Look at this from over the weekend where Joe Biden was interviewed by a central Florida newswoman:
Ok, so this has gotten some airtime in the last day or so, and I've seen two sides to the argument on this interview and Biden saying "is this a joke?" Today, I watched a bit of Studio B with Shepard Smith on Fixed News, and it was my first look into the situation. He was pissed at the insinuation that Biden question the journalistic integrity of the newswoman (WFTV's Barbara West). He said he could not see why it was not a valid and apt interview. He mainly focused on the section of the interview where she quotes Marx and asks Biden if Obama should be equated to socialist ideas and Marx. He interviewed a clearly conservative public relations expert who agreed with Shep. Shep was visibly annoyed at the situation. Here is the segment in its entirety (I found it on Studio B's page on FoxNews.com, and it was the MAIN video staring me right in the face):
Then, when I got home from work, I tuned into my favorite news show, Countdown with Keith Olbermann. He had, obviously, the exact opposite opinion of the situation. Also, a much shorter segment. I hate to bore you with videos, but I like the information to come directly from the source instead of through my filter of a brain. (Notice how Palin pronounces "inaugural". Great stuff!)
Now he says that West, the woman who interviewed Biden, stated that she's a health correspondent. I followed up on that. This link kinda say that: http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html. The other purported piece of info is that her husband is a Republican strategist or consultant. She's a registered Republican and her husband, Wade West has consulted numerous Republican candidates in the past (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/10/wftvs-barbara-1.html)
Here's the thing: Politics have polarized this country. It is getting harder and harder for a journalist not to show their bias. For some, they love to hold it on their sleeve. In this case, what I take issue with the is Shep's reaction. I do not understand the outrage. Why is comparing Obama to Marx so apt? I do not think it is. Redistributing wealth is the name of the game when you tax someone. Person A makes $10. The government taxes Person A $2. They then take that $2and use it for anything their hearts desire. Like funding polar bear mating rituals or beaver DNA. Scientist B then receives said $2 to do said research. I don't know about you guys, but that seems like a redistribution of Person A's wealth to me. I don't understand why so many Americans think socialism is so bad. It's already infused with our capitalistic society. Schools, some energy providers, some forms of health care, and at least in the US, Social Security, are all forms of socialistic principles working for the betterment of our capitalistic society. "Spreading the wealth around seems OK to me, since the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, mostly by no fault of their own. I love Biden's response of asking whether these questions were jokes and real questions.
I think Barack Obama hits the nail square on the head when he says people like him can afford to pay higher taxes and still live comfortably. The middle class drives the economy. If consumers are not consuming, the producers aren't producing, which means workers aren't working, and around the down spiral we go. Economics can be simple. We have to make sure the right people are getting the help they deserve, Democrats, Republicans and the other crazy people who inhabit this country.
Perhaps this Barbara West character could stick to reporting on health stories and not asking the tough questions. Unfortunately for the folks who watch Fox news, the line reads, "HOW DARE BIDEN TREAT HER SUCH A DISRESPECTFUL WAY!!! SHE'S A JOURNALIST!!" So much for the facts, and so much for journalistic integrity. "....Senator Biden, is it true that Barack Obama is a Muslim?...." The world may never know.
I hope that post was cohesive. It is late and I'm tired. Thanks for reading.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Social Issues...
Here are some questions that I found on the Internets that I would like to give my position on. I welcome any comments on my answers, so don't be shy.
1. Abortion: for or against?
I would say, since I'm what the right calls a pro-abortionist, that I'm for abortions. However, that is a completely wrong and dangerous characterization of my position on the issue. I believe that a person is in complete control over their own body, and women have the choice whether or not they want to seek an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. That stance in no way says "I'm an abortionist, let's kill all the unborn babies! Wooooo!!" while I run in the street naked. That's ridiculous, and completely false. I'm PRO-CHOICE, and I am against legislating anything that would infringe on the right of a woman to cancel and claim a mulligan on a pregnancy. I'm for so-called partial birth abortions if the health of the mother is dire or in the case of rape and/or incest (sometimes if could be both!). I also am for full-term births with adoption at the end to parents that can handle a child, and not sending them to foster care. I am for the choice to leave the baby with authorities without prosecution of the mother because there is nothing more damaging to a child staying with a mother or family that cannot support a new child. The position of the pro-life company is completely fine to me, but to suggest that since I'm pro-choice, I'm somehow pro-abortion is a fallacy.
