He's Baaaack... I just had to find more of the ringtone drummer guy. Thankfully, he's all over youtube. Apparently his name is Andrea Vadrucci, but he calls himself Vadrum. He's Italian, and seems able to compose a rock drum track for any piece of music available.
The next clip is him playing along with "The Barber of Seville". You might think you won't recognize it, since you're not an Opera fan, but if you've ever watched Bugs Bunny cartoons - you'll be right at home with this one. Absolutley amazing. I could watch this guy all day.
And here's another great (and funny) one. A clip of him playing along with Tenacious D's version of a Bach piece - including PIP of TD up in the corner.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Drummer accompanies ringtone medley
There is just something about watching a good drummer. The economy of movement, the seeming effortless speed and precision. And as this clip shows... it doesn't even matter what they're playing along with. This guy is amazing. Watch and see if you don't agree. Those in the know will get a kick out of the way he's set up his kit.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Palin's "Monkey Man"
Among the seeming HOURS of fearmongering and racism I've seen one clip at a time over the past few weeks in footage from McCain/Palin rallies - the Monkey Man takes the cake.
In the first clip, we see him proudly showing off his Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around its head.
"This is "Little Hussein"... Little Hussein wanted to hear some "truth"." He says.
Monkey Man appears from 1:31 to 1:48 in the following clip.
Seems pretty proud of himself, right? As though he has no consideration that he's doing anything immoral or negative, right?
But then he's caught by another camera inside the rally. Perhaps a camera that he doesn't see as being "friendly" like the first one?
Watch him writhe and wriggle. Watch him try to casually remove the bumper sticker. Watch him finally hand-off the doll (now sans sticker) to a toddler in the row in front of him.
These are the people that McCain/Palin are attracting like moths to a flame. Do you really want to be one of them?
In the first clip, we see him proudly showing off his Curious George doll with an Obama bumper sticker wrapped around its head.
"This is "Little Hussein"... Little Hussein wanted to hear some "truth"." He says.
Monkey Man appears from 1:31 to 1:48 in the following clip.
Seems pretty proud of himself, right? As though he has no consideration that he's doing anything immoral or negative, right?
But then he's caught by another camera inside the rally. Perhaps a camera that he doesn't see as being "friendly" like the first one?
Watch him writhe and wriggle. Watch him try to casually remove the bumper sticker. Watch him finally hand-off the doll (now sans sticker) to a toddler in the row in front of him.
These are the people that McCain/Palin are attracting like moths to a flame. Do you really want to be one of them?
Fellow POW speaks out against McCain
Did you know there is a group called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain"?
I'm not really surprised that they exist - every voice has a group these days.
I'm just surprised that in this world of the so-called "Left-wing, liberal media" we don't hear from this particular group more often.
Call me naive, but I'm surprised that I actually stumbled across them while searching for information (trivial info at that) about Sen. McCain's arms. I've heard several different explanations about the limited mobilty he has in his arms and wanted to see if I could learn the real story.
In so doing, I came across a link that brought me to the VVAJM (my achronym, don't know if they use it or not) and the following video - which I believe says a lot that those of us who can't claim the title of War Hero have long wanted to say about John McCain. Only this time it's coming from a classmate of his. One who graduated in the top 25% of their class, rather than near the bottom like McCain. And one who had been a POW for over 2 years by the time McCain was captured.
I don't know about you, but I consider this man's opinion to be very important - not the be-all-end-all necessarily - but surely worth listening to. Watch the following clip and see if you don't agree.
I'm not really surprised that they exist - every voice has a group these days.
I'm just surprised that in this world of the so-called "Left-wing, liberal media" we don't hear from this particular group more often.
Call me naive, but I'm surprised that I actually stumbled across them while searching for information (trivial info at that) about Sen. McCain's arms. I've heard several different explanations about the limited mobilty he has in his arms and wanted to see if I could learn the real story.
In so doing, I came across a link that brought me to the VVAJM (my achronym, don't know if they use it or not) and the following video - which I believe says a lot that those of us who can't claim the title of War Hero have long wanted to say about John McCain. Only this time it's coming from a classmate of his. One who graduated in the top 25% of their class, rather than near the bottom like McCain. And one who had been a POW for over 2 years by the time McCain was captured.
I don't know about you, but I consider this man's opinion to be very important - not the be-all-end-all necessarily - but surely worth listening to. Watch the following clip and see if you don't agree.
Obama & McCain at the '08 Al Smith Dinner in NYC
It took me far too long to post these clips, but I just haven't had much time lately.
As tradition demands, McCain and Obama recently attended the Al Smith Dinner and put partisan politics aside (for the most part) to roast themselves and each other - and to make the obligatory tender-moment comments.
I thought both of them did a great job, and I laughed out loud during both speeches.
I hope that one day, whoever wrote their speeches is given due credit... and a job offer from the Daily Show.
In the spirit of the event, I'll recuse myself from offering an opinion.
If there has ever been a time when I really needed to see the candidates with the gloves off (even for just one night) it is this campaign. And to see them clearly enjoying themselves... letting their hair down, so to speak - was refreshing.
So here they are, in order of appearance:
---> I haven't been able to find the very end of McCain's speech - but this was pretty close, if memory serves.
If I had to pick my favorite line from each candidate, off the top of my head, right now?
McCain: Obama "has a pet name for me, too... George Bush."
Obama: "My greatest weakness... It's possible that I'm a little TOO awesome."
As tradition demands, McCain and Obama recently attended the Al Smith Dinner and put partisan politics aside (for the most part) to roast themselves and each other - and to make the obligatory tender-moment comments.
I thought both of them did a great job, and I laughed out loud during both speeches.
I hope that one day, whoever wrote their speeches is given due credit... and a job offer from the Daily Show.
In the spirit of the event, I'll recuse myself from offering an opinion.
If there has ever been a time when I really needed to see the candidates with the gloves off (even for just one night) it is this campaign. And to see them clearly enjoying themselves... letting their hair down, so to speak - was refreshing.
So here they are, in order of appearance:
---> I haven't been able to find the very end of McCain's speech - but this was pretty close, if memory serves.
If I had to pick my favorite line from each candidate, off the top of my head, right now?
McCain: Obama "has a pet name for me, too... George Bush."
Obama: "My greatest weakness... It's possible that I'm a little TOO awesome."
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Me again on Poliblogger
There's a guy on Poliblogger who calls himself "Western Man". In my opinion he's pretty much a blowhard. He repeatedly reminds everyone that he's a lawyer (which is surprising, since the GOP has taken to calling the Democrats the "Lawyer Party").
And he makes no bones about the fact that he thinks Obama is a HORRIBLE candidate, while McCain/Palin are virtually pure as the driven snow.
It would take entirely too long for me to recount the entire thread which preceded the response I am about to post, so I encourage you to check it out here
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14271
before reading any further. It has been 27 hours since I posted the following, and mine remains the final comment.
"Western Man ~
I suspect we’ll have to start by agreeing to disagree about the candidate’s performances.
You saw a debate in which Palin “swallowed Biden whole”.
I saw a debate it which she failed to specifically answer a single question.
