Post-debate update

I stand corrected - the debate was a tie.

---

But Obama likes to say we have entered the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I was not alive during that time, but from what I've read, unemployment was up to 15% - we are still around 6% now. Also, people were standing in lines for food. We might be lining up for gas (in Georgia, at least), but as far as I can tell, we aren't standing in line for food yet.

If I were him, I'd be embarrassed to compare the current situation to the Great Depression. What an insult to the people alive today that actually lived through it. We know nothing of the struggles they went through. Some of the older citizens need to call him on it. It's time that someone did. I'm tired of watching McCain just sit back while Obama spouts stuff like that.

A few random, unorganized thoughts

At work today, my supervisor was giving me tips on what to teach the students. The lesson was about how girls were less educated than boys in 3rd world countries. She said I needed to relate it to their own lives and to tell them that we even have this here in the U.S.

When I made a questioning face, she said "You KNOW that's true. Men are still given better jobs than they give the women."

I didn't say it to her, but excuse me, no one has ever GIVEN me a job. I have EARNED them.

Needless to say, I didn't tell the students her example.

---

Predictions for tonight's debate:
Obama's people will say he won it, McCain's will say he won it.
Just like the reaction from every other move they have made thus far.

---

John, you've got to stop trying to appease the liberals. You could drop out of the race and they still wouldn't think any better of you. They aren't worth it, leave them alone, pander to your own people.
----

I'm watching a great series John Adams that was shown on HBO and I'm currently renting from the library. Great series. Highly recommended.
Those people went through a lot to make the great country that we live in. They were meeting to decide what to do about England. One guy insists on sending an appeasement letter to England. Adams says "no". They vote and decide to send it anyways. A few months later, the letter is sent back, unread, and with another letter from the king that says "If you go through with this, then you will be committing treason and those that commit treason against the crown will face certain death". They all look around at each other and say "Okay, let's go for it".

Now, I realize that it's speculation and Hollywoodfied. It may not have gone exactly like that, but wow... those guys are faced with certain death and they shrug, saying "let's go for it"?? You've got to either really believe in what you are doing or are really crazy... or even a little bit of both.

But what a change to people's attitudes now:
"It is too much work to do this myself. The government should provide for me."

I'd be rolling around in my grave if I was a founding father. They must be standing up there, watching all of this and saying "We went through all of that just for the US to end up like this?".

We are squandering what they have built for us. And it's a shame.

Back then, so many people gave up their lives for freedom and for what they believed in.
Today, people give up their freedom and what they believe in for gifts and empty promises. Shame on you for giving up what America means just for the promise of a $1000 tax cut. I think the founding fathers would be ashamed of the sellouts that we have become.

Thomas Jefferson said "Give me liberty or give me death."
American people today say "Give me health care, give me food, give me gas, give me a house, give me..."

Give me a break. Grow up. Get a job (or two if needed). Work hard to earn your money. Feel a sense of accomplishment when you succeed.

---
Obama just said in the debate "Don't let a soldier die in vain".

Ironic after he told Iraq not to allow the withdrawing of troops until AFTER the election, so he gets credit for it. He says he's concerned about American's lives and our taxpayer money, but he puts more lives at risk, just so he gets credit.

Nice guy you all want for President.

A Lesson for Teachers

I’m tired of hearing about teachers using their classrooms as their private political soapboxes. The classroom is a place for teaching students, not teaching them what to think. You want a forum to express your views? Great, get a blog. The classroom is not the place for it.

When my students ask me who I’m going to vote for, I tell them that I can’t say because it’s a secret ballot. They press me, and tell me that other teachers tell them who they are voting for, but I will not. I don’t mind discussing the election itself or bare bone facts about the candidates, but no opinions from my end.

Why? I think it’s unethical. These students have expressed to me that they feel if they do not support the candidate that the teacher supports, then the teacher will not like them or will give them a bad grade. I remember having the same fears when I was in school, and students should not be subjected to that. I personally hated that feeling, and would never do that to my students. Besides, I would be prouder of them if they decided on their own, by researching different sources than I would be if they could parrot my views. I already know my views, and I’m confident enough in them that I don’t need a classroom full of students who can regurgitate my opinions. In fact, I would be ashamed. I’m not here to tell people how they should think, but how they should think for themselves.

I do not agree with everything McCain says, but I respect him because he is able to articulate his views and stand by them, knowing people may not like him for doing so, but does it anyway because he feels it's the right thing to do. I hate people who change their views based on who is around them. It shows that they are not very confident with themselves, or do not know themselves very well. They are so focused on pleasing others that they are not true to themselves. That said, I would respect a student more for having their own opinion, even if it was different than my own, than appearing to agree with mine just to get on my good side.

I hear fellow teachers insert their rhetoric into classes and it sickens me. One teacher decided to talk about global warming in his discussion class, but without a discussion. He TOLD them about one side of the issue and didn’t talk about the other. He didn’t see anything wrong with it, because as he said, “There is only one side to discuss”.

And whether it is politics or some silly trivial matter, I don’t need my strong opinions in the classroom. Even if I walked in and said “I think green cars are the best and only the smartest people drive green cars. People who drive purple cars are especially stupid”. It doesn’t matter if I believe it or not, I have no right to say that to them. Of course, they will agree, to get a good grade or just because they think I must know what I’m talking about because I am a teacher. One of them or a friend of theirs might drive a purple car. Or they might develop a horrible prejudice against people who drive purple cars. The consequences of my careless actions are infinite.

