Politicians would never let something as petty as politics enter into a discussion as important as the collapse of our economy, right?
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Bailout: Politics Free? Yeah Right!
Politicians would never let something as petty as politics enter into a discussion as important as the collapse of our economy, right?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Retrospective: "We were trying to fix something that wasn't broke."
Oh, why didn't we regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!? It was the Republicans who allowed capitalism to run wild! In truth, it is both Democrats and Republicans who should claim credit for this fiasco.
A Shift in the Story
The economy is collapsing, sending shock waves throughout the world. Within the chaos, a more disturbing reality is forming. Barack Obama is gaining support because of this economic meltdown. What is going on here? Obama has been on the fence during this new piece of legislation yet his poll numbers continue to climb. John McCain has been accused of using this crisis for political gain, yet Nancy Pelosi has used this vote to prop up Barack Obama. If you read the previous post on the democrats committing political suicide, this makes absolutely no sense.
The democrats have successfully gained control of many aspects related to the election. Harry Reid has gone on record of saying that McCain's return would not be helpful. John McCain would be politically attacked if he had not come back to work on it. It was a no win situation. If the plan had gone through, Obama would be glorified, yet McCain, who helped worked on it, would be attacked for a something the taxpayers do not support.
Perhaps, some points are being missed here, but the story is being written and rewritten as we speak and no clear conclusions can be made.
The democrats have successfully gained control of many aspects related to the election. Harry Reid has gone on record of saying that McCain's return would not be helpful. John McCain would be politically attacked if he had not come back to work on it. It was a no win situation. If the plan had gone through, Obama would be glorified, yet McCain, who helped worked on it, would be attacked for a something the taxpayers do not support.
Perhaps, some points are being missed here, but the story is being written and rewritten as we speak and no clear conclusions can be made.
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Democrats and Barack Obama are committing political suicide
Do me a favor. Grab your wallet or purse real quick and take out a dollar or a bill of any amount. Do you know what that bill is worth? One dollar, five dollars, twenty dollars? No, it is worthless! It is a piece of paper. The only reason that this small piece of paper has any value is because our government uses it as a promise of value. They back that bill and guaranty that you can exchange it for goods and services.
So, what is my point? My point is that the U.S. government has the power and authority to make something worthless have value by just saying they will back it. This is where the title of this post, "The Democrats and Barack Obama are committing political suicide", comes from. The Democrats are trying to push through a bill that spends $700 billion of tax payers money. The plan the Democrats are backing has been trashed by economists across the country. The House Republicans have offered an alternative that will spend less of the tax payers money by using the same power that the U.S. governments uses to make that worthless piece of green paper in your hand, worth something.
Before I go on let me explain why there needs to be action in this crisis and what are the mechanics of this issue. The $700 billion plan was proposed because some think we need to buy up a lot of assets from the financial world that have lost their value and cannot be sold. What happens with these real estate assets is that a company takes individuals' mortgages, bundles them, and then sells them to other companies for a profit. The purchasing company then sales those same assets to another company trying to make a profit. This passing on of these assets goes on and on like a game of musical chairs. What has lead to this crisis is that everyone found out that a lot of these assets were very risky or even worthless. This led to a drop in real estate prices that led to more real estate assets being devalued. Very quickly a lot of companies found themselves with real estate assets that they could not get off their books so they could free up money to buy and trade other assets. Basically when the music stopped a lot of companies got caught without a chair to sit in.
The solution to this problem is to get the game of musical chairs going again. How do we do that? The $700 billion plan says that the American tax payers should buy all of these bad real estate assets from these companies so the game can start again. The House Republican plan says, no, neither the federal government or the tax payers should buy or own assets in such huge quantities. The Republican plan admits that there are some real estate assets that are so bad that there is no alternative but for the tax payers to buy them and hold them until their value returns. Unlike the $700 billion plan, the Republican plan says, in addition to having to buy the worst assets ($100 to $200 billion), that the market can correct itself without such a huge burden on the American tax payers. How is that?
- The government will use the same power that makes paper money valuable to fix this problem. The government will have Wall Street, and these companies that are hurting, pay for insurance on these assets. In return the government will guaranty a certain value for each of the real estate assets being held by these companies. By doing this the government has given those worthless real estate assets value, the same way it gives our money value. Those assets can now be entered back into the game of musical chairs and the market can start working again.
