As I might have mentioned in previous blog posts, I read a lot of news online. While I appreciate almost immediate updates and breaking stories, one of the things that has often frustrated me are the reader comments you often find at the bottom of these stories. Some comments are interesting and carefully thought out and generate great discussion. Unfortunately, however, many of the comments aren't that great. People often use the moment to step on their soapbox to push their personal beliefs. And while everyone does that to some extent, others just take it to extreme lengths. These reader comments truly highlight—and not always in the best light—the differences of the world, and usually those differences fall along racial, religious, or political lines.
With the recent earthquakes in Japan, there have been plenty of news stories and plenty of opportunities for soapboxing. Fortunately many of the comments are positive and show compassion for what is happening in Japan. Still, however, there are the comments that continue to divide people along political or religious lines. Democrat vs. republican. Religious vs. non-religious. Why do we need divisions at a time like this? If anything, a moment like this should serve to remind us that we all share this planet and that we should all respect one another. At the very least we should try to respect one another a little more. Every now and then there should be a time when you are able to put your differences aside to look for—or at the very least hope for—something positive in a bad situation, because you never know if you will one day find yourself on the other end of the story and in need of that same compassion and respect.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Demands
Last night's elections results are more or less final with the Democrats retaining control of the Senate and the Republicans taking control of the House. Just with the very fact that Republicans took control of the House, Republicans are immediately claiming that this is a "referendum" and that the voters are "sending a message" that they disagree with the "Obama/Pelosi agenda" and the pace of change.
It's no surprise that conservatives have had high expectations and have been extremely demanding to turn the country around. After all, it should be fairly easy to turn around an economic recession and set the country on the right path, right? And, therefore, the President is a failure for not meeting every goal, right? So now that conservatives are in charge, all the country's problems will be solved more quickly and easily. So, because that is the case, I've come up with a list of demands (in no particular order) that I would like the new Republican congress to meet.
1. Turn the deficit into a surplus
2. Reduce unemployment to 0%
3. End all wars and bring peace to the world
4. Make sure no home is foreclosed
5. Make sure no one defaults on his/her debt
6. Reduce childhood obesity by 75%
7. Reduce adult obesity by 50% (adults are dumber and lazier while children are still malleable and easier to influence, therefore the lower percentage number for adults)
8. Explore (with more enthusiasm) alternative energy sources such as wind and solar
9. Encourage more research into potentially curable diseases such as Alzheimer's, MS, Parkinson, etc.
10. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
11. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and federally recognize same-sex marriage (can't blame me for trying)
12. Pass a law that guarantees everyone will have health insurance (oh wait...)
13. Fill the hole at Ground Zero with something, anything. (Seriously, the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon in 9 years, why can't we build something.)
14. Bring manufacturing jobs back to the country. (Hey, how about building solar panels and wind turbines or cleaner cars?)
15. Do something to improve education in this country so that we're not lagging behind other countries in the world.
16. Ban offshore oil drilling
17. Repair the nation's failing infrastructure
18. Provide training programs to people who will lose their jobs as we move away from oil dependence so that they will have new skills that can be applied in new fields
And I want the Republican led congress to make sure all of these demands are met within 22 months and they can't spend any money to make these things happen. If they spend money and don't achieve these things right away, they will be considered failures and there might be another "referendum" in the next election cycle. Now, get to work people...
This is just a partial list of my demands, and I'll continue to add to it as I think of things. Stay tuned...
It's no surprise that conservatives have had high expectations and have been extremely demanding to turn the country around. After all, it should be fairly easy to turn around an economic recession and set the country on the right path, right? And, therefore, the President is a failure for not meeting every goal, right? So now that conservatives are in charge, all the country's problems will be solved more quickly and easily. So, because that is the case, I've come up with a list of demands (in no particular order) that I would like the new Republican congress to meet.
1. Turn the deficit into a surplus
2. Reduce unemployment to 0%
3. End all wars and bring peace to the world
4. Make sure no home is foreclosed
5. Make sure no one defaults on his/her debt
6. Reduce childhood obesity by 75%
7. Reduce adult obesity by 50% (adults are dumber and lazier while children are still malleable and easier to influence, therefore the lower percentage number for adults)
8. Explore (with more enthusiasm) alternative energy sources such as wind and solar
9. Encourage more research into potentially curable diseases such as Alzheimer's, MS, Parkinson, etc.
10. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell
11. Repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and federally recognize same-sex marriage (can't blame me for trying)
12. Pass a law that guarantees everyone will have health insurance (oh wait...)
13. Fill the hole at Ground Zero with something, anything. (Seriously, the ancient Greeks built the Parthenon in 9 years, why can't we build something.)
14. Bring manufacturing jobs back to the country. (Hey, how about building solar panels and wind turbines or cleaner cars?)
15. Do something to improve education in this country so that we're not lagging behind other countries in the world.
16. Ban offshore oil drilling
17. Repair the nation's failing infrastructure
18. Provide training programs to people who will lose their jobs as we move away from oil dependence so that they will have new skills that can be applied in new fields
And I want the Republican led congress to make sure all of these demands are met within 22 months and they can't spend any money to make these things happen. If they spend money and don't achieve these things right away, they will be considered failures and there might be another "referendum" in the next election cycle. Now, get to work people...
This is just a partial list of my demands, and I'll continue to add to it as I think of things. Stay tuned...
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Bike Sharing, the Next Destroyer of America
Politics can be a crazy thing and in Colorado they can be really crazy.
One of the many things I love about Colorado is that it can be progressive and forward thinking. Two things that Coloradoans really love are the environment and a healthy lifestyle. Think about it. We have beautiful mountains running through our state and people want to preserve that beauty. And the mountains and open space also open themselves to hiking, running, biking, and other outdoor activities. It's no wonder that Colorado often tops lists of most eco-friendly and healthiest states.
Earlier this year Denver launched a large bike-share program. There are about forty bike share stations throughout the city and you pay by the hour to rent a bicycle. One would think that this is a great thing. For those who don't own cars, this is a way for them to get around town. Riding a bike is healthy and one less vehicle on the road is good for the environment. Totally harmless and a great idea, right? Not so, according to Republican gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes. Let's just say that Maes puts the "guber" in gubernatorial.
Maes has criticized the bike share program and has implied that there is something evil lurking in the program. Denver happens to be a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an international organization that promotes sustainable development, and the ICLEI happens to promote and encourage bike sharing. You'd think that sustainable development would be a good thing, but apparently the "international" part of the organization is what terrifies Maes. Maes has said that the bike share program threatens to convert Denver into a United Nations community and that the program could threaten our personal freedoms. Um, really?
