I was a bit tickled when I read this headline on Drudge:
"Mr. Co-President? Obama upstages Bush on economy."
Here's the link to the story.
Now -- when you read the headline, it really looks negative on Barrack. After all, he's not in the White House yet -- even though he's gotten MORE respect and notice from virtually everyone on the planet than the Lame Duck has. So the term "upstage" -- to draw away from ... is a curious adjective to describe Obama.
Consider the quote in the article: " The Democratic president-elect, who kept a low profile for three weeks after his White House win, has swung into action with a series of economic pronouncements and cabinet selections that have overshadowed President George W. Bush.
If financial markets are clamoring for more leadership, Obama got the message.
"There is a leadership vacuum. If Obama doesn't fill it, more panic will result in (the) short run, and the problem will become greater by the time he officially takes office," said Stephen Wayne, professor of government at Georgetown University."
.....
hmmmm....
There's a leadership vacuum. Financial markets are clamoring for more leadership.
This doesn't sound anywhere close to being an "upstaging" moment -- as much as it's a competence moment where the incoming commander in chief is sounding MORE presidential than our current commander in chief.....
Bush had his chance at trying to fix the economy. If anything, he's proven not only is he inept at it -- but willing to drive it into the face of the earth because it just doesn't matter to him. With some much that this President has done to our nation -- it's a shame that Obama can't go to work any earlier than what the Constitution allows.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Playing Chess
Obama came riding into history touting real change in Washington.
While I'm still an adamant Obama supporter, I don't blindly follow everything he's going to do. Unlike a lot of the Bush apologists out there -- I'm pretty reasonably educated and capable of some independent thought processes. So that's why I'm a little taken aback that the best person for the job of Secretary of State -- is turning out to be Hillary. And while that sounds like an ultimate "diss" on Hillary -- it's not. I come from a very well skewed view of foreign relations -- as I don't believe in Reagan's "cowboy diplomacy" or Bush's "Darth Vader" approach to the world stage.
Colin Powell had it.
Madeline Albright had it.
James Baker even had it at times.
There's a certain gravitas that they bring to the international community. Not trying to grab the international spotlight. Not trying to thumb their nose at their adversaries or behave in some sort of insolent manner, but you build alliances and solidify your friendships to reach your common goals. Bush has vigorously RIPPED those alliances to the point where no one considered the United States to be much of an ally.
All that changed the moment Obama was elected and the world leaders responded in kind -- even some that wanted to deal directly with him instead of the Lame Duck still quacking in the Oval.
If Hillary is his only choice -- then I really wished that he would've had Joe Biden tapped for Sec. of State instead. The man gets foreign policy and while I have every reason to believe Joe will do great things from the V.P. -- Hillary would've made a great V.P. as well, but not as good in Sec. of State. She's a bit too flamboyant for the job -- and the international scene may not take too kindly to that.
I do hope she proves me wrong. Because while I do believe that this position is one of those "highly heralded" type positions in any administration. It's a cornerstone in how you're going to interface with the rest of the world and it would've been wonderful to see the likes of a "no non-sense" position for Colin Powell, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. I can't blame Colin though - not after what he endured under this last regime.
Several critics have come out against Obama's choices for various positions citing that there's no real change coming if he keeps appointing from the "greatest hits" from the Clinton years. If Barack is listening (and I know he visits Spoonsrant all the time) -- "Americans demanded change, not a revisit of the 1990's."
While I'm still an adamant Obama supporter, I don't blindly follow everything he's going to do. Unlike a lot of the Bush apologists out there -- I'm pretty reasonably educated and capable of some independent thought processes. So that's why I'm a little taken aback that the best person for the job of Secretary of State -- is turning out to be Hillary. And while that sounds like an ultimate "diss" on Hillary -- it's not. I come from a very well skewed view of foreign relations -- as I don't believe in Reagan's "cowboy diplomacy" or Bush's "Darth Vader" approach to the world stage.
Colin Powell had it.
Madeline Albright had it.
James Baker even had it at times.
There's a certain gravitas that they bring to the international community. Not trying to grab the international spotlight. Not trying to thumb their nose at their adversaries or behave in some sort of insolent manner, but you build alliances and solidify your friendships to reach your common goals. Bush has vigorously RIPPED those alliances to the point where no one considered the United States to be much of an ally.
