I had never donated to a political campaign before in my life - and I wouldn't have donated to Barack Obama's either, except that a t-shirt was promised with a minimum donation. I like t-shirts. So I donated... and donated again, and now I have two t-shirts.
I have also eschewed Starbuck's entirely. Tully's has compostable cups and sleeves, and recyclable lids, plus they serve fair-trade espresso. Also, a childhood friend works at the Tully's near where I work. So, this morning, I bought my usual non-fat latte from Tully's (which is delicious, btw - Starbucks, you and your burnt espresso can bite me).
As I was walking to my job working for a West coast e-commerce company, wearing my newest Obama t-shirt and sipping my non-fat latte, I had an epiphany.
I am a West-coast, latte-drinking elitist.
Sweet!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Awesomest Politician EVER
In response to Georgia's attempt to get water from the city of Chattanooga, the Mayor posted this proclamation:
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it has come to pass that the heavens are shut up and a drought of Biblical proportions has been visited upon the Southern United States, and
WHEREAS, the parched and dry conditions have weighed heavily upon the State of Georgia and sorely afflicted those who inhabit the Great City of Atlanta, and
WHEREAS, the leaders of Georgia have assembled like the Children of Israel in the desert, grumbled among themselves and have begun to cast longing eyes toward the north, coveting their neighbor’s assets, and
WHEREAS, the lack of water has led some misguided souls to seek more potent refreshment or for other reasons has resulted in irrational and outrageous actions seeking to move a long established and peaceful boundary, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and better to offer a cool, wet kiss of friendship rather than face a hot and angry legislator gone mad from thirst, and
Whereas, it is feared that if today they come for our river, tomorrow they might come for our Jack Daniels or George Dickel,
NOW THEREFORE, In the interest of brotherly love, peace, friendship, mutual prosperity, citywide self promotion, political grandstanding and all that
I Ron Littlefield, Mayor of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
Do hereby Proclaim that Wednesday, February 27, 2008 shall be known as
“Give Our Georgia Friends a Drink Day”
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, it has come to pass that the heavens are shut up and a drought of Biblical proportions has been visited upon the Southern United States, and
WHEREAS, the parched and dry conditions have weighed heavily upon the State of Georgia and sorely afflicted those who inhabit the Great City of Atlanta, and
WHEREAS, the leaders of Georgia have assembled like the Children of Israel in the desert, grumbled among themselves and have begun to cast longing eyes toward the north, coveting their neighbor’s assets, and
WHEREAS, the lack of water has led some misguided souls to seek more potent refreshment or for other reasons has resulted in irrational and outrageous actions seeking to move a long established and peaceful boundary, and
WHEREAS, it is deemed better to light a candle than curse the darkness, and better to offer a cool, wet kiss of friendship rather than face a hot and angry legislator gone mad from thirst, and
Whereas, it is feared that if today they come for our river, tomorrow they might come for our Jack Daniels or George Dickel,
NOW THEREFORE, In the interest of brotherly love, peace, friendship, mutual prosperity, citywide self promotion, political grandstanding and all that
I Ron Littlefield, Mayor of the City of Chattanooga, Tennessee,
Do hereby Proclaim that Wednesday, February 27, 2008 shall be known as
“Give Our Georgia Friends a Drink Day”
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Caucuses and what not
Because I'm lazy, it's taken me this long to send my picture to myself and upload it here of the madhouse that were the caucuses in Washington on Feb 9.
This is a picture of the crush of people way over to the side of the church who had already registered their support of a particular candidate. What you can't see is the line about three to four people wide still going into the church to sign up - a line which stretched around the end of the block.
The organizers apologized for not having enough space, said that the venue wasn't large enough. That was rather an understatement. I think it speaks to the amount of excitement this primary campaign has generated that many first time caucus goers made the effort and stuck around to figure out how the process works just so they could have a voice. For once.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Clinton leads with old white people in SC
From an analysis of the latest polls (although... who can tell with them after NH) from SC:
"In the Democratic race, Obama bests Clinton among men (42%-27%), women (39%-34%), African Americans (56%-25%), and voters under 50 (47%-21%). Clinton leads Obama among whites (39%-20%) and those over 50 (39%-35%). In fact, it's worth noting, Obama's third among whites, at 20% with John Edwards garnering 28% of the white vote, 11 points behind Clinton. Edwards is virtually shut out among African-Americans, receiving less than the poll's 5% margin of error."
So, Obama has men, women, young people, and African-Americans; Clinton has whites and old people.
I wish Washington were more important in the primary voting process.