She took her time on that stage to present prepared speeches, rather than respond to the moderator. So of course she did well; she was in her element. And she was also entertaining, in her own way.
I personally don’t tune-in to a political debate to be entertained, or to hear canned one-liners. I tune-in to hear the candidates respond to the questions as the questions relate to their policy. To see how they perform while thinking on their feet.
Being asked one question and speaking to a totally seperate topic shows me neither of these. In fact, it suggests to me that the candidate is unsure. Not of what she thinks about the question, but what the campaign wants her to say. So instead she just stuck with the areas she knew would score points with their base. Which as I’ve pointed out previously was a mistake… they already have their base sewn-up. It’s Independents and Undecideds who she was supposed to appeal to that night - and she failed.
As far as your claims that the media interviews have held “traps”; I would’ve thought you were joking, but you’ve already answered that point. For an adult person - politician or not - to be unable to name a single newspaper or media outlet that they get their news from is assinine.
And please explain to me how expecting someone who might one day be called upon to appoint SCOTUS Justices should have some grasp of the court’s history is akin to expecting that person to preside over the court. There are high school students who could’ve answered that question. And you claim it was a left-wing trap? C’mon, man.
I’m also interested to know whether you’ve heard the invitation to Palin from Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to do a live, unedited, hour-long interview with either one or both of them. I’m sure you’re not a fan of theirs - but even FoxNews wasn’t willing to extend such an invitation. I think it would be an excellent way to gauge whether your POV on the unfair editing and “trap” questions is accurate. Perhaps the campaign could swing a similar interview from Bill O’Reilly or Brit Hume to even the score from the Right side?
But you know as well as I do, it’ll never happen. As others have already posited on this thread, other than being window dressing and an attack dog in this new round of last-ditch attacks on Obama’s character - Palin is “back in the box” until after the election.
As far as Ms. Ifill’s book goes; you have the title right, but seem to be misguided in the rest of your statements about it. The book is actually touted as “a thought exercise on the “black political structure” of the civil rights movement, and outlines how that struggle led to today, where we’re moving toward racial equality.”
It includes Colin Powell(R), Newark Mayor Corey Booker(D), Alabama Congressman Artur Davis(D), and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick(D) as well as Obama. There is little doubt in my mind that if Powell were the one running for President - the subtitle would include his name instead of Obama’s.
Prior to the debate, Journalists from both sides spoke out on Ifill’s professionalism and credibility. In addition, both campaigns approved her as moderator. And as you yourself have said, she proved them right by her performance.
And I can think of no reason why her book would sell better if Obama is elected than if he isn’t. In fact, I suspect it might sell better if McCain wins. In either case, the same people would be buying it. The only way I would expect it to sell better with an Obama victory would be if people like yourself bought a copy in the hopes of figuring out why you lost. Otherwise, people who want to read it will buy it regardless of who wins the election. And as someone (I believe it was Dr. Taylor) pointed out - the release date was most likely chosen by the publisher, not the author.
Anyway… glad to have found your voice WM. We’ll probably have a tough time finding common ground, and you’re awfully angry for someone who’s been on the winning side for most of my lifetime - but you’re concise and articulate with your venom - which is a welcome change these days."
And he makes no bones about the fact that he thinks Obama is a HORRIBLE candidate, while McCain/Palin are virtually pure as the driven snow.
It would take entirely too long for me to recount the entire thread which preceded the response I am about to post, so I encourage you to check it out here
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14271
before reading any further. It has been 27 hours since I posted the following, and mine remains the final comment.
"Western Man ~
I suspect we’ll have to start by agreeing to disagree about the candidate’s performances.
You saw a debate in which Palin “swallowed Biden whole”.
I saw a debate it which she failed to specifically answer a single question.
She took her time on that stage to present prepared speeches, rather than respond to the moderator. So of course she did well; she was in her element. And she was also entertaining, in her own way.
I personally don’t tune-in to a political debate to be entertained, or to hear canned one-liners. I tune-in to hear the candidates respond to the questions as the questions relate to their policy. To see how they perform while thinking on their feet.
Being asked one question and speaking to a totally seperate topic shows me neither of these. In fact, it suggests to me that the candidate is unsure. Not of what she thinks about the question, but what the campaign wants her to say. So instead she just stuck with the areas she knew would score points with their base. Which as I’ve pointed out previously was a mistake… they already have their base sewn-up. It’s Independents and Undecideds who she was supposed to appeal to that night - and she failed.
As far as your claims that the media interviews have held “traps”; I would’ve thought you were joking, but you’ve already answered that point. For an adult person - politician or not - to be unable to name a single newspaper or media outlet that they get their news from is assinine.
And please explain to me how expecting someone who might one day be called upon to appoint SCOTUS Justices should have some grasp of the court’s history is akin to expecting that person to preside over the court. There are high school students who could’ve answered that question. And you claim it was a left-wing trap? C’mon, man.
I’m also interested to know whether you’ve heard the invitation to Palin from Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC to do a live, unedited, hour-long interview with either one or both of them. I’m sure you’re not a fan of theirs - but even FoxNews wasn’t willing to extend such an invitation. I think it would be an excellent way to gauge whether your POV on the unfair editing and “trap” questions is accurate. Perhaps the campaign could swing a similar interview from Bill O’Reilly or Brit Hume to even the score from the Right side?
But you know as well as I do, it’ll never happen. As others have already posited on this thread, other than being window dressing and an attack dog in this new round of last-ditch attacks on Obama’s character - Palin is “back in the box” until after the election.
As far as Ms. Ifill’s book goes; you have the title right, but seem to be misguided in the rest of your statements about it. The book is actually touted as “a thought exercise on the “black political structure” of the civil rights movement, and outlines how that struggle led to today, where we’re moving toward racial equality.”
It includes Colin Powell(R), Newark Mayor Corey Booker(D), Alabama Congressman Artur Davis(D), and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick(D) as well as Obama. There is little doubt in my mind that if Powell were the one running for President - the subtitle would include his name instead of Obama’s.
Prior to the debate, Journalists from both sides spoke out on Ifill’s professionalism and credibility. In addition, both campaigns approved her as moderator. And as you yourself have said, she proved them right by her performance.
And I can think of no reason why her book would sell better if Obama is elected than if he isn’t. In fact, I suspect it might sell better if McCain wins. In either case, the same people would be buying it. The only way I would expect it to sell better with an Obama victory would be if people like yourself bought a copy in the hopes of figuring out why you lost. Otherwise, people who want to read it will buy it regardless of who wins the election. And as someone (I believe it was Dr. Taylor) pointed out - the release date was most likely chosen by the publisher, not the author.
Anyway… glad to have found your voice WM. We’ll probably have a tough time finding common ground, and you’re awfully angry for someone who’s been on the winning side for most of my lifetime - but you’re concise and articulate with your venom - which is a welcome change these days."
Me on Palin 1 at Poliblogger
On October 5, Dr. Taylor discussed Peggy Noonan's column about Sarah Palin after the VP debate. The GOP supporters on the thread immediately tried to redirect the conversation on to perceived mis-steps by Biden. I admit to not knowing enough details about their comments about Joe to either confirm or deny them.