Heaven forbid, some kid in there hangs on my every word and takes it for truth. What kind of person am I to use that against them? They are PEOPLE, not pawns to use for my own benefit. I don’t want to make an army of mindless minions. I want to make a group of educated, think-for-yourself people who excel on their own and shoving my opinions down their throats doesn’t accomplish that.

The Audacity of Something...and it's not Hope

Obama didn't just "happen" to have his speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's speech, he planned it that way and I find it cheeky on Obama's part. He could not do it by himself, so he stood on the shoulders of a great man to make himself look better. Despicable.

And how awful he could not follow in MLK's footsteps by having a positive message like him. He was insulting McCain left and right. Bad Form, Strike 2.

The speech, itself, wasn't bad. But it wasn't his best. Even his followers on CNN said that he has done better in the past, and expected his speech to be better this time. He didn't even top Clinton's speech. The Clintons overshadowed him at the DNC. He speaks like a preacher, not a politician.

Also, Obama likes to complain that people misquote him by taking sound-bytes and not the whole quote. He and the Democrats did the same thing to McCain all through the convention:
1) Middle class is under $5 million. When McCain said that, it was a joke. Everyone else knew it was a joke, besides Obama.
2) McCain has 7 houses. He buys and sells houses as income. He does not live in 7 seven houses.
3) McCain knows nothing about economics. Says Obama, who thinks he can lower taxes on 95% of the people, yet spend billions and billions in new programs. He says he's going to go line-by-line in the budget and get rid of failing programs. #1 - He can't do that as President, that is Congress' job. #2 -Even if he could, that won't give you enough money to run the programs that he wants to. He'll have to get the money from somewhere and it won't be from the top 5% of income earners.

Not to mention the Obama campaign's reaction to McCain's pick of Palin. McCain was gracious enough to extend his congratulations to Obama for his moment. Obama (or at least his campaign) turns around and rolls their eyes at McCain's pick.

This man is a great speaker, there is no doubt about that. The way he works a crowd is amazing. He had that crowd eating out of his hand last night. He had them all in tears. I can't name another politician (Not even Clinton) who is able to do that.
But, a great speaker does not also mean a great leader. This man is not a leader. It's evident in his words and his actions. He picked Biden to be a "mentor" for him. He can't breathe without the okay of another. A leader doesn't care if people don't agree with him; he keeps doing what he's doing because he thinks it's for the best of everyone. Michelle Obama says they never talked about running for Senator or President, it was always about helping others. Being President isn't about helping others, it's about running a country.

Did anyone else notice what instrumental piece they were playing after the speech, as Obama’s family and Biden’s family came out to wave to the crowd? It was the theme to the movie “Clear and Present Danger”. I’m sure it was chosen because it sounded presidential, patriotic or whatever, but could it be that someone in Obama’s camp might be trying to tell us something? Ironic.

It wasn't an acceptance speech, it was his farewell speech. He's been down since he chose Biden and McCain just checkmated him with his pick of Sarah Palin. I love how CNN rates her as an "F" pick, saying she's a horrible choice. It just proves how good of a pick she was. It's an interesting game, and I'm willing to bet there's still a few more surprises ahead, but Obama isn't going to win.

And from what I'm seeing about Palin, SHE'S a strong woman I can get excited about.

Obama's VP announcement - his last huzzah?

I can say with absolute confidence now that Obama's on a fast spiral down. He worried me for awhile, and played a good game, but he's not going to win. His much-anticipated VP announcement solidified this for me.

Joe Biden? I must say, I thought he'd choose a woman. Either way, I figured his choice would be based on image, more than anything else. He's white, older with more experience, especially in foreign affairs. Everything Obama needed. A white guy for the "racists" that Obama is convinced are the reason he's tied with McCain and not a shoe-in like he thought he would be. An older guy to trump the "you're-too-young" crowd. A guy with 35 years experience to silence the "but you have no experience" people. And foreign experience to calm down people who can't believe that Obama thinks he can waltz into other countries and just by talking to them will pacify them.

...Or so he hopes.

I don't think the voters will be fooled. Biden has Clinton-disease where he can't control what comes flying out of his mouth, and usually, it's catastrophic. (See: 2 failed campaigns, 1988 and 2008). He's already mouthing off at McCain.

"He will have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at"

Oh yeah. Like any of you big guys in Washington own only one house. Give me a break. I'm sure that this guy flapping his gums and Obama don't only own one house. The guy has been on the job for less than a day and that's what he graces us with? Why not something constructive, like "Compared with McCain, I know more about foreign policy because I've done xyz in my committee, etc..."

The media is calling him "Obama's attack dog". What did you do, Obama, take a page from Hillary's book and pick someone like her husband to stand up for you and do your dirty work for you? What happened to "different politics" and not running a negative campaign? That didn't last long, did it? So how fast will your billion dollar plans go down the drain? Guess what - if you start playing with Hillary's rules, then expect to fall flat on your face like she did.

Not to mention, what Biden has been quoted saying about Obama:
"the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training", saying that Obama wasn't ready for the Presidency.