2. Would our country fall with a woman president?
In a word: Yes. No no, I kid. Of course not. Look to the UK with Margaret Thatcher. They're still around. Sure, their system is a little different than ours, but then I present you with a multitude of states that women governors. Think of the states as little nations. As far as I'm aware, no state has fallen off the flag yet with women governors.
3. Do you believe in the death penalty?
Unfortunately, I do not. To kill someone for killing someone seems a bit hypocritical to me. Just because you feel justified by using such force because you're hiding behind some arbitrary law made up by the moral authority goes against that moral authority's main message, especially in this country. America has been defined by all intents and purposes a Christian nation. I believe their God, along with the Jewish one, that killing is not a good thing. There's no footnote, "Only in the cases to exact revenge by creating arbitrary laws, which make it 'illegal'" It is very plain language, in my mind, and to quote the St. James version of the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." Now to the hypocrisy of it all: For a nation that does profess to be a Christian nation and all of its morals and values, the death penalty certainly does not jive with this sentiment. I understand the position of the people who are for it, but I think parsimoniously, it just doesn't work.
4. Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
Sure, why not. At least create a federal medical marijuana law, so cancer patients who live in California can freely go around the United States with their medical marijuana without fear of getting arrested for possession or felony intent to distribute. I'm not down with the whole crowd that says it's not addictive, because it is. It manifests differently than other drugs, and possibly more slowly, but it is, and I'm dead serious, addictive, psychologically and physically. I would support a legalization of it in the same way cigarettes are legalized. Tax the shit out of it, and everything will be gravy. If you want people to stop using it, just look at how many people smoke cigarettes today compared to 50 years ago. I will agree that statistically it is less dangerous than drinking, which is why I would support a legalization and taxation.
5. Do you believe in God?
I'm agnostic, and I firmly believe that atheists are just as dogmatic as believers. As it says in the Bible, God is truth, and unfortunately truth is extremely hard to pinpoint. I think I'll stay a skeptic for now.
6. Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
For sure. If the only way one could get married would be in a church, I could see the difficulty, but marriage in this country at least is independent of any religious affiliation. There's nothing wrong with a piece of paper from the county registrar-recorder stating Adam and Steve can have the same rights in union as Adam and Eve. The Constitution calls for equality for all, and that includes sexual orientation. I don't see the argument that it ruins the sanctity of marriage, because church and state are separate. No one is forcing religious organizations to recognize these marriages, and who would want them to anyways?
7. Should the alcohol age be lowered to 18?
This one is tough, because it is working in other countries fine, producing the same amount of alcoholics as the US does. Forget that argument for a second and let's look at the principle: If a person can vote, enlist or get drafted in the military, get jury duty, and assume all of the other wonderful perks of being an adult, shouldn't that same person be allowed to drink and gamble like the rests of adults 21 and over?
8. Should the war in Iraq be called off?
I am a strong believer that we are wasting American lives in a misbegotten war that should not have begun at all.I hear the argument "Well, the troops would rather fight them over there than here." Really?1? And to think, here I sat thinking they thought the opposite! However, that isn't an argument to use in support or nonsupport of the war. It is completely missing the point of the central argument that we went their for WMDs, Iraq was linked to 9/11, and all the other bullshit that was fed to us in 2003. Hell, even the Iraqis don't want us there now. I think it's about time everyone took the hint and we left, nice and easy.
9. Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
As long as the million is untaxed. Which means I wouldn't do it for $500,000, since the capital gains tax would rape the million dollars out of my pocket. The idea that the flag represents sits in ideology and design. Destroying one measly piece of fabric constructed to the specifications of that flag does not automatically mean I renounce all that the flag stands for and what it means, because the symbol is not destroyed by the fire. It is everlasting in innumerable depictions and occurrences. If someone were dumb enough to give me money for it, then that's their bad.
I didn't do all of the questions because some were a bit stupid or specific, and I really didn't care to answer them.