What I do know is that their's was a plan of absolute distraction from the topic at hand. So I tried to bring everyone back to the discussion:
"Hmmm… I hope I don’t throw everyone off by responding to the actual post this thread started with, but here goes:
In my view, Palin’s performance in the VP debate was an utter disaster for the campaign.
How can I say that, when there has been so much praise slathered over it? Simple.
She wasted 90 minutes appealing to the people that were going to vote McCain/Palin anyway.
What is being sold as her solid performance by the GOP spin-doctors and the right-wing pundits was no such thing.
Anyone who has been following the campaigns with any more than a passing interest should be well-aware that John and Sarah have their Core vote wrapped-up.
Where they’re running into trouble is with Independents and Undecideds. Two groups who are notorious for hating BS. Which is all Palin had to offer during the debate.
I challenge anyone to quote me a specific answer to ANY question she was asked. Her supporters will trumpet her bravery (or is it “Maverickism”?) in openly defying the moderator. To me, that was pure bluster and misdirection.
Anyone looking for actual answers is likely to feel the same. So, for those of you who have already chosen the GOP ticket - I understand why you’ve deluded yourselves into thinking she performed well. She made you feel good about your positions - which I’m sure can be tough at times.
But for those of us who (oddly enough) expect to hear an actual answer to a definite question… she blew it.
There are a lot of us who don’t care how “folksy” a candidate is. There are a lot of us who don’t consider $200K in income as “middle class” (as Palin seems to). And there are a lot of us (I hope) who can see through her veneer.
She’s clueless. She’s unqualified. And you should have a problem with that. You should also have a problem with the fact that she didn’t even TRY to win over the votes you need to win.
My impression of the conversation back-stage after the debate:
Palin: Huh! Whatya think? Pretty freakin’ good, huh?”
Spin Doctors: Are you Effing kidding? You just set us back 6 months!
Palin: What’re you talking about? They LOVE me!
Spin Doctors: YEAH… the same people who loved you when you walked onstage still love you. The people who hated you when you walked onstage hate you even more (and now have more ammunition)… but the people who weren’t sure? With them you dug us a hole. They actively don’t like you now. They don’t trust you. You seem like a liar to them.
Palin: But I didn’t lie about anything!
Spin Doctor: No… you just failed to tell the truth on anything. On any… single… thing. She asked you questions that could have been homeruns for you. Weren’t you listening over the last 10 days? Are you aware that you didn’t answer a single question?
Palin: Uh huh…
Spin Doctor: Why the F didn’t you?
Palin: Our supporters don’t like to hear the truth.
Spin Doctor: But we’ve been rehearsing all week how to make the truth sound less horrific. And besides, didn’t you hear me tell you that our Base isn’t the issue? That we need to connect with the Undecideds?
Palin: Uh huh.
Spin Doctor: Then what the F?
Palin: People like it when I’m Folksy.
Spin Doctor: Ahh.. for F’s sake.
Palin: Didn’t you hear me say “… dog-gone-it Joe…” People eat that stuff up.
Spin Doctor: Nevermind…
So… a back-handed thanks to Gov. Palin for being so obvious in her obfuscation. And a whole-hearted “Wake UP” to the folks who missed it.
I make no claim on telling you who you should vote for, but for the sake of America, for the sake of our children, for the sake of your own piece of mind - at least do it with your eyes open.
Go to the campaign websites. Do some research. If after that it still doesn’t bother you that McCain’s policies don’t match his rhetoric - or only for an hour at a time - that’s on you.
But PLEASE stop this mindless parotting of the campaign and the pundits.
This is exactly how Dubya snuck into the White House, and we’ve all lived through the aftermath.
Don’t you want your candidate to be accountable? Go to sites like FactCheck.Org and Snopes.com to learn some facts about both campaigns.
I don’t expect (or want) everyone to agree with my viewpoint.
I just want us all to make informed decisions.
And in my opinion, anyone who says Palin did anything other than dodge, misdirect and sidestep during the debate wasn’t paying attention."
More than a day later (a long time in the blogosphere) no one has made a claim against my main point. The thread can be found at: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14277
What I do know is that their's was a plan of absolute distraction from the topic at hand. So I tried to bring everyone back to the discussion:
"Hmmm… I hope I don’t throw everyone off by responding to the actual post this thread started with, but here goes:
In my view, Palin’s performance in the VP debate was an utter disaster for the campaign.
How can I say that, when there has been so much praise slathered over it? Simple.
She wasted 90 minutes appealing to the people that were going to vote McCain/Palin anyway.
What is being sold as her solid performance by the GOP spin-doctors and the right-wing pundits was no such thing.
Anyone who has been following the campaigns with any more than a passing interest should be well-aware that John and Sarah have their Core vote wrapped-up.
Where they’re running into trouble is with Independents and Undecideds. Two groups who are notorious for hating BS. Which is all Palin had to offer during the debate.
I challenge anyone to quote me a specific answer to ANY question she was asked. Her supporters will trumpet her bravery (or is it “Maverickism”?) in openly defying the moderator. To me, that was pure bluster and misdirection.
Anyone looking for actual answers is likely to feel the same. So, for those of you who have already chosen the GOP ticket - I understand why you’ve deluded yourselves into thinking she performed well. She made you feel good about your positions - which I’m sure can be tough at times.
But for those of us who (oddly enough) expect to hear an actual answer to a definite question… she blew it.
There are a lot of us who don’t care how “folksy” a candidate is. There are a lot of us who don’t consider $200K in income as “middle class” (as Palin seems to). And there are a lot of us (I hope) who can see through her veneer.
She’s clueless. She’s unqualified. And you should have a problem with that. You should also have a problem with the fact that she didn’t even TRY to win over the votes you need to win.
My impression of the conversation back-stage after the debate:
Palin: Huh! Whatya think? Pretty freakin’ good, huh?”
Spin Doctors: Are you Effing kidding? You just set us back 6 months!
Palin: What’re you talking about? They LOVE me!
Spin Doctors: YEAH… the same people who loved you when you walked onstage still love you. The people who hated you when you walked onstage hate you even more (and now have more ammunition)… but the people who weren’t sure? With them you dug us a hole. They actively don’t like you now. They don’t trust you. You seem like a liar to them.
Palin: But I didn’t lie about anything!
Spin Doctor: No… you just failed to tell the truth on anything. On any… single… thing. She asked you questions that could have been homeruns for you. Weren’t you listening over the last 10 days? Are you aware that you didn’t answer a single question?
Palin: Uh huh…
Spin Doctor: Why the F didn’t you?
Palin: Our supporters don’t like to hear the truth.
Spin Doctor: But we’ve been rehearsing all week how to make the truth sound less horrific. And besides, didn’t you hear me tell you that our Base isn’t the issue? That we need to connect with the Undecideds?
Palin: Uh huh.
Spin Doctor: Then what the F?
Palin: People like it when I’m Folksy.
Spin Doctor: Ahh.. for F’s sake.
Palin: Didn’t you hear me say “… dog-gone-it Joe…” People eat that stuff up.