All that changed the moment Obama was elected and the world leaders responded in kind -- even some that wanted to deal directly with him instead of the Lame Duck still quacking in the Oval.
If Hillary is his only choice -- then I really wished that he would've had Joe Biden tapped for Sec. of State instead. The man gets foreign policy and while I have every reason to believe Joe will do great things from the V.P. -- Hillary would've made a great V.P. as well, but not as good in Sec. of State. She's a bit too flamboyant for the job -- and the international scene may not take too kindly to that.
I do hope she proves me wrong. Because while I do believe that this position is one of those "highly heralded" type positions in any administration. It's a cornerstone in how you're going to interface with the rest of the world and it would've been wonderful to see the likes of a "no non-sense" position for Colin Powell, but I guess it wasn't meant to be. I can't blame Colin though - not after what he endured under this last regime.
Several critics have come out against Obama's choices for various positions citing that there's no real change coming if he keeps appointing from the "greatest hits" from the Clinton years. If Barack is listening (and I know he visits Spoonsrant all the time) -- "Americans demanded change, not a revisit of the 1990's."
Friday, November 21, 2008
A bigger problem than Prop 8
Fundamentally -- I think Prop 8 is illegal.
When laws are created to specifically remove the rights of a group of people -- it's unconstitutional. It's a legal argument that will play out for a long time to come. In my mind -- religion has no place in the laws of man. The two should remain separate and I'm hopeful the courts follow that wisdom by making Prop 8 the unconstitutional law that it's become.
But while the courts wrangle with that elephant, there's a much larger problem in today's society that has gone relatively un-noticed and ignored for quite awhile now. Specifically, it happened in the 2000 and 2004 elections. A movement that was mentioned by name, but never really put under the glass of scrutiny. It's affectionately known as the religious right. A cascading tidal wave of politically motivated campaigns, propositions and referendums. Religion + politics. Oh, I don't think it takes that much of a thinker to see that there could be some real problems with that.
For instance: let's say that one day we get a real radical in the White House. All of a sudden he decides that his native beliefs of Mormonism should be the top religion in the United States. He might actually go as far as to say that all Americans should practice from the fundamentals of Joseph Smith and the other prophets. Would you be offended if he denounces your belief? Don't you think the Catholics may have a word or two to say about this?
That's the problem I have with the founders of Prop 8.
What gave the Mormons the *right* to cross that mythical boundary that separates church and state? Oh, they're just practicing their right to congregate and decide what issues are in their best interests, right? Says them. I don't think I need anyone making that determination for me -- nor do I think it's exceedingly prudent to have any one denomination -- even coupled together on like-minded issues making that determination for America.
Proposition 8 breeds intolerance at a time when it was met against a pretty significant historical precedent wherein the first African American -- despite the enormity of history against the plight of the black man -- was elected to become President of the United States. You'd think that the moment Barack Obama was elected -- the country had officially turned another corner. But when you look back to the west coast -- you've got to wonder what part of the caboose fell off its track.
When I would later learn that it was the churches INVESTING heavily on the California ballot initiative -- my mind went back to 2000 and 2004 all over again. It was the ugliness of the religious right spewing its intolerant hate-filled agenda for the masses to be afraid of the gay man or the gay woman. Who - in this land - has become the likes of God - telling people who they can or can't associate with? Please explain this.
It's the fanatics of the right fringe that thought it was a good idea to try to force feed an initiative in Colorado to determine when the moment "life" began. Even some REPUBLICANS came out against the moment a sperm came in contact with an egg because even THEY realized that this was completely stupid and nuts.
And if anything -- it solidified for me the single premise that religion has a place in our lives -- OUR PRIVATE LIVES -- but it has absolutely no business being in the world of politics. No Church in this land was threatened by homosexuals because there was NO LAW that would mandate every church to marry a gay or lesbian couple in the confines of their sacred ground. No Church was being FORCED to conduct these ceremonies or even RECOGNIZE them within the context of their religious beliefs.