1. Abortion: for or against?
I would say, since I'm what the right calls a pro-abortionist, that I'm for abortions. However, that is a completely wrong and dangerous characterization of my position on the issue. I believe that a person is in complete control over their own body, and women have the choice whether or not they want to seek an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. That stance in no way says "I'm an abortionist, let's kill all the unborn babies! Wooooo!!" while I run in the street naked. That's ridiculous, and completely false. I'm PRO-CHOICE, and I am against legislating anything that would infringe on the right of a woman to cancel and claim a mulligan on a pregnancy. I'm for so-called partial birth abortions if the health of the mother is dire or in the case of rape and/or incest (sometimes if could be both!). I also am for full-term births with adoption at the end to parents that can handle a child, and not sending them to foster care. I am for the choice to leave the baby with authorities without prosecution of the mother because there is nothing more damaging to a child staying with a mother or family that cannot support a new child. The position of the pro-life company is completely fine to me, but to suggest that since I'm pro-choice, I'm somehow pro-abortion is a fallacy.
2. Would our country fall with a woman president?
In a word: Yes. No no, I kid. Of course not. Look to the UK with Margaret Thatcher. They're still around. Sure, their system is a little different than ours, but then I present you with a multitude of states that women governors. Think of the states as little nations. As far as I'm aware, no state has fallen off the flag yet with women governors.
3. Do you believe in the death penalty?
Unfortunately, I do not. To kill someone for killing someone seems a bit hypocritical to me. Just because you feel justified by using such force because you're hiding behind some arbitrary law made up by the moral authority goes against that moral authority's main message, especially in this country. America has been defined by all intents and purposes a Christian nation. I believe their God, along with the Jewish one, that killing is not a good thing. There's no footnote, "Only in the cases to exact revenge by creating arbitrary laws, which make it 'illegal'" It is very plain language, in my mind, and to quote the St. James version of the Bible: "Thou shalt not kill." Now to the hypocrisy of it all: For a nation that does profess to be a Christian nation and all of its morals and values, the death penalty certainly does not jive with this sentiment. I understand the position of the people who are for it, but I think parsimoniously, it just doesn't work.
4. Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
Sure, why not. At least create a federal medical marijuana law, so cancer patients who live in California can freely go around the United States with their medical marijuana without fear of getting arrested for possession or felony intent to distribute. I'm not down with the whole crowd that says it's not addictive, because it is. It manifests differently than other drugs, and possibly more slowly, but it is, and I'm dead serious, addictive, psychologically and physically. I would support a legalization of it in the same way cigarettes are legalized. Tax the shit out of it, and everything will be gravy. If you want people to stop using it, just look at how many people smoke cigarettes today compared to 50 years ago. I will agree that statistically it is less dangerous than drinking, which is why I would support a legalization and taxation.
5. Do you believe in God?
I'm agnostic, and I firmly believe that atheists are just as dogmatic as believers. As it says in the Bible, God is truth, and unfortunately truth is extremely hard to pinpoint. I think I'll stay a skeptic for now.
6. Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
For sure. If the only way one could get married would be in a church, I could see the difficulty, but marriage in this country at least is independent of any religious affiliation. There's nothing wrong with a piece of paper from the county registrar-recorder stating Adam and Steve can have the same rights in union as Adam and Eve. The Constitution calls for equality for all, and that includes sexual orientation. I don't see the argument that it ruins the sanctity of marriage, because church and state are separate. No one is forcing religious organizations to recognize these marriages, and who would want them to anyways?
7. Should the alcohol age be lowered to 18?
This one is tough, because it is working in other countries fine, producing the same amount of alcoholics as the US does. Forget that argument for a second and let's look at the principle: If a person can vote, enlist or get drafted in the military, get jury duty, and assume all of the other wonderful perks of being an adult, shouldn't that same person be allowed to drink and gamble like the rests of adults 21 and over?
8. Should the war in Iraq be called off?
I am a strong believer that we are wasting American lives in a misbegotten war that should not have begun at all.I hear the argument "Well, the troops would rather fight them over there than here." Really?1? And to think, here I sat thinking they thought the opposite! However, that isn't an argument to use in support or nonsupport of the war. It is completely missing the point of the central argument that we went their for WMDs, Iraq was linked to 9/11, and all the other bullshit that was fed to us in 2003. Hell, even the Iraqis don't want us there now. I think it's about time everyone took the hint and we left, nice and easy.
9. Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
As long as the million is untaxed. Which means I wouldn't do it for $500,000, since the capital gains tax would rape the million dollars out of my pocket. The idea that the flag represents sits in ideology and design. Destroying one measly piece of fabric constructed to the specifications of that flag does not automatically mean I renounce all that the flag stands for and what it means, because the symbol is not destroyed by the fire. It is everlasting in innumerable depictions and occurrences. If someone were dumb enough to give me money for it, then that's their bad.
I didn't do all of the questions because some were a bit stupid or specific, and I really didn't care to answer them.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Swan on "W."
On Friday, I saw "W.", directed by Oliver Stone. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised, and found what most people were saying were true. It was fairly even-handed in its depiction of a yet unfinished figure in world history.
It was less politically motivated than one liberal or conservative might think. In fact, being a pseudo-expert in psychology, there was one blaring theme present: Daddy issues. Apparently Bush wants his father to accept him like Jeb, and whether or not Junior could live up to Senior. That was the underlying drama for the 2 hours, instead of just a documentary done by actors.
The only political tickings they showed was the lead up to the Iraq war, from about the fall of 2002 to about 2004, before the election. Pretty much everything was how I believed it to be, from watching news and everything for the last 2 years. It was almost a mea culpa, but fell short, as there was only one person to admit there were no WMDs.
Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, and Thandie Newton overall were the best representations of their characters. Dreyfus was chilling as Cheney and Newton was almost Condy to a T. But the shining impersonation was Brolin's Bush. Probably the funniest moments were when he threw in some Bushisms.
Pretty much, I recommend anyone left, right or center to see this movie. It's nothing too ground-breaking, but what can we ask for when talking about Bush?
But speaking of Colin Powell, today on Meet the Press he had some great things to say:
I especially like the part of about Muslims. "So what..." is exactly right Mr. Secretary.
It was less politically motivated than one liberal or conservative might think. In fact, being a pseudo-expert in psychology, there was one blaring theme present: Daddy issues. Apparently Bush wants his father to accept him like Jeb, and whether or not Junior could live up to Senior. That was the underlying drama for the 2 hours, instead of just a documentary done by actors.
The only political tickings they showed was the lead up to the Iraq war, from about the fall of 2002 to about 2004, before the election. Pretty much everything was how I believed it to be, from watching news and everything for the last 2 years. It was almost a mea culpa, but fell short, as there was only one person to admit there were no WMDs.
Josh Brolin, Richard Dreyfus, Jeffery Wright, and Thandie Newton overall were the best representations of their characters. Dreyfus was chilling as Cheney and Newton was almost Condy to a T. But the shining impersonation was Brolin's Bush. Probably the funniest moments were when he threw in some Bushisms.
Pretty much, I recommend anyone left, right or center to see this movie. It's nothing too ground-breaking, but what can we ask for when talking about Bush?
But speaking of Colin Powell, today on Meet the Press he had some great things to say:
I especially like the part of about Muslims. "So what..." is exactly right Mr. Secretary.
Friday, October 10, 2008
It's the Economy, Stupid...
So that's a famous quote by Bill Clinton's campaign in 1992. And I totally agree. No need for these personal attacks by the McCain campaign involving Rezko and Ayers. It's just stupid and unnecessary. Negative attacks have shown to historically work, if only for the fact that people are sheep and the vast majority are too gullible for their own good. But right now, it doesn't work. There is one thing that is necessary to talk about now: the economy. I'll do that now.
I'd like to start with a year ago with Jim Cramer form CNBC's Mad Money. He basically foresaw this calamity that we're in now while talking about the Fed:
Now we've got the Dow, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 declining for the last 8 days. The problem now is that the credit markets are frozen. Ali Velshi from CNN, who makes a shitload of sense said on Larry King this:
"But, Larry, I can't believe I'm saying that the stock market is sideshow here. It's not even the one that matters. What matters is your connection to these frozen debt markets, the fact that companies can't borrow money, in some cases, for operations. And that could affect your job and your salary -- the fact you can't get a loan if you needed one right now, a mortgage, and the fact whoever is going to buy your house, if you're trying to sell it, can't get financing for that."
Now that the bailout passed, which I'm not too sure about yet because it still has to yet work, and the highly volatile market is so emotional that it HASN'T worked, it continues to decrease.
