupt shipping lanes, tourism, and commercial fishing, not to mention the possible environmental impact). Drilling in ANWR itself would be an environmental nightmare, but if you ask the Governor of Alaska she's perfectly fine with environmental destruction. But then, according to her polar bears are not in distress.
I was surprised to find that many gas stations were already running out of fuel this Saturday and if you could find gas it was outrageously expensive. The issue wasn't that there was no crude oil available -- it was the disruption in the pipelines caused by these massive storms (which are worsened by climate change, by the way). We could find all the oil in the world tomorrow, but our storage areas and our refineries are already at capacity, and the pipeline issue comes up every hurricane season. I've said all along this is NOT a supply issue, we have all the crude we can handle. This is a DEMAND issue. We've already seen in the last few months that the price of gasoline dropped only when the demand dropped, when people started buying more fuel-efficient cars and taking public transportation. If people go back to driving gas hogs the price of gasoline will go up again. If you want the price of gasoline to continue to fall, we need to continue to lessen the DEMAND.
Remember, the price of crude oil is set on a global market; we could find boatloads of it here in the U.S. and it wouldn't affect how much Americans pay for gasoline, we would just have a bigger share of the profits. Or, I should say, the American oil companies would.
The solution is not "drill, baby, drill." It is "alternative fuels, baby, alternative fuels!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26693683/
Watch them try to drill in ANWR if McCain/Palin get elected. Conversely, there's a boatload of oil in North Dakota we haven't tapped yet:
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._Poised_to_hit_New_Oil_Gusher_080317.html
Not to mention there's a huge find already being worked in Canada. Odd that they never seem to want to mention that! It's all about drilling in ANWR, or offshore (where you will interrupt shipping lanes, tourism, and commercial fishing, not to mention the possible environmental impact). Drilling in ANWR itself would be an environmental nightmare, but if you ask the Governor of Alaska she's perfectly fine with environmental destruction. But then, according to her polar bears are not in distress.
I was surprised to find that many gas stations were already running out of fuel this Saturday and if you could find gas it was outrageously expensive. The issue wasn't that there was no crude oil available -- it was the disruption in the pipelines caused by these massive storms (which are worsened by climate change, by the way). We could find all the oil in the world tomorrow, but our storage areas and our refineries are already at capacity, and the pipeline issue comes up every hurricane season. I've said all along this is NOT a supply issue, we have all the crude we can handle. This is a DEMAND issue. We've already seen in the last few months that the price of gasoline dropped only when the demand dropped, when people started buying more fuel-efficient cars and taking public transportation. If people go back to driving gas hogs the price of gasoline will go up again. If you want the price of gasoline to continue to fall, we need to continue to lessen the DEMAND.
Remember, the price of crude oil is set on a global market; we could find boatloads of it here in the U.S. and it wouldn't affect how much Americans pay for gasoline, we would just have a bigger share of the profits. Or, I should say, the American oil companies would.
The solution is not "drill, baby, drill." It is "alternative fuels, baby, alternative fuels!"
Friday, September 12, 2008
I've got an ad for Obama
Everybody's tired of nasty politics, right? So I'm going to give Obama a free idea for an ad that should tickle the funny bones and hopefully get people thinking.
First, he should open with this little ditty from one of the Republican debates where McCain makes the case that he should get the nomination because, unlike Giuliani and Romney, he hasn't been a mayor or a governor for a short period of time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A2GYNWyA4w
Then you follow with a picture of Sarah Palin and this:
"MAYOR OF WASILLA, POP. 6,700" - and
"GOVERNOR OF ALASKA FOR 21 MONTHS"
For good measure he can throw in this goodie with Karl Rove dissing Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia for being a governor only 3 years and mayor of Richmond before that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxxwz7XOLFM
Wipe to this rally where McCain crusades against pork barrel spending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwCdVT1KQrA&feature=related
Then follow with a picture of Sarah Palin and this:
"$27 MILLION OF PORK WHILE MAYOR OF WASILLA" - and
"MORE PORK PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER STATE AS GOVERNOR!"
Finally, these two, where McCain refers to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist in 1993, and an Iraq/Pakistan border that also does not exist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE33mU7TjxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb2N0S-fgdk&feature=related
Note to McCain: there's a little country called IRAN between Iraq and Pakistan as you can clearly see here:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
That should be 'nuff said!
BTW, I see that Sarah Palin had Karl Rove's hand up her ass moving her mouth in that partial interview we saw. So far she's only had one short interview and already managed to piss off Russia, patronize the Israelis (and evidently give them carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want to), and suggest (once again) that she has foreign policy experience because you can see a piece of Russia from an island off of Alaska's coast. Re whether or not she is qualified to be vice president -- I REST MY CASE.