Legalizing gay and lesbian marriages gave basic, human, fundamental RIGHTS to those people who cannot get health care for their loved ones, cannot be by their bedside in their dying moments, cannot adopt children who aren't wanted by hetero-sexual couples and a lot of other basic rights. It had nothing to do with the Church, but the Church made damn sure it had something to do with gay and lesbian relationships.
If folks don't start realizing the problem with mixing religion and the government -- then this is just going to be the small apple on the tree. Unless I missed that day in social studies class -- we have the right in this country to practice our religious beliefs privately and without any such intervention from the government. But that changes when a religious sect (or major denomination) decides that their beliefs somehow stand above all others. Oh - Christians and Catholics may be on the same side of Mormons on this go'round ... but there's a reason why we have so many different forms of Christianity in this country. That's why there's so many different points of view in how the basic fundamental practice of God and Jesus in the lives of Americans will eventually cause that "unity of spirit" to be looked at with scorn and then we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands.
Just look at the "holy war" that goes on the moment you mention the phrase: "Merry Christmas." That's pretty darn offensive to the Jewish faith, no? Isn't that why they have at least extended the "Happy Holidays" greeting instead -- so that it doesn't tread on their belief structure? So then why are the likes of Bill O'Reilly and other religious fanatics say they are for Israel, but dammit - it's always going to be "Merry Christmas."
Oh - no one considers the big "problems" with religion and government. That's why we still have ongoing issues with school prayer, the 10 commandments and holiday displays that constantly tax our court systems. Already -- there's a lot of uneasiness between our various religious sects and this doesn't even begin to account for the incredible fear generated by the far right religious fanatics when they tried to invoke the fear of Islam with Obama during the recent Presidential Election. So you seriously can't believe that we're all living in peaceful, spiritual harmony from shore to shore.
The Mormons took it upon themselves to overturn a law that was voted in BY the people of California legalizing gay and lesbian marriages. I'm sorry -- but the moment a church -- any church decides that they have the "right" to politicize their agenda (ahem ... erm) beliefs on the rest of us -- resonates a clear and present danger to our democracy. What gave the Mormons the "right" to decide what MY belief should be? What gives the Mormons the "right" to create laws to govern how *I* choose to live my life?
From where I stand -- if a church wants to go ahead and start politicizing their points of view in the form of propositions and laws -- then I think it's time to taxing these churches for crossing a very visible line between church and state. The Mormons had every right to do what they did in California -- and we have every right to tax every single cent they bring in and make this a tax-revenue machine for our ailing economy. It's time that these religions realize that their "safe haven" status has officially ended the moment they got involved in the political process in this country.
When Churches have PAID STAFF to work the Proposition, or a candidate -- then they have done more than just "suggest" that their congregation support a cause or a person -- they've crossed that line by a few hundred miles by the looks of it.
Let's just hope that someone in the process has the courage to see it as well -- and finally do something about it.
When laws are created to specifically remove the rights of a group of people -- it's unconstitutional. It's a legal argument that will play out for a long time to come. In my mind -- religion has no place in the laws of man. The two should remain separate and I'm hopeful the courts follow that wisdom by making Prop 8 the unconstitutional law that it's become.
But while the courts wrangle with that elephant, there's a much larger problem in today's society that has gone relatively un-noticed and ignored for quite awhile now. Specifically, it happened in the 2000 and 2004 elections. A movement that was mentioned by name, but never really put under the glass of scrutiny. It's affectionately known as the religious right. A cascading tidal wave of politically motivated campaigns, propositions and referendums. Religion + politics. Oh, I don't think it takes that much of a thinker to see that there could be some real problems with that.
For instance: let's say that one day we get a real radical in the White House. All of a sudden he decides that his native beliefs of Mormonism should be the top religion in the United States. He might actually go as far as to say that all Americans should practice from the fundamentals of Joseph Smith and the other prophets. Would you be offended if he denounces your belief? Don't you think the Catholics may have a word or two to say about this?
That's the problem I have with the founders of Prop 8.
What gave the Mormons the *right* to cross that mythical boundary that separates church and state? Oh, they're just practicing their right to congregate and decide what issues are in their best interests, right? Says them. I don't think I need anyone making that determination for me -- nor do I think it's exceedingly prudent to have any one denomination -- even coupled together on like-minded issues making that determination for America.