Now I've been telling everyone I run into not to panic because it just adds to the fervor that eventually reaches the market and goes round and round and round again until we're in 1929 again and an another Great Depression looms on the horizon. Apparently 6 in 10 Americans believe that last sentiment. I feel sorry for that fact. Let me put it in to perspective with the aid of Phil Town, who like Warren Buffett has made his shitload of money in the stock market.
http://www.philtown.com/phil_towns_blog/2008/10/djia-estimates.html
He explains that the market is overvalued right now, and that's why it's on the decline. Since the credit market is frozen, stocks are heading to their correct values. According to historical prices and price/earning values, we've been expecting this problem and it's been a long time coming since the 1980s. Basically, I must reiterate the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: DON'T PANIC. There is a natural ebb and flow to this thing, and it's unfortunate that deregulation and predatory lending brought us to this place.
But, guess who's not talking about the economy? You guessed it, Fox Noise Channel:
Please, please, please, get this bitch off the air. Along with Sean Hannity.
I'll have more on the economy in the coming days.
I'd like to start with a year ago with Jim Cramer form CNBC's Mad Money. He basically foresaw this calamity that we're in now while talking about the Fed:
Now we've got the Dow, the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 declining for the last 8 days. The problem now is that the credit markets are frozen. Ali Velshi from CNN, who makes a shitload of sense said on Larry King this:
"But, Larry, I can't believe I'm saying that the stock market is sideshow here. It's not even the one that matters. What matters is your connection to these frozen debt markets, the fact that companies can't borrow money, in some cases, for operations. And that could affect your job and your salary -- the fact you can't get a loan if you needed one right now, a mortgage, and the fact whoever is going to buy your house, if you're trying to sell it, can't get financing for that."
Now that the bailout passed, which I'm not too sure about yet because it still has to yet work, and the highly volatile market is so emotional that it HASN'T worked, it continues to decrease.
Now I've been telling everyone I run into not to panic because it just adds to the fervor that eventually reaches the market and goes round and round and round again until we're in 1929 again and an another Great Depression looms on the horizon. Apparently 6 in 10 Americans believe that last sentiment. I feel sorry for that fact. Let me put it in to perspective with the aid of Phil Town, who like Warren Buffett has made his shitload of money in the stock market.
http://www.philtown.com/phil_towns_blog/2008/10/djia-estimates.html
He explains that the market is overvalued right now, and that's why it's on the decline. Since the credit market is frozen, stocks are heading to their correct values. According to historical prices and price/earning values, we've been expecting this problem and it's been a long time coming since the 1980s. Basically, I must reiterate the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: DON'T PANIC. There is a natural ebb and flow to this thing, and it's unfortunate that deregulation and predatory lending brought us to this place.
But, guess who's not talking about the economy? You guessed it, Fox Noise Channel:
Please, please, please, get this bitch off the air. Along with Sean Hannity.
I'll have more on the economy in the coming days.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The First Post!
Welcome welcome!
For anyone reading, I thought I would grab a place to blog about anything and everything dealing with current. Recently, I've been watching a lot of news and reading a lot on current events. Pretty much it's been all political, because that's what's dominating the news cycle, but I want to continue this after the election, so I'm not sticking to just election coverage like everyone else out in the blogosphere. Current events intrigue me and I've got much commentary on the world.
So let's start out with my reference in the blog title. I'm sure most, if not all, will get it. Yes yes, it's from Sarah Palin's first network interview with Charlie Gibson when they discussed the Bush Doctrine. Now I don't know about any of you, but the way she responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" with the nastiest tone, like "How dare you ask me that stupid questions, you mean mean man!" it struck me as somebody who doesn't get it. To be honest, since I was in high school and wasn't paying attention when Bush laid out his "doctrine" regarding terrorism, I didn't know what it was either when Charlie asked Palin. Now, since she didn't know what it was, she should have just said it. Unfortunately, that started a slippery slope on a glacier in Alaska with Sarah Palin sliding down without a prayer from Pastor Moothy (sp?). Then her constant stating that she was always against to the Bridge to Nowhere, "Thanks, but No Thanks" sent chills down my spine every time I heard it on TV. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Alaskans or the folks in the more northern states, but the accent has got to be kept on the DL. She was for the Bridge, and even had a t-shirt that was making fun of the little community, but she didn't understand the IRONY involved.