Let's ignore the fact that Denver joined the ICLEI in 1992 along with about 600 other cities in the United States, apparently in this political climate anything influenced or inspired by an international organization or foreign countries is a dangerous thing. Maybe Maes thinks that by being a member of this organization we will sign our rights away to the United Nations and we will become like other European countries—because, you know, guaranteed government-sponsored health care, civil rights for gays and lesbians, religious freedom, and politics that are not influenced by religion are bad things.
The only thing that could possibly make matters worse is the fact that the bicycles are all painted red, and I'm surprised that Maes didn't bring that up. Red bicycles are obviously socialist or communist or fascist or something un-American. If people start sharing and borrowing bikes, what else could that lead to? Renting and borrowing books? Sharing knowledge? God help our society!
One of the many things I love about Colorado is that it can be progressive and forward thinking. Two things that Coloradoans really love are the environment and a healthy lifestyle. Think about it. We have beautiful mountains running through our state and people want to preserve that beauty. And the mountains and open space also open themselves to hiking, running, biking, and other outdoor activities. It's no wonder that Colorado often tops lists of most eco-friendly and healthiest states.
Earlier this year Denver launched a large bike-share program. There are about forty bike share stations throughout the city and you pay by the hour to rent a bicycle. One would think that this is a great thing. For those who don't own cars, this is a way for them to get around town. Riding a bike is healthy and one less vehicle on the road is good for the environment. Totally harmless and a great idea, right? Not so, according to Republican gubernatorial candidate, Dan Maes. Let's just say that Maes puts the "guber" in gubernatorial.
Maes has criticized the bike share program and has implied that there is something evil lurking in the program. Denver happens to be a member of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), an international organization that promotes sustainable development, and the ICLEI happens to promote and encourage bike sharing. You'd think that sustainable development would be a good thing, but apparently the "international" part of the organization is what terrifies Maes. Maes has said that the bike share program threatens to convert Denver into a United Nations community and that the program could threaten our personal freedoms. Um, really?
Let's ignore the fact that Denver joined the ICLEI in 1992 along with about 600 other cities in the United States, apparently in this political climate anything influenced or inspired by an international organization or foreign countries is a dangerous thing. Maybe Maes thinks that by being a member of this organization we will sign our rights away to the United Nations and we will become like other European countries—because, you know, guaranteed government-sponsored health care, civil rights for gays and lesbians, religious freedom, and politics that are not influenced by religion are bad things.
The only thing that could possibly make matters worse is the fact that the bicycles are all painted red, and I'm surprised that Maes didn't bring that up. Red bicycles are obviously socialist or communist or fascist or something un-American. If people start sharing and borrowing bikes, what else could that lead to? Renting and borrowing books? Sharing knowledge? God help our society!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Don't Tread On Our Obesity
Over the past few weeks, I've been caught up in a new reality show, Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution. The premise of the show is that Jamie Oliver, a British chef, goes to Huntington, West Virginia, on a mission to improve the health of the people in that city. In 2008 Huntington was named the unhealthiest city in America—45 percent of the adults were obese, 21 percent had heart disease, and 12 percent had diabetes. Oliver's mission is to changes people's attitudes toward the food they eat and to help them realize the physical consequences of an unhealthy diet. First Lady Michelle Obama has a similar mission with her campaign to battle childhood obesity. What is shocking is that anyone could have a negative response to these types of campaigns.
Michelle Obama is trying to change the lives of children (and parents) by encouraging them to eat healthy, fresh food and to move and exercise more. The idea seems simple and obvious. If you eat a healthy diet and stay active, you'll live a healthier life. The campaign seems so harmless; it seems altruistic, even. However, in this political climate you can't rule out the fact that people will be outraged by such a campaign. People complain that no one, not a person let alone the government, should be involved with or have a say in how they live their lives or how they raise their children. I call it the don't tread on me or the get off my lawn response. It's too obvious to state that Michelle Obama is not the first first lady to have a campaign to improve the lives of the children in America. Barbara Bush had a literacy campaign. Nancy Reagan had her Just Say No to Drugs campaign. (However, I think the Republican party of today misunderstood that to mean Just Say No to every sensible policy to come out of the Obama administration.) So you wonder if the people who complain about Michelle Obama's campaign would also complain about Bush's or Reagan's campaigns. Or do they simply have a problem with this particular first lady? Let's be perfectly honest. Much of the reason why we have such a hostile political climate right now is because a black man and a black woman are in the White House. There goes the neighborhood, there goes the country, so many people seem to think. But that is an entirely different blog post all together. Back to the food revolutions...
What I find so shocking is that people can be so opposed to teaching children healthy habits. And how can people possibly argue against improving school lunch standards? People complain that it is too expensive and that the federal and state governments should be spending the money on more important things. Really? Spending money on the health of children is not important? It's not worth it to improve the heath of children who weight over 200 pounds at 10 or 12 years old? This is a country that spends billions of dollars to invade, destroy, and "rebuild" foreign countries, yet people are morally opposed to spending money on health and education. That is downright sad and pathetic.
People complain about heath care reform and that it is not necessary. But if you look at the people around you, you'll soon realize that so many people in this country are in such poor health. Yes, we need more jobs in this country, but if you want people to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week, you need to keep them fit and healthy. A healthier workforce is a stronger, more efficient workforce. When children eat healthy diets and stay active, generally that means they will be healthier and able to spend more time in school and to take advantage of the education they'll need to compete in the world. When people like Jamie Oliver and Michelle Obama are trying to educate parents and children, who are they harming?
Michelle Obama is trying to change the lives of children (and parents) by encouraging them to eat healthy, fresh food and to move and exercise more. The idea seems simple and obvious. If you eat a healthy diet and stay active, you'll live a healthier life. The campaign seems so harmless; it seems altruistic, even. However, in this political climate you can't rule out the fact that people will be outraged by such a campaign. People complain that no one, not a person let alone the government, should be involved with or have a say in how they live their lives or how they raise their children. I call it the don't tread on me or the get off my lawn response. It's too obvious to state that Michelle Obama is not the first first lady to have a campaign to improve the lives of the children in America. Barbara Bush had a literacy campaign. Nancy Reagan had her Just Say No to Drugs campaign. (However, I think the Republican party of today misunderstood that to mean Just Say No to every sensible policy to come out of the Obama administration.) So you wonder if the people who complain about Michelle Obama's campaign would also complain about Bush's or Reagan's campaigns. Or do they simply have a problem with this particular first lady? Let's be perfectly honest. Much of the reason why we have such a hostile political climate right now is because a black man and a black woman are in the White House. There goes the neighborhood, there goes the country, so many people seem to think. But that is an entirely different blog post all together. Back to the food revolutions...