- The House Republicans are also asking for a reduction or elimination of the capital gains tax. The capital gains tax is the tax paid on money made in the stock markets. A reduction or elimination of this tax would make money start to flow into the market at an incredible rate thus giving the struggling companies liquid assets to use. The market would pull itself up and the American people would not be paying a dime after the original purchase of assets. Retirement plans and 401Ks would shoot back up in value as the market rose from the influx of cash. Companies would have money to expand and hire new people. Basically this would be a stimulus plan that actually works.
The Democrats and Obama would reply to my assertion, that they are committing political suicide, by saying the $700 billion plan was George Bush's idea. Are you serious? The Democrats are going to use Bush for political cover? They are going to pass a bill that Bush presented that his own party does not like not to mention almost 90+% of Americans do not like? If they keep going down this path of saying that they had a deal on this $700 billion plan until John McCain screwed it all up...they are committing political suicide. If 90+% of Americans do not like this plan then anyone who slows it down or knocks it of track will be a hero. The Democrats are making the 90+% of Americans, who hate this plan, see John McCain and the House Republicans as the voice of reason!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
A Conversation in Comments
Despite the tried separation between religion and politics, the discussion of the two in the same verse still strikes a chord with many. At the time of this post, this link had over 130 comments in two days.
Open Letter to My Fellow Jews: The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody's)
Open Letter to My Fellow Jews: The Democratic Party is not your religion (or anybody's)
Monday, September 22, 2008
A Deteriorating View
There's no doubt that journalism is under attack. One of the reasons why people are slowly ridding themselves of the mainstream media is the behavior and political inequalities displayed on seemingly meaningless shows like ABC's The View.
Despite its relatively minor role in ABC's lineup, The View is important because of its airtime on a major broadcast station. The interruptions and prepared attacks don't so much change the perception of the show as much as it damages the reputation of the network.
These women are hosts and thus representatives of the network. The lack of etiquette was disgusting and ABC as a whole ultimately takes responsibility for the actions of its hosts. In agreement or not, no guest should be treated poorly. This conduct not only damages the network, but the mainstream media as a whole.
In theory, The View is a viable concept of taking different perspectives and discussing them to showcase the similarities and differences in the United States today. This all falls apart though, due to the lack of manners and the selfishness of the hosts.
Is The View an accurate microcosm of the intolerance and egotism in today's American culture? If this intolerance is perceived to have leaked into mainstream media, then try as they might, but journalists will have an uphill battle on building their credibility back.
Despite its relatively minor role in ABC's lineup, The View is important because of its airtime on a major broadcast station. The interruptions and prepared attacks don't so much change the perception of the show as much as it damages the reputation of the network.
These women are hosts and thus representatives of the network. The lack of etiquette was disgusting and ABC as a whole ultimately takes responsibility for the actions of its hosts. In agreement or not, no guest should be treated poorly. This conduct not only damages the network, but the mainstream media as a whole.
In theory, The View is a viable concept of taking different perspectives and discussing them to showcase the similarities and differences in the United States today. This all falls apart though, due to the lack of manners and the selfishness of the hosts.
Is The View an accurate microcosm of the intolerance and egotism in today's American culture? If this intolerance is perceived to have leaked into mainstream media, then try as they might, but journalists will have an uphill battle on building their credibility back.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Why are college students(18-22 yrs old) so liberal?
(This is an opinion post and it is VERY opinionated. It is my opinion. It is a departure from this blog's purpose but one that sometimes needs to be taken.)
Why are college students so liberal? More specifically fiscally liberal? Maybe a dose of the reality of the "real world" would make them more conservative? If you ever want a dose of reality about where our tax dollars go...spending about 30 minutes in the emergency room or the free clinics down at your local county hospital will turn a die-hard liberal into a conservative! I watched as people openly advised each other how to get more aid from the government without working. Watched as a perfectly healthy looking woman bragged about how she gets disability payments. Watched as they talked about food stamps, welfare, free rent, and so on and so on as if they were badges of honor. What I was seeing is how giving too much aid to a human being takes away their self-respect and their work ethic. Government aid does not help people. It cripples them. The tragedy of the government run Indian reservations should have taught us that lesson.