Then, she had those interviews with Katie Couric. I understand it's a campaign, and when you have something in your campaign that could possibly hurt, you hide it. But Sarah let her loose lips get the best of her. Not being able to tell the American public what you read?!? That's like me saying I use the Internet but won't tell anyone what sites I use and just "all of it, whatever pages come across my screen". That's a mighty large Internet right? So is reading every publication known to man, let alone the ones you can actually read (the ones written at a third grade level, of course). Then the bombshell that she couldn't even name another Supreme Court decision that she didn't agree with, considering the fact that 3 months earlier she appeared on an Alaskan news program (with an interviewer and questions and the whole kit'n'kaboodle) discussing how she disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling in Exxon v. Baker, allowing Exxon to pay less damages in the Exxon Valdez spill, WHICH WAS IN ALASKA! For someone who claims to be Alaskan, seems pretty fishy to me. And I don't want to here the defenders of her and the haters of Katie saying that was "Gotcha Journalism!" because the only other people int he room were the production crew. Probably 3 or so people other than Sarah and Katie. She couldn't name a single one. Shoot, I don't care if you couldn't name one you disagreed with, but how about the ones we all learn in high school that supported slavery. Everyone should disagree with those! Plessy v Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision to name a few. Unbelievable! Look, if she actually believes that she is capturing the vote by doing these things (I'm not concerned with the fact that she says now that they were not very good interviews) is preposterous!
Then the debate, the glorious debate. I go back to a quote my friend had on his facebook. I'm not sure who said it, but I'm just gonna paraphrase the gist. It said that if you want a President who you'd like to have a beer with (G. W. Bush), then you deserve a shitty economy, a crappy life, and a government that doesn't work for you, but for themselves. You deserve a sub-average way of handling things, and what you should get is a shitty lawyer when you have a lawsuit, and a bungling surgeon when you need open heart surgery. All the winks, the 'you betchas', the 'Joe Six-Pack' and the hockey mom comments are utterly sickening. Look, that's all well and good on the campaign trail for the people that eat that up (I'm looking at you, Bible belt), but not for a crowd of nearly 70 million folks. It's not endearing and it looks like all you have going for you in some type of personality that flies with some but doesn't fly with others. It looks like all you have is a brain that is only 10% used (with about 9% for all necessary life support functions). Here's the thing: memorization of speeches is not a remedy for America. It's a death wish. Because when the world is ending (over-exaggeration of some crisis), you won't have time to memorize a speech. You'll have to be candid, and I don't think she can be, at least with everyone involved, not just the Republican base.
Now, as her approval ratings continue to be a drag on the McCain campaign, we go to the polls and there will be folks who vote for her. I have a customer who told me he'd rather he be President if McCain kicks the bucket instead of Joe Biden, because he said that you know Obama is going to be heading to the likes of JFK, RFK and MLK. That's not a good thought, especially since he'd rather Palin be prez than Biden. Where's the disconnect? Where's the sense of logic and reason? Why do we have to live in the "United Stupid of America," to quote Bill Maher? When 40% or so of voters support John McCain for president, they are also supporting Sarah Palin for the job too. That's 40% too many. I refuse to live in a society that condones such an affront to the power of the human mind. I couldn't care less if she has executive experience and the other three don't. That's a technicality. All it takes is a clue, and she ain't got one.
Sorry for the long read, but I've been holding in all these thoughts for a while. Tomorrow I'll have a few shorter points on the other main current event in the news for the past few weeks, the economy. So stick around.
For anyone reading, I thought I would grab a place to blog about anything and everything dealing with current. Recently, I've been watching a lot of news and reading a lot on current events. Pretty much it's been all political, because that's what's dominating the news cycle, but I want to continue this after the election, so I'm not sticking to just election coverage like everyone else out in the blogosphere. Current events intrigue me and I've got much commentary on the world.