Proposition 8 breeds intolerance at a time when it was met against a pretty significant historical precedent wherein the first African American -- despite the enormity of history against the plight of the black man -- was elected to become President of the United States. You'd think that the moment Barack Obama was elected -- the country had officially turned another corner. But when you look back to the west coast -- you've got to wonder what part of the caboose fell off its track.
When I would later learn that it was the churches INVESTING heavily on the California ballot initiative -- my mind went back to 2000 and 2004 all over again. It was the ugliness of the religious right spewing its intolerant hate-filled agenda for the masses to be afraid of the gay man or the gay woman. Who - in this land - has become the likes of God - telling people who they can or can't associate with? Please explain this.
It's the fanatics of the right fringe that thought it was a good idea to try to force feed an initiative in Colorado to determine when the moment "life" began. Even some REPUBLICANS came out against the moment a sperm came in contact with an egg because even THEY realized that this was completely stupid and nuts.
And if anything -- it solidified for me the single premise that religion has a place in our lives -- OUR PRIVATE LIVES -- but it has absolutely no business being in the world of politics. No Church in this land was threatened by homosexuals because there was NO LAW that would mandate every church to marry a gay or lesbian couple in the confines of their sacred ground. No Church was being FORCED to conduct these ceremonies or even RECOGNIZE them within the context of their religious beliefs.
Legalizing gay and lesbian marriages gave basic, human, fundamental RIGHTS to those people who cannot get health care for their loved ones, cannot be by their bedside in their dying moments, cannot adopt children who aren't wanted by hetero-sexual couples and a lot of other basic rights. It had nothing to do with the Church, but the Church made damn sure it had something to do with gay and lesbian relationships.
If folks don't start realizing the problem with mixing religion and the government -- then this is just going to be the small apple on the tree. Unless I missed that day in social studies class -- we have the right in this country to practice our religious beliefs privately and without any such intervention from the government. But that changes when a religious sect (or major denomination) decides that their beliefs somehow stand above all others. Oh - Christians and Catholics may be on the same side of Mormons on this go'round ... but there's a reason why we have so many different forms of Christianity in this country. That's why there's so many different points of view in how the basic fundamental practice of God and Jesus in the lives of Americans will eventually cause that "unity of spirit" to be looked at with scorn and then we'll have a much bigger problem on our hands.
Just look at the "holy war" that goes on the moment you mention the phrase: "Merry Christmas." That's pretty darn offensive to the Jewish faith, no? Isn't that why they have at least extended the "Happy Holidays" greeting instead -- so that it doesn't tread on their belief structure? So then why are the likes of Bill O'Reilly and other religious fanatics say they are for Israel, but dammit - it's always going to be "Merry Christmas."
Oh - no one considers the big "problems" with religion and government. That's why we still have ongoing issues with school prayer, the 10 commandments and holiday displays that constantly tax our court systems. Already -- there's a lot of uneasiness between our various religious sects and this doesn't even begin to account for the incredible fear generated by the far right religious fanatics when they tried to invoke the fear of Islam with Obama during the recent Presidential Election. So you seriously can't believe that we're all living in peaceful, spiritual harmony from shore to shore.
The Mormons took it upon themselves to overturn a law that was voted in BY the people of California legalizing gay and lesbian marriages. I'm sorry -- but the moment a church -- any church decides that they have the "right" to politicize their agenda (ahem ... erm) beliefs on the rest of us -- resonates a clear and present danger to our democracy. What gave the Mormons the "right" to decide what MY belief should be? What gives the Mormons the "right" to create laws to govern how *I* choose to live my life?
From where I stand -- if a church wants to go ahead and start politicizing their points of view in the form of propositions and laws -- then I think it's time to taxing these churches for crossing a very visible line between church and state. The Mormons had every right to do what they did in California -- and we have every right to tax every single cent they bring in and make this a tax-revenue machine for our ailing economy. It's time that these religions realize that their "safe haven" status has officially ended the moment they got involved in the political process in this country.
When Churches have PAID STAFF to work the Proposition, or a candidate -- then they have done more than just "suggest" that their congregation support a cause or a person -- they've crossed that line by a few hundred miles by the looks of it.