Like previously stated, I have come back to college to finish my education. I consider myself to be a moderate that leans a little to the right but no one could ever call me a die-hard conservative or a toter of the Republican party line. Since coming back to college I have gotten a good laugh, every now and then, when overhearing a young college student spouting idealistic liberal thoughts for the world to hear. This happened so much that I thought to myself, "why are young college students so liberal?". Now, I am not talking about moderates who lean a little left. I am talking about the way left group. It is a fact(proven in polls...as much as polls can prove anything) that college students are more likely to be liberal than the overall population. My pet peeve and the focus of this article is how fiscally liberal young people are. So, why are people fiscally liberal in college and then get more conservative when they get out into the "real world"?.
Why are college students so liberal? More specifically fiscally liberal? Maybe a dose of the reality of the "real world" would make them more conservative? If you ever want a dose of reality about where our tax dollars go...spending about 30 minutes in the emergency room or the free clinics down at your local county hospital will turn a die-hard liberal into a conservative! I watched as people openly advised each other how to get more aid from the government without working. Watched as a perfectly healthy looking woman bragged about how she gets disability payments. Watched as they talked about food stamps, welfare, free rent, and so on and so on as if they were badges of honor. What I was seeing is how giving too much aid to a human being takes away their self-respect and their work ethic. Government aid does not help people. It cripples them. The tragedy of the government run Indian reservations should have taught us that lesson.
What was I doing at a county run hospital? I am a college student without health coverage. Does that make me a hypocrite? No, I am a college student who is improving myself in order to contribute to our society. Not to mention I am already fully vested in the Social Security System. My examples are of people who openly do not want to work and actually pursue more and more aid from our government. I have less of a problem with government aid as long as the recipient is going to school, working, or receiving vocational training with conditions.
Like previously stated, I have come back to college to finish my education. I consider myself to be a moderate that leans a little to the right but no one could ever call me a die-hard conservative or a toter of the Republican party line. Since coming back to college I have gotten a good laugh, every now and then, when overhearing a young college student spouting idealistic liberal thoughts for the world to hear. This happened so much that I thought to myself, "why are young college students so liberal?". Now, I am not talking about moderates who lean a little left. I am talking about the way left group. It is a fact(proven in polls...as much as polls can prove anything) that college students are more likely to be liberal than the overall population. My pet peeve and the focus of this article is how fiscally liberal young people are. So, why are people fiscally liberal in college and then get more conservative when they get out into the "real world"?.
Here are four articles and polls siting the liberality of college students and faculty:
Data from Cal Berkeley
Data from UCLA
College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues
As the writers of South Park pointed out(Episode 902, Die Hippie, Die), college students are so liberal because they get on campus, take a freshman psychology class, a freshman humanities class, and all of the sudden they are experts on the world and how the world should be. As a person who has had to make ends meet in the "real world", I can not help but be amused by this phase that young students around me are going through. See, most of them are fresh from mom and dad's house. Most of them have never had to work for a living, and I do mean work for a living, not a part time job while in high school or college. They have not yet earned a $6000.00 paycheck that is only $4000.00 after the government is done taking their part in order to fund those idealistic programs that so many liberals want. They have never worked 60-80 hours in a week only to see other citizens of this country get paid for doing nothing or get paid for the simple act of having another child.
It is a fact that the general population is less liberal than college students so it is obvious that the realities of the real world, the realities of supporting a family, the realities of making a mortgage payment, and the realities of making ends meet everyday have the effect of toning down the idealistic but naive ideas of young college students.
And, yes, I know, I know, every young liberal college student is going to rail against this post and say it is not true, probably call me some bad names, but get back to me when you are 32 years old...tell me then if I was right or wrong. Obviously not everyone completely abandons their liberal views, or even their fiscal liberal views, after college but a large number do. And, yes, I know that college graduates are more likely to be liberal and that liberals take that to mean that to be liberal is to be enlightened. The reason college graduates are more likely to be liberal is because of liberal college professors. (Hmmmm? I wonder? Could it be that liberal professors are more liberal because they haven't been out in the "real world" either? Maybe not.) Anyway, college professors are overwhelmingly more likely to be liberal and, after four years of college, is it any wonder why college graduates are more likely to be liberal? Of course this is my opinion and I do apologize to any professors who are reading this blog. Especially any professors whose classes I am currently taking. I still want an A!
(Even if you hate my post...you have to admit that the South Park clip is funny!)