That just cracks me up. Sure, your VP doesn't have to be buddy-buddy with you or even really like you, but at least they need to respect you and think you are up for the job. How sad is that. He's the best guy Obama could pick for the job, but Biden doesn't think Obama will make a good President. Obama says he doesn't want a "yes" man. Well, that's fine and all, but you need someone who at least has confidence in your campaign.

Apparently, Biden also said earlier in the season that he wasn't in the race to become VP and if he was offered it, he would turn it down. Nice guy, you have there, Obama. Good luck with that.

What really tickles my funny bone is how Obama promised his followers that they would be the first to know about his VP pick. But seems like it got leaked to the media first, around 1am this morning, so Obama's camp had to send it out as quick as possible, not to disappoint his fans. So he sent them the announcement at 3am. Sounds like a bad Hillary campaign commercial:
"It's 3am. A phone is ringing...". I wonder if his supporters enjoyed that nice wake up call. Hey, maybe it's the metaphorical wake up call we've been waiting for them to have. "I want this guy to ANSWER the phone at 3am, not CALL me at 3am!"

But enjoy it while it lasts. I say this was Obama's last poll boost. It's like watching those Olympic runners. You see them take off and one is way out in front, but you can tell that they came out too quickly and sure enough, 200 meters before the finish line, they die like a mosquito hitting a bug light.

As a runner, I've seen it before - Obama came out too quickly. He used up all of his energy in the first 200 meters, and will have nothing left for the home stretch.

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_analysis
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/politics/24biden.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Obama-speak

So the other night on ABC news, Mr. Barack"Better than Sliced Bread" Obama had to answer a question without a script or teleprompter to aid him.

Here's the question: "If you had it to do over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?"

And here was his answer (taken from Boortz.com): "No, because keep in mind that question, you wouldn't ... but keep in mind that kind of hypothetical is very difficult to know hindsight is 20-20 ... later ... but I think that what I'm absolutely convinced of is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."

Whoops.
And just how are we planning to talk to terrorists without a script or teleprompter to aide us, Mr. Obama?

My Dad wanted to know if what he said was in English and what it said. So I provided him with a translation:

"No, I cannot give a concrete answer at this time, because I don't want to scare off voters that are in favor, but I don't want to scare off those that are opposed either. I need to find a neutral answer to please everyone and not get stuck in a situation where I need to take back what I said tomorrow. So therefore, I will say nothing, but make it look pretty at the same time."

There you have it. THAT'S what people want to vote into office. THAT'S what people are getting all starstruck over. THAT'S who people want as the POTUS - a person who says pretty words, but is non-committal because he doesn't want to lose people and is afraid that he may have to unapologize/recant/rephrase tomorrow. Not to mention he can't say anything worthwhile or with meaning without the use of a crutch. Be afraid, be very afraid.

And then this week, he's parading around Europe, as though he's already been elected. Talk about having no respect for your fellow candidate or the current sitting President. No class either. Cute.
But that is a rant for another day...

Want some cheese with that whine?

So I'm sure you've heard of McCain's advisor Gramm by now, and his "whiner" remarks. If not, I'll fill you in: (quotes taken from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5882287.html in the Houston Chronicle)

"Gramm attracted the attention when he told the Times: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." He noted that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said."

I agree with him. I think he hit it right on the head, and I'm sorry if they are offended by it. Hey, sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes you need a kick in the pants to get moving, ya know what I mean?

But SuperObama stepped in, assuring people that their woes weren't all in their heads:

"It's not just a figment of your imagination," Obama said at a town-hall event focused on helping women advance economically. "Let's be clear. This economic downturn is not in your head."

"It isn't whining to ask government to step in and give families some relief," he said, drawing a standing ovation from the nearly 3,000 people in a high school gymnasium. "And I think it's time we had a president who doesn't deny our problems or blame the American people for them but takes responsibility and provides the leadership to solve them."

I like how he twisted the words. He is THE master of twisting words in his favor. A 'mental recession' doesn't mean that houses didn't get forclosed on. I think it more meant that people believing that Bush was to blame for all of it instead of taking responsibility for themselves was a 'mental recession'. Just like Boortz, Herman Cain and Clark Howard said during their meeting on the economy -there's a difference between a national recession and a personal one. We as a country are not in a recession, but many people are experiencing a personal recession.

Sure, people need a hand up from time to time, and things DO happen, but it IS whining when you don't do a darn thing for yourself, and always expect other people to bail you out for your bad choices. Guess what "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie!!" is? W-H-I-N-I-N-G.

Obama is right, we DO have a problem, but it's not with the economy or the government or Bush - we have a problem with people feeling entitled to things that they can't afford in the first place. When Obama's in office, it will no longer be quite as big of an accomplishment to have a college education or to own a house because he believes these are rights that everyone should be entitled to. And where will it end? Graduate school? Doctorates? Mansions? House boats? Vacation homes? It won't. Once you give people something, then they want more. People won't be happy with a college education, they'll want Doctorates handed to them. And a house won't be enough either, they'll want to be entitled to a vacation home too, afterall, it's not fair that some people can have them and they can't.

And why shouldn't we blame people for their foreclosures? They signed into an agreement that they couldn't afford in the first place, didn't bother to read the fine print or whatever and thought it was okay because they lending bank said it was okay. Granted, there were the people who thought they could afford it, but something happened and they lost their job. Okay, but how about having some back-up savings in case something like that happens? It's not the government's fault that they didn't plan ahead.

