When I heard that President Oboma had won the Nobel Peace Prize I literally laughed out loud. The wife, watching in the other room, asked if he had won because he was black. I assured her it had nothing to do with his color. She then asked, "why then?"
Good question, I thought. He has only been in office for ten months. His popularity in the US has dropped significantly since he took office. He has yet to accomplish anything of importance, at all. Most of his campaign promises are now being watered down because they are either not realistic or would be a disaster if he were allowed to carry them out.
Unlike President Carter, the worse American president to date, who received the Nobel Peace Prize for brokering peace between Israel and Egypt, Obama's biggest claim to fame is the beer summit he had at the white house to broker peace between a professor and a police officer.
So why did Obama get the award? Mostly because he's not President Bush. Also because he's a liberal. Now the Nobel Peace Prize falls into the same category as the Oscar, and the Emmy and a lot of other once honorable acknowledgments. Not given on merit but instead to those with the most liberal agenda. The award committee has done nothing but cheapen the prize for all those who have won it before and will receive it after. Worse they did it for political reasons. They used the award to send a message to former President Bush that they didn't like him and they wanted to embarrass him. Petty, as well as sad.
The first reactions I'm seeing from most Americans, Obama supporters and opponents, is disbelief. It left me wondering if the people of Pakistan feel they are getting peace as Obama authorizes bombs to be dropped on them? Or, if the people Afghanistan feel peace is on its way as Obama will neither commit to securing their country or pulling out of it? Does Israel seem to be embracing Obama's push for peace? Do the Palestinians? The North Koreans are rebuilding their nuclear facility as Iran admits it has more nuclear capacity than we thought. Where is this peace the The Nobel Peace committee speaks of?
Like our news media, the Nobel committee has taken something precious and made it into a joke, which is exactly why I was laughing when I heard about it.
Recently a story lit up the news wires that not only caught my attention but the attention of President Obama as well. About a weeks ago the the Cambridge police received a call from a concerned neighbor that she might have witnessed a burglary in progress by two men. With this information officers were dispatched.
Upon entering the house the police discovered the man, who had been seen forcing the door open by the neighbor, was the resident of the house. The man, who was black, was asked to step outside. He was very irritated that the police had entered his house without authorization and refused to step outside claiming the officer, a white man, was a racist. After finally following the officer out of the house, the officer warned him twice to calm down. When Mr. Gates refused, he was handcuffed, arrested and taken to jail. The charges later dropped.
After hearing about the arrest President Obama, a friend of Mr. Gates, said in an interview that the police had acted "stupidly". He went on further to suggest that Mr. Gates was profiled because of his race. This was only hours after the arrest and before many facts were known about the case.
After the president realized he had said too much with too little information he called the officer involved in the arrest. The officer suggested the three of them have a beer and smooth things out. All accepted.
Now this beer event is being touted as a "Teaching Moment" to highlight the racial profiling of the professor, Mr Gates. WTF??!!!! SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME ON WHAT PLANET THIS MAN WAS ARRESTED BECAUSE OF HIS RACE??PLEASE... SOMEONE... ANYONE?
The definition of racial profiling according to the ACLU is as follows:
Racial Profiling:"Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin.
The officer was dispatched to the scene, so no individual was targeted. The neighbor who made the call never mentioned the color of the people she saw. The officer had no idea what type of person he would find in the house, so no perceived notions. After arriving at the house the officer followed standard protocol. Other than Mr. Gates calling the officer a racist where was race a factor in the arrest?
So my only assumption here is that the lesson of this "Teaching Moment" is that EVERYONE can be guilty of racial profiling because that is exactly what Mr. Gates and the President did. THEY saw a white police officer, attached all the history and stereo types they've been taught and experiences and played the race card before they knew the facts. The very definition of "racial profiling" if you ask me. If that's the message that's going to be delivered after a few rounds of beer then I say, "cheers!"
But for some reason, I just don't see that in the cards.
Since the election I've been keeping my mouth shut about our new president. Believe me it hasn't been easy either. I like to think I'm a "give em a chance" type guy. His newest proposal, one he ran strong on, is health care reform. Something I agree desperately needs changing.