Spin Doctor: Nevermind…
So… a back-handed thanks to Gov. Palin for being so obvious in her obfuscation. And a whole-hearted “Wake UP” to the folks who missed it.
I make no claim on telling you who you should vote for, but for the sake of America, for the sake of our children, for the sake of your own piece of mind - at least do it with your eyes open.
Go to the campaign websites. Do some research. If after that it still doesn’t bother you that McCain’s policies don’t match his rhetoric - or only for an hour at a time - that’s on you.
But PLEASE stop this mindless parotting of the campaign and the pundits.
This is exactly how Dubya snuck into the White House, and we’ve all lived through the aftermath.
Don’t you want your candidate to be accountable? Go to sites like FactCheck.Org and Snopes.com to learn some facts about both campaigns.
I don’t expect (or want) everyone to agree with my viewpoint.
I just want us all to make informed decisions.
And in my opinion, anyone who says Palin did anything other than dodge, misdirect and sidestep during the debate wasn’t paying attention."
More than a day later (a long time in the blogosphere) no one has made a claim against my main point. The thread can be found at: http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14277
Read or Watch?
I am of the belief that most Americans today would prefer to watch a video than read words on a page/screen. Which is why I rely so heavily on my man Keith Olberman.
Anyone who's ever received an email from me, and anyone who has visited this blog prior to today is well aware that I have no problem writing at length about my positions, perspectives and opinions.
However, I have found that the majority of people I come across in my daily life simply can not be bothered to sit still long enough to read past the headlines.
So sometimes, when there is an important point to be made, and I'm deluded enough to believe that anyone will ever actually view my blog -- I make the decision to let Keith speak for me.
This is one of those times.
Anyone who's ever received an email from me, and anyone who has visited this blog prior to today is well aware that I have no problem writing at length about my positions, perspectives and opinions.
However, I have found that the majority of people I come across in my daily life simply can not be bothered to sit still long enough to read past the headlines.
So sometimes, when there is an important point to be made, and I'm deluded enough to believe that anyone will ever actually view my blog -- I make the decision to let Keith speak for me.
This is one of those times.
Thanks to TPMTV
John McCain started out talking a good game about running a clean campaign with no negative ads. He even enlisted his wife to speak out about the importance of running a positive campaign.
Apparently even a self-professed "cool headed maverick" will resort to whatever he thinks will work when it's pretty clear that his last shot at the dream is slipping away.
TPMtv posted the following clip chronicling his malfeasance on youtube. Those of us who don't have the time to mine the interviews and pull out the important stuff should be very thankful to those who do. So thanks again, TPMtv.
Apparently even a self-professed "cool headed maverick" will resort to whatever he thinks will work when it's pretty clear that his last shot at the dream is slipping away.
TPMtv posted the following clip chronicling his malfeasance on youtube. Those of us who don't have the time to mine the interviews and pull out the important stuff should be very thankful to those who do. So thanks again, TPMtv.
Credit where it's due
Sometimes the internet moves a little too fast. While I still believe the clip below of McCain passing on a handshake from Obama after tonight's debate is telling of a certain level of contempt - he likely wasn't aware of which camera was "live" at the moment - it is also worth mentioning that there was a shared handshake/embrace at the conclusion of the debate - when it was very clear to all which camera was "live".
Nailed to the wall by his own words
After going on about his cool headedness and ability to be the one to talk softly and carry a big stick - McCain sent a slow-motion lob the size of a grapefruit over the net into Obama's side of the court.
And Obama crushed it.
Listen to Obama during this clip, but watch McCain. He starts off all light-hearted and smiles, but when Obama lowers the boom on him you can see his demeanor visibly change. Not only does he realize that his own words are coming back to haunt him (and there's nothing he can do to stop it) he's also realizing that some of those words were spoken only seconds before when he couldn't resist a snarky, sarcastic comment and a chuckle as Obama lined himself up for the shot.
I don't care who you are, you've got to agree that Obama played this point beautifully. He must have been doing a little dance inside when McCain tried to interupt him at the beginning. It only made his point stronger.
And Obama crushed it.
Listen to Obama during this clip, but watch McCain. He starts off all light-hearted and smiles, but when Obama lowers the boom on him you can see his demeanor visibly change. Not only does he realize that his own words are coming back to haunt him (and there's nothing he can do to stop it) he's also realizing that some of those words were spoken only seconds before when he couldn't resist a snarky, sarcastic comment and a chuckle as Obama lined himself up for the shot.
I don't care who you are, you've got to agree that Obama played this point beautifully. He must have been doing a little dance inside when McCain tried to interupt him at the beginning. It only made his point stronger.
That One? Are you serious?
Once again, the self-described "cool headed" one lets his frustration get the better of him. In the same debate in which he labeled himself as such - he loses any sense of composure, professionalism, etiquette or common courtesy and refers to Obama; not as "My Colleague", "my opponent", "Senator" or any number of other equally respectful terms.
Instead he called Obama "That one." - with a derisive jab of his finger.
What a sad, desperate, defensive attitude.
Instead he called Obama "That one." - with a derisive jab of his finger.
What a sad, desperate, defensive attitude.
I'm gonna take my ball and go home!!
After claiming to be the "cool headed" one who will "talk softly and carry a big stick" (real original, John) - McCain showed his clear contempt for Obama and his inability to take a spanking like a man by refusing to shake his opponents hand after the debate.
If he wasn't so freaking old I'd call him a punk.
If he wasn't so freaking old I'd call him a punk.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Discovery
During my nightly tour of the blogosphere tonight, I came across Dr. Steven Taylor's PoliBlog.
Since I've only just encountered Dr. Taylor, I have no idea how closely our politics actually are.
I can only speak to his post that I read and some of the responses to it. There were 2 or 3 that I felt a need to respond to.
I finally settled on 2, purely out of consieration for time - although I alluded to the 3rd.
In an effort to save space, I can't post the entire Poliblog post here. But as always, I have a link:
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14229
Reading through most of that link will give you the information required to digest the rest of this post.
There were 2 women who responded to Dr. Taylor's post who seemed to think that their advanced age gave them particular insight into the current political climate.
I for one tend to believe that exactly the opposite is true, as indicated by their comments and comparisons.
I really don't want to take the time or the space to include their thoughts here.
I also don't want anyone to read my reply without first hearing the comments that brought it about. So please take the time to click on and read the above link. Doing so will make what follows a lot easier to understand..... go ahead.... I'll wait.
Okay, now that you've (hopefully) read it all - here is my response to Ann and Granny:
To Ann Townsend and Ohio Granny:
I’m sure that my saying that time on this planet does not necessarily make one wise does not come as news to you.
I am also fairly confident that you understand that the political and diplomatic environment has changed significantly since WW II.
So while I’m pretty sure you’ll be put-off by what I am about to say, I hope that you will appreciate the spirit in which it is offered.
Ann… comparing McCain to FDR and Palin to Truman? Are you serious?
Of Palin you say: “SOMETHING in her has gotten her to this place in history…” Yeah… it’s called luck. Or convenience. Or desperation.