So Obama is going to solve people's problems for them by taking their money away from them and providing them with 'rights' that they should be entitled to. He must really think the U.S. is stupid and can't handle their own money, otherwise, why would he think it was best to take their money away from them? "Oh you can't handle being an adult, so give me your money and I'll tell you how is the best way to spend it". It astounds me that people would vote for a guy that insults their intelligence.

My Mom has a good idea - take out all of your money from the bank once Obama gets in and hide it under your mattress. Otherwise, we're not going to have any left. Now THAT would be something to whine about... but hopefully we will be pro-active enough now not to make that happen.

Can't believe everything you hear...or read.

Saw a magazine the other day that had on the front cover about how McCain was getting cozy with the press. So I was intrigued and curious - what press exactly? Because I rarely see him in the news. I thought Obama was the media darling. Back when Hillary was in the race, conservative media would have negative stories about her and Obama, and would even have stories about McCain featured in the footnotes. You'd have to search for them. As for the more liberal media, Obama was always a saint, the devil even got better press than Hillary and McCain wasn't even mentioned at all.

So I open up the article (featured in "The Nation" by the way, a notoriously liberal publication) and it says in bold letters:

"No candidate since John F. Kennedy and perhaps none since FDR, has enjoyed such cozy relations with the press."

I had to read it twice. I was flabbergasted. Now I don't know about JFK or FDR, but Clinton didn't get a free ride with the press? What about his wife in the '90s? And most certainly Obama now, especially all of the pictures of Obama taken at a high angle so he looks presidential with the seal behind his head like a halo. Maybe I'm missing something here...

Makes you wonder how they get away with printing such things. And it's not like the article in "The Nation" was an editorial - it was an article!! The Media needs to get more responsibility for what they feed to people. Someone's going to read that and believe it!!

Or maybe I need to read different papers. I went to the BBC and CNN yesterday, only saw stories about how great Obama will be and how Michelle Obama is gearing up to be the first African American first lady. Today, Newsmax.com had a story about how McCain backed the Supreme Court's decision on the 2nd amendment. But that's a fact, not opinion. Maybe the article was more referring to the number of stories about him, rather than the opinions in them (if any)? Or maybe it's the lack of news stories about him... I don't know any more. Just how are they measuring how McCain is a "media darling"? Because he doesn't have nearly as many skeletons in his closet as Obama?

Odd how they are bothered that he is "favored", but it doesn't bother them that the media was one of the main reasons of how Obama got as far as he has (and potentially why he might get elected). Proof yet again how free speech comes with a double standard.

Really? The Government has nothing better to do?

Lately, I have noted a rampant paranoia among the general public. Somehow, they have gotten it into their minds that the government had nothing better to do than to watch us 24/7.

There was a discussion on Amazon about how they protected our 1st amendment rights by not releasing the names of people who have bought books from them. People seem to think that the government tracks what books you buy or check out from the library to see if you fit one of their profiles. A bomb-making book, sure, I can see that. (and in fact, I don't think they have any at the library). But according to Amazon, they won't release that kind of information anyways, so what's the problem?

The library doesn't track books. Except if you count giving you recommendations. For example, if I check out 3 books by Michael Crichton, the system recognizes that I must like him as an author and lists more books of his that I might like to read. Ooo, the evil Bush administration is tracking what I read to give me suggestions of what I might like to read. How awful! How dare they? My rights are violated!

Had a guy come into the library a few weeks ago, convinced that the government tracks everything we view on the web. I laughed and was called "naive". Come on, how can the government have that kind of money, resources and time to track every single webpage that we view. Some guy is sitting up in D.C. sifting through all those websites 24/7? Please... they have better things to do with their time. Certain websites might send off a red flag, sure, but they aren't watching us all the time or even the majority of time.

Once had this friend whose Dad was Arab. She was convinced that the government was watching her because of her heritage. She claimed that once during a phone call, a random guy cut into the middle of it and said "oops, wrong number". She thought they were listening in on her phone call to her mother and messed up, which ended up on him cutting in. She also claimed that they logged into her father's AOL account and deleted his address book. Trust me, you aren't that important. Lines get crossed all the time, and server glitches happen all the time as well.

So, the moral of the story is: The government is not watching you every minute of the day. Your books are not tracked. Your phone calls are not listened in on. Your email accounts are not hacked. And your websites aren't tracked.

Who does track you: Your credit card company to make sure your card hasn't been stolen. Your bank might do the same thing. Most likely, your supermarket tracks what you buy if you have one of those "saver" cards. Some movie theaters even track what movies you see if you have their points card. Does that mean they are violating your rights too? No, because most times you are getting discounts or coupons out of them, so no one cares. Does that mean the "evil" government is watching what movies you are watching and what groceries you buy? No!! They don't care. It's used for inventory, to track sales and to increase profit. And in fact, I am willing to bet that the retail industry doesn't care what YOU watch or buy either. They just want to know what most people are watching or buying.

So go back to what you were doing. Feel free to surf on the web and buy your books without having to feel like you have to look over your shoulder. Despite what the people in the government, like Hillary and Obama, tell you, they do not care about you. You can relax now.