Of course I wouldn't go about it the way he's proposing... big surprise huh? There are so many options open to try before we hand over health care to the government. You know "the government" who can't run the schools, the post office or public transportation. Even for twice the money and half the quality of similar private institutions.
Here are a few things I would try before nationalizing health care.
Step One: I would implement something called True Cost Billing (I just made that up *pat on the back*) With True Cost Billing a patient could only be charged the actual coast of a procedure or medicine plus a set cap on profit. Say 30% max? So a 10 cent Tylenol would cost a patient no more 13 cent instead of the 6 dollars they maybe charged now.
Instead of the cost of those who can't pay being added to the cost of those who do, a person is only paying for the services THEY RECEIVED. Doing this will DRASTICALLY lower insurance rates. Under this system more people may actually feel than can afford to pay their bill. A lot more people can pay a 600.00 hospital bill rather than an over blown 4,000.00 bill they may just walk away from. That's less collections and less people having their credit destroyed.
"BUT WAIT" I think I heard someone scream. "Who is going to pay for all the people who can't afford care but still need it?" Ok, I didn't hear that but I'm sure someone thought it, very loud. Well, with True Cost Billing insurance rates should fall to a level where more employers can afford health insurance for their employees and families thus eliminating many of the non-payers. "What about the rest?" you may ask. That's where step two kicks in. Follow me...
Step Two: Tort Reform. Place a cap on how much one person can sue a doctor or hospital. "OMG! That's not fair!" that same mysterious voice just yelled. It is fair. If the doctor makes a honest mistake then there should be a limit to damages BUT if the doctor does something criminal then the caps come off and the damages are wide open. Besides, if the government takes over health care do you really think you can sue them for mistakes? Ask someone who uses a VA hospital how that turns out. So with tort reform, medical malpractice insurance goes way down and with it the cost of providing health care.
Step Three: Stop giving away health care to those in this country illegally. Harsh? Yes, I hated to even type it. I'm not advocating turning anyone in need away. There are ways to do this in a humane way. I would suggest a pay or go away plan. That means if you come to the hospital for care and you can pay no questions will be asked about your legal status. But, if you can't pay and you are in the country illegally you will be deported, after treatment of course. Cruel? Not when you consider that Mexicans alone send an estimated 17 billion dollars back to Mexico each year. Some of these people have the money to pay for their health care. If you use the system you should help pay for it.
Step Four: Cut the fraud. With all the computer technology I find it hard to believe someone can't right a program that will identify fraud in Medicaid and Medicare. It should be as easy as finding the average billing of services for a doctor or institution. If a doctor or institution submits payment for more than 10% of average then it would trigger an audit. Seems simple to me.
Step Five: Let companies shop for insurance across state lines. This will increase competition and cut premiums. Another no-brainer from where I sit.
I'm sure there are a few flaws in my steps but smarter people than me could work them out. I just can't see building a new system with all the same problems still there, except this time they're built into the system. Especially if the government is going to be in charge. I mean do we really want the same people who have our financial files to have our medical records too? Come on hippies of the sixties, where is all that paranoia of the government when we need it? Don't give into "the man".
To me it's like a boat that won't go because the anchor is out. So you build a bigger boat and tie the anchor to it. Hell, why not try just pulling the anchor up first?
Last week president Obama released the details of the CIA's terrorist interrogation methods. He condemned the use of "waterboarding" in particular. I have to wonder what limits on interigation the President would agree to if his daughters were kidnapped and a captured terrorist was suspected of knowing where they were being kept.
Since I can only guess at his mind-set in that situation lets look at some facts I don't have to guess at. The same waterboarding interrogation method that the president deems to harsh for terrorist is used on many American pilots as part of their training. Worse, the same president that deems waterboarding torture seems to have no problem ordering airstrikes to kill SUSPECTED terrorist living in Pakistan. Even though these strikes might kill innocent people, including women and children. But hey, at least we didn't have them waterboarded. W... T... F?!
After watching the last president being called everything from a liar to Hitler, I'm a little confused at this reporters reaction to these protest.