Let's just hope that someone in the process has the courage to see it as well -- and finally do something about it.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
How far have we really come?
I'm reminding myself of a blog entry by Wil Wheaton where he so desperately wanted to lash out at all of the Republicans like we had dished to the rest of us for the last 8 years. Yes there's a pretty solid feeling that you really want to finally throw your fists up in the air and declare victory after being ROBBED in 2000 and having a radical conservative agenda rammed down our throats that would only reward businesses and leave the 95% of other Americans left out.
But Wil's friend then said something rather profound: "They are home. We share this country, all of us, whether we like it or not.
“We voted against intolerance for people that don’t share ‘the right’ views because we and people we respect and admire have been the victims of intolerance for too long. We voted against hypocrisy and fear and hate. We voted for a chance to change."
Okay ... a very nice "high road" approach to Obama's victory.
But then I read things like this which really causes me a lot of anger and rage. It's an article citing how racial threats have seen a tremendous spike since Obama's win 11 days ago. Why does this anger me so much? Because of the incredible cowardice of Mr. "Country First" by playing the fear-mongering card that has riled up every crazy idiot out there because they "just don't trust Barack Obama," "they're scared for what he's going to do," "we have to buy our guns before Barack Obama takes office."
It's this kind of nonsensical BULLSHIT served to do nothing but invoke the fear of the unknown in a guy that has the greatest promise to America that has been seen for a very long time. This only padded the racial fervor across this country. So for all of those absorbed people that truly thought that there's no more racism left in this country -- take a nice long hard look at racism in the span less than 2 weeks time:
_Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." Obama has received more threats than any other president-elect, authorities say.
_At Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool." Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. "Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count," the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written "Let's hope someone wins."
_Racist graffiti was found in places including New York's Long Island, where two dozen cars were spray-painted; Kilgore, Texas, where the local high school and skate park were defaced; and the Los Angeles area, where swastikas, racial slurs and "Go Back To Africa" were spray painted on sidewalks, houses and cars.
_Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted "assassinate Obama," a district official said.
_University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. "It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork," Houston said.
_Black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island, Maine, the Bangor Daily News reported. The president of Baylor University in Waco, Texas said a rope found hanging from a campus tree was apparently an abandoned swing and not a noose.
_Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.
_A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted 'Obama.'
_In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his car windshield, saying "now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house."
Is this YOUR America YOU are proud of?
Is this YOUR party of choice that YOU are proud of?
I cannot conceptualize an America that stands behind bigotry, racism and such vile hatred to teach their children to chant "assassinate Obama" like it was some game or something. I cannot conceptualize an America that holds a "raffle" when they think Obama is going to be killed. I cannot conceptualize an America that has so much "red meat" that it wants nothing more than to execute someone before they even make one step in the White House.
So no --- I don't think it's too far out of the realm of rational comprehension to really ask the question: how far have we really come?
To Wil's friend -- I can only say that while you might have the greatest hope of humanity -- it takes the scourge and selfish bastards of the world to ruin that hope you carry. It doesn't matter how much you teach, how well you get them to understand -- the feeding by the McCain / Palin ticket did was only throw gasoline, kerosene, lighter fluid, jet fuel, and every other racial combustible thing they could find to cause Americans to now live in fear and prepare for Armageddon like it's the end of days.
It's stupid.
It's wrong.
It's entirely un-American and yet -- it's casually accepted and promoted by the conservative side of the aisle because it's THEIR side that continues to accept and promote such a purely idiotic ideology. How these cowards can exist in a country founded in the basic freedom of all men, created equal -- is entirely beyond me.
So while Wil's friend preaches that it's their "home" too -- from where I stand -- they don't deserve the air they're given because of the historical stain this country has bled for the last 200 plus years in the name of equality. By teaching and spreading such maleficence merely illuminates a much darker racial problem that can only be resolve through attrition.
The sooner we can remove the likes of these un-American assholes from our collective gene-pool, the better.
But Wil's friend then said something rather profound: "They are home. We share this country, all of us, whether we like it or not.
“We voted against intolerance for people that don’t share ‘the right’ views because we and people we respect and admire have been the victims of intolerance for too long. We voted against hypocrisy and fear and hate. We voted for a chance to change."