Data from Cal Berkeley
Data from UCLA
College Faculties: A Most Liberal Lot, Study Finds
Pragmatic Americans Liberal and Conservative on Social Issues
As the writers of South Park pointed out(Episode 902, Die Hippie, Die), college students are so liberal because they get on campus, take a freshman psychology class, a freshman humanities class, and all of the sudden they are experts on the world and how the world should be. As a person who has had to make ends meet in the "real world", I can not help but be amused by this phase that young students around me are going through. See, most of them are fresh from mom and dad's house. Most of them have never had to work for a living, and I do mean work for a living, not a part time job while in high school or college. They have not yet earned a $6000.00 paycheck that is only $4000.00 after the government is done taking their part in order to fund those idealistic programs that so many liberals want. They have never worked 60-80 hours in a week only to see other citizens of this country get paid for doing nothing or get paid for the simple act of having another child.
It is a fact that the general population is less liberal than college students so it is obvious that the realities of the real world, the realities of supporting a family, the realities of making a mortgage payment, and the realities of making ends meet everyday have the effect of toning down the idealistic but naive ideas of young college students.
And, yes, I know, I know, every young liberal college student is going to rail against this post and say it is not true, probably call me some bad names, but get back to me when you are 32 years old...tell me then if I was right or wrong. Obviously not everyone completely abandons their liberal views, or even their fiscal liberal views, after college but a large number do. And, yes, I know that college graduates are more likely to be liberal and that liberals take that to mean that to be liberal is to be enlightened. The reason college graduates are more likely to be liberal is because of liberal college professors. (Hmmmm? I wonder? Could it be that liberal professors are more liberal because they haven't been out in the "real world" either? Maybe not.) Anyway, college professors are overwhelmingly more likely to be liberal and, after four years of college, is it any wonder why college graduates are more likely to be liberal? Of course this is my opinion and I do apologize to any professors who are reading this blog. Especially any professors whose classes I am currently taking. I still want an A!
(Even if you hate my post...you have to admit that the South Park clip is funny!)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Economic Panic We Are In: Give credit to McCain. He said it would happen.
The Democrats are running with the economy as a political plus for themselves. I do not blame them for that because it has been a good strategy but they need to be careful. The reason markets are collapsing and businesses are failing is because of the mortgage crisis. One man warned us, on the record, this would happen. It was John McCain:
FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005The United States Senate
May 25, 2006
Section 16"Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation." -John McCain, May 2006
He was right! In addition to him being right, Barack Obama was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions. Fannie and Freddie play a huge role in the economic panic we are in right now.
A group called the Center for Responsive Politics keeps track of which politicians get Fannie and Freddie political contributions. The top three U.S. senators getting big Fannie and Freddie political bucks were Democrats and No. 2 is Sen. Barack Obama. - Fox News, John Gibson
Information I collected from Center for Responsive Politics or OpenSecrets.org:
John McCain's top contributors 2003-2008:
| Contributor | Total |
|---|---|
| Merrill Lynch | $293,010 |
| Citigroup Inc | $251,851 |
| Goldman Sachs | $223,995 |
| Morgan Stanley | $212,821 |
| AT&T Inc | $187,673 |
| Blank Rome LLP | $175,326 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $169,625 |
| Greenberg Traurig LLP | $154,687 |
| Credit Suisse Group | $144,525 |
| Bank of America | $120,625 |
| Pinnacle West Capital | $119,250 |
| Lehman Brothers | $115,800 |
| UBS AG | $114,315 |
| US Government | $112,101 |
| Wachovia Corp | $110,462 |
| PricewaterhouseCoopers | $109,270 |
| FedEx Corp | $108,253 |
| Hess Corp | $95,050 |
| US Army | $92,007 |
| Blackstone Group | $91,500 |
There are several struggling companies at the top of McCain's list but they are also on Obama's.