She points out how OFFENSIVE it is to call the president a fascist. Not only that but she seems to be arguing her OPINION as she is suppose to be reporting on the situation. When did that become part of journalism?
No, no, something is different now... hmmmmm
I love at the end how she tries to paint Fox News as a conservative organization and the cause of the protest. Her OPINION creeping in once again. I guess it's inconceivable for her to think that people would actually be upset at the amount of taxes the government demands from us and then waste. Naaah, that would be ridiculous.
I had planned to stop posting about our biased press, but then I saw this. The first half of this segment is an excellent demonstration of what I've been talking about.
Now that the election is over I've had time to examine just how much influence the press has in this country and on the world. From my point of view and from the evidence I've seen, the press cheated this country and the world out of an honest debate about what the candidates had to offer. I doubt anyone will care but I feel I need to chronicle the way I felt the press influenced the pick of the 44TH president of The United States. This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't blame him for what the press did. I'm sure any candidate would have been happy to have the press on their side.
I don't think it's a secret that the press favors the left and therefor the Democrats. They have for a long time. Over the years, I believe, they have tried to maintain some sort of professionalism and balance but that changed in 2004. During President Bush's first term in office it was hard for the press to find much real fault. He had led us out of a recession, placed some regulations on public companies cooking their books, helped us deal with the 911 attacks and started a successful campaign against the terrorist of the world. He was popular with the people and supported by even most of thr Democrats.
Then in 2004 Bush made a huge miscalculation. After defeating the Iraqi army the president thought the Iraqi people would embrace democracy, they didn't. Because of this mistake, Bush didn't have a plan to handle a country that was use to being governed with an iron fist by Saddam. Bush scrambled to secure the country.
During this time the press realized Bush was vulnerable. Then Abu Ghraib came to light. While the extremist were struggling for control of Iraq, the press found out that some of the suspected terrorist being held at Abu Ghraib prison had been miss treated. Now some may read this and wonder why I didn't use the word 'torture' here. I didn't on purpose. While I don't condone what was done at Abu Ghraib, it's nothing that doesn't happen in almost every prison, in every country, every day. It was still better treatment than Saddam would have given them and it happened at a time when the terrorist were taking innocent people hostage and cutting off their heads. That's no excuse for doing wrong but what happened at Abu Ghraib must be kept in perspective with what was going on in Iraq.
The press seized on this opportunity. They reported the story to world as if the US was running concentration camps in Iraq. It was a 24/7 news feast of how bad America is. They were more outraged over naked prisoners than innocent people being decapitated. The story was over reported in an effort to hurt Bush's image to the world and discredit our military's efforts in Iraq. It did but it also had many other side effects. The story fueled the terrorist and had to help them in their recruiting efforts. Because the story was blown so out of proportion, or made public at all, the President's hands became tied. Now a country full of people who were use to being governed by a heavy hand saw that the American people didn't have the stomach to deal with terrorist. The President had lost his ability to assure the Iraqi people he had the strength and might to secure their country. More chaos ensued.
The press saw how much this one story had effected people's opinions and realized two things. One they needed to expose more government and military secrets and missteps. Two, they could turn Iraq into their very own Vietnam. A blue print for shaping public opinion had already been drawn during that war. Now this generation of reporters could use it to push their liberal agenda.
When the 2004 Presidential elections were held, to the shock and dismay of the mainstream press, Bush was reelected. I believe it was at this point the press decided that no matter what it took they were going to get a Democrat elected in 2008.
They spent the next four years demonizing President Bush to America and the world. They exposed national security secrets in an effort to bring down the president. They printed and promoted every lie, conspiracy and accusation that surfaced. Facts and the country's best interest be damned. They made big plans to use the now unpopular war against any 2006 and 2008 Republican candidate. They wanted us to lose in Iraq to hurt Bush and the republican party. Only, the surge worked and Iraq started working. Immediately news about Iraq dried up. If Iraq couldn't be used to hurt the right it was off the table.