Okay ... a very nice "high road" approach to Obama's victory.
But then I read things like this which really causes me a lot of anger and rage. It's an article citing how racial threats have seen a tremendous spike since Obama's win 11 days ago. Why does this anger me so much? Because of the incredible cowardice of Mr. "Country First" by playing the fear-mongering card that has riled up every crazy idiot out there because they "just don't trust Barack Obama," "they're scared for what he's going to do," "we have to buy our guns before Barack Obama takes office."
It's this kind of nonsensical BULLSHIT served to do nothing but invoke the fear of the unknown in a guy that has the greatest promise to America that has been seen for a very long time. This only padded the racial fervor across this country. So for all of those absorbed people that truly thought that there's no more racism left in this country -- take a nice long hard look at racism in the span less than 2 weeks time:
_Four North Carolina State University students admitted writing anti-Obama comments in a tunnel designated for free speech expression, including one that said: "Let's shoot that (N-word) in the head." Obama has received more threats than any other president-elect, authorities say.
_At Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool." Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. "Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count," the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written "Let's hope someone wins."
_Racist graffiti was found in places including New York's Long Island, where two dozen cars were spray-painted; Kilgore, Texas, where the local high school and skate park were defaced; and the Los Angeles area, where swastikas, racial slurs and "Go Back To Africa" were spray painted on sidewalks, houses and cars.
_Second- and third-grade students on a school bus in Rexburg, Idaho, chanted "assassinate Obama," a district official said.
_University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur. "It seems the election brought the racist rats out of the woodwork," Houston said.
_Black figures were hanged by nooses from trees on Mount Desert Island, Maine, the Bangor Daily News reported. The president of Baylor University in Waco, Texas said a rope found hanging from a campus tree was apparently an abandoned swing and not a noose.
_Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apolacan Township, Pa.
_A black teenager in New York City said he was attacked with a bat on election night by four white men who shouted 'Obama.'
_In the Pittsburgh suburb of Forest Hills, a black man said he found a note with a racial slur on his car windshield, saying "now that you voted for Obama, just watch out for your house."
Is this YOUR America YOU are proud of?
Is this YOUR party of choice that YOU are proud of?
I cannot conceptualize an America that stands behind bigotry, racism and such vile hatred to teach their children to chant "assassinate Obama" like it was some game or something. I cannot conceptualize an America that holds a "raffle" when they think Obama is going to be killed. I cannot conceptualize an America that has so much "red meat" that it wants nothing more than to execute someone before they even make one step in the White House.
So no --- I don't think it's too far out of the realm of rational comprehension to really ask the question: how far have we really come?
To Wil's friend -- I can only say that while you might have the greatest hope of humanity -- it takes the scourge and selfish bastards of the world to ruin that hope you carry. It doesn't matter how much you teach, how well you get them to understand -- the feeding by the McCain / Palin ticket did was only throw gasoline, kerosene, lighter fluid, jet fuel, and every other racial combustible thing they could find to cause Americans to now live in fear and prepare for Armageddon like it's the end of days.
It's stupid.
It's wrong.
It's entirely un-American and yet -- it's casually accepted and promoted by the conservative side of the aisle because it's THEIR side that continues to accept and promote such a purely idiotic ideology. How these cowards can exist in a country founded in the basic freedom of all men, created equal -- is entirely beyond me.
So while Wil's friend preaches that it's their "home" too -- from where I stand -- they don't deserve the air they're given because of the historical stain this country has bled for the last 200 plus years in the name of equality. By teaching and spreading such maleficence merely illuminates a much darker racial problem that can only be resolve through attrition.
The sooner we can remove the likes of these un-American assholes from our collective gene-pool, the better.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Change
Last night - we were glued to our televisions right along side millions of people - waiting for what has felt to be inevitable, yet inconceivable.
As the 9pm hour chimed in ... NBC had called the race for Barack Obama.
They flashed it to Grant Park in Chicago where the crowd was absolutely electric.
And then ...
The music ...
Barack Obama's theme song "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" started playing -- and that's when the moment hit me. The place erupted. People hugging. People crying. People in celebration. In disbelief. In amazement. In excitement.