But if you really want someone watching you all hours of the day, get a dog. You will be watched, tracked and your 1st amendment rights will be surrendered, because after all, their freedom of "speech" will trump yours. What they say goes. If they want food or to be walked while you're taking a nap, they will get their way. You might want to read the paper on a lazy Sunday morning, but they will have other ideas. You will be stared at as you eat your dinner and you will be followed as you move about the house, in case you have food. If the dog happens to be sleeping as you move around the house, they will keep one eye on you, tracking your movements in case you get food.
And if it makes you feel better, you can even name the dog "Government".

It never rains but it pours.

I remember once when I was little, my family and I were on a car trip. I forget how old I was exactly, but young enough to believe my Dad could control the weather. It was raining outside and every time my Dad yelled "Stop!" the rain would magically stop. And when he yelled "start!", it would start up again. How cool was my Dad that he could control the weather by the sound of his voice? It didn't matter that we happened to be going under a bridge when he yelled "stop!", and came out from under it when he yelled "start!". All I knew was that when he told the rain to do something, the rain obeyed his voice. Which was true (the rain did respond when he commanded it to)... but I didn't take other factors into consideration. And we all know (or I hope we all know) that no one can control the weather by the sound of their voice.

This reminds me of what's going on financially in this country today. I've heard many people lament about how "bad" things are... of how they had one job during Clinton and had money to spare, and under Bush, they work multiple jobs and are still struggling. And like the rain example, I'm sure it is true to an extent, but people aren't taking other factors into consideration. I'm sure Bush and Clinton aren't the only things that have changed in those people's situations.

My Grandparents worked more hours for less money than people today, but does that mean whomever was President then was worse than Bush or Clinton? No! For one, there's a thing called inflation. Things aren't going to cost the same now as they did in 1940 nor are they going to cost the same as they did in 1980. I feel this is one of the things that people fail to recognize. Please repeat after me: Gas will never again cost under $2.00 a gallon. It'd be nice and sure, $4 a gallon stinks. But there's nothing you can do about it, to get it to go down to $0.99 a gallon ever again, even if they drill, even if we look for alternative resources. We have to accept that.

The value of a dollar changes. Inflation changes. The cost to produce things changes. Supply & Demand change. The amount of resources available changes. Mileage per gallon changes. Even your car changes over time.

I sincerely doubt that anyone (besides my Dad who holds onto cars forever, almost past their time) still has the same car that they had 20 years ago. So if you say "gas under Clinton cost me XX to fill my tank and now under Bush, it costs XXX to fill it". No kidding, you don't say. There were a lot smaller cars on the road back when Clinton was in office, and they probably had an average of 10-12 gallon tanks. Now, everyone has humongous cars that have 20+ gallon tanks. Even if gas was the same exact price now as it was then, it would STILL cost you more because you have a bigger tank!! It's not rocket science...

Now moving away from gas... it's the same logic for the people that think it's Bush's fault that they were able to support themselves from one job during Clinton, but struggle working multiple jobs under Bush - Look to the other factors.

People that are now having families (or have established families under Bush) and buying houses now, were the same people that were in high school living at home or in college, supporting themselves. One job during that stage is enough to support oneself, doesn't matter who was President at the time. But when you grow up, buy big purchases (cars, houses, etc) and start having families, it's going to cost more That one job just won't cut it anymore. I don't see why people expect to afford bigger ticket items and try to support other people on the same job that they used to just support themselves.

Other factors can account for this as well: divorce, losing one's job, getting lower paying job, debt, addition of pets, kids or elderly parents, retirement, moving, etc... No matter what the case, I'm sure all of the people complaining about how things are so much worse now that before aren't in the same exact situation as they were 8+ years ago.

The media isn't helping the situation much, by perpetuating the myth that "evil" Bush is to blame for all of this. And like the rain example, we need to look around to our surroundings for other factors and the answers for our current situations, instead of thinking that one guy is controlling the rain.

A Shout-Out to Howard Dean

Apparently, Dean appeared on FOX news recently. I loved this quote of his especially about "race-baiting":

"...there's a lot of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats on issues, but the biggest issue of all is we don't use this kind of stuff. We never have used this kind of stuff, and we're not going to start now."

I think I must have gotten whiplash from the involuntary head-jerk I got while reading that line. "The Democrats have never used race-baiting"??? What planet is he from?

-"You are racist if you don't vote for Obama"

-"You are racist if you find anything wrong with Obama"

-"You are racist if you don't agree with Rev. Wright"

-And the list goes on and on.

Also liked how he said that "We stayed off Fox for a long time because your news department is, in fact, biased". Then why appear on other news departments that are "in fact, biased"? I'm sure he's been on CNN, CBS or NBC before. Aren't they "in fact, biased"? But wouldn't that be the prime reason to be on a network that was different from your own beliefs? To reach others that may not agree with you 100%? Why always preach to the choir? He said that Americans were ready to work together now, and I don't think only appearing on like-minded shows that agree with your views is the way to accomplish that.


View the whole article here: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dean_Accuses_Republicans_/2008/05/05/93456.html

No Boundaries

I saw something that was very disheartening to me the other day. It was an organization that helps cure asthma in minorities. I too, have asthma, so this kind of hit home for me. Why just minorities? This is a chronic disease that affects all colors, all walks of life, all genders...So why just minorities, why not everyone?