You can not honestly look at her credentials, when compared to others on McCain’s short list (other women included) and decry Palin the most qualified of the lot.
To do so is pure delusion.
At least Devildog admits his/her support comes from their shared desire to kill animals for sport.
It took Palin what, 5 different colleges before she graduated with the much sought-after degree of Sports Journalist?
Let me be clear about her degree; I couldn’t care less where she went to school or what she majored in.
Here is why her round-about route to a Bachelor’s Degree is important to me when compared with Obama’s earning of a Law Degree: Palin’s path shows little ambition, dedication or willingness to fight through to the end. It exemplifies indecision, an inability to focus and a final decision based on ego and money.
And before you begin a rant on the financial rewards of being a Lawyer, I suggest you research Mr. Obama’s career after Law School.
Ohio Granny~
You deemed Ann’s response “excellent!” And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I feel a need to question your reasoning.
You seem to want me to be excited about a candidate who was suddenly “whisked away from home”. Away from her newborn son, pregnant daughter and war-bound older son.
Whisked away? Really?
Is that the woman who I am expected to consider as the next potential POTUS? This is the person, who in your own words is expected to “rescue the GOP”?
To steal a line from your side: If Palin was a man, would she have been “whisked away” from her family? Or would he have “answered the call”?
You, Granny make some of the most sexist comments I’ve seen so far in relation to Palin’s candidacy. You talk about remembering when women were discriminated against for silly reasons like their menstrual cycle and a fear of vanity.
My disdain for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is supremely under-qualified for the job she has been asked to perform.
Your comments about Obama’s so-called touchy-feely-ness and perceived inability to effect real change to me only show that you haven’t spent the time to actually investigate the policies of the candidates.
Where do you get you information from? (edited from the original)
I myself endevour to probe every niche of the news media. I watch the right-wing blowhards as well as those on the left. I read newspapers and blogs from the UK and Europe. I’ve actually spent hours on both Obama’s website and McCain’s.
Doing so gives one an insight into their actual policies.
And what I have found is that while McCain lies with impunity on the campaign trail, the most I’ve seen from Obama is mere exageration. Of the two, I’ll take the latter.
You say the “people” will get Palin’s “message”. What message are you refering to? The one that says she is clueless on foreign affairs (a key component in any Vice Presidency)? Or the one that says she is totally intolerant of those who hold different ideological and religious views? Or is it the message that says: “It doesn’t matter what I say, as long as I look good and pull some undecided voters to our side”?
Which is why she was chosen in the first place.
And back to Ann:
Suddely Truman isn’t a haberdasher who got lucky. Now you admit to his 10 years in the Senate - albeit you want to minimize how he got there.
Which is a pointless arguement, since we’ve already noticed that the Truman/Palin comparison is utter BS.
You and granny both want to buy into the McCain/Palin rhetoric… I don’t blame you. They talk a good game. Unfortunately, the John McCain of 2000 is gone. The one we are saddled with now is different. The new one is a “win at all cost” politician. He will do and say anything in this last-ditch effort to become President.
The Maverick straight-talker is gone. Replaced by a GOP automoton who truly WILL bring us 4 more years of Bush BS if elected.
Check the facts. Read the policies and compare them to the speeches. If you actually do so, Obama is the clear winner. His rhetoric matches his words.
McCain’s doesn’t.
I too am an Independent. Have been for 20 years.
McCain is bald-faced lying to the American people. Many of whom let him get away with it under the context of this new brand of Bushite, BS “patriotism”.
Fear should not be a domestic political tool - yet they have sharpened it to a razor’s edge.
Why do you suppose that is?
Since I've only just encountered Dr. Taylor, I have no idea how closely our politics actually are.
I can only speak to his post that I read and some of the responses to it. There were 2 or 3 that I felt a need to respond to.
I finally settled on 2, purely out of consieration for time - although I alluded to the 3rd.
In an effort to save space, I can't post the entire Poliblog post here. But as always, I have a link:
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=14229
Reading through most of that link will give you the information required to digest the rest of this post.
There were 2 women who responded to Dr. Taylor's post who seemed to think that their advanced age gave them particular insight into the current political climate.
I for one tend to believe that exactly the opposite is true, as indicated by their comments and comparisons.
I really don't want to take the time or the space to include their thoughts here.
I also don't want anyone to read my reply without first hearing the comments that brought it about. So please take the time to click on and read the above link. Doing so will make what follows a lot easier to understand..... go ahead.... I'll wait.
Okay, now that you've (hopefully) read it all - here is my response to Ann and Granny:
To Ann Townsend and Ohio Granny:
I’m sure that my saying that time on this planet does not necessarily make one wise does not come as news to you.
I am also fairly confident that you understand that the political and diplomatic environment has changed significantly since WW II.
So while I’m pretty sure you’ll be put-off by what I am about to say, I hope that you will appreciate the spirit in which it is offered.
Ann… comparing McCain to FDR and Palin to Truman? Are you serious?
Of Palin you say: “SOMETHING in her has gotten her to this place in history…” Yeah… it’s called luck. Or convenience. Or desperation.
You can not honestly look at her credentials, when compared to others on McCain’s short list (other women included) and decry Palin the most qualified of the lot.
To do so is pure delusion.
At least Devildog admits his/her support comes from their shared desire to kill animals for sport.
It took Palin what, 5 different colleges before she graduated with the much sought-after degree of Sports Journalist?
Let me be clear about her degree; I couldn’t care less where she went to school or what she majored in.
Here is why her round-about route to a Bachelor’s Degree is important to me when compared with Obama’s earning of a Law Degree: Palin’s path shows little ambition, dedication or willingness to fight through to the end. It exemplifies indecision, an inability to focus and a final decision based on ego and money.
And before you begin a rant on the financial rewards of being a Lawyer, I suggest you research Mr. Obama’s career after Law School.
Ohio Granny~
You deemed Ann’s response “excellent!” And while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I feel a need to question your reasoning.
You seem to want me to be excited about a candidate who was suddenly “whisked away from home”. Away from her newborn son, pregnant daughter and war-bound older son.
Whisked away? Really?
Is that the woman who I am expected to consider as the next potential POTUS? This is the person, who in your own words is expected to “rescue the GOP”?
To steal a line from your side: If Palin was a man, would she have been “whisked away” from her family? Or would he have “answered the call”?
You, Granny make some of the most sexist comments I’ve seen so far in relation to Palin’s candidacy. You talk about remembering when women were discriminated against for silly reasons like their menstrual cycle and a fear of vanity.
My disdain for Sarah Palin has nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman. It has to do with the fact that she is supremely under-qualified for the job she has been asked to perform.
Your comments about Obama’s so-called touchy-feely-ness and perceived inability to effect real change to me only show that you haven’t spent the time to actually investigate the policies of the candidates.
Where do you get you information from? (edited from the original)
I myself endevour to probe every niche of the news media. I watch the right-wing blowhards as well as those on the left. I read newspapers and blogs from the UK and Europe. I’ve actually spent hours on both Obama’s website and McCain’s.
Doing so gives one an insight into their actual policies.
And what I have found is that while McCain lies with impunity on the campaign trail, the most I’ve seen from Obama is mere exageration. Of the two, I’ll take the latter.