What I find so shocking is that people can be so opposed to teaching children healthy habits. And how can people possibly argue against improving school lunch standards? People complain that it is too expensive and that the federal and state governments should be spending the money on more important things. Really? Spending money on the health of children is not important? It's not worth it to improve the heath of children who weight over 200 pounds at 10 or 12 years old? This is a country that spends billions of dollars to invade, destroy, and "rebuild" foreign countries, yet people are morally opposed to spending money on health and education. That is downright sad and pathetic.
People complain about heath care reform and that it is not necessary. But if you look at the people around you, you'll soon realize that so many people in this country are in such poor health. Yes, we need more jobs in this country, but if you want people to work 8 hours a day for 5 days a week, you need to keep them fit and healthy. A healthier workforce is a stronger, more efficient workforce. When children eat healthy diets and stay active, generally that means they will be healthier and able to spend more time in school and to take advantage of the education they'll need to compete in the world. When people like Jamie Oliver and Michelle Obama are trying to educate parents and children, who are they harming?
Friday, March 26, 2010
Dictionaries, They Are Big Books with a Lot of Words...
For much of the day today, conservatives around the nation have been wetting their pants with excitement as Sarah Palin returns to the stage to campaign for John McCain as he pulls out all the tricks to keep hold of his Arizona senate seat. I know I've posted this before, but lest anyone forget or not know what the word "rogue" really means, here it is again. I, after all, do like to keep people educated and informed.
rogue (noun):
1. vagrant, tramp
2. a dishonest or worthless person: scoundrel
3. a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
4. an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
rogue (adjective):
1. resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable
2. corrupt, dishonest
3. of or being a nation whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior
rogue (verb):
1. to weed out inferior, diseased, or nontypical individuals from a crop plant or a field
Monday, November 16, 2009
Going Tramp...
In light of Sarah Palin's new book, Going Rogue, I thought I'd share a few definitions of rogue courtesy of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
rogue (noun):
1. vagrant, tramp
2. a dishonest or worthless person: scoundrel
3. a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
4. an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
rogue (adjective):
1. resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable
2. corrupt, dishonest
3. of or being a nation whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior
rogue (verb):
1. to weed out inferior, diseased, or nontypical individuals from a crop plant or a field
So these are supposed to be good qualities?
rogue (noun):
1. vagrant, tramp
2. a dishonest or worthless person: scoundrel
3. a horse inclined to shirk or misbehave
4. an individual exhibiting a chance and usually inferior biological variation
rogue (adjective):
1. resembling or suggesting a rogue elephant especially in being isolated, aberrant, dangerous, or uncontrollable
2. corrupt, dishonest
3. of or being a nation whose leaders defy international law or norms of international behavior
rogue (verb):
1. to weed out inferior, diseased, or nontypical individuals from a crop plant or a field
So these are supposed to be good qualities?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Big Gay Weekend
This is going to be a big weekend in the world of gay rights. Tonight, President Obama will deliver a speech at a dinner and fund raising event for the Human Rights Campaign, the largest gay rights lobbying group and political action community in the nation. On Sunday, the National Equality March will take place, and it is a march that will draw attention to gay rights and the demand for equal protection under the law. The rights gays and lesbians are asking for are simple: the right to go to school or work and be free of harassment, the right to go about our daily life and be protected from hate crimes, the right for equal health care and benefits, the right to donate blood, the right to marry, and the right to serve in the military (this quick and easy list is courtesy of the National Equality March Web site). In a nutshell, we basically want all of the rights guaranteed to straight men and women. Yet, these are rights that have been denied largely because of political posturing or religious preaching.
Although there are a number of rights that gays and lesbians are denied, the two hot-button political issues right now are the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Defense of Marriage Act:
DOMA was passed by congress and, sadly, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The law states that the federal government defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages even if the marriage might be recognized in another state. Individual stats can pass their own laws that recognize (or ban) same-sex marriages or civil unions, but what the gay and lesbian community is fighting for is federal recognition and federal rights. The arguments for banning same-sex marriages vary. Many people like to use religious standards and argue that because the Bible says homosexuality is immoral and an abomination we should not allow or recognize same-sex marriages. These people take the Bible for its word, stand by it, and have a very literal and inflexible interpretation of it. Yet, this same Bible also states that a woman, who is not a virgin at the time of her marriage, should be stoned by the community. I wonder if there is a man, who stands by the Bible's claims of homosexuality, would also be willing to stone his wife right now if she wasn't a virgin when she married. The Bible also says that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, both he and the woman should be put to death. If this were the case, we wouldn't have many politicians left in Washington right now. The Bible also says that you must detest and not eat any creature from the sea unless it has fins and scales. So shrimp and lobster are out.
People also say that allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of, in the words of Miss California, "opposite" marriage. Well, I honestly don't think that gay people running out and getting married brought the divorce rate among straight people to 50 percent. Many of my friends' parents are divorced and, sadly, a few of my friends are getting divorced themselves, but I doubt that any of these divorces were cause by gays and lesbians.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibits any service member—read gay or lesbian service member—from disclosing or discussing his or her sexual orientation. It also prohibits officers from asking about a service member's sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians are essentially forced to stay in the closet and forced to keep quiet. They are prevented from discussing whatever relationship they might be in. However, straight men and women are free to openly discuss their relationships, their boyfriends or girlfriends, or their husbands or wives. There is still a belief that having openly gay men and women in the armed forces would destroy the morale and cohesion of the troop. It would be a distraction and a threat. I'm not sure how other people feel, but if a service member is threatened by homosexuality, how can you feel safe having that person stand by you and defend you in battle? I don't care if you are willing to take a bullet for your country, if you're threatened and afraid of a gay man or woman fighting beside you and willing to take the same bullet, you are a coward. And how would people who favor DADT explain stories of women in the armed forces who are harassed, abused, and raped by men? I doubt they are being raped by the gay soldiers!
In spite of the fact that we are fighting multiple wars, soldiers continue to be discharged from the military for being gay. Many of these men and women are specialists and Arabic translators, and you would think that these are the people we need most right now. Yet, because they are considered a "threat," they are let go. It's astonishing and unbelievable.