Why not focus on curing asthma, period? People die from it every day. People, period. I don’t care if more purple people die from it than everyone else every day. “People” should be the focus of that sentence, and not “purple”. Asthma isn’t selective, why are we? We need to find a cure for asthma, period. We don’t need to exclude when it comes to things like this. It affects us as people – it doesn’t affect us as colors, genders, or income; it affects us as people. And frankly, I don’t care if you are even a cat with asthma, they need treatment too. Let’s try focusing on the real problem instead of separating ourselves. If we all came together and try to solve asthma, and just asthma, with no contingencies, we would have a greater success rate than if we tried to solve it separately. And I’d even be saying this if there were a “Reducing Sunburns in Redheads of America” group. Everyone gets sunburns, and everyone deserves to benefit from that research.

And asthma isn’t the only one that is broken down in groups like this; there are others – cancers, diabetes, etc. And sure, if it’s a disease that only occurs in one group because they are the only group that happens to have those parts, sure, focus on them (ex: Ovarian cancer in women or transgenders with female parts). Don’t be silly about it.

But we don’t need “Curing Diabetes for the Tall People of America” or “Liver Cancer Research for Purple People”. By dividing ourselves, we are not helping ourselves. Let’s seek to cure DIABETES, period. Let’s knock out CANCER, period. Let’s smother ASTHMA, period. No colors, no genders, no boundaries. These diseases don’t know any boundaries, so why do we make them for ourselves?

Sorry!

So, here I am, watching the democratic debate tonight. Poor Obama, seems he's loosing his edge and Hillary's zoning in for the kill. One positive thing I'll say for Hillary is that she knows how to play the game, and Obama does not (which is consequently why he won't win).

And now Hillary has said that the Republicans should apologize for the Bush Administration and for the last 8 years and should not even have a candidate running in this race. And then implied that people were stupid if they didn't agree.

Excuse me, Mrs Clinton, but who should be apologizing to whom?!?! You gave the American people nothing but an unapology a few weeks ago. You are the master of them and wouldn't apologize even if your life depended on it. And you are in politics, so you should know - BUSH DOES NOT HAVE SUPREME POWER!!! There's a thing called "checks and balances" that our country has. Any decision made in Washington is a joint decision between the President, and the Congress, which YOU are apart of, I might add. It was a democratic majority for the last 4 years. If you weren't happy about the way things were going, why didn't you oppose them???

How elitist and full of yourself do you have to be to demand an apology from me? Or from anyone in this country, for that matter. THIS is why you are not right for this job. I'd demand an apology from you for making us listen to you flap your lips and clog our airwaves with your crap, but then I'd be on the same level as you. You have a right to the 1st Amendment as anyone else, but your "I'm-better-than-you" attitude absolutely just ruins your image. YOU WILL NOT WIN. Or did you not hear all those votes you lost as those words flew from your mouth.

No doubt, you will most likely be on the airwaves tomorrow, trying to unapologize your way out of them or say your words were "misconstrued", but we won't buy it... No, Americans are too smart for that, Mrs. Clinton.

And btw, I am NOT embarrassed that I voted for Bush, and I'd do it again if I had to, especially to keep people like YOU out of office. The only thing I'm sorry for is that I didn't vote for him when he was against Al Gore. And in fact, I am also sorry that you are so offended by Bush that you had to resort to making a low comment as you did.

p.s. In the same debate, she mentioned that she would be the candidate to unite the two parties. You wanted an apology, Mrs Clinton? Here it is: SORRY!! Not gonna happen...not with your attitude. The only time playing both sides works is when you toss a penny in a coin toss, doesn't work for humans. Sorry!

So what's the deal with Superdelegates?

Many people aren’t really aware of what superdelegates are exactly. Sure, we hear of them in passing in the media, but I have yet to hear on news station, radio or television, say what they are.

Wikipedia defines them as such: “Superdelegate" is an informal term for some of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the quadrennial convention of the United States Democratic Party.

They have the same role as delegates – they can vote in the primaries, and enable them to get the nomination. BUT, they do not have to be elected not do they vote based on our votes. They vote how they feel like it, and they make up 1/5 of the delegate vote. Which may not be much, but if there is a close race as we have now between Obama and Hillary, they can turn the race.

Right now, Obama leads in number of delegates, but if the superdelegates put in their vote, then Hillary is ahead.

And guess just who two of these superdelegates are? Our two friends Bill and Hillary, who, mind you, already voted in this election once. They get to vote yet another time as superdelegates, which essentially gives them 2 votes – a normal one that you and I have, and a super vote.

Also taken from Wikipedia, these are the democratic members who are allegeable to cast a super-vote: “all former Democratic Presidents, all former Democratic Vice Presidents, all former Democratic Leaders of the U.S. Senate, all former Democratic Speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic Minority Leaders, as applicable and all former Chairs of the Democratic National Committee.”

All of these people get TWO votes. Last time I checked, isn’t that unconstitutional? They just join the ranks of the illegals and people that live in two states who vote.