Barack Obama's top contributors 2003-2008:
| Contributor | Total |
|---|---|
| Goldman Sachs | $689,280 |
| University of California | $531,070 |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co | $449,671 |
| Citigroup Inc | $411,504 |
| Harvard University | $407,452 |
| University of Chicago | $396,339 |
| UBS AG | $390,000 |
| Google Inc | $379,212 |
| Lehman Brothers | $365,922 |
| Skadden, Arps et al | $358,121 |
| Sidley Austin LLP | $356,345 |
| Kirkland & Ellis | $351,714 |
| Moveon.org | $347,463 |
| Morgan Stanley | $314,638 |
| Exelon Corp | $310,911 |
| National Amusements Inc | $298,500 |
| Microsoft Corp | $280,425 |
| Time Warner | $279,859 |
| Jones Day | $266,705 |
| Latham & Watkins | $255,095 |
In 2008 Freddie Mac has given the most money to:
Top Recipients
| Senate | Dodd, Christopher J | $28,800 |
| Senate | Obama, Barack | $18,150 |
| Senate | Clinton, Hillary | $17,600 |
| House | Bean, Melissa | $11,249 |
| Senate | McCain, John | $9,500 |
Obama got twice as much as McCain but McCain is still fifth. That is pretty high considering his statements against GSEs.
I am not going to try to sway anyone's opinion on this issue. I just want to put forward the facts. What do you think about the facts I have provided? Does this effect your vote any? Does this change your mind any on which candidate can best fix the economy?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Republican Narrative
One of the reasons Republicans are able to still gain a foothold in a political landscape filled with promises and handouts is their ability to craft a story behind their candidates. President George W. Bush was painted as an non-elitist and someone you'd "drink a beer with. " While John McCain has been developed as a war hero, it's still hard to separate him from the rest of the Washington. Enter Sarah Palin.Sarah and her family have become a media sensation, grabbing the interest of the American people. Fox News is even running an interview with her husband, Todd, also known as "the first dude." These interviews are meant to humanize Sarah Palin and give her an aura of a working class family that people can relate to. After watching the first part, it's obvious that there are few political questions raised in these interviews. Will this strategy work and win the hearts of the country?
It's important to remember that this is all a political strategy and it is easy to become emotional attached to a story with characters that have been carefully developed. While it puts a positive spin on things, does this evade the issues? Is building a story behind the candidate an effective way to combat mudslinging?
Greta van Susteren's Todd Palin Interview
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
"I will lower your taxes! My opponent will raise them!"
I could attribute the title quote of this post to either candidate in this election and most elections. One of them has to be lying or, at least, partially lying! Right?
Out of frustration I tried to find the truth. Below is a graph that compares McCain's tax strategy vs. Obama's.
Here are the problems I see.
Out of frustration I tried to find the truth. Below is a graph that compares McCain's tax strategy vs. Obama's.
Here are the problems I see.
- Obama talks about how he will cut taxes on 95% of Americans. That can't be true because at least 20% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all.
FACTCHECK.ORG
FactChecking Obama
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them. - Obama says he will cut taxes on the middle class but will raise taxes on large corporations. Barack, come on! I am not sure how any American can let this piece of spin get by them. Large corporations are large because they are good at making money. Do you really think that large corporations are going to pay extra taxes and let that hurt their bottom line? No, Barack, they won't! Those large corporations are in the business of making money. They will take the extra costs of Obama's tax increases and pass them onto their customers. Who are their customers? You, me, the lower class and, yes, the middle class of America. If you buy groceries, gas, consumer products, etc...Obama's tax increases will effect you the same way as if he taxed you directly.
Now, our opponents tell us not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they're not going to tax your family. (Laughter.) No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So, unless you buy something from a business, like groceries or clothes or gasoline -- (laughter) -- or unless you get a paycheck from a business, a big business or a small business, don't worry, it's not going to affect you! (Laughter, cheers, applause.) They say they're not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket! (Laughter.) That's their idea of tax reform. Fred Thompson, Speech at GOP Convention
- John McCain needs to explain how he is going to reduce our deficit and cut taxes at the same time. Just saying he will shrink the size of government is not enough. What will you shrink John? Where will you get the money the government needs if not through taxes?
- More important than what his plan is to cut taxes and balance the budget, McCain needs to tell me(us) how he is going to get these policies through a backed up and broken Congress. Honestly...John McCain needs to give us his plans on most of the issues facing Americans today. The Democrats are not exactly being forthcoming with hard numbers but I have heard even less from the McCain camp. Tell us your plan John.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Why are Republicans better than Democrats at the "political game"?
First before I post this...I know 9/11 is a politics-free zone but something happened yesterday that needs discussion.