Monday, October 12, also happens to be the 11th anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was beaten, tortured, and left to die on a fence in Laramie, Wyoming. His attackers later admitted that they targeted him because he was gay. An this sad event and hate crimes in general are other issues that need to be brought up this weekend. This weekend, with President Obama's speech at the HRC dinner and with the March for Equality, gives the gay and lesbian community and opportunity to put their issues back on the table. Unfortunately, many gay rights activists have been highly critical of Obama because he hasn't yet done anything for gay rights and he hasn't acted out on any of his campaign promises. I'd be the first to admit that we need changes and that these basic rights should be extended to the gay and lesbian community, however, I also think that this heated criticism of Obama is premature and counter-productive. Obama has been in office for only ten months, and he walked into a situation where we were facing an economic and financial crisis and several wars. There are just some issues that needed more immediate attention. I think that if the gay and lesbian community really wants to make progress, they need to remain patient and, most importantly, remain supportive of the one person who has the potential to bring about these changes. Obama's campaign was built on hope and the slogan "yes, we can," and we need to remember this as we keep fighting. It might be a struggle and a long road, but it is something that shouldn't be given up.
Although there are a number of rights that gays and lesbians are denied, the two hot-button political issues right now are the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
Defense of Marriage Act:
DOMA was passed by congress and, sadly, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. The law states that the federal government defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman and that states are not required to recognize same-sex marriages even if the marriage might be recognized in another state. Individual stats can pass their own laws that recognize (or ban) same-sex marriages or civil unions, but what the gay and lesbian community is fighting for is federal recognition and federal rights. The arguments for banning same-sex marriages vary. Many people like to use religious standards and argue that because the Bible says homosexuality is immoral and an abomination we should not allow or recognize same-sex marriages. These people take the Bible for its word, stand by it, and have a very literal and inflexible interpretation of it. Yet, this same Bible also states that a woman, who is not a virgin at the time of her marriage, should be stoned by the community. I wonder if there is a man, who stands by the Bible's claims of homosexuality, would also be willing to stone his wife right now if she wasn't a virgin when she married. The Bible also says that if a man sleeps with another man's wife, both he and the woman should be put to death. If this were the case, we wouldn't have many politicians left in Washington right now. The Bible also says that you must detest and not eat any creature from the sea unless it has fins and scales. So shrimp and lobster are out.
People also say that allowing same-sex marriages will destroy the sanctity of, in the words of Miss California, "opposite" marriage. Well, I honestly don't think that gay people running out and getting married brought the divorce rate among straight people to 50 percent. Many of my friends' parents are divorced and, sadly, a few of my friends are getting divorced themselves, but I doubt that any of these divorces were cause by gays and lesbians.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell:
Don't Ask, Don't Tell prohibits any service member—read gay or lesbian service member—from disclosing or discussing his or her sexual orientation. It also prohibits officers from asking about a service member's sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians are essentially forced to stay in the closet and forced to keep quiet. They are prevented from discussing whatever relationship they might be in. However, straight men and women are free to openly discuss their relationships, their boyfriends or girlfriends, or their husbands or wives. There is still a belief that having openly gay men and women in the armed forces would destroy the morale and cohesion of the troop. It would be a distraction and a threat. I'm not sure how other people feel, but if a service member is threatened by homosexuality, how can you feel safe having that person stand by you and defend you in battle? I don't care if you are willing to take a bullet for your country, if you're threatened and afraid of a gay man or woman fighting beside you and willing to take the same bullet, you are a coward. And how would people who favor DADT explain stories of women in the armed forces who are harassed, abused, and raped by men? I doubt they are being raped by the gay soldiers!
In spite of the fact that we are fighting multiple wars, soldiers continue to be discharged from the military for being gay. Many of these men and women are specialists and Arabic translators, and you would think that these are the people we need most right now. Yet, because they are considered a "threat," they are let go. It's astonishing and unbelievable.
Monday, October 12, also happens to be the 11th anniversary of the murder of Matthew Shepard, a young man who was beaten, tortured, and left to die on a fence in Laramie, Wyoming. His attackers later admitted that they targeted him because he was gay. An this sad event and hate crimes in general are other issues that need to be brought up this weekend. This weekend, with President Obama's speech at the HRC dinner and with the March for Equality, gives the gay and lesbian community and opportunity to put their issues back on the table. Unfortunately, many gay rights activists have been highly critical of Obama because he hasn't yet done anything for gay rights and he hasn't acted out on any of his campaign promises. I'd be the first to admit that we need changes and that these basic rights should be extended to the gay and lesbian community, however, I also think that this heated criticism of Obama is premature and counter-productive. Obama has been in office for only ten months, and he walked into a situation where we were facing an economic and financial crisis and several wars. There are just some issues that needed more immediate attention. I think that if the gay and lesbian community really wants to make progress, they need to remain patient and, most importantly, remain supportive of the one person who has the potential to bring about these changes. Obama's campaign was built on hope and the slogan "yes, we can," and we need to remember this as we keep fighting. It might be a struggle and a long road, but it is something that shouldn't be given up.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Patriotism and the Olympics
Catching up on a few old stories of the past few weeks...
The idea of patriotism seems to change in meaning depending on who is in power. When George W. Bush was president, Republicans and conservatives had a very well-defined standard of patriotism. If you were against the war, you were accused of being heartless and not supporting the troops. You were accused of not caring about the people who were fighting and sacrificing their lives for your freedom. Naturally, you can be against a war, but still care about the safety and well-being of the men and women fighting that war. Those things to the Republicans, however, weren't mutually exclusive. If you were for the war, you were pro troops, pro military, pro America. If you were against the war, you were anti troops, anti military, and anti America. If you criticized President Bush, the Republicans accused you of being un-American and unpatriotic. However, now that a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans have an entirely new definition of patriotism. Now it is considered patriotic to criticize a president. It is patriotic to call the president a failure in spite of the fact that he has been in office for only ten months. Now it's patriotic to shout out and call him a liar. I'm sure the Republicans would think that it would be patriotic to throw a shoe at Obama, but I'm sure they would agree that it would be unpatriotic—and criminal—to throw a shoe at Bush.
Obama's attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago and the Republican reaction to it is a perfect example of the changing standards of patriotism. Though the geeky and nerdy part of me thinks that it would be cool to keep the Olympics in Greece permanently, I'd be the first to also admit that the Olympics is an international event and the opportunity and privilege to host it should be something that can be shared by all nations. Hosting the Olympics is great event. It gives the host nation a chance to show off its history and culture. And, like the ancient Greek culture from which the Olympics came, the event gives the host an opportunity to welcome guests from foreign nations, to extend open hands, and to build friendships and alliances for years and generations to come. It's a matter of national pride and you would think that any members of any nation would be eager to bring the Olympics to their country. However, when Obama tried to lend his support to bring the Olympics to the United States, Republicans and conservatives were outraged and appalled. Obama was accused of being arrogant and egotistical. He was accused of jetting across the world, when he should have been taking care of issues at home. (As if it were impossible for anyone, let alone a president, to multi-task and think of more than one issue at a time.) When Chicago lost the bid to host the Olympics, Republicans and conservatives cheered and celebrated this "loss" and "failure." How patriotic is that? Your country loses a chance to host the Olympics, and this is some kind of victory? Your country loses the possibility of job creation and a huge economic boom, and this is something worth celebrating? Wasn't this the same political party that would chant USA! USA! at the Republican National Convention?