"In the Democratic race, Obama bests Clinton among men (42%-27%), women (39%-34%), African Americans (56%-25%), and voters under 50 (47%-21%). Clinton leads Obama among whites (39%-20%) and those over 50 (39%-35%). In fact, it's worth noting, Obama's third among whites, at 20% with John Edwards garnering 28% of the white vote, 11 points behind Clinton. Edwards is virtually shut out among African-Americans, receiving less than the poll's 5% margin of error."
So, Obama has men, women, young people, and African-Americans; Clinton has whites and old people.
I wish Washington were more important in the primary voting process.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
Change... or experience?
I caught the Democratic debates last night by accident - I usually read about the debates after they're over, since I was out of the country for most of them, and haven't had a TV for the remainder. But, my mom gets basic channels, so I watched them last night. You know what's funny? Richardson actually made a very nice showing, especially for someone who has no hope of winning. He's got a great hope of being a running mate, though - he has a lot of good ideas, and had the best lines of the night.
I am personally undeterred in my support of Obama, who I have supported since early last year (not that it matters in my state, where the candidate will already have been decided by the time I get to vote for him), and am very excited to see that a man with a Kenyan father and the middle name 'Hussein' won the primary in white bread Iowa. That, in itself, would get me excited, if only because it's such a monumental philosophical victory in this country. Of course, I think part of the reason people don't see him based on the color of his skin is that he doesn't act like a stereotypical American black male, he acts like a highly educated Ivy league graduate, which most people respect.
I very much hope that McCain wins in New Hampshire. Romney has spent an absurd amount of money, and has all the corporate interests in his corner, but McCain has spent a miniscule amount in proportion, and has the integrity to back up what he says. I like Romney before he turned into a Republican party android machine. His record as Massachusetts governor showed that he was willing to think for himself and do what the people of Massachusetts wanted. Then he completely re-made himself for this race. I hope other voters are wondering to themselves - who exactly is he? And even if Huckabee won Iowa, his appeal is not broadly based across the country, and in very few places elsewhere could a Southern Baptist minister who wants to 'take' the country 'back for God' win in a Presidential caucus/primary.
It's exciting to watch this race in a way that other races haven't been exciting at all. Voters are tired of establishment candidates (finally!) and are looking elsewhere for answers, so we actually have interesting people winning. I admire and respect Hillary Clinton for what she's accomplished in her life, for her brilliance, and her perseverance. However, I simply disagree with her on a lot of policy issues. I also don't trust someone who is so firmly a part of the Democratic party. Parties work for the benefit of the party; they don't work for the benefit of the American people they're supposed to be serving. While it would be highly gratifying to vote for a woman as president, I think I'll have to content myself for voting for Obama.
I am personally undeterred in my support of Obama, who I have supported since early last year (not that it matters in my state, where the candidate will already have been decided by the time I get to vote for him), and am very excited to see that a man with a Kenyan father and the middle name 'Hussein' won the primary in white bread Iowa. That, in itself, would get me excited, if only because it's such a monumental philosophical victory in this country. Of course, I think part of the reason people don't see him based on the color of his skin is that he doesn't act like a stereotypical American black male, he acts like a highly educated Ivy league graduate, which most people respect.
I very much hope that McCain wins in New Hampshire. Romney has spent an absurd amount of money, and has all the corporate interests in his corner, but McCain has spent a miniscule amount in proportion, and has the integrity to back up what he says. I like Romney before he turned into a Republican party android machine. His record as Massachusetts governor showed that he was willing to think for himself and do what the people of Massachusetts wanted. Then he completely re-made himself for this race. I hope other voters are wondering to themselves - who exactly is he? And even if Huckabee won Iowa, his appeal is not broadly based across the country, and in very few places elsewhere could a Southern Baptist minister who wants to 'take' the country 'back for God' win in a Presidential caucus/primary.
It's exciting to watch this race in a way that other races haven't been exciting at all. Voters are tired of establishment candidates (finally!) and are looking elsewhere for answers, so we actually have interesting people winning. I admire and respect Hillary Clinton for what she's accomplished in her life, for her brilliance, and her perseverance. However, I simply disagree with her on a lot of policy issues. I also don't trust someone who is so firmly a part of the Democratic party. Parties work for the benefit of the party; they don't work for the benefit of the American people they're supposed to be serving. While it would be highly gratifying to vote for a woman as president, I think I'll have to content myself for voting for Obama.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
An Auspicious Beginning to the Holidays
Today is an auspicious day. At lunch, I will go to the post office, and mail not only my Christmas cards (and it’s still the first week of December!!) but also my voter registration. I am currently still registered to vote in Oregon, but I don’t like voting in Oregon, so I’m switching to Washington. I like the registration process in Washington better anyway, because you don’t have to register with a political party. However, because of consolidated voting, I don’t get to vote for a Republican in one race and a Democrat in another, which is really irritating. As an independent, I would like to be able to choose who I think is best for a job based on their positions and experience, not based upon their party affiliation. I really hate political parties.