My contention has always been that Republicans are better than Democrats at running a presidential campaign. It seems like every four years that Democrats come up with a candidate that excites their base and looks like a real contender and most of the time they mess it up. This year the Democrats had a clear path to the White House. People were so upset and ready for change that either Obama or Hillary Clinton should have rolled through the season uncontested....but it did not happen.
The DNC's past failures are what made something standout to me yesterday. Obama and McCain visited ground zero yesterday. I immediately noticed that Cindy McCain was there but Michele Obama was not. I did not think much of it because of the importance of the day and because, frankly, I didn't care. Michele Obama not being there is no great offense or a great mistake for her or her husband. What it is, is a lack of understanding by the DNC of the political game. I find it hard to believe that none of Obama's advisers saw a problem with Michele not being at ground zero.
Michele Obama's absence was not a major blunder but it was a mistake for a woman who has been repeatedly accused of not being patriotic. She was hammered for saying, "For the first time I am proud of my country." , she and her husband were harassed for not wearing flag pins, and she has even been called a racist. So, why oh why, would anyone in the DNC not see that Cindy McCain being at ground zero and Michele Obama not being there would be more fuel for the fire? She could have skipped the appearance at ground zero under any other circumstances and in any other campaign....but not this one.
The press didn't make a big deal of it. The RNC isn't making a big deal out of it. Heck, even Fox News isn't making a big deal of it. But I guaranty you that people, who were already questioning her, now have another piece of evidence to back up their opinion that she isn't patriotic and does not love her country. The accusation is unfair and most likely untrue but when has fairness and truth ever mattered in a presidential election?!?
Michele Obama's dissertation.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
9/11: where were you?
It is a vivid memory for me. I was asleep trying to recover after breaking my ankle the day before. My phone rang and I heard my mother in an upset voice asking me to stay at home. She did not know what was going on but she heard that planes might have been hijacked and that the World Trade Center might be under attack. My mother is very protective, no matter how old I get, so I was skeptical that there was really anything serious going on. I turned on the television to see one tower on fire while the t.v. commentator said she did not know exactly what was going on. Just then the 2nd plane came into view and crashed into the 2nd building. I thought it was a dream.
I continued to watch the coverage while frantic reports, theories, and the news of the attack on the Pentagon came in. I was in shock during most of this but I remember the only time I really became truly horrified, and not just angry, is when the t.v. commentator said she thought the fire was exploding out or getting worse. I sat up in my bed and yelled, "It's not the fire! IT'S FALLING!!! IT'S FALLING!!!". That feeling was the 2nd worst feeling I have ever felt, the 1st is personal. It was like I couldn't breath. I told friends and family, and I still truly believe, that if it wasn't for my shattered ankle...I would have volunteered for the military that day.
We feel safe now. I just saw a poll that only 11% of voters say that terrorism is their main issue when voting. I understand that number. We can't live in fear but we also can't forget what happened that day. We can't forget the feeling that we felt that day. I know I never will.
On the job training and a change (of mind)
Is anyone really ready for running our country's highest office?
Ok, so to summarize tonight's posts: neither of the candidates win when it comes to discussing gender or experience.
Ok, so to summarize tonight's posts: neither of the candidates win when it comes to discussing gender or experience.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Is a Conservative Woman Capable of Breaking the Glass Ceiling?
Vice presidential nominee, senator Joe Biden, tossed around the usual political rhetoric when he stated that Sarah Palin would be a step back for women. What is he really saying though? Is she incapable of being a good role model for the women of America because she's pro-life and supports other conservative principles? He didn't strike against her ethics or experience. Biden himself is attacking women by saying they should follow a particular faction and set of beliefs.
Outside the political spectrum, she has the potential to be the first woman to be elected into the second highest position in this country, while becoming a beacon for women everywhere. Yes, she might of been selected as a political ploy, but she can rise above that through strong leadership. Even if you don't agree with her, the fact is that she is a woman running for the seat of vice president of the United States of America. Who is Joe Biden to say who is and isn't correct in their views? This all seems like a carefully laid trap, and Biden got bit.
Outside the political spectrum, she has the potential to be the first woman to be elected into the second highest position in this country, while becoming a beacon for women everywhere. Yes, she might of been selected as a political ploy, but she can rise above that through strong leadership. Even if you don't agree with her, the fact is that she is a woman running for the seat of vice president of the United States of America. Who is Joe Biden to say who is and isn't correct in their views? This all seems like a carefully laid trap, and Biden got bit.