During the primaries the press heavily influenced the pick of both nominees. They highlighted the strong republicans candidates weaknesses and played down the weakness of the person they wanted to win. Mitt Romney -spotlight- he's a Mormon, might be a cult. Mike Huckabee -spotlight- he's too religious, may govern from the bible. Rudolf Giuliani -spotlight- has a lot of personal baggage, as does Newt Gingrich. Senator McCain, being a moderate was left alone. They even turned their backs on Hillary Clinton when they realized Obama was more liberal and a better story.
As soon as the primaries were over they turned the spotlight on the once ignored McCain. They focused on his age, his temper and his 90% voting record with President Bush. Even though McCain had been a thorn in Bush's side throughout his eight years in office, the press linked the two as if they were the same. This lie would hurt McCain through out the whole election process.
The skilled fund raisers, strategist, and advisers that helped Bush get elected were now off limits to McCain out of fear of proving the press right about a connection. Had he used someone like Carl Rove, the press would have pointed to it as more proof that McCain and Bush were in fact the same people. The press had effectively cut McCain off from the very people he need to get elected.
All Obama had to do was repeat the lie that voting for McCain was the same as giving Bush another four years, that's just what he did. That might have been enough in itself but combined with the lack reporting the press did on Obama's background and the election shouldn't have ever been close. Anyone who surfaced to threaten Obama was destroyed by the press. Obama never had to counter people like Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber. The press did the dirty work so Obama could stay on a positive message. McCain on the other hand was forced to try and expose Obama's lack of experience and his questionable past associates. This made McCain come across as a mean spirited, negative person. He never had a chance. And sad to say, I don't think the American people nor the world had a fair chance to form an educated opinion with all the facts.
I could bombard you with lots of data supporting my theory but I won't. I'll just show the numbers that sum up what I'm talking about. These numbers come from independent sources.
Stories about Obama & Biden on the major networks: 65% positive / 35% negative
Stories about McCain & Palin on the major networks: 31% positive /69% negative
Anyone watching the major news outlets, other than Fox, would have concluded that it was better to vote for Obama than McCain. And they did.
I think the press has grabbed to much power during these last four years. They should not be able to decide who we elect. They should not want to influence public opinion about any situation. They are suppose to report the facts and let the public draw their own conclusions. Apparently they didn't trust the American people to make the right choice, their choice, in this past election.
If you think things are going to change anytime soon don't hold your breath. Now that the election is over several reporters and newspapers are admitting they favored Obama. Imagine that. I will leave you with this video clip. NBC's Chris Mathews, who is suppose to be a unbiased journalist, is being interviewed after the election. About halfway through the interview he states that, "I want to do everything I can to make this Presidency (Obama) work." because, "America needs a successful President." To which I have to wonder, "where were you the last eight years Chris?"
The election is finally over, thank the Lord. At the time of this posting it doesn't appear that it will be close, which I'm happy about. The country needs a clear winner right now, not a mess that the courts have to clean up. That's not good for anyone.
I congratulate our next president Barrack Obama. I will pray that he has the wisdom, strength and courage to do what's right for this nation and all it's citizens. Also that he will keep his promise to work with other elected officials to heal this country.
I hope that the Republicans in congress will work with President Obama to solve our nations problems. That they will not sit back and let this country fall into despair in hopes of gaining political strength for their party. We the people deserve full representation even if the party in power gets the credit for moving the country forward.
This has been a long hard fought campaign and now is the time for our elected officials to take off their party hats, roll-up their sleeves and get to work for the American people.
I still have a lot of opinions about this past election process. And, as anyone might guess most of it has to do with the press. But, I will save that post for another time. Because now is the time to celebrate that, win or lose, we are lucky to live in a country where we have a choice.
I'm trying not to go there, I really am... but this is too funny. Then again, two guys spending almost a billion dollars to get a job that pays four hundred thousand dollars a year is pretty damn amusing too.
Alright, alright... one funny one about McCain to keep it fair.
Today it was announced that two neo-nazi skinheads were caught planning to assassinate Barrack Obama and kill another 102 black people. Now I've seen some pretty hateful stuff during this election campaign but this is pure evil. I can't even begin to understand how these people think. I don't want to try to either.