You say the “people” will get Palin’s “message”. What message are you refering to? The one that says she is clueless on foreign affairs (a key component in any Vice Presidency)? Or the one that says she is totally intolerant of those who hold different ideological and religious views? Or is it the message that says: “It doesn’t matter what I say, as long as I look good and pull some undecided voters to our side”?
Which is why she was chosen in the first place.
And back to Ann:
Suddely Truman isn’t a haberdasher who got lucky. Now you admit to his 10 years in the Senate - albeit you want to minimize how he got there.
Which is a pointless arguement, since we’ve already noticed that the Truman/Palin comparison is utter BS.
You and granny both want to buy into the McCain/Palin rhetoric… I don’t blame you. They talk a good game. Unfortunately, the John McCain of 2000 is gone. The one we are saddled with now is different. The new one is a “win at all cost” politician. He will do and say anything in this last-ditch effort to become President.
The Maverick straight-talker is gone. Replaced by a GOP automoton who truly WILL bring us 4 more years of Bush BS if elected.
Check the facts. Read the policies and compare them to the speeches. If you actually do so, Obama is the clear winner. His rhetoric matches his words.
McCain’s doesn’t.
I too am an Independent. Have been for 20 years.
McCain is bald-faced lying to the American people. Many of whom let him get away with it under the context of this new brand of Bushite, BS “patriotism”.
Fear should not be a domestic political tool - yet they have sharpened it to a razor’s edge.
Why do you suppose that is?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Couric and Palin - The "No Answer" Interviews
Holy crap... every time I watch this stuff I am further amazed and dejected that Palin has even a single supporter. Not only is she clearly clueless -- her handlers haven't even prepared her properly for some of the questions everyone knew Couric would be asking. I defy you to find a single clear, concise answer any where in this first interview:
Sheesh... you can almost see her accessing her mnemonics as she stumbles through some of the assinine responses in this segment.
And here's part 2:
What? Democratic values? Tolerance? This woman wouldn't recognize real democracy if she had a picture and a map. And she personally harbors some of the least tolerant beliefs and opinions in society today.
Kind of funny that during her "answer" to the passport question she much more accurately described McCain's upbringing (son and grandson of Admirals) than Obama's (single mother on food stamps).
She makes the claim that one of the ways she has "understood the world" is through education. Somebody needs to explain to her that attending 5 colleges in order to achieve a degree in Sports Journalism isn't the same as traveling the world and learning about other countries and cultures.
Did you miss it? Couric let it slide, but Palin once again refered to Iraq as a "central front" in the War on Terror.
She asserts her contention that Pakistanis want to rid the world of violent Islamic Terrorists just like we do. I'm sure she's right. The part I'm not sure she's right about is her assumption that the Pakistanis believe that adopting an American-style Democracy is the only way to achieve that goal.
Every time Palin is asked to describe something, she merely alludes to it. I'll give you an example; I was a Carpenter for a long time. For much of that time I was a Cabinetmaker. If someone asked me to describe to them how to build a wet-bar, and I were Sarah Palin I would simply say: "You have to buy the materials and build the bar. It has to be built properly, and the countertop and sink need to fit correctly, with no leaks or gaps."
Which doesn't tell the person who wants to learn about building a wet-bar a single goddamned pertinent detail about how to go about it.
I am beginning to think that Gov. Palin truly doesn't understand the definition of the word "specific."
To hear Palin tell it, the Pentagon and the CIA are counting on the Alaskan people to carry out surveillance and defense against any potential threat from Russia. And - oh, yeah - Canada, too.
She also doesn't seem to realize - and this is a bigee - that nobody cares who the "good guys" and "bad guys" in HER world are. In the real world "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective. And shortly after her glib claim to understanding diplomacy, she almost immediately launches into an invective against Iran as being "bad guys" in "her world".
I found these clips on the internet. The internet is International. Does she not think the Iranian President has access to this shit? If she is ever called upon if -God help us - she actually becomes VP, to meet with the Ahmadinejad; does anyone actually believe he will be receptive to her? Diplomacy is all about empathy (or at least the perception of empathy) and the ability to communicate with those who disagree with you with an even hand. She hasn't even been elected yet, and she's already talking smack about world leaders. Might play well with her base, but the folks she's likely to be "diplomaticizing" with probably aren't too keen on it.
And just so no one tries to misconstrue my opinion here; I am not personally a fan of Ahmadinejad. All I'm saying is that as 2nd in command of the United States of America - one needs to have the ability to consider future possibilities, and to watch ones mouth when talking publicly about the powerful people you may one day need to practice actual Diplomacy with.
Of all the colloquialisms she seems to have learned over the years, it's too bad no one ever taught her one that can be very important in politics: "Never say never."
Now... to end on a note of brevity; please enjoy another installment of Tina Fey's frigging brilliant impersonation of Palin on SNL. This one should be even funnier, coming so close on the heels of the actual interview... you DID watch it, right?
You know what? Having just watched that clip one last time before posting this, it occured to me... other than the obviously comical shit Fey says... she could probably surrogate for Palin at public appearances and her supporters would be none the wiser.
Scary thought.
Sheesh... you can almost see her accessing her mnemonics as she stumbles through some of the assinine responses in this segment.
And here's part 2:
What? Democratic values? Tolerance? This woman wouldn't recognize real democracy if she had a picture and a map. And she personally harbors some of the least tolerant beliefs and opinions in society today.
Kind of funny that during her "answer" to the passport question she much more accurately described McCain's upbringing (son and grandson of Admirals) than Obama's (single mother on food stamps).
She makes the claim that one of the ways she has "understood the world" is through education. Somebody needs to explain to her that attending 5 colleges in order to achieve a degree in Sports Journalism isn't the same as traveling the world and learning about other countries and cultures.
Did you miss it? Couric let it slide, but Palin once again refered to Iraq as a "central front" in the War on Terror.
She asserts her contention that Pakistanis want to rid the world of violent Islamic Terrorists just like we do. I'm sure she's right. The part I'm not sure she's right about is her assumption that the Pakistanis believe that adopting an American-style Democracy is the only way to achieve that goal.
Every time Palin is asked to describe something, she merely alludes to it. I'll give you an example; I was a Carpenter for a long time. For much of that time I was a Cabinetmaker. If someone asked me to describe to them how to build a wet-bar, and I were Sarah Palin I would simply say: "You have to buy the materials and build the bar. It has to be built properly, and the countertop and sink need to fit correctly, with no leaks or gaps."
Which doesn't tell the person who wants to learn about building a wet-bar a single goddamned pertinent detail about how to go about it.
I am beginning to think that Gov. Palin truly doesn't understand the definition of the word "specific."
To hear Palin tell it, the Pentagon and the CIA are counting on the Alaskan people to carry out surveillance and defense against any potential threat from Russia. And - oh, yeah - Canada, too.
She also doesn't seem to realize - and this is a bigee - that nobody cares who the "good guys" and "bad guys" in HER world are. In the real world "good" and "bad" are a matter of perspective. And shortly after her glib claim to understanding diplomacy, she almost immediately launches into an invective against Iran as being "bad guys" in "her world".