And before you ask, yes, Republicans have these type of delegates too. But they are called “unpledged delegates” and are not as much of an issue, as there is not a tie to break on the republican side. I do believe, however, that it is wrong for either party to have such a thing and people need to be more concerned about them to want to get rid of them completely. On CNN's website, had this to say: "Although the national Republican Party does not have these superdelegates, 123 members of the Republican National Committee are free to vote for any candidate at the GOP convention this summer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Of those, 26 have already expressed support for McCain and three for Huckabee."

But I guess gas prices, free healthcare, and whining about tax cut checks are much more important.

For more on Superdelegates, check out these websites:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/11/delegates.explainer/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates
http://superdelegates.org/Main_Page

Hillary and Newsmax

Newsmax.com is one of my favorite haunts on the web. I think their coverage of the 2008 election and other politics is superb. I think they are one of the best non-biased news sources out there, even though people might disagree. But in a recent article, "Hillary Apologizes to Black Voters" (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hillary_black_voters/2008/03/13/80090.html) , they disappointed me.

Hillary didn’t apologize to anyone at all. She said, and they state in the article, “''I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive. We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.” That’s not an apology by my book, nor should it be by anyone else’s. She said she was sorry if anyone was offended, not that she was sorry for her actions. It was an un-apology. It was a in-your-face, I-wasn’t-wrong-you-were, poor excuse for an “apology”. (Not to mention, I have heard this EXACT quote from her before verbatim. How honest is that, to recycle an old “apology”.) And Newsmax accepted it as such, and even called it an apology, “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does. She apologized. And once she started, she didn't seem able to stop.”

Call it like it is. Don’t sugarcoat it. They don’t do it for anyone else, why do it for Hillary? Next time I need to apologize to someone, I'd like to say "I'm sorry you were offended" and see how well they take it. I'd be willing to bet they wouldn't take it well.

Just some thoughts

So if the politically correct term is "African-American", then why do we refer to February as "Black History Month"?
I want a Redhead History Month! Or would that be "Irish-American History Month"?

Both B.O. and cigarette smoke are stinky and make people sick. So why is the first taboo and the second one isn't?
People make faces at others with B.O., look down on them, make fun of them, move away from them, etc...The offender would not say a thing, and most likely, is embarrassed by it.
But if you do any of the above actions to a smoker, then you are not respecting their rights and they get in your face, not afraid to let you know it.

Just what is "fair"?

I remember getting my first paycheck at my first job. I don’t think there are words to describe that feeling of accomplishment. I remember just staring at it, not quite sure what I was going to do with it. It was over $100 and that amount of money is nearly incomprehensible to a 16-year-old.

I had promised myself that I would get a gameboy or some other video game system with it, once I had that much money. But I changed my mind, because if I spent it, then it would all be gone. So I decided to wait until I had $500 saved up, so I’d still have some left over. But then when I got $500, spending $100 still seemed like a big chunk. So I decided to save up to $1000. But the same thing happened. I didn’t want to touch my money. It seemed like the greatest thing, just to stare at my bank account balance. Not imagining what I was going to buy with it or anything like that, just to stare at it. I never did end up buying that game system.

Another curious realization occurred to me at this time. I would read over my pay stub each week, marveling at how much I earned. But then, I began to notice the other numbers – the money I also earned, but was taken away from me. I was horrified as I watched those numbers grow, week after week. It was then that I got my rude awakening about taxes and government.

As a 16-year-old, I could not understand why my hard-earned money was being taken from me, not to mention so much of it too! “For taxes? What is the government doing with these taxes?”, were among my questions concerning this travesty. Ok, so they were helping “unfortunate” people, going towards needed programs, building roads, going towards my social security. Okay, perhaps that is justified. I’m not happy about it, but at least it was going towards making a difference, right?

And another blow hit – completely changing my naïve little mind. One of my cousins, who is the same age as me, got a check from the government, in order to support herself and her newborn son. And she takes that $2,000 check and turns out, spending the WHOLE thing on a stereo system for her boyfriend.

It suddenly dawned on me where her “free” $2,000 governmental check came from – MY paycheck, and other taxpayers like me. So let me get this straight: she is irresponsible and gets pregnant at 15, the government labels her a “poor unwed mother” and gives her free handouts (which comes from taxpayers) & not to mention that she doesn’t have to work at all, later dropping out of school.

I go to school during the week, and work on the weekends. I did not get pregnant and did not drop out of school. But she gets rewarded for her behavior?!?! Not to mention, when I am at said job on the weekends, I get yelled at, thrown stuff at, called all sorts of names and have to deal with abusive, angry, dimwitted customers to only get part of my hard-earned money taken away and given to an irresponsible teenager, who is sitting on her ass on the couch, feeding potato chips and soda to her baby and giving expensive gifts to her boyfriend?!!? I don’t think so!

I can say with all certainty that this incident was the turning point of my political association. If it weren’t for my cousin, I could have ended up as a democrat.

So, all of this ranting has brought me to my actual point: the FairTax.

The FairTax would eliminate taxes being taken from our paychecks. We’d actual receive the full amount. Instead, we’d increase the sales tax. There’s already an embedded one (and no, it’s not the 5% or 6% you pay at the register). The tax would only be slightly higher than it is now, but we’d get our whole paycheck, so in effect, you still will have more money in your pocket than you do now.

I can’t figure for the life of me why anyone would oppose this. Anyone who has ever worked can’t tell me that they like almost a third of their paycheck never arriving in their hands. I have yet to meet one person that is excited about April 15 and the IRS. So why oppose this plan so vehemently?