Current mood: glad it's Friday
Current music: Dead Can Dance and Lisa Gerrard playlist on iTunes
Current drink: vanilla soy milk
The idea of patriotism seems to change in meaning depending on who is in power. When George W. Bush was president, Republicans and conservatives had a very well-defined standard of patriotism. If you were against the war, you were accused of being heartless and not supporting the troops. You were accused of not caring about the people who were fighting and sacrificing their lives for your freedom. Naturally, you can be against a war, but still care about the safety and well-being of the men and women fighting that war. Those things to the Republicans, however, weren't mutually exclusive. If you were for the war, you were pro troops, pro military, pro America. If you were against the war, you were anti troops, anti military, and anti America. If you criticized President Bush, the Republicans accused you of being un-American and unpatriotic. However, now that a Democrat is in the White House, the Republicans have an entirely new definition of patriotism. Now it is considered patriotic to criticize a president. It is patriotic to call the president a failure in spite of the fact that he has been in office for only ten months. Now it's patriotic to shout out and call him a liar. I'm sure the Republicans would think that it would be patriotic to throw a shoe at Obama, but I'm sure they would agree that it would be unpatriotic—and criminal—to throw a shoe at Bush.
Obama's attempt to bring the Olympics to Chicago and the Republican reaction to it is a perfect example of the changing standards of patriotism. Though the geeky and nerdy part of me thinks that it would be cool to keep the Olympics in Greece permanently, I'd be the first to also admit that the Olympics is an international event and the opportunity and privilege to host it should be something that can be shared by all nations. Hosting the Olympics is great event. It gives the host nation a chance to show off its history and culture. And, like the ancient Greek culture from which the Olympics came, the event gives the host an opportunity to welcome guests from foreign nations, to extend open hands, and to build friendships and alliances for years and generations to come. It's a matter of national pride and you would think that any members of any nation would be eager to bring the Olympics to their country. However, when Obama tried to lend his support to bring the Olympics to the United States, Republicans and conservatives were outraged and appalled. Obama was accused of being arrogant and egotistical. He was accused of jetting across the world, when he should have been taking care of issues at home. (As if it were impossible for anyone, let alone a president, to multi-task and think of more than one issue at a time.) When Chicago lost the bid to host the Olympics, Republicans and conservatives cheered and celebrated this "loss" and "failure." How patriotic is that? Your country loses a chance to host the Olympics, and this is some kind of victory? Your country loses the possibility of job creation and a huge economic boom, and this is something worth celebrating? Wasn't this the same political party that would chant USA! USA! at the Republican National Convention?
Current mood: glad it's Friday
Current music: Dead Can Dance and Lisa Gerrard playlist on iTunes
Current drink: vanilla soy milk
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Oh My God, Hide Your Children!
Today it was announced that on Tuesday, September 8, President Obama will deliver a welcome back to school speech directed toward students from kindergarten to the twelfth grade. This speech is supposed to encourage children to set goals, to work hard, and to stay in school. This is a great thing, right? Here we are, encouraging children, building them up, filling them with confidence, and telling them to take advantage of all of their educational opportunities. Education is important and we need a bright, intelligent workforce for the future, right?
Well, not everyone is so happy with the president's planned speech. Naturally, several members and sects of the right wing party are going absolutely crazy! There is mass panic among the right wing, and you'd think that Armageddon was upon us. Some school districts in six states (Texas, Illinois, Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota) are already refusing to air the president's speech. Parents are threatening to pull their children out of school that day if their school has the audacity to air the speech. Why? Some are saying that the president shouldn't use government time and money to take away time and money from state schools by giving a "politically motivated" speech. After all we have wars, an economic crisis, and health care reform to think about! Others are afraid that this will be an indoctrination and that the president will use this as a platform to impose his "socialist" ideas upon the poor, unsuspecting children of the country.
Naturally, this is all completely nuts. And the right wingers should be reminded that Obama is not the first president to give a speech directed toward children. In 1991, George H. W. Bush gave a speech that encouraged children to study hard and to get a great education, especially in science and math. In 2001, George W. Bush gave a speech and encouraged children in the United States to each donate $1 for a charity to help needy children in Afghanistan. And let us not forget that almost every president, especially saint Reagan, warned children about the dangers of drugs.
Throughout the years, decades, and probably centuries, almost every president or world leader has spoken to children about the importance of education. But for whatever reason when President Obama is set to give this kind of speech, people are up in arms and think it is part of some grand conspiracy to take over the minds of the children. It's just silly. You would think that any parent—or any sound minded, clear thinking individual for that matter—would put a high price and value on education. And, let me remind you, part of a good education is learning critical thinking skills. And the most important part of critical thinking is learning to listen to both sides of an argument or story before forming an opinion. People might not like the president, but what is the harm in first listening to what he has to say. If he tells children to do their homework, who is harmed? If children learn from him that they can grow up to be anything they want, including president, what is the harm in that?
Current mood: annoyed with the Wingnuts
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Jewel "Again and Again"
Current drink: water...yes, water
Well, not everyone is so happy with the president's planned speech. Naturally, several members and sects of the right wing party are going absolutely crazy! There is mass panic among the right wing, and you'd think that Armageddon was upon us. Some school districts in six states (Texas, Illinois, Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota) are already refusing to air the president's speech. Parents are threatening to pull their children out of school that day if their school has the audacity to air the speech. Why? Some are saying that the president shouldn't use government time and money to take away time and money from state schools by giving a "politically motivated" speech. After all we have wars, an economic crisis, and health care reform to think about! Others are afraid that this will be an indoctrination and that the president will use this as a platform to impose his "socialist" ideas upon the poor, unsuspecting children of the country.
Naturally, this is all completely nuts. And the right wingers should be reminded that Obama is not the first president to give a speech directed toward children. In 1991, George H. W. Bush gave a speech that encouraged children to study hard and to get a great education, especially in science and math. In 2001, George W. Bush gave a speech and encouraged children in the United States to each donate $1 for a charity to help needy children in Afghanistan. And let us not forget that almost every president, especially saint Reagan, warned children about the dangers of drugs.