First, he should open with this little ditty from one of the Republican debates where McCain makes the case that he should get the nomination because, unlike Giuliani and Romney, he hasn't been a mayor or a governor for a short period of time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A2GYNWyA4w
Then you follow with a picture of Sarah Palin and this:
"MAYOR OF WASILLA, POP. 6,700" - and
"GOVERNOR OF ALASKA FOR 21 MONTHS"
For good measure he can throw in this goodie with Karl Rove dissing Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia for being a governor only 3 years and mayor of Richmond before that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gxxwz7XOLFM
Wipe to this rally where McCain crusades against pork barrel spending:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwCdVT1KQrA&feature=related
Then follow with a picture of Sarah Palin and this:
"$27 MILLION OF PORK WHILE MAYOR OF WASILLA" - and
"MORE PORK PER CAPITA THAN ANY OTHER STATE AS GOVERNOR!"
Finally, these two, where McCain refers to Czechoslovakia, a country that ceased to exist in 1993, and an Iraq/Pakistan border that also does not exist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE33mU7TjxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb2N0S-fgdk&feature=related
Note to McCain: there's a little country called IRAN between Iraq and Pakistan as you can clearly see here:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm
That should be 'nuff said!
BTW, I see that Sarah Palin had Karl Rove's hand up her ass moving her mouth in that partial interview we saw. So far she's only had one short interview and already managed to piss off Russia, patronize the Israelis (and evidently give them carte blanche to do whatever the heck they want to), and suggest (once again) that she has foreign policy experience because you can see a piece of Russia from an island off of Alaska's coast. Re whether or not she is qualified to be vice president -- I REST MY CASE.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Major Palin gaffe goes unnoticed by MSM
Today, instead of talking about a major gaffe by Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, the media is talking about a Karl Rove-ian smear tactic. Senator Obama clearly was talking about Bush's policies, NOT Sarah Palin, when he made a comment about "lipstick on a pig," but the McCain nutcases are trying to say he was talking about his vp pick just because she made some reference to lipstick in a joke. This is so ridiculous that it's not really worth going into - except to say that if McCain had any integrity at all he would call a press conference, apologize to Barack Obama, and fire everybody involved. Shame on him if he doesn't.
In much more important news, a couple of days ago Sarah Palin said something that should have been picked up by every media outlet and run ad nauseum, but it was not. She said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "had gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Ahem. Apparently Ms. Palin hasn't gotten to Economics 101. As anybody who knows anything about economics knows, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private companies until the government just recently bailed them out. She got this very important economic news exactly bass ackwards, and yet you would be hard-pressed to have heard anything about it in the news media. And she's refusing to give interviews because the press isn't deferential to her??? What the press isn't doing is their JOB. Since McCain didn't vet her, the press and the public need to, and when the vice presidential nominee, whose experience and qualifications for the job is in serious question, then this is the kind of information the press should be paying attention to -- not some ridiculous brouhaha about a common expression.
In much more important news, a couple of days ago Sarah Palin said something that should have been picked up by every media outlet and run ad nauseum, but it was not. She said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "had gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers." Ahem. Apparently Ms. Palin hasn't gotten to Economics 101. As anybody who knows anything about economics knows, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were private companies until the government just recently bailed them out. She got this very important economic news exactly bass ackwards, and yet you would be hard-pressed to have heard anything about it in the news media. And she's refusing to give interviews because the press isn't deferential to her??? What the press isn't doing is their JOB. Since McCain didn't vet her, the press and the public need to, and when the vice presidential nominee, whose experience and qualifications for the job is in serious question, then this is the kind of information the press should be paying attention to -- not some ridiculous brouhaha about a common expression.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Palin refuses to face the press
The McCain campaign has refused to allow the press access to their celebrity VP pick, Sarah Palin. She must be cramming hard! Let's see, Foreign Policy 101, Economics 101, Iraq 101, Foreign Leaders' Names 101... yeah, she's got her hands full. I would have given her the weekend to be home with her kid, Track (again, the baby name book didn't have anything you liked??), since he's shipping out to Iraq -- but she's not home making him mooseburgers, she's out campaigning! So the obvious response to the question of why she is not giving interviews or going to the Sunday political talk shows is that she is not ready to answer questions. Anybody who can't face a few questions from Tom Brokaw or George Stephanopolous has absolutely no business running for vice president. She's certainly not ready to lead our military, should something happen to McCain. And absolutely not ready to take on the economic crisis that is facing this country.
By the way, Joe Biden's son, Beau, is also shipping out to Iraq.