It only goes to remind me that I share this world with some sick animals out there disguised as humans. Seriously, they were going to kill a man because he was black and dared to reach for the highest position in this country. Who made these bastards the judge of who is allowed to run for office? Who gave them the right to decide who I can and who I CAN'T vote for? What have they accomplished that gives them such wisdom and power???? Nothing. But, I doubt they have the capacity to think past their hate.
Living in the deep south, as one might expect, I know a few racist. Not as many as you would think but they are here. They come in all colors and ethnic groups. No one race has the market cornered on stupidity and hate. Yet it somehow surprises me everytime I meet one.
For the record, I don't condone it. The other day, a person, who thought because I was white, spoke openly about voting for McCain. I agreed that I thought McCain would be a more experienced choice. Then, this person informed me that they weren't voting for McCain because of his politics but because Obama was black. I shook my head and asked if that was the only reason? They assured me it was. I told this person that they should vote for Obama. I meant it too. If the only reason Obama will lose this election is because of the color of his skin then I hope he wins.
Politics should be about electing the best people into office to represent us. People that share our vision of the direction this country should go. What in the hell does a person's skin color have to do with that?!!! Nothing of course but the haters will never get that because they are evil twisted and sick. The haters hate this world more than they love themselves and that type of person is dangerous, to all of us.
As if we needed more evidence that the press is bias.
Saturday, Joe Biden was being interviewed by a Florida TV station. The reporter seem to be asking some unusual questions. Unusual because they were harder than the puff questions Biden is use to getting. These were more like questions Sarah Palin has to answer at every interview.
Joe couldn't believe it. He even asked the reporter if she was joking and who wrote the questions for her. She was respectful and let him answer each question and to be honest Joe handled himself well but OMG! I laughed so hard.
About a week before the election and this is the first time Biden has been asked tough questions. Welcome to Sarah Palin's life Joe! The Obama campaign's response to this interview was to cancel an upcoming interview and ban the station from any further interviews. BAH ha ha ha ha!!!! One tough interview, ONE, and they are picking up their ball and going home.
Of course I don't blame them. Why answer tough questions when the rest of the media is talking about serious issues... like say, how much Sarah Palin's clothes cost.
I guess Joe the Plumber asked the wrong person the wrong question.
Joe Wurzelbacher just asked Obama a simple question about taxes at a campaign rally. Obama answered him honestly and Joe was respectful. I have no problem with the encounter. I wish we could have seen more encounters like it. I learned something watching it.
Then, during the presidential debate, John McCain used Joe the Plumber as an example to highlight the difference between his tax plan and Obama's. Joe the Plumber wasn't all that important, his situation was.
Unbelievably, (not really) the press and media went after Joe the Plumber like he was a threat to national security. Just like they did with Sarah Palin. It's sad that I've learned more in three days about Joe the Plumber than I've learned in 20 months about Barack Obama.
This situation should scare people. Why did the press rush to dig up every bit of dirt they could on this guy and drag his name through the mud? Why did the press feel it was their job to tear down and expose this citizen, to protect Obama, simply for asking a question? Is that where we're headed? Making people scared to ask a question of a candidate out of fear that they will be publicly humiliated. It sounds like something you would expect to hear from a place like North Korea or Iran, not America.
I've been blathering for some time about how dishonest the press has been during this election. I'm irritated because I don't think the press and the media should decide who we elect, still don't, but this truly scares me. I mean if a hard working plumber like Joe can cause such a harsh and angry reaction from the press, by asking simple questions, what would happen if say... they found out about my blog?
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 . If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings) The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings. I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
I've been watching the financial gears of this country grind to a halt and I can't help but laugh.
The Democrats, who have been screaming the President is an idiot for eight years, turned to him for guidance and direction to solve the financial crisis. Not only did they follow his lead, they lobbied for his plan to their party members who weren't buying it. If you call someone a fool and then follow their lead what does that make you?
The financial institutions, who are partly to blame, have their hand out for public money to help so they can survive. These are the same businesses that have been sticking it to us for years with ridiculous rates and fees. These same businesses, with their 'we're too big to care about an individual customer' attitude now wants mom and pop to care about them. I say put them on hold, make them do the finger digit dance as they listen to the awful music. Let them wonder for awhile if a real person is going to answer the phone and help. Press #1 if you are hearing me.