Throughout the years, decades, and probably centuries, almost every president or world leader has spoken to children about the importance of education. But for whatever reason when President Obama is set to give this kind of speech, people are up in arms and think it is part of some grand conspiracy to take over the minds of the children. It's just silly. You would think that any parent—or any sound minded, clear thinking individual for that matter—would put a high price and value on education. And, let me remind you, part of a good education is learning critical thinking skills. And the most important part of critical thinking is learning to listen to both sides of an argument or story before forming an opinion. People might not like the president, but what is the harm in first listening to what he has to say. If he tells children to do their homework, who is harmed? If children learn from him that they can grow up to be anything they want, including president, what is the harm in that?
Current mood: annoyed with the Wingnuts
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Jewel "Again and Again"
Current drink: water...yes, water
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Mixed Messages *Updated*
Lately, I've been quite confused by the right wing attacks on Obama. The same people who have been calling him a Nigerian-born Kenyan-born Muslim are the very same people calling him a Nazi. Weren't the Nazi's generally white and Christian? How can you be both a Nigerian-born Kenyan-born Muslim and a Nazi? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me.
**Updated from my initial post. They say he is a Kenyan, not a Nigerian. Apologies!**
**Updated from my initial post. They say he is a Kenyan, not a Nigerian. Apologies!**
Friday, July 03, 2009
Huh?
I've been sitting here for nearly 20 minutes watching Sarah Palin's resignation speech, and I have no idea what the hell she is saying. For a brief moment I thought that maybe it was Tina Fey mocking Sarah Palin, but sadly it was the real Sarah Palin. It had to be the most rambling, babbling speech I've ever seen and heard. I've seen grade school kids give better book reports than that.
So why is she resigning? Who knows. Maybe she plans on running for senate in 2010 or president in 2012. If she is going to run for senate or president, she will need to start reading a few newspapers and that could take a year or two (or three) to do that. So maybe she just wanted to clear her schedule and free up some time.
So why is she resigning? Who knows. Maybe she plans on running for senate in 2010 or president in 2012. If she is going to run for senate or president, she will need to start reading a few newspapers and that could take a year or two (or three) to do that. So maybe she just wanted to clear her schedule and free up some time.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Family Values
It has been another busy week at work, so I'm going to try to catch up on some of the things that I've been meaning to post over the past few days. The big news stories of the week—before Michael Jackson's untimely death—were the adventures and antics of Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina. After a "busy legislative session" he went missing and no one knew exactly where he went. This should have been the first clue that something was seriously wrong. If I disappeared after every busy week at work, well, I would never be found because every week is busy. And I would probably also be fired if I stopped showing up to work. But that is beside the point. Sanford disappeared and at first it was believed that he went for a hike, but as it turned out, that was a lie. He was, in fact, in Argentina visiting his mistress. Apparently he has known her for eight years and the two have been having an affair for the past year. Whenever something like this happens the questions of family values and the sanctity of marriage immediately come up.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a democrat—as if there were any question. However I will be the first to admit that infidelity is not a problem only of the republican party. There have been quite a few democrats who have been caught with their pants down with someone who was not their spouse. In general I like to think that a politician's personal life and private escapades are irrelevant to their public service. I couldn't care less what they do in their bedrooms. What I care about is how they stand on the issues and what they do or are attempting to do to improve the lives of the people in their city, state, or nation.
So why is there such an uproar and outrage over Sanford's and other republicans' trysts? I think that it has to do with hypocrisy. This is supposed to be the party of morality, the party that preaches family values, the party that tries to protect the sanctity of marriage. So when these sanctimonious politicians fall from their pulpits, their hypocrisy is revealed in the brightest spotlight. Sanford is opposed civil unions and domestic partnership benefits, and when asked to address the issue of gay marriage he said that marriage is between one man and one woman. However in his personal life marriage is apparently between one man, one woman, and one mistress. For many people, monogamous and committed gay couples especially, Sanford's holier-than-thou preaching and actual actions are morally outrageous. This is someone who is denying an entire community of their rights while at the same time he abusing the very rights that he is fortunate to have. The cheating is bad enough, but the hypocrisy is worse.
Current mood: relaxed
Current music: Maroon 5 "If I Never See Your Face Again"
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a democrat—as if there were any question. However I will be the first to admit that infidelity is not a problem only of the republican party. There have been quite a few democrats who have been caught with their pants down with someone who was not their spouse. In general I like to think that a politician's personal life and private escapades are irrelevant to their public service. I couldn't care less what they do in their bedrooms. What I care about is how they stand on the issues and what they do or are attempting to do to improve the lives of the people in their city, state, or nation.
So why is there such an uproar and outrage over Sanford's and other republicans' trysts? I think that it has to do with hypocrisy. This is supposed to be the party of morality, the party that preaches family values, the party that tries to protect the sanctity of marriage. So when these sanctimonious politicians fall from their pulpits, their hypocrisy is revealed in the brightest spotlight. Sanford is opposed civil unions and domestic partnership benefits, and when asked to address the issue of gay marriage he said that marriage is between one man and one woman. However in his personal life marriage is apparently between one man, one woman, and one mistress. For many people, monogamous and committed gay couples especially, Sanford's holier-than-thou preaching and actual actions are morally outrageous. This is someone who is denying an entire community of their rights while at the same time he abusing the very rights that he is fortunate to have. The cheating is bad enough, but the hypocrisy is worse.
Current mood: relaxed
Current music: Maroon 5 "If I Never See Your Face Again"
Saturday, January 24, 2009
This and That, Weekend Edition
Weather: For the past week the weather has been warm and beautiful. Temperatures have been in the upper 60s and they even made their way into the 70s. It's been wonderful. But it is Colorado and it is January, so the temperatures are returning to normal. It's only in the upper 30s right now, and we might get some snow. Even though I've been enjoying the springlike weather, we probably need the snow because we really need the moisture. So I'll welcome the snow...
Work: I think it goes without saying that things are still busy at work. I brought a ton of work home with me, and I'm really not looking forward to it. But maybe I can do it on Sunday. If it snows, I'll probably stay in and I might as well do some work. But I'm hoping that this will be the last time that I'll need to work over the weekend. I know it won't be the last time, but hopefully it will be the last time in a long time...