Biden: Palin becoming VP would be a step back for women
Lipstick
Obama called Palin a pig!!! At least that is what people would have you think.
In my opinion, Obama did not mean to directly call Palin a pig! His comments were about Bush policies versus McCain policies!
This does raise a funny comparison though. Democrats are appalled that Obama is being taken out of context. They cry, "That isn't what he meant!". But, wait, I remember a huge number of Obama supporters talking about how McCain said he would be willing to wage a 100 year war in Iraq? That was a lie and a distortion. What McCain said was that he would be willing to have a "military presence" in Iraq for 100 years. "Presence" as in the "presence" we have had in Germany and Japan since World War II. The presence we have in the Philippines, Cuba, and South Korea. To distort what McCain said to use it against him is the exact same thing that is being done now, to Obama, with the lipstick comment. I find it laughable how one side cries foul when their own tactics are used against them!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Palin speech: What wasn't there
I was impressed by Obama and his speech at the DNC but I was blown away by Palin's speech last night. The question I have is: what was not there in her speech? I found it interesting that there was no pro-life statement in her speech. Strategy? Yes. After looking at her experience and hearing her speak it is obvious, to me at least, that she is qualified for the job BUT she is still an obvious tool being used by the Republican party. She is being used to court the base but she is also being used to court disenfranchised Hillary voters.
It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.
Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech
It was smart of her and the Republican party for her not to make a definitive pro-life statement in her first big moment. I think the Republicans know that she could have turned off a large portion of pro-choice women with a definitive statement. What she did do is hint at the subject with a "wink, wink" to the base but no statement that the Democrats could run with. She did so by introducing her new baby with downs syndrome as, "And we were so blessed in April. Todd and I welcomed are littlest one into the world. A perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig". That statement is an obvious pro-life statement and falls in line with the Republican stance that all life is precious from the minute of conception. It says to people that they could have terminated the pregnancy when they found out their baby had downs syndrome but they didn't. She managed to make a pro-life point without taking a definitive pro-life stance in her first and most important major address.
Question: Is it okay for Palin to use her son Trig in a speech and in the politics of "choice" if it is not okay for Democrats to involve her family? Her speech
Then don't pick a fight!!!
The Democrats and their spin doctors are up in arms about Sarah Palin's speech last night. They say she was "shrill"(that sounds sexist to me) and nasty. Democrats can't believe she attacked and belittled community organizers and that it is "politics as usual" in the Republican party.
HOLD ON A SECOND!!! I am trying to be fair to both sides but there is something very wrong about this situation. I have watched every second of political coverage I could over the last two weeks and someone here is hitting below the belt and then whining when they get a retort. Democrats have roasted this woman and HER FAMILY every second since she was named the Vice-Presidential Nominee. There have been vicious false rumors started on left-leaning blogs and outright tabloid journalism from the mainstream media. Who is really being nasty here? They attacked her children. At least she attacked the other candidate.
I would hope that we could have politics without attacks but what Democrats did to Sarah Palin and what she did to Obama last night are two very different things. She questioned his experience. A person's experience is on the table when that person is running for President of the United States. They attacked her family. A person's family is never on the table! So, it is funny to me that Democrats are whining today because she took them to task on a legitimate point of discussion after they have assaulted her on an illegitimate one.
This blog is dedicated to "wiping off the mud" that is being slung and looking at the facts. My hope is for politics that are fair and clean but I have to interject when one party goes as low as a party can go and then whines when the target of their attacks fights back, not with family attacks or nasty mud slinging, but with serious questions on a legitimate topic. The Democrats want their cake and to eat it too. Don't be negative, petty, and nasty then run to momma whining when you get your nose bloodied.
Having said that, I want to say one thing about the spin doctors I have been watching last night and this morning on this subject. They say Palin and the Republicans made a huge mistake attacking community organizers and that community organizers are going to rise up against them after being belittled. COME ON!?! REALLY?!? That's the basket they are going to put their eggs in? REALLY?!?!? Again...I don't like negative politics and nasty attacks but I think this is a major stretch. Palin did not attack community organizers! She attacked Obama for using his experience as a community organizer to say he is ready to be the most powerful man in the world. There is a big difference. It does not mean I have anything against fast food workers if I question a person for using that as a bullet point on their resume to be the CEO of a company.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Boundary Lines
We are quickly learning that nothing is held sacred in this age of hyperconectivity. Often labeled under "searching for the truth," families of those running for office are getting trampled by the ferocity of various political factions searching for any kind of information that would give their backing the advantage.