Wall Street, who has no morals or concerns about John Q Public, now screams that if we don't bail them out we are only hurting ourselves. I'm sorry but I won't be shedding any tears for these guys either. They are the masters of buying companies and selling off their assets to squeeze out every dime for profit, yet I haven't heard many of these companies selling off assets or divisions to raise capital. It's an all or nothing proposition they're trying to force. My children do the same thing, only they hold their breath hoping to get what they want. The only thing is, it doesn't work for the kids.
So here's the deal. We are going to give them around 800,000,000,000.00 dollars, eight hundred billion dollars, because they are slowly turning off the credit tap. Either we give them the money or they won't finance our houses, cars and stuff. It's blackmail plain and simple and we're going to do it. Shame on us.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to set up a fund of eight hundred billion that they could borrow from if they were desperate enough? If they volunteered to partake of this fund they would be subject to very strict government oversight (to the level of unbearable) until they paid back the money with interest. If they defaulted on the loan then assets would be seized and sold. The heavy regulation would have guaranteed only companies that needed help would have taken it and would have motivated them to pay back the money as fast as possible. It would also limit the role of government in the financial market. Of course nobody asked me so we're going to go with the 'blackmail 800,000,000,000.00 dollar thing' and hold our noses... and close our eyes.
Don't you love when something comes along and exposes hypocrisy? Sarah Palin, John McCain's Vice Presidential pick, has exploded onto the scene in a very unexpected way. Right now the lady is lightning in a bottle.
You would think that women everywhere would be proud to see an intelligent, strong, accomplished women getting a chance to compete for a job previously held by only men. I'm not saying they should vote for her just because she's a women or that they should vote for her at all. I understand her positions and her leadership abilities should be the reason for a vote not her gender. Still, her surprise appearance has exposed some hypocrisy.
N.O.W. (National Organization for Women) - This is an organization dedicated to promoting women but not only will they not support Palin, they will not even defend her either. See, they feel Palin is not qualified to speak for women, which I find funny seeing how she is a woman. They say she's against women's rights (huh?). Who said they get to decide what is right for all women? The truth is, they don't support women, they support people that believe what they believe. Right now that's democrats with a liberal agenda. They would rather see Palin dragged back a few decades by her ponytail than stand up for her. Hypocrisy.
Oprah Winfrey - She refuses to have Palin on her show because she doesn't use her show as a platform for political candidates (huh?). She is a huge supporter of Obama. She has been on the campaign trail with him many times. Anyone that watches Oprah knows who she supports. Oprah's show is largely built around the premise of empowering women but, as with N.O.W., I guess it has to be a strong woman with the right (left) agenda. Hypocrisy.
The Mainstream Media - The media celebrated Hillary Clinton's candidacy as an example of how far women have come. They gushed over how intelligent she is and how savvy she is. They were ready and willing to pounce on anyone who even hinted at using her gender to discredited her. Now, this same press is the first to pounce on Sarah Palin for being a women trying to compete for a demanding job. "How will she raise her children and be the VP?" "Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant. She must be a bad mother." " She is only on the ticket for her sex appeal and her good looks." These are just a few of the issues they have raised in the short week Palin has been running. Yet in 19 months they have never asked Obama how he plans to raise his children. Hypocrisy.
To be honest, I'm not surprised. I saw the same thing happen with Clarence Thomas and Condoleezza Rice. The organizations that claim to support them not only turned their back on them, they attacked them. See these organization don't support the demographics they claim to, they support agendas. That, to me, is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Politics frustrate me to no end. What should be a great system has turned into a power grab for personal benefit. Worse, the press loves the current system because it gives them hours and hours of problems to report about. I bet there are only a handful of politicians that are actually looking out for 'We the people'.
What frustrates me most is that 'We the people' could easily fix the system. We won't of course because most of us have bought into the two party system that basically makes it into an 'our team can beat your team' mentality. Great for the team leaders, not so great for those of us watching from the sidelines.
For what it's worth here are a few things I would change to insure a better government.