Inauguration: I realized that I never made any comments about inauguration day. At work, we normally have one of our weekly scheduling meetings on Tuesday. Unfortunately our meeting would have fallen right at the time when Obama would be taking his oath. So the manufacturing leader and I (being the good leaders that we are) spoke to each other and we decided to cancel our meeting. We were all set up in our conference room and trying to watch the streaming video from CNN.com, but our feed kept breaking and cutting out. Obviously too many people were trying to watch at the same time. So we missed the actual oath. But then some of us found a radio in the office, and we were at least able to listen to his speech. After his speech we all went back to work, but in the middle of the day when I was eating my lunch—at my desk, of course—I went online and happened to catch the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. I plugged my headphones into my computer, and I was able to watch and hear the whole thing.
Just seeing and hearing the reaction of the people as the Obamas walked down the street was amazing. You could see the energy and excitement in the air. For the first time in eight years, people seem to have a genuine sense of hope. After being downtrodden for eight years, people can finally feel optimistic. It was inspiring. I think that everyone knows that Obama has a tough road ahead of him. The Bush administration created such a mess, and it is going to take a long time to clean up that mess. We know that Obama will not be able to solve all of the world's problems in the first year with a snap of the fingers. It will take time, but there is some comfort in knowing that he is in charge. He is intelligent and seems willing to listen. He doesn't seem like the type to make rash, impulsive decisions, but rather seems like the type who is open to dialog and discussion. How amazing is that?!
Current mood: rested
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Aerosmith "Rag Doll"
Current drink: coffee
Work: I think it goes without saying that things are still busy at work. I brought a ton of work home with me, and I'm really not looking forward to it. But maybe I can do it on Sunday. If it snows, I'll probably stay in and I might as well do some work. But I'm hoping that this will be the last time that I'll need to work over the weekend. I know it won't be the last time, but hopefully it will be the last time in a long time...
Inauguration: I realized that I never made any comments about inauguration day. At work, we normally have one of our weekly scheduling meetings on Tuesday. Unfortunately our meeting would have fallen right at the time when Obama would be taking his oath. So the manufacturing leader and I (being the good leaders that we are) spoke to each other and we decided to cancel our meeting. We were all set up in our conference room and trying to watch the streaming video from CNN.com, but our feed kept breaking and cutting out. Obviously too many people were trying to watch at the same time. So we missed the actual oath. But then some of us found a radio in the office, and we were at least able to listen to his speech. After his speech we all went back to work, but in the middle of the day when I was eating my lunch—at my desk, of course—I went online and happened to catch the parade down Pennsylvania Avenue. I plugged my headphones into my computer, and I was able to watch and hear the whole thing.
Just seeing and hearing the reaction of the people as the Obamas walked down the street was amazing. You could see the energy and excitement in the air. For the first time in eight years, people seem to have a genuine sense of hope. After being downtrodden for eight years, people can finally feel optimistic. It was inspiring. I think that everyone knows that Obama has a tough road ahead of him. The Bush administration created such a mess, and it is going to take a long time to clean up that mess. We know that Obama will not be able to solve all of the world's problems in the first year with a snap of the fingers. It will take time, but there is some comfort in knowing that he is in charge. He is intelligent and seems willing to listen. He doesn't seem like the type to make rash, impulsive decisions, but rather seems like the type who is open to dialog and discussion. How amazing is that?!
Current mood: rested
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Aerosmith "Rag Doll"
Current drink: coffee
Thursday, November 06, 2008
This and That
Post-Election Thoughts: It goes without saying that this was an amazing week in American politics. We just took a historic step by electing the first African American president. It's great not only to see it but to actually play a part in it by voting for Obama. Of course I've voted several times before, but I've never felt so passionate or energized about an election as this one. Everyone around me seemed energized and passionate. The day after the election we had a victory party at work with food, cake, and champagne. It's been an amazing and incredible election year.
Bitter-Sweet: Although I was ecstatic and celebrating the Obama victory, I was disappointed that Prop 8, the amendment banning gay marriage, passed in California. Gay marriage bans also passed in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas went so far as to ban gay adoption. Technically the words in the amendment banned "unmarried couples" from adopting children. Yes, that means an unmarried heterosexual couple can't adopt children (which is pretty bad in itself), but I think we all know what they really mean when they say "unmarried couples." They mean the gay or lesbian couples who, of course, can't get married. As I might have said before: only in this country can a person go on TV and marry a complete stranger for a million dollars, but God forbid a loving and committed gay or lesbian couple want to get married. That destroys the sanctity of marriage. That destroys society. The sky will fall. There will be fires and floods and earthquakes and swarms of locusts... It's really sad and pathetic. We like to think of ourselves as the "leaders of the free world," but we really have a lot to learn and we still have a long way to go.
Sickness and Health: This isn't related to marriage. This is related to our office, because it seems to be infested with a new virus. A new cold, flu, plague, or whatever it is, is making its way through our department. So far it has hit two people--two people who happen to be on my team--and my guess is that it won't be long before it infects everyone else. I've been lucky and have thus far been able to avoid all of the plagues that have hit the office over the past year. It's almost ironic because many of my co-workers tease me for how "unhealthy" I am because I'm obsessed with root beer, I love chips and Cheetos, I'm often craving blue cheese burgers, and I love to drink. So, with this being unhealthy--and maybe it is slightly unhealthy-- everyone is always shocked that I never get sick. Here is the secret: cod liver pills and a huge glass of orange juice every day. And when you feel like you might be getting sick, get a huge Jamba Juice with an immunity boost and go to Noodles (if you're lucky to have them where you live) and get a huge bowl of chicken noodle soup. But cod liver pills and OJ are the real secret. And maybe a few shots of whiskey to kill the germs...
Bitter-Sweet: Although I was ecstatic and celebrating the Obama victory, I was disappointed that Prop 8, the amendment banning gay marriage, passed in California. Gay marriage bans also passed in Arizona and Florida, and Arkansas went so far as to ban gay adoption. Technically the words in the amendment banned "unmarried couples" from adopting children. Yes, that means an unmarried heterosexual couple can't adopt children (which is pretty bad in itself), but I think we all know what they really mean when they say "unmarried couples." They mean the gay or lesbian couples who, of course, can't get married. As I might have said before: only in this country can a person go on TV and marry a complete stranger for a million dollars, but God forbid a loving and committed gay or lesbian couple want to get married. That destroys the sanctity of marriage. That destroys society. The sky will fall. There will be fires and floods and earthquakes and swarms of locusts... It's really sad and pathetic. We like to think of ourselves as the "leaders of the free world," but we really have a lot to learn and we still have a long way to go.