I found these clips on the internet. The internet is International. Does she not think the Iranian President has access to this shit? If she is ever called upon if -God help us - she actually becomes VP, to meet with the Ahmadinejad; does anyone actually believe he will be receptive to her? Diplomacy is all about empathy (or at least the perception of empathy) and the ability to communicate with those who disagree with you with an even hand. She hasn't even been elected yet, and she's already talking smack about world leaders. Might play well with her base, but the folks she's likely to be "diplomaticizing" with probably aren't too keen on it.
And just so no one tries to misconstrue my opinion here; I am not personally a fan of Ahmadinejad. All I'm saying is that as 2nd in command of the United States of America - one needs to have the ability to consider future possibilities, and to watch ones mouth when talking publicly about the powerful people you may one day need to practice actual Diplomacy with.
Of all the colloquialisms she seems to have learned over the years, it's too bad no one ever taught her one that can be very important in politics: "Never say never."
Now... to end on a note of brevity; please enjoy another installment of Tina Fey's frigging brilliant impersonation of Palin on SNL. This one should be even funnier, coming so close on the heels of the actual interview... you DID watch it, right?
You know what? Having just watched that clip one last time before posting this, it occured to me... other than the obviously comical shit Fey says... she could probably surrogate for Palin at public appearances and her supporters would be none the wiser.
Scary thought.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Kathleen Parker via Andrew Sullivan
So, ever since seeing Mr. Sullivan on "Real Time" the other day I've been trying to check into his blog from time to time. He's even more link-happy than I am though. So I never get far into his recent posts before I'm off on a tangent of some kind.
Tonight was no exception.
Sullivan's Sunday entry included a link to a post about a FoxNoise story about Conservatives questioning Palin's abilities/credentials that was pulled from their website. This piece alone is worth a lengthy post, but I have to choose my battles.
On the linked post from bradblog.com I found a mention of a National Review article by Kathleen Parker which said she thought Palin should drop out of the campaign.
A Conservative Journalist writing for a Conservative publication being allowed to publish what is virtual blasphemy to the GOP? I had to see it for myself.
And sure enough... Ms. Parker told it like it is. Here are a few quotes from her article in case you were too lazy to read it yourself. FYI: The highlighted text in the previous paragraph is a direct link to the article.
"As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."
"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
"My cringe reflex is exhausted."
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there."
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."
So here is a Journalist, who is also a Conservative, writing these words in a Conservative publication. Said Journalist is also a woman. A woman who openly admits to being wowed by Palin's announcement and that she supported her at first.
And here also is a Conservative Female Journalist who has the BALLS to speak the truth that no one else apparently can: Palin is simply not qualified for the task at hand and should step aside for the good of the country.
As a tree-hugging Leftie male I've been saying the exact same thing ever since my first inquiry into the "pit bull with lipstick". So WTF will the Palinites say to Kathleen Parker?
If you want my opinion, they'll say she's jealous. Or catty. Or some equally repugnant (and decidedly FEMALE) adjective. Mark my words.
So anyway... there was a link on the article that said "email the author" or some such thing. I sent an email. Thought it was pretty good, too. Even copied it to include here. And then, like an asshole I lost it by copying the links and quotes above. And since I didn't write the email here on my PC, it's gone.
Suffice it to say I basically thanked her for telling it like it is, briefly explained our political differences and closed by telling her that I hope her party loses the election. Which I had hoped would be a pithy attachment to this post.
And it would have been. But whether my email is included here or not, it's important to recognize that a respected female conservative journalist is calling for Palin to step aside. Not for the sake of her Party, but for the sake of her Country.
If we had more Conservatives with that kind of big-picture thinking, America might not be in the mess we are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before -- the powers that be would rather vilify Ms. Parker and slam her message than recognize the truth.
I will not be even mildly surprised to learn of a backlash upon her. Whether it be career-oriented, personal attacks or even claims against her integrity.
The GOP does NOT approve of it's members speaking out of school.
Damn... I really wanted to post a copy of that email.
Tonight was no exception.
Sullivan's Sunday entry included a link to a post about a FoxNoise story about Conservatives questioning Palin's abilities/credentials that was pulled from their website. This piece alone is worth a lengthy post, but I have to choose my battles.
On the linked post from bradblog.com I found a mention of a National Review article by Kathleen Parker which said she thought Palin should drop out of the campaign.
A Conservative Journalist writing for a Conservative publication being allowed to publish what is virtual blasphemy to the GOP? I had to see it for myself.
And sure enough... Ms. Parker told it like it is. Here are a few quotes from her article in case you were too lazy to read it yourself. FYI: The highlighted text in the previous paragraph is a direct link to the article.
"As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion."
"Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League."
"My cringe reflex is exhausted."
"Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there."
"If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself."
"Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first."
So here is a Journalist, who is also a Conservative, writing these words in a Conservative publication. Said Journalist is also a woman. A woman who openly admits to being wowed by Palin's announcement and that she supported her at first.
And here also is a Conservative Female Journalist who has the BALLS to speak the truth that no one else apparently can: Palin is simply not qualified for the task at hand and should step aside for the good of the country.
As a tree-hugging Leftie male I've been saying the exact same thing ever since my first inquiry into the "pit bull with lipstick". So WTF will the Palinites say to Kathleen Parker?
If you want my opinion, they'll say she's jealous. Or catty. Or some equally repugnant (and decidedly FEMALE) adjective. Mark my words.
So anyway... there was a link on the article that said "email the author" or some such thing. I sent an email. Thought it was pretty good, too. Even copied it to include here. And then, like an asshole I lost it by copying the links and quotes above. And since I didn't write the email here on my PC, it's gone.
Suffice it to say I basically thanked her for telling it like it is, briefly explained our political differences and closed by telling her that I hope her party loses the election. Which I had hoped would be a pithy attachment to this post.
And it would have been. But whether my email is included here or not, it's important to recognize that a respected female conservative journalist is calling for Palin to step aside. Not for the sake of her Party, but for the sake of her Country.
If we had more Conservatives with that kind of big-picture thinking, America might not be in the mess we are.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned before -- the powers that be would rather vilify Ms. Parker and slam her message than recognize the truth.
I will not be even mildly surprised to learn of a backlash upon her. Whether it be career-oriented, personal attacks or even claims against her integrity.
The GOP does NOT approve of it's members speaking out of school.
Damn... I really wanted to post a copy of that email.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
McCain & Palin on the Bridge to Nowhere... in '07
November 20, 2007
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Nearly 10 months before McCain’s announcment of Palin as running mate, FactCheck.org was already talking about his subterfuge about the Bridge to Nowhere. And thankfully linking to Palin's own words about the project.
In reading content from back then, they hardly seem like the tag-team they’ve recently become.
http://www.factcheck.org/outrageous_exaggerations.html
“… (McCain) never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.”