Anyway, that will also be early, since my deadline is January 18, 2008 if I want to vote in the Presidential primary in Washington (not as though my vote will count, but it’s the principle of the thing). So, I am early in two important areas of my life for the first time in recent memory. I didn’t get my Christmas cards out last year until the week before Christmas, and I’m pretty sure some didn’t go out until after Christmas. But then, traditionally, Christmas is December 25 until January 6 (Epiphany or Twelfth Day), so I always said I had until the 6th. Technically. But of course, no one actually cares about the twelve days of Christmas anymore, it’s all crass commercialism up until the 25th, then the tree gets chucked by the 31st. How sad.
Next week, I am not working. I gave notice to end my current employment on Friday because I can't stand it anymore but because of background checks, I will not be able to start work this Monday, but the following Monday, unless by some miracle my background check comes back early. I sincerely doubt this, because I had 15 addresses on my list in the past seven years (five were from this year alone). So, I’ve decided to enjoy my last week of freedom before I settle down to my average 10-15 hrs of overtime per week job.
Anyway, that will also be early, since my deadline is January 18, 2008 if I want to vote in the Presidential primary in Washington (not as though my vote will count, but it’s the principle of the thing). So, I am early in two important areas of my life for the first time in recent memory. I didn’t get my Christmas cards out last year until the week before Christmas, and I’m pretty sure some didn’t go out until after Christmas. But then, traditionally, Christmas is December 25 until January 6 (Epiphany or Twelfth Day), so I always said I had until the 6th. Technically. But of course, no one actually cares about the twelve days of Christmas anymore, it’s all crass commercialism up until the 25th, then the tree gets chucked by the 31st. How sad.
Next week, I am not working. I gave notice to end my current employment on Friday because I can't stand it anymore but because of background checks, I will not be able to start work this Monday, but the following Monday, unless by some miracle my background check comes back early. I sincerely doubt this, because I had 15 addresses on my list in the past seven years (five were from this year alone). So, I’ve decided to enjoy my last week of freedom before I settle down to my average 10-15 hrs of overtime per week job.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Addendum
Anyone who's ever seen the movie by the creators of South Park, Team America, knows how utterly brilliant Trey Parker and Matt Stone are. I didn't always like South Park because I thought it was all fart jokes and other humor of a similar intellectual level. Then I actually started paying attention and realized how incredibly brilliant they are. Absolutely nothing is safe from their lampooning (which I applaud, even when they skewer issues/people that I believe in - that's the point of our system), and this was especially clear in Team America.
I mention this because tonight one of the Germans mentioned the movie (because of Matt Damon - hilarious) and it prompted me to look it up again and I found this article. The reason I loved the movie when I saw it originally is because, as the authors say, Parker and Stone take the pompous and the overdone and turn it into the ridiculous (Kim Jong Il singing, anyone?). I honestly can't think of Kim Jong Il any longer without having "I'm so ronery, oh so ronery..." play in my head. Kind of takes the wind out of a dictator's sails when he knows people are laughing at him.
Maybe we should all follow their example. A little more laughter, a little less terror tactics. I don't understand how many of the security measures implemented in recent years have actually helped prevent incidents of terror. Such as the security guard in New York who took my water bottle, or the security lady in Tokyo who jacked my Coke. Yes, indeed - I am planning on wreaking havoc on my next flight with this Coke can. I fail to see how such things make me any safer. But it does make me feel at least a little less unhappy about the threat posed by douchebag jihadists or my own government to think about them perhaps a little more the way Cartman would.
I mention this because tonight one of the Germans mentioned the movie (because of Matt Damon - hilarious) and it prompted me to look it up again and I found this article. The reason I loved the movie when I saw it originally is because, as the authors say, Parker and Stone take the pompous and the overdone and turn it into the ridiculous (Kim Jong Il singing, anyone?). I honestly can't think of Kim Jong Il any longer without having "I'm so ronery, oh so ronery..." play in my head. Kind of takes the wind out of a dictator's sails when he knows people are laughing at him.