Sickness and Health: This isn't related to marriage. This is related to our office, because it seems to be infested with a new virus. A new cold, flu, plague, or whatever it is, is making its way through our department. So far it has hit two people--two people who happen to be on my team--and my guess is that it won't be long before it infects everyone else. I've been lucky and have thus far been able to avoid all of the plagues that have hit the office over the past year. It's almost ironic because many of my co-workers tease me for how "unhealthy" I am because I'm obsessed with root beer, I love chips and Cheetos, I'm often craving blue cheese burgers, and I love to drink. So, with this being unhealthy--and maybe it is slightly unhealthy-- everyone is always shocked that I never get sick. Here is the secret: cod liver pills and a huge glass of orange juice every day. And when you feel like you might be getting sick, get a huge Jamba Juice with an immunity boost and go to Noodles (if you're lucky to have them where you live) and get a huge bowl of chicken noodle soup. But cod liver pills and OJ are the real secret. And maybe a few shots of whiskey to kill the germs...
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Ostracism
Back in Ancient Greece...
There was once a practice called ostracism. This is a practice where a prominent citizen could be banished and expelled from the city state for ten years. Often this was used to expel people who were a threat to the city-state or a threat to the democracy. It was often a preemptive act. Each year the people of Athens had the option to hold an ostracism or not. If they chose to, they would write the name of the person they wanted expelled on a potsherd and they put it in an urn. If someone received 6,000 votes, he would have ten days to leave the city-state, and he couldn't return for ten years. And, note, the people had this power. Sort of an interesting practice...
In fact, there are a few people I would like to ostracize right now: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Elisabeth Hasselback, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, people who think Obama is a Muslim, people who think Obama is a terrorist, people who think Obama is a scary black guy, etc.
There was once a practice called ostracism. This is a practice where a prominent citizen could be banished and expelled from the city state for ten years. Often this was used to expel people who were a threat to the city-state or a threat to the democracy. It was often a preemptive act. Each year the people of Athens had the option to hold an ostracism or not. If they chose to, they would write the name of the person they wanted expelled on a potsherd and they put it in an urn. If someone received 6,000 votes, he would have ten days to leave the city-state, and he couldn't return for ten years. And, note, the people had this power. Sort of an interesting practice...
In fact, there are a few people I would like to ostracize right now: John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Elisabeth Hasselback, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, people who think Obama is a Muslim, people who think Obama is a terrorist, people who think Obama is a scary black guy, etc.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Average Folk
So...the McCain/Palin campaign have spent much of the past few weeks talking about average American folks out there in the country. Joe six pack, Joe the plumber, hockey moms, soccer moms, real Americans, patriotic Americans. Um, so how many "real" Americans spend $150,000 in one month on a new wardrobe? I honestly don't think I've spent that much money on clothes in my lifetime. (Alcohol, maybe, but not clothes.) It's no wonder the words "middle class" aren't in the McCain/Palin vocabulary, because most middle class folks can't exactly drop $150,000 on clothes. These "real Americans" are the people who are losing their jobs and homes, the people who see their finance swirling down the toilet, the once successful people who are now forced to pick up food stamps. But McCain and Palin are just like you and me, right, and Obama is nothing but a liberal elitist, right? The Republican campaign gets more and more pathetic and disgusting every day, and, like many people out there in the world, I'm getting sick of it. I'm getting even more sick of the gullible saps who fall for everything (i.e. lies and hypocrisies) that comes out of McCain's and Palin's mouth.
I'm trying to think of what I would do with $150,000, other than sharing it with my family. Maybe take a trip to Greece and Italy. Or maybe I'll by that bottle of Remy Martin Louis XIII Cognac that I've been dreaming about. But I don't have $150,000, so I'll have to settle with drinking Remy Martin VSOP Cognac in my little Boulder apartment. And, you know what, I'm fine with that. Sarah Palin can have her expensive wardrobe. I have character and integrity and a soul, and I think that might count for more in the long run!
Current mood: annoyed, but content
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Faith Hill "Beautiful"
Current drink: Remy Martin VSOP Cognac (I'm breaking my I-can-only-drink-expensive-cognac-on-the-weekends rule because I'm drinking tonight in honor of my rebellion against Sarah Palin and the wingnuts)
I'm trying to think of what I would do with $150,000, other than sharing it with my family. Maybe take a trip to Greece and Italy. Or maybe I'll by that bottle of Remy Martin Louis XIII Cognac that I've been dreaming about. But I don't have $150,000, so I'll have to settle with drinking Remy Martin VSOP Cognac in my little Boulder apartment. And, you know what, I'm fine with that. Sarah Palin can have her expensive wardrobe. I have character and integrity and a soul, and I think that might count for more in the long run!
Current mood: annoyed, but content
Current music: iTunes on shuffle—Faith Hill "Beautiful"
Current drink: Remy Martin VSOP Cognac (I'm breaking my I-can-only-drink-expensive-cognac-on-the-weekends rule because I'm drinking tonight in honor of my rebellion against Sarah Palin and the wingnuts)
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Vote
In Colorado this election we're allowed to vote early and to vote by mail. So today I dropped off my ballot. Wahoo! Ready for change!
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Attack Dogs
Apparently John McCain knows that his campaign is going down the toilet and apparently he knows that he isn't very popular. What else could explain the fact that the women in his life are turning into the "attack dogs" to go after Obama. Sarah Palin has been doing her dirty work, and now Cindy McCain is getting into the act. I was really hoping that she would remain classy and stay above the fray. But unfortunately she has to stoop to a level far below what she is probably worth, all in an effort to try to save her husband's campaign. It's sad, really. Well sort of.
And I have to admit, when I saw this photo of her on a news story on the Web, my thoughts shifted to another somewhat unpleasant individual...
Ok. That was really, really mean of me. I'm probably going to hell for this, but it still made me laugh.
And I have to admit, when I saw this photo of her on a news story on the Web, my thoughts shifted to another somewhat unpleasant individual...
Ok. That was really, really mean of me. I'm probably going to hell for this, but it still made me laugh.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Hypocrite? Coward? Senile?
So today, the day of the Vice Presidential Debates, McCain made an announcement that he would be giving up on the state of Michigan. Because Obama is leading in the polling in Michigan, the McCain campaign thinks that it is not worth spending the money on a state that he will presumably lose. Are you kidding me? This is the bastard—oops, candidate—who for months has been saying that he puts country first? And he is giving up on Michigan? The state of blue-collar workers? The state where the auto industry is failing? The state where unemployment is high? And he's abandoning them because they are not worth the money? Just more proof that he doesn't care about the middle class. And McCain accuses Obama of playing politics and of partisanship and not caring about the people? What a first-class idiot!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)