“The transportation bill did include a total of $223 million (not $233 million, as the ad says) earmarked for the Gravina bridge – $100 million for construction, plus $18.75 million a year for four years, and an additional $48 million to build an access road. McCain tried, unsuccessfully, to add a “sense of the Senate” amendment to the bill, stating a general objection to earmarks; in the end he voted against the legislation. Several months later, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) tried to divert the Gravina funds to a bridge in need of repair over Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans. McCain was not present to vote on Coburn’s amendment proposing this change, which did not pass. Instead, Congress removed Gravina’s earmarks, tossing that money into Alaska’s general transportation pot to be used however the state chose. McCain wasn’t there for that vote, either.”
“In light of the furor over the “bridge to nowhere,” Alaska’s governor opted to use the money for other pursuits.”
But... I thought she said "thanks, but no thanks" to congress. That what she keeps telling us. Over, and over and over and over again.
You know what? It just occured to me... repetition... Where have I used that most effectively in my life? Hmm... yeah; teaching children and training animals. Interesting. Pretty sure it's a key component in brainwashing too... but I digress.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/archive.php?id=623&type=1
This is the “opted” link from the above quote. It's not highlighted here, but it is on the FactCheck.org site. Link there if you'd like to double-check me. Shouldn't be too hard, it's the first link on this post.
As you can see from the address, this 2nd link takes you directly to the official website for the Alaska State Government. Specifically, it takes you to a press release from Governor Palin on September 21, 2007. Which states in part:
“Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island,” Governor Palin added. “Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened.”
It should be noted that the opening paragraph of the release states the bridge’s cost as $398 million. Knowing as we do that congress gave $223 million (the full amount earmarked for the bridge) to Alaska to use as they pleased - had they chosen to put it toward the bridge project, they would have actually been $175 million short. Not the $329 claimed in the release. Assuming of course that the $398 million claim is even accurate.
Even more important than that, though is the language Gov. Palin used in the quote I pulled from her press release. Does that sound like someone who is saying “Thanks, but no thanks.” on the bridge project?
Not to me.
To me it sounds like someone who is saying that after a valiant effort by Alaska to obtain funding for an important project, the powers that be snuffed it out. She even alludes to what seems to be a contention of the attitude of the “lower 48” toward Alaska’s infrastructure needs.
As always, I’ve included a link to my source. Feel free to check it out and let me know if you hear or see the anti-pork Maverick that she is now touting herself to be.
Keep in mind; “liberal media bias” can’t even be whispered on this one. These are Palin’s own words, from her own press release, on her own website.
Spin THAT.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/
This is another link from the FactCheck.org piece that I started this rant with, although it is one not included in anything I have yet quoted. Again, a glance at the address shows it to be from the CNN website, posted on September 22, 2007 and is about the Kethcikan-Gravina Bridge project.
Mostly it is quotes of the Alaska congressmen whining about their project being an international joke and all of the futile work they put into getting the funding. Probably well-deserved whining, too. I’m sure it was no walk in the park trying to get funds for a “$400 million bridge” to a town of 50 people. And to have it fall through probably felt like a slap in the face. However, as we already know - Alaska received the exact same amount of money that had been earmarked for the project. It just didn’t have any stipulation attached on how it was to be spent. Also, they didn’t have to wait for the $75 million that would have been doled out over 4 years in the original plan… they got the full $223 million in one lump sum.
So if they’d really wanted to, they still could have gone on with the project.
The real reason I pulled that link though, is that it includes some quotes from a certain Senator from Arizona:
“Just last month (August of 2007), presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said pet projects could have played a role in a Minnesota bridge collapse that killed 13 people earlier this year.”
"Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain told a group of people in a town-hall style meeting in Ankeny, Iowa.”
"Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."
So at least we know he was consistently 10 million dollars above the actual earmarked amount.
More interesting to me though is the fact that he actually seems to be blaming the money sent to Alaska (and remember, it WAS sent to Alaska) for the failure of the bridge in Minnesota.
Interesting that back in the late summer of ‘07 there didn’t seem to be any Maverick-to-Maverick backslapping of Palin’s “strong stance” against earmarks. Quite the opposite from these 2 examples. Back then, Palin was blaming congressional/public prejudice against Alaska for the removal of stipulations. And McCain was blaming the money earmarked for (and sent to) Alaska for the collapse of another bridge, in a large (and therefore more important?) city that killed innocent Americans.
Forget for a moment that even those statements are friggin’ ridiculous in and of themselves.
Concentrate instead on the fact that if there was ever a time for these two so-called (by McCain) “soul mates” to bond and build each other up as the Mavericks they are selling themselves as today - this would have been it.
If McCain had truly recognized Palin then as a fellow “reformer” who wanted to fight earmarks and change American politics - as he now claims. Why did he instead essentially blame her for the Minnesota tragedy? And if she had truly said “Thanks, but no thanks” to congress on the “Bridge to Nowhere” - why did she tout the gallantry of her congressional delegation and scorn the public for their “misunderstanding” of Alaska’s infrastructure needs? And if state roads were really more important than the bridge - since that’s what they said they’d probably spend the money on - why weren’t their congressmen fighting for earmarks for roads, instead of a bridge?
I’ll try to put this in a way that Righties can better understand. I’ll use a phony Texas accent with shades of Maine peeking through:
“In ‘merica, we got a word for that kinda talk… we call it Boolsheet.”
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
The Audacity of Hope 2004
During the 2004 DNC, a virtually unknown Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama gave the keynote address for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
At the time, we were on vacation in Santa Cruz. And as much as I wanted to see the acceptance speeches - I wasn't too concerned with the pomp and circumstance leading up to them.
So when that young Senator took the stage I was outside, washing my mom's car. And when my decidedly non-political wife came outside to tell me I should really see the speech I was missing, I brushed her off.
Later that evening I heard several people assert that Obama would one day be candidate for President. I was convinced that they were caught up in the emotion of the moment, nothing more.
And quite honestly, this is the first time I've seen his '04 speech in it's entirety.
For those who, like me missed the first go-round... or to those who claim he's changed his message over the past four years; I submit for your examination Obama's keynote address from the 2004 DNC (in 2 parts):
Once again... 'nuff said for now.
At the time, we were on vacation in Santa Cruz. And as much as I wanted to see the acceptance speeches - I wasn't too concerned with the pomp and circumstance leading up to them.
So when that young Senator took the stage I was outside, washing my mom's car. And when my decidedly non-political wife came outside to tell me I should really see the speech I was missing, I brushed her off.
Later that evening I heard several people assert that Obama would one day be candidate for President. I was convinced that they were caught up in the emotion of the moment, nothing more.
And quite honestly, this is the first time I've seen his '04 speech in it's entirety.
For those who, like me missed the first go-round... or to those who claim he's changed his message over the past four years; I submit for your examination Obama's keynote address from the 2004 DNC (in 2 parts):
Once again... 'nuff said for now.
McCain's True Bio
Thanks again to "The Daily Show" we now have an accurate (and hilarious) version of John McCain's road to the GOP nomination for President.
As I've personally told many people; I strongly considered McCain as worthy of my vote in 2000.
Sadly, the man who ran the "straight talk" campaign 8 years ago is gone. Replaced by an automoton who will do and say anything to become President.
The folks at the Daily Show have nailed it succinctly with