Maybe we should all follow their example. A little more laughter, a little less terror tactics. I don't understand how many of the security measures implemented in recent years have actually helped prevent incidents of terror. Such as the security guard in New York who took my water bottle, or the security lady in Tokyo who jacked my Coke. Yes, indeed - I am planning on wreaking havoc on my next flight with this Coke can. I fail to see how such things make me any safer. But it does make me feel at least a little less unhappy about the threat posed by douchebag jihadists or my own government to think about them perhaps a little more the way Cartman would.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Definitions
Neuticles: an artificial replacement for the testicles of neutered pets. According to AP, -The idea, says inventor Gregg A. Miller, is to "let people restore their pets to anatomical preciseness" after neutering, thereby allowing them to retain their natural look and self-esteem. "People thought I was crazy when I started 13 years ago," says the Oak Grove, Mo. entrepreneur. But he has since sold more than 240,000 pairs (a few of which went on prairie dogs, water buffalo, and monkeys). "Neutering is creepy. But with Neuticles, it's like nothing has changed."- Neutering is creepy? And fake testicles for animals isn't?
13265.47: The current Dow Jones Industrial average, and the lowest it's been in nearly five years, due in part to a bad sub-prime housing lending market (who woulda thunk that in a pinch, the sub-prime market would bust? need a crystal ball for that one....) and negative sentiment in spite of decent forecasts. What does this say to me? If I had money, I'd be snapping up Netflix stock, that's what.
The Underdog: which is right where he wants to be. Sen. John McCain is back in the role of the underdog, railing against party excesses and partisanship. I personally like this McCain much better than the party front-runner the press was touting him as. I doubt if he'll win in the primaries, because, like Howard Dean for Democrats, McCain isn't 'safe' enough for most Republicans. And by most, I mean the ones that count - the big donors. So, I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride, and look forward to hearing more statements like this from him: "It's getting harder to do the work of the Lord in the city of Satan."
Jailtime: how much time should a woman get for having an abortion? The latest Newsweek asks this question based on a video shot by a man at a protest outside of an abortion clinic. As one might expect, most of the answers were not answers at all, as most people who actively protest against abortion are idealists who - in general - have a hard time thinking logically about their position. So, if abortion is illegal, how much time does the woman get? Recent interpretations and Supreme Court judgments (I'm looking at you, Justice Kennedy) do not hold the woman responsible at all, preferring instead to place all blame on the doctor. You can't have it both ways. Either you criminalize the woman who is said to be committing murder (that IS the rhetoric) or, you realize there will always be those who make the choice to abort their baby regardless of the law or the availability of decent medical facilities. So, jail time and botched abortions? Or the legality of a practice I'm sure most people, even those who are pro-choice, would agree is not a choice that should be considered a woman's first.
13265.47: The current Dow Jones Industrial average, and the lowest it's been in nearly five years, due in part to a bad sub-prime housing lending market (who woulda thunk that in a pinch, the sub-prime market would bust? need a crystal ball for that one....) and negative sentiment in spite of decent forecasts. What does this say to me? If I had money, I'd be snapping up Netflix stock, that's what.
The Underdog: which is right where he wants to be. Sen. John McCain is back in the role of the underdog, railing against party excesses and partisanship. I personally like this McCain much better than the party front-runner the press was touting him as. I doubt if he'll win in the primaries, because, like Howard Dean for Democrats, McCain isn't 'safe' enough for most Republicans. And by most, I mean the ones that count - the big donors. So, I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride, and look forward to hearing more statements like this from him: "It's getting harder to do the work of the Lord in the city of Satan."
Jailtime: how much time should a woman get for having an abortion? The latest Newsweek asks this question based on a video shot by a man at a protest outside of an abortion clinic. As one might expect, most of the answers were not answers at all, as most people who actively protest against abortion are idealists who - in general - have a hard time thinking logically about their position. So, if abortion is illegal, how much time does the woman get? Recent interpretations and Supreme Court judgments (I'm looking at you, Justice Kennedy) do not hold the woman responsible at all, preferring instead to place all blame on the doctor. You can't have it both ways. Either you criminalize the woman who is said to be committing murder (that IS the rhetoric) or, you realize there will always be those who make the choice to abort their baby regardless of the law or the availability of decent medical facilities. So, jail time and botched abortions? Or the legality of a practice I'm sure most people, even those who are pro-choice, would agree is not a choice that should be considered a woman's first.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
"Enhanced interrogation measures"
I should have just read the news today to get a good rant going. Here's an article about Bush's latest decision regarding the torture of alleged terrorists.
Sen. John McCain was right to oppose torture of any kind as a stain on the reputation of the United States abroad. The one thing we've attempted to maintain, in government and in popular culture for decades, is that we're the 'good guys.' Somehow, I think that seeing a real life demonstration of waterboarding, or being told that sexual abuse is now not allowed (that fact that ANYONE calling themselves a 'good guy' would see that as an acceptable means of obtaining information is beyond me) serves to undermine this reputation.