These political attacks on Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin's family have become absurd. It's a dangerous mix of sensationalism and mudslinging that is changing the face of politics. It directs us away from the conversation at hand and attempts to lead us towards endless bickering.
Michelle Obama has become infamous for her "for the first time in my life" comments. Instead of raising the question for further explanation, this quote was jumped on and viewed as "proof" that her and Barack were anti-American and elitests. In Michelle's defense, First Lady Laura Bush suggested, "I think she probably meant I'm 'more proud,' you know, is what she really meant," adding, "I mean, I know that, and that's one of the things you learn and that's one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is, everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued."
Sarah Palin was assaulted with questions only hours after her name reached the public and many of the attacks dealt with pieces of information that haven't been fully assembled. Given time, we'll understand more, but so many people have rushed to judgment on these stories already, questioning McCain's decision making ability.
So where do we draw the line? How do we set rules in a time where anything goes? Despite having access to more information than ever, we are still learning how to handle this flow of information. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but we must learn to keep them as questions and not tools to manipulate others.
These political attacks on Michelle Obama and Sarah Palin's family have become absurd. It's a dangerous mix of sensationalism and mudslinging that is changing the face of politics. It directs us away from the conversation at hand and attempts to lead us towards endless bickering.
Michelle Obama has become infamous for her "for the first time in my life" comments. Instead of raising the question for further explanation, this quote was jumped on and viewed as "proof" that her and Barack were anti-American and elitests. In Michelle's defense, First Lady Laura Bush suggested, "I think she probably meant I'm 'more proud,' you know, is what she really meant," adding, "I mean, I know that, and that's one of the things you learn and that's one of the really difficult parts both of running for president and for being the spouse of the president, and that is, everything you say is looked at and in many cases misconstrued."
Sarah Palin was assaulted with questions only hours after her name reached the public and many of the attacks dealt with pieces of information that haven't been fully assembled. Given time, we'll understand more, but so many people have rushed to judgment on these stories already, questioning McCain's decision making ability.
So where do we draw the line? How do we set rules in a time where anything goes? Despite having access to more information than ever, we are still learning how to handle this flow of information. There is nothing wrong with asking questions, but we must learn to keep them as questions and not tools to manipulate others.
Political hatred
People today act like if their candidate loses the election that the world will come to an end. I believe, and so did George Washington, that we are Americans before we are ever Democrats or Republicans:
"In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discrimination's, Northern and Southern, Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against the jealousies and heartburnings which spring from these misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. " - George Washington in his Farewell Address 1796
The world of George Washington was very different from the world of today but his ideas are still as current as if they were spoken yesterday. Blind allegiance to a particular party or ideology is more rampant than ever. People are angry and scared that if their candidate or their party does not win the election, it is the end of the world. People are openly spewing venom and hatred at our President which was unheard of, or at least less public, in the past. He is OUR President. This is OUR country. No matter how bad it has become for you under the other party's leadership...it is not as bad as it is in other countries who are not as free as we are. In some countries the loss of the party you support means maiming or death. Attempting to vote for your party could lead to a similiar fate.
Even in the worst of times, we have it better than most of the world. Our disagreements and political beefs are nothing compared to people in other countries where at every sunrise your chances of making it to sundown are slim. The poorest people in our country still benefit from our immense success and infrastructure. A FEMA trailer and a soup kitchen would be extravagant luxuries in most of the rest of the world. And, yet, we squabble over ideas and minor differences. It is our country's great success which makes us so comfortable, and so cushioned from the harshness of the real world, that we have the luxury to argue minute points of disagreement. I challenge you to find many pro-life or pro-choice supporters in the famine ridden countries of the world. Go to the poorest countries in Africa and see what their opinion is on gun control or greenhouse gas emissions.
My point is: we have it pretty good and we still have similiar base beliefs, for the most part. We are a country. We are in this together. We need to work together. Democrats need to respect and work with Republicans, Republicans need to respect and work with Democrats, and above all of our squabbles and disagreements, we need to remember that we need each other!
Monday, September 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