The nation had just spoken.
Change is coming.
The events of last night will take a very long time to realize. History was made. The sacrifice of hundreds of millions throughout this nation's history has finally the top of a seemingly unattainable mountain top.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled.
A dream that so many never thought could ever happen in their life time. A dream marred by an incredibly intolerable time in our nation's history. A history full of extreme hate, racism, violence and epic division that has stained our great nation and for what it stood for. What emerged last night from the dark blue panels in the expansive sea of people in Grant Park in Chicago was the culmination of the strides humanity has taken in the name of freedom and equal opportunity. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream is finally realized.
While the punditry continued to expound on what happened to the Republican Party, we have to look beyond what happened last night as we witnessed John McCain's gracious concession speech that was followed by him falling on his sword. Taking complete and personal responsibility for what happened. But that's not what happened. McCain is a piece of a larger process that has plagued the overriding failure of the Republicans long before the 2008 Presidential Election. When we examine the core reasons why people wanted change, it had very little to do with John McCain. It didn't even have anything to do with his bundle of energy running mate Sarah Palin. History could show us where the failings of the Republican party were and it does. Map the trend that started as early as two years ago when several Republicans were bested from their seats in the House and the Senate and therein we find the core problem with the Republican party:
The Republicans are seriously out of touch and Americans couldn't have been more plain: we want change.
Not just a change in the course direction of this country.
Not just a change in our policy in Iraq and abroad.
Not just a change in how the country handles its current economic crisis.
But Americans demand a change from our "red-meat" political process that perfected the way to slander your opponent without even offering a shred of platform or policy -- which comes straight from "The Architect's" consummate playbook. This "divide and conquer" mentality of the Republican party has given way to the "united we stand" mantra of Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
It's my hope that the way Barack Obama pledged his way to the White House will become a template of what the American Dream is about. It's not about flinging mud in the form of the Reverend Wrights of the world. It's not about trying to label your opponent as "palling around with terrorists." It has everything to do with substance. John McCain and Sarah Palin simply couldn't articulate a message of how they were different than their former leader: George W. Bush. John McCain and Sarah Palin played from Karl Rove's playbook -- which worked in 2000 and 2004, but failed miserably in 2008.
Americans caught on to that little ploy and could read through it.
No one cares about what an errant reverend said.
No one cares about what happenstance meeting may or may not have occurred with someone aptly labeled being a "terrorist."
No one cares about what labels you try to slap on like "redistributioner," "Socialist," "Marxist."
If you don't say anything of substance, nothing of policy and are reduced to merely flinging "red-meat" at your opponent ... then Americans demanded change from that disappointing Republican ideology.
Americans demanded change.
And they got it.
As the 9pm hour chimed in ... NBC had called the race for Barack Obama.
They flashed it to Grant Park in Chicago where the crowd was absolutely electric.
And then ...
The music ...
Barack Obama's theme song "Signed, Sealed, Delivered" started playing -- and that's when the moment hit me. The place erupted. People hugging. People crying. People in celebration. In disbelief. In amazement. In excitement.
The nation had just spoken.
Change is coming.
The events of last night will take a very long time to realize. History was made. The sacrifice of hundreds of millions throughout this nation's history has finally the top of a seemingly unattainable mountain top.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled.
A dream that so many never thought could ever happen in their life time. A dream marred by an incredibly intolerable time in our nation's history. A history full of extreme hate, racism, violence and epic division that has stained our great nation and for what it stood for. What emerged last night from the dark blue panels in the expansive sea of people in Grant Park in Chicago was the culmination of the strides humanity has taken in the name of freedom and equal opportunity. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's dream is finally realized.
While the punditry continued to expound on what happened to the Republican Party, we have to look beyond what happened last night as we witnessed John McCain's gracious concession speech that was followed by him falling on his sword. Taking complete and personal responsibility for what happened. But that's not what happened. McCain is a piece of a larger process that has plagued the overriding failure of the Republicans long before the 2008 Presidential Election. When we examine the core reasons why people wanted change, it had very little to do with John McCain. It didn't even have anything to do with his bundle of energy running mate Sarah Palin. History could show us where the failings of the Republican party were and it does. Map the trend that started as early as two years ago when several Republicans were bested from their seats in the House and the Senate and therein we find the core problem with the Republican party:
The Republicans are seriously out of touch and Americans couldn't have been more plain: we want change.