Simple: they don’t pay taxes in the first place, so of course they will end up shelling out more.

And to the argument of how this will only help the “evil rich” and hurt the “misfortunate poor” – if you spend more, you will pay more. It’s that simple.

It’s not “out to get” students – it’s not “out to get” anyone. Spend more, you pay more.

“But the poor spend more because they have families to take care of, etc…blah blah blah”. Bullshit. If anything, the higher income earners spend more (in theory, anyway). If that isn’t the case, then maybe you should take another look at your budgets. Spend less on iPods, cell phones, expensive cars, and other unnecessaries and you just might have some money left over. HINT: The rich stay rich because they save their money. It has nothing to do with how much you earn. It’s more of a state of mind than a state of your finances, but that’s an argument for a different day.

If you spend more, you pay more. I love it! Perhaps having my whole paycheck in my hand will give me the same feeling that my first paycheck ever gave me, with hopefully less disenchantment about the system.

NEWS FLASH

The secret to weight loss, good sleep, and happiness does not come in pill form.

And in the same fashion, the answer to good healthcare, wealth, and safety does not lie in the government.

Some random thoughts

What do you want to bet that Hillary and her cronies paid Kerry to back Obama, just so he'd lose. I honestly wouldn't put it past her. I don't put anything past her. Remember: she is willing to do anything to win. In any case, as Stephen Colbert accurately stated it, "he will be missed". It's too bad, I thought he actually had a chance to beat Hillary.

I need to make myself a t-shirt that says "Women for Hillary '08" on the front and "Iron my shirt!" on the back. It might actually be offensive, if it hadn't been staged. But, I would wager that some women would still be offended by me wearing it. And on that note, if I hear one more women say she's for Hillary just because she's a woman, I am going to scream.

Speaking of t-shirts, I found a neat one online : "Al Gore didn't invent the internet, but he did invent global warming".

Q: What do greenhouses and Hillary have in common?
A: They both have a lot of plants.
(not to mention hot air)

Wouldn't you think if you had been caught with plants in your audience before that you would stop using them? Just makes sense to me... but that would be using logic, wouldn't it?

The only difference was that Evita told Argentina not to cry for her, and Hillary cried for NH

Was it just me or did anyone else see the shadow of Evita as Hillary gave her (in)famous crying speech? Coincidence? Reincarnation? You decide. I think we need to start calling her "Evitary" instead of Boortz's favorite "Hitlary".

Hillary's transcript: (source:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08text-clinton.html)

"Thank you. Thank you.

I come tonight with a very, very full heart.

And I want especially to thank New Hampshire. Over the last week, I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice.

(APPLAUSE)

I felt like we all spoke from our hearts, and I am so gratified that you responded. Now, together, let's give America the kind of comeback that New Hampshire has just given me.

(APPLAUSE)

For all the ups and downs of this campaign, you helped remind everyone that politics isn't a game. This campaign is about people, about making a difference in your lives, about making sure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential. That has been the work of my life.

We are facing a moment of so many big challenges.

(APPLAUSE)

We know we face challenges here at home, around the world, so many challenges for the people whose lives I've been privileged to be part of.

I've met families in this state and all over our country who've lost their homes to foreclosures, men and women who work day and night but can't pay the bills and hope they don't get sick because they can't afford health insurance, young people who can't afford to go to college to pursue their dreams.

(APPLAUSE)
Too many have been invisible for too long. Well, you are not invisible to me."

And now Evita's speech from the balcony of the Casa Rosada:

"I'm only a simple woman, who lives to serve Peron and his noble crusade to rescue his people. I was once as you are now, and I promise you this: we will take the riches from the oligarchs. Only for you, for all of you. And one day, you too, will inherit these treasures, Descamisados, mis copanarios. When they fire those cannons and the crowds sing of glory. It is not just for Peron, but for all of us. For all of us!"

Evita is a wonderful musical. One of my favorites to sing along with. But it does not work well as a reality in the US.

Evita hated the middle class, because her father was middle class and they rejected her for being born out of wedlock. So she devoted her life to the lower class so that they would not be overlooked again. Hillary said it all in her last line "Too many have been invisible for too long. Well, you are not invisible to me".
But the irony in all of this, is that both of them cannot be considered lower class. Yet they act like they are apart of them. Both of them are undeniably upper class, but label themselves otherwise. And I doubt either one of them would want to give up their upper class lifestyles. But also in both cases, people go along with it. They accept them as one of them.

Evita wants to disperse money equally. Hillary wants to do the same with healthcare.

They both make promises about giving things to the people, like they are Santa, handing out presents. Both are really doing all of this for themselves. If they really cared about people, they'd be helping them, not giving them handouts.

One difference is that Evita said she was also doing this for Peron. I don't see Hillary doing this for anyone but herself, let alone Bill. So much for standing by your man.

Evita handed out money through her foundation so people could "pursue their dreams". Sounds like the poor young people that Hillary spoke of that can't "go to college to pursue their dreams".

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the people love Evita more after her crying speech, too? I wonder if Evita planted supporters in her crowds too.

Just wait: I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years or so, the newest thing on Broadway is "Hillary: The Musical" or at the very least a movie, "The Crying Game 2: Hillary's Rise to Power".