The Viet Cong could do whatever they wanted to their prisoners because they didn't need to fight a PR battle. We do. And the CIA interrogation program, which is quite small, simply isn't worth the loss in international respect and, more to the point, domestic respect for the actions of the United States.
Sen. John McCain was right to oppose torture of any kind as a stain on the reputation of the United States abroad. The one thing we've attempted to maintain, in government and in popular culture for decades, is that we're the 'good guys.' Somehow, I think that seeing a real life demonstration of waterboarding, or being told that sexual abuse is now not allowed (that fact that ANYONE calling themselves a 'good guy' would see that as an acceptable means of obtaining information is beyond me) serves to undermine this reputation.
The Viet Cong could do whatever they wanted to their prisoners because they didn't need to fight a PR battle. We do. And the CIA interrogation program, which is quite small, simply isn't worth the loss in international respect and, more to the point, domestic respect for the actions of the United States.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
fatigue
I read two articles today on msnbc.com about the war fatigue being experienced within middle America. It's about time. What I find so sickening about it all - especially the politicians 'breaking' with President Bush - is that they're all like rats on a sinking ship. They were with him when it was politically expedient - now it's not, so they're not. Where were they when this could have been prevented? Voting for it all, that's where.
A few weeks ago, I read some articles on msnbc.com (which is, btw, a very good source for popular news, a good barometer of public opinion, if you will) regarding global warming, that more Americans now believe that it is real than don't. This was supposed to be some sort of huge revelation. I mean, even the most idiotic person ought to be able to realize that the data is incontrovertibly clear that the planet is warmer on average. The difficulties arise when discussing what exactly should be done about that. But good news folks - more Americans now believe the planet is warming than don't.
Maybe it's our system of education. Maybe it's our lack of any serious news media. Maybe it's our inability to understand anything other than short news bytes on Paris Hilton.
But somehow, it all seems like too little too late, and we will be remembered, not as the greatest generation, as our grandparents were (justified or not, they are remembered that way), but as the dumbest, most-lacking-in-foresight generation that ever devoured oxygen on this planet. Congratulations to us.
A few weeks ago, I read some articles on msnbc.com (which is, btw, a very good source for popular news, a good barometer of public opinion, if you will) regarding global warming, that more Americans now believe that it is real than don't. This was supposed to be some sort of huge revelation. I mean, even the most idiotic person ought to be able to realize that the data is incontrovertibly clear that the planet is warmer on average. The difficulties arise when discussing what exactly should be done about that. But good news folks - more Americans now believe the planet is warming than don't.
Maybe it's our system of education. Maybe it's our lack of any serious news media. Maybe it's our inability to understand anything other than short news bytes on Paris Hilton.
But somehow, it all seems like too little too late, and we will be remembered, not as the greatest generation, as our grandparents were (justified or not, they are remembered that way), but as the dumbest, most-lacking-in-foresight generation that ever devoured oxygen on this planet. Congratulations to us.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
You scratch my back....
Today, I was interested in an article entitled 'Edwards-Coulter spar' or something similar to that. I assumed that that this meant John Edwards, but soon found out that it was actually Elizabeth Edwards. From the number of articles on the subject, it appears as though this is a fairly large story right now.
For those who haven't heard, Coulter made a statement to the effect that whenever she referred to Edwards in the future, she would just say that she wished he had died in a terrorist assassination plot (because saying this is safer than referring to him as a faggot). This is in reference to a statement that Bill Maher made regarding Dick Cheney - if he were to die in a terrorist attack, fewer people would die, based on Cheney's influence in the current militant bent of US foreign policy.
Elizabeth Edwards called Hardball, where Coulter was making these statements, and implored her to stop the 'hate speech.' She compared Coulter's speech to racist language in the South.
The reason I find this especially irritating is this: political campaign contributions have increased to the Edwards campaign as a result, and Coulter's book sales have increased. Through this confrontation, both camps have gotten exactly what they wanted - more exposure to their base groups. One side can't exist without the other, really.
One of the things I always hated about listening to talk radio in high school on the way to jazz band with my dad - 570KVI for those in the Seattle area - was that we always had to listen to Kirby Wilbur, who had the 5-9am spot. To have enough to talk about each day, he would comb newspapers for controversial topics - paraphrase: "look! this Girl Scout troupe is selling thin mints at $2 higher than this other Girl Scout troupe! That's gouging! Call in and tell me how you feel about this awful situation" - that were usually extremely stupid and were brought up for the express purpose of drawing out idiot callers - paraphrase: "One time, a Girl Scout tried to rip me off, but I kicked her butt off my front porch. You can't let those little moneygrubbers get the one-up on you!" The caliber of caller was usually pretty low.