Term Limits: This, without a doubt, is the most important change that should be made. This would stop career politicians. This would stop power grabs. This would help curb corruption. Elected officials would get elected have a few years to do some good then fade back into the private sector or some other form of public service.
Equal Access: Every citizen should have the same access to an elected official as anyone else. That means no special meetings with lobbyist or special groups.
No Gifts: No paid for trips, no free dinners, no free airplane rides, no campaign contributions. No gifts at all.
Structured Campaigns: Set spending limits for each political race. Free and equal air-time on TV and radio. Equal amounts of newspaper ads. No outside groups campaigning for a candidate nationally.
No Party Power: Speaker of the House and Senate should be rotated between states every few months. Committee heads should be appointed the same way.
Equality for All: Elected officials have to abide by any and all laws the public is subject to. Like wise, their benefits should be equal to and no more than is available to the public. Social security and taxes not excluded.
Open Up the Field: I'm not sure how to accomplish this one but everyone would benefit from having more party choices than the two we have now.
I realize after all of these changes are implemented it would take a few years to close all the loopholes that pop up. I think it could work too. It couldn't be much worse than what we have now. I just don't understand how everyone can watch these pigs walking around on two legs and not be frustrated too.
As I've mentioned before, I do my best to stay off the political subjects because people get so passionate they can't see straight. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and if people want to voice it I have no problem with it. Yesterday Tony Snow, a conservative commentator, died of cancer. He left behind three children and a wife. I would think you wouldn't be human if you couldn't muster up a little sympathy for a man who dies at the age of 53.
well, I WOULD BE WRONG! A friend of mine sent me an email directing me to
The Huffingting post. I knew the site was a hang-out for hardcore liberals. Even knowing the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum are very rarely rational, I was shocked at what I read.
The piece describing the Mr. Snow was about what I expected but some of the comments were horrible. Some that stuck out...
See ya, wouldn't want to be ya
Karma ! Thank You Jesus !!
I send my condolences to his family, but I'm happy he's gone.
Helms and Snow in one week, the world is a better place without both of these regressive forces. Sad but true.
There were more and there were some nice things said too but I can't understand people that take politics to this level. These type of people simply can't accept that people have opinions other than their own. They scream, "freedom of speech" then try to shout down those who disagree. They don't respect ELECTED officials they didn't vote for. They don't care about the 'will of the people', only their will and their beliefs. They preach tolerance and acceptance yet are the first to trample the rights of those who disagree with them. They don't have opponents they have sworn enemies.
I didn't know Tony Snow but I haven't heard a bad word said about him from people who did. If the people he went up against everyday found him to be a decent person, why would someone who never met him wish him death by cancer? Wish his family this loss?
Former senator Jesse Helms died recently too. I'm sure to the glee of many of these same people. While I disagreed with almost everything he stood for, I do realize he was from a different era. Sure it would be easy to apply today's standards to his career and label him as a bigot, homophobe, and much more but life is more complicated than that. If it were only so easy as to have people be all good or all bad. The real truth is very few people in the world are pure evil. Disagreeing with someone's positions does not make a person evil. Senator Helms was elected by the people, to do the will of the people and that's what he did. I didn't like it but apparently the people of his state did. He was their voice. I have to respect that. I also have to respect the office he held, as well as his service to his country. He didn't take up arms and shoot the people he disagreed with, no, he did it the democratic way, the right way, even if it was the wrong positions. Doesn't every free person have that right? Shouldn't they?
The world we live in is not so black and white that any of us can climb up on a soap box with absolute proof that what we believe is the the only truth. If that were the case there would be no argument to be had. If we are completely honest with ourselves, we would admit that we pick our positions based on our environment, upbringing, feelings, and a thousand other factors that have little to do with fact. Because for every fact I can throw at you to support my positions, you can throw a different one at me to support yours.
While I can respect and understand people filled with passion, enthusiasm and commitment, I can't understand it when it leaves no room for compassion, empathy and humanity. Seriously, being happy someone dies from cancer because you disagree with their politics? What's wrong with people? A man died, show some respect or at the very least keep you hateful comments to yourself. It's the LEAST you could do. Is that so hard? ... Apparently it is.