So let's start out with my reference in the blog title. I'm sure most, if not all, will get it. Yes yes, it's from Sarah Palin's first network interview with Charlie Gibson when they discussed the Bush Doctrine. Now I don't know about any of you, but the way she responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" with the nastiest tone, like "How dare you ask me that stupid questions, you mean mean man!" it struck me as somebody who doesn't get it. To be honest, since I was in high school and wasn't paying attention when Bush laid out his "doctrine" regarding terrorism, I didn't know what it was either when Charlie asked Palin. Now, since she didn't know what it was, she should have just said it. Unfortunately, that started a slippery slope on a glacier in Alaska with Sarah Palin sliding down without a prayer from Pastor Moothy (sp?). Then her constant stating that she was always against to the Bridge to Nowhere, "Thanks, but No Thanks" sent chills down my spine every time I heard it on TV. Now don't get me wrong, I've got nothing against Alaskans or the folks in the more northern states, but the accent has got to be kept on the DL. She was for the Bridge, and even had a t-shirt that was making fun of the little community, but she didn't understand the IRONY involved.
Then, she had those interviews with Katie Couric. I understand it's a campaign, and when you have something in your campaign that could possibly hurt, you hide it. But Sarah let her loose lips get the best of her. Not being able to tell the American public what you read?!? That's like me saying I use the Internet but won't tell anyone what sites I use and just "all of it, whatever pages come across my screen". That's a mighty large Internet right? So is reading every publication known to man, let alone the ones you can actually read (the ones written at a third grade level, of course). Then the bombshell that she couldn't even name another Supreme Court decision that she didn't agree with, considering the fact that 3 months earlier she appeared on an Alaskan news program (with an interviewer and questions and the whole kit'n'kaboodle) discussing how she disagreed with the Supreme Court's ruling in Exxon v. Baker, allowing Exxon to pay less damages in the Exxon Valdez spill, WHICH WAS IN ALASKA! For someone who claims to be Alaskan, seems pretty fishy to me. And I don't want to here the defenders of her and the haters of Katie saying that was "Gotcha Journalism!" because the only other people int he room were the production crew. Probably 3 or so people other than Sarah and Katie. She couldn't name a single one. Shoot, I don't care if you couldn't name one you disagreed with, but how about the ones we all learn in high school that supported slavery. Everyone should disagree with those! Plessy v Ferguson and the Dred Scott decision to name a few. Unbelievable! Look, if she actually believes that she is capturing the vote by doing these things (I'm not concerned with the fact that she says now that they were not very good interviews) is preposterous!
Then the debate, the glorious debate. I go back to a quote my friend had on his facebook. I'm not sure who said it, but I'm just gonna paraphrase the gist. It said that if you want a President who you'd like to have a beer with (G. W. Bush), then you deserve a shitty economy, a crappy life, and a government that doesn't work for you, but for themselves. You deserve a sub-average way of handling things, and what you should get is a shitty lawyer when you have a lawsuit, and a bungling surgeon when you need open heart surgery. All the winks, the 'you betchas', the 'Joe Six-Pack' and the hockey mom comments are utterly sickening. Look, that's all well and good on the campaign trail for the people that eat that up (I'm looking at you, Bible belt), but not for a crowd of nearly 70 million folks. It's not endearing and it looks like all you have going for you in some type of personality that flies with some but doesn't fly with others. It looks like all you have is a brain that is only 10% used (with about 9% for all necessary life support functions). Here's the thing: memorization of speeches is not a remedy for America. It's a death wish. Because when the world is ending (over-exaggeration of some crisis), you won't have time to memorize a speech. You'll have to be candid, and I don't think she can be, at least with everyone involved, not just the Republican base.
Now, as her approval ratings continue to be a drag on the McCain campaign, we go to the polls and there will be folks who vote for her. I have a customer who told me he'd rather he be President if McCain kicks the bucket instead of Joe Biden, because he said that you know Obama is going to be heading to the likes of JFK, RFK and MLK. That's not a good thought, especially since he'd rather Palin be prez than Biden. Where's the disconnect? Where's the sense of logic and reason? Why do we have to live in the "United Stupid of America," to quote Bill Maher? When 40% or so of voters support John McCain for president, they are also supporting Sarah Palin for the job too. That's 40% too many. I refuse to live in a society that condones such an affront to the power of the human mind. I couldn't care less if she has executive experience and the other three don't. That's a technicality. All it takes is a clue, and she ain't got one.
Sorry for the long read, but I've been holding in all these thoughts for a while. Tomorrow I'll have a few shorter points on the other main current event in the news for the past few weeks, the economy. So stick around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)