The purpose of these talk shows and tv shows are to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the American political system - the poorly educated, badly paid, easily persuaded American who is political for emotional reasons rather than logical or thoughtful reasons. These are the people who think it's funny that Coulter used a homosexual slur in reference to Edwards.
Normally, Democrats are about as culpable as Republicans in this sort of political sniping, but Ann Coulter really takes it up a notch. This, of course, helps her to appeal to those who may be interested in buying the tripe she calls her books. The most unfortunate part about all of this is that some people actually listen to what she has to say.
For those who haven't heard, Coulter made a statement to the effect that whenever she referred to Edwards in the future, she would just say that she wished he had died in a terrorist assassination plot (because saying this is safer than referring to him as a faggot). This is in reference to a statement that Bill Maher made regarding Dick Cheney - if he were to die in a terrorist attack, fewer people would die, based on Cheney's influence in the current militant bent of US foreign policy.
Elizabeth Edwards called Hardball, where Coulter was making these statements, and implored her to stop the 'hate speech.' She compared Coulter's speech to racist language in the South.
The reason I find this especially irritating is this: political campaign contributions have increased to the Edwards campaign as a result, and Coulter's book sales have increased. Through this confrontation, both camps have gotten exactly what they wanted - more exposure to their base groups. One side can't exist without the other, really.
One of the things I always hated about listening to talk radio in high school on the way to jazz band with my dad - 570KVI for those in the Seattle area - was that we always had to listen to Kirby Wilbur, who had the 5-9am spot. To have enough to talk about each day, he would comb newspapers for controversial topics - paraphrase: "look! this Girl Scout troupe is selling thin mints at $2 higher than this other Girl Scout troupe! That's gouging! Call in and tell me how you feel about this awful situation" - that were usually extremely stupid and were brought up for the express purpose of drawing out idiot callers - paraphrase: "One time, a Girl Scout tried to rip me off, but I kicked her butt off my front porch. You can't let those little moneygrubbers get the one-up on you!" The caliber of caller was usually pretty low.
The purpose of these talk shows and tv shows are to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the American political system - the poorly educated, badly paid, easily persuaded American who is political for emotional reasons rather than logical or thoughtful reasons. These are the people who think it's funny that Coulter used a homosexual slur in reference to Edwards.
Normally, Democrats are about as culpable as Republicans in this sort of political sniping, but Ann Coulter really takes it up a notch. This, of course, helps her to appeal to those who may be interested in buying the tripe she calls her books. The most unfortunate part about all of this is that some people actually listen to what she has to say.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Obama! No, Clinton! No, McCain! No, that guy nobody knows over there!
The fact that the US 2008 Presidential election race is already "heating up" according to msnbc.com is slightly ridiculous. We don't vote for a year and half! Can you imagine how many dumb/vicious/stupid campaign commericals will be aired during the meantime?Some figures: Clinton and McCain are expected to be able to raise $80-100 million this year alone, to gear up for the nomination gridlock. I guess McCain learned his lesson from 2000 - you have the integrity not to play like the big boys, and George Bush becomes president. So, let's see how much else he "lets go of" during the race, hmm? The others are pretty close behind, with Romney, Giuliani, Obama and Edwards posting excellent campaign contribution totals as well.
Some fun totals from Yahoo! news:
- Giuliani brought in $1.4 million in the first few weeks of his campaign and has $2 million left from an aborted Senate bid in 2000.
- Clinton hopes to raise at least $75 million this year. She has asked contributors to give the maximum amount for both the primary and general election since she plans to bypass the public financing system entirely.
- Obama isn't accepting donations from political action committees and lobbyists. Following Clinton's lead, he also doesn't plan to accept public campaign financing for either the primaries or the general election.
- Edwards is building on the remnants of a fundraising network from his unsuccessful 2004 presidential run. Like Obama, he isn't accepting donations from political action committees and lobbyists. And like Clinton and Obama, he plans to reject public financing altogether. So far, ACTBlue.com says he has raised more than $700,000 online.
- McCain has added high-profile people to his fundraising network in place from his failed 2000 presidential bid. His team includes Lewis M. Eisenberg, a Bush backer in 2004 and former partner at Goldman Sachs who founded the Granite Capital International Group.
- Romney brought 400 volunteers to Boston to dial for dollars using a custom-made software program dubbed the ComMITT system that allows volunteers to set goals and gather pledges and actual donations online. The take was $6.5 million in a single day.