UPDATE: ABC's Charlie Gibson has actually scored an interview! Not exactly a hard-hitting journalist... it's scheduled for the end of this week (so, her first interview in over two weeks of being the nominee, obviously they're trying to give her as few opportunities to make a gaffe as possible). Too bad Tim Russert is no longer with us. I would have loved to have seen him take her on with clips of "what exactly is it a vice president does, anyway?", etc. etc. Would have been interesting! Unfortunately I don't think Brokaw will hit her as hard as Russert would have, when and if she gets the guts to go on Meet The Press (which Biden was on this weekend, BTW). Come out, come out, wherever you are, Sarah!
By the way, Joe Biden's son, Beau, is also shipping out to Iraq.
UPDATE: ABC's Charlie Gibson has actually scored an interview! Not exactly a hard-hitting journalist... it's scheduled for the end of this week (so, her first interview in over two weeks of being the nominee, obviously they're trying to give her as few opportunities to make a gaffe as possible). Too bad Tim Russert is no longer with us. I would have loved to have seen him take her on with clips of "what exactly is it a vice president does, anyway?", etc. etc. Would have been interesting! Unfortunately I don't think Brokaw will hit her as hard as Russert would have, when and if she gets the guts to go on Meet The Press (which Biden was on this weekend, BTW). Come out, come out, wherever you are, Sarah!
Friday, September 5, 2008
McCain and Palin - reformers??
You know, John McCain and Sarah Palin have positioned themselves as "reformers" and "change agents." They said she has military experience because of the National Guard. He says he's against earmarks and special interests and for helping save the environment. That all sounds pretty good, but let's take a look at the facts, why don't we?
- Sarah Palin claims she said "no, thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere, the $223 million earmark put in the federal budget for a bridge in Alaska to an island with few inhabitants. That's right, almost a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayer money - yours, mine, and everybody else's in America. Now, what Gov. Palin said would lead one to believe that the $223 million went back in the federal coffers. But this is not so... the label was simply taken off the earmark, and Alaska received $223 million federal taxpayer dollars to spend on whatever she darn well pleases. So her statement revved up the red meat eaters at the convention, but if this is not quite a lie, it is tantamount to one.
- She pushed through and signed ethics legislation -- true. It's also true that this legislation was in the works for some time before she became governor, and was actually begun by... Democrats.
- Does she command the National Guard in Alaska? Kind of -- she can call them out, but only in the case of a natural disaster or a security issue. But the Guard is actually under the direct command of a Major General. And if they are deployed overseas she may not get so much as an e-mail about what they're doing, much less command any troops.
- She is an environmental nightmare. She has voted against limiting mining where runoff from the operation would endanger salmon. She doesn't want polar bears listed as an endangered species, because she doesn't want them getting in the way of drilling as much as possible in her state. She wants to open a wildlife refuge, ANWR to drilling (what about the word "refuge" do these people not understand)?? I could write a book about how stupid that would be, and how illogical, but I may save that for another time. And by the way, she also thinks human activity does not contribute to climate change.
- She has requested more earmark money per capita than any other state in the country (and, as we now know, she received $27 million in federal money for her town of 6,700 when she was mayor). Did McCain know about this when he asked her to be his running mate? Hmmmm....
- But she has made some small sacrifices -- when she became governor she did lay off her personal chef. He must not have known how to make mooseburgers! But her assertion that she sold the governor's private jet on eBay is only partially correct. It was listed on eBay but it did not sell there. Eventually it was sold to a political contributor of hers, but despite the fact that McCain likes to say she made a profit on it, it was sold at a loss of around $600,000. Remember, this was state property, not her personal property, so she cost the state $600,000 just so she could say she sold it.
- Gov. Palin is currently under an ethics investigation to see whether she abused her office in trying to get her former brother-in-law, a state trooper, fired when he and her sister went through a nasty divorce. The campaign has been trying to get the results of that investigation stalled until after the election.
- John McCain was one of five senators accused of corruption in the Keating Five scandal, during the savings and loan crisis in 1989. They were accused of interceding to get regulators to look the other way in exchange for political contributions. The Senate Ethics Committee, after an investigation, decided that three of the five committed improper acts. The other two, including McCain, got a slap on the wrist. Because the regulators did not seize the savings and loan in question in time to prevent a failure, federal taxpayers had to bail the company out to the tune of $2.6 billion.
- The head of that savings and loan was a friend of McCain's. He gave McCain and his family numerous trips that McCain did not admit to until after the scandal broke.
- McCain's first marriage ended when he returned from Vietnam. While he had been gone, his wife had a horrific car accident, rendering her partially disabled and causing her to gain weight. He was dating Cindy before his divorce, and he and Cindy were married five weeks after his divorce was final. So much for "in sickness and in health," huh??
The truth kind of gives you a different perspective, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)