Not just a change in the course direction of this country.
Not just a change in our policy in Iraq and abroad.
Not just a change in how the country handles its current economic crisis.
But Americans demand a change from our "red-meat" political process that perfected the way to slander your opponent without even offering a shred of platform or policy -- which comes straight from "The Architect's" consummate playbook. This "divide and conquer" mentality of the Republican party has given way to the "united we stand" mantra of Barack Obama and the Democratic party.
It's my hope that the way Barack Obama pledged his way to the White House will become a template of what the American Dream is about. It's not about flinging mud in the form of the Reverend Wrights of the world. It's not about trying to label your opponent as "palling around with terrorists." It has everything to do with substance. John McCain and Sarah Palin simply couldn't articulate a message of how they were different than their former leader: George W. Bush. John McCain and Sarah Palin played from Karl Rove's playbook -- which worked in 2000 and 2004, but failed miserably in 2008.
Americans caught on to that little ploy and could read through it.
No one cares about what an errant reverend said.
No one cares about what happenstance meeting may or may not have occurred with someone aptly labeled being a "terrorist."
No one cares about what labels you try to slap on like "redistributioner," "Socialist," "Marxist."
If you don't say anything of substance, nothing of policy and are reduced to merely flinging "red-meat" at your opponent ... then Americans demanded change from that disappointing Republican ideology.
Americans demanded change.
And they got it.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Something never quite made sense...
During the Democratic National Convention -- there were a few arrests made by white supremacists that were conspiring to assassinate Barack Obama.
The U.S. District Attorney for Denver let the guys go.
Please read that again.... he ... let ... the ... guys ... go.
When I first heard that -- I was like: "you've got to be kidding!!"
The man has a Secret Service detail, even if they were "meth heads" as Troy Eid tries to portray them ... you don't have to be sufficiently organized to be prosecuted for threatening someone like a President or Presidential candidate. Look at how "organized" John Hinkley Jr. was -- and the courts found him LOONEY in the head -- so go figure.
The story always stuck in my craw and now it would appear that there's good reason why. Crooksandliars.com reports that Troy Eid has been under scrutiny by other legal experts who also didn't understand his decision not to prosecute. Crooksandliars track to the original findings as reported by RAW which said:
"Certainly when there's a state of mind requirement in a crime, 'knowingly,' for example, you could say as a logical matter that somebody can't do something knowingly while under the influence. But there are these other laws, sometimes in the form of statutes and sometimes in the form of case law, that will say, 'But voluntary intoxication is no defense.' And the Supreme Court many years ago upheld those laws as not being a violation of due process."
As a twist of fate this might be ... Mr. Eid as it turns out is a Bush/Rove appointee from that attorney mess.....
(...for what that's worth...)
The U.S. District Attorney for Denver let the guys go.
Please read that again.... he ... let ... the ... guys ... go.
When I first heard that -- I was like: "you've got to be kidding!!"
The man has a Secret Service detail, even if they were "meth heads" as Troy Eid tries to portray them ... you don't have to be sufficiently organized to be prosecuted for threatening someone like a President or Presidential candidate. Look at how "organized" John Hinkley Jr. was -- and the courts found him LOONEY in the head -- so go figure.
The story always stuck in my craw and now it would appear that there's good reason why. Crooksandliars.com reports that Troy Eid has been under scrutiny by other legal experts who also didn't understand his decision not to prosecute. Crooksandliars track to the original findings as reported by RAW which said:
"Certainly when there's a state of mind requirement in a crime, 'knowingly,' for example, you could say as a logical matter that somebody can't do something knowingly while under the influence. But there are these other laws, sometimes in the form of statutes and sometimes in the form of case law, that will say, 'But voluntary intoxication is no defense.' And the Supreme Court many years ago upheld those laws as not being a violation of due process."
As a twist of fate this might be ... Mr. Eid as it turns out is a Bush/Rove appointee from that attorney mess.....
(...for what that's worth...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