It's a brave new world - how many of these impressive candidates are online? That would be all of them. Not only can you watch speeches they have posted online, but online donations have become easy and in Romney's case, have helped him raise millions already.
According to CBS news, Romney's campaign fundraising strategy works thusly: "When they log onto QuickComMITT, fundraising volunteers will use a password from the campaign. They will enter information about each person they call, down to whether they couldn't reach them or left a message. The system supersedes spreadsheets of past campaign and the tracking numbers that the Bush-Cheney campaign used to credit supporters for money they had raised. If the prospective donor wants to make a contribution, the credit card information is processed from the same screen, making the job of raising money for Romney as easy "as buying something from eBay or booking an airline ticket online," according to the instructions for users."
Just like eBay, folks! Get in line to support your favorite candidate and send a little cash their way. The article goes on to say, "President Bush has raised more money than any politician in history. So his system has been deconstructed by fundraisers on both sides, and several of the campaigns are blatantly copying some of his strategies. As first reported in the New York Daily News by Ben Smith, now with The Politico, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has created a Bush-Ranger knockoff using a baseball motif, with a descending structure of Team Captains, MVPs, All Stars and Sluggers."
You know, this is almost as annoying as seeing how much money professional athletes are paid. I'm sure this is helping the economy somehow, since it's generally rich folks who are donating cash (which I'm sure is tax deductible), and the workers bees are getting paid somehow, but still.... it's really sad. It's not as though any individual really has the power to make his/her voice heard anyway. I'll vote, because it's something I'm supposed to do, but it's so frustrating knowing that even if someone like Obama is nominated, he won't actually be able to change things much, and the rest of them are machine policiticians.
Friday, November 17, 2006
If our goal was to oust a nasty military dictator....
We should have picked Burma, aka Myanmar. While the weather is entirely too hot for me, I really enjoyed visiting the country. The people are in general quite nice, especially if they're not trying to sell you something, and there are some really incredible historic monuments. The scenery is also quite lovely if you're into tropical stuff (I'm not). Pictures from this spring.
Just read an article summarized from the Washington Post about the Burmese government's latest push to eliminate the threat of Karen militants, an ethnic minority in Myanmar. Instead of fighting the ones with guns, the government of course realizes that the best way to break the back of the resistance is to torch their homes and villages, destroy their crops, and plant land mines in their villages so that they can never return. There are about 3 millions Karen, and almost 2 million are currently displaced. This is only one example of the kind of brutality of which the Burmese military dictator, General Shwe is capable. There aren't dirty enough, or derogatory enough words to describe what he's doing to his country's own people. No one will try to stop it though, because the military has a stranglehold on the entire country.
The only ones who dare to resist are jailed, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Read her book, if you have the chance. I haven't finished it, but what I read when I borrowed Mike's copy was excellent. He actually hasn't finished reading it either, because he's not allowed to take it into Myanmar and reads it during vacation in the US.
Myanmar has gone from one of the richest countries in Southeast Asia to one of the poorest. British imperialism may have been bad, but it was nothing compared to what this military junta is doing to its own people.
Just read an article summarized from the Washington Post about the Burmese government's latest push to eliminate the threat of Karen militants, an ethnic minority in Myanmar. Instead of fighting the ones with guns, the government of course realizes that the best way to break the back of the resistance is to torch their homes and villages, destroy their crops, and plant land mines in their villages so that they can never return. There are about 3 millions Karen, and almost 2 million are currently displaced. This is only one example of the kind of brutality of which the Burmese military dictator, General Shwe is capable. There aren't dirty enough, or derogatory enough words to describe what he's doing to his country's own people. No one will try to stop it though, because the military has a stranglehold on the entire country.
The only ones who dare to resist are jailed, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Read her book, if you have the chance. I haven't finished it, but what I read when I borrowed Mike's copy was excellent. He actually hasn't finished reading it either, because he's not allowed to take it into Myanmar and reads it during vacation in the US.
Myanmar has gone from one of the richest countries in Southeast Asia to one of the poorest. British imperialism may have been bad, but it was nothing compared to what this military junta is doing to its own people.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Even more good news!
Rumsfeld decided to resign today. Excellent! So, the man who espoused the doctrine of surgical warfare, or whatever he called it, has been proven to be completely and utterly wrong in his assessment of the military situation in Iraq. Rather than smart bombs and computers doing most of the work, our friends and family are instead forced to fight in urban guerilla warfare.
Not too sure about the new nominee though - he's a family friend of the Bush's and a CIA guy. How would YOU like a CIA guy in charge of the military? Especially in light of the Military Commissions Act? I'm not too sure I am interested in seeing that happen.
Not too sure about the new nominee though - he's a family friend of the Bush's and a CIA guy. How would YOU like a CIA guy in charge of the military? Especially in light of the Military Commissions Act? I'm not too sure I am interested in seeing that happen.
Mandate from the people? I think not.
I do believe American voters have given Bush what is called in technical terms 'what-for.' The House of Representatives was lost, more than half of the states in the US are run by Democratic governors, and the Senate looks like it will end up 49 Democrat, 49 Republican, 2 Independent (both of whom are liberal).
This is good for a number of reasons - first and foremost, it repudiates every claim George Dubya made in the past few months during election madness. He is clearly not in control of what's happening in Iraq, and pretending that he is merely makes him look inept and stupid. He also isn't acting like a real Republican (in terms of being a fiscal conservative) which is helping him alienate many members of his own party.
One of the most important claims that was refuted in the past few months was in a report that I mentioned in a previous blog that pointed out that the invasion of Iraq did not, in real terms, make the US safer from terrorist threat and that the war was being used as a rallying point for insurgents and terrorists. This is something Bush denied, but is quite clearly happening.
One of the things that made me most angry during the past few weeks (and Bush always has just the right mix of ignorance and confidence to be extremely upsetting) was the hullabaloo over John Kerry's botched joke. It was meant as a critique of the president, and in true Kerry fashion, he took every ounce of humor out of his little joke and then failed to deliver it properly. Republicans jumped on this saying Kerry was criticizing the troops when of course that's not what he meant to do at all.
I think it's extremely hypocritical of the President to criticize someone else for failing to respect our friends and family that are serving abroad. First, he's the one who is sending them to possible death, loss of limbs, and mental trauma. Second, he made JOKES about how the reasons for going into Iraq were patently untrue. He has failed at every instance to show respect for the men and women he is sending into harm's way, and he has the unmitigated gall to criticize someone who actually went to Vietnam instead of finding a way to stay at home because that particular veteran had his sense of humor surgically removed when he became a Senator.
George Bush deserved the set down he received from the American people. He needs to re-evaluate everything he has done from the beginning of his term, but more than likely he won't. After all, his policy is to 'stay the course' (or is it?) and he is 'the Decider.' Rather than showing that he has working brain cells and that he is concerned about the situation he has put our country and many other countries into in Iraq, he instead barrels on ahead as though everything is coming up roses. Let's all hope this will change in the last two years of his presidency, and let's all hope that he is able to do MUCH less damage in the next two years than he has caused in the past three.
This is good for a number of reasons - first and foremost, it repudiates every claim George Dubya made in the past few months during election madness. He is clearly not in control of what's happening in Iraq, and pretending that he is merely makes him look inept and stupid. He also isn't acting like a real Republican (in terms of being a fiscal conservative) which is helping him alienate many members of his own party.
One of the most important claims that was refuted in the past few months was in a report that I mentioned in a previous blog that pointed out that the invasion of Iraq did not, in real terms, make the US safer from terrorist threat and that the war was being used as a rallying point for insurgents and terrorists. This is something Bush denied, but is quite clearly happening.
One of the things that made me most angry during the past few weeks (and Bush always has just the right mix of ignorance and confidence to be extremely upsetting) was the hullabaloo over John Kerry's botched joke. It was meant as a critique of the president, and in true Kerry fashion, he took every ounce of humor out of his little joke and then failed to deliver it properly. Republicans jumped on this saying Kerry was criticizing the troops when of course that's not what he meant to do at all.
I think it's extremely hypocritical of the President to criticize someone else for failing to respect our friends and family that are serving abroad. First, he's the one who is sending them to possible death, loss of limbs, and mental trauma. Second, he made JOKES about how the reasons for going into Iraq were patently untrue. He has failed at every instance to show respect for the men and women he is sending into harm's way, and he has the unmitigated gall to criticize someone who actually went to Vietnam instead of finding a way to stay at home because that particular veteran had his sense of humor surgically removed when he became a Senator.
George Bush deserved the set down he received from the American people. He needs to re-evaluate everything he has done from the beginning of his term, but more than likely he won't. After all, his policy is to 'stay the course' (or is it?) and he is 'the Decider.' Rather than showing that he has working brain cells and that he is concerned about the situation he has put our country and many other countries into in Iraq, he instead barrels on ahead as though everything is coming up roses. Let's all hope this will change in the last two years of his presidency, and let's all hope that he is able to do MUCH less damage in the next two years than he has caused in the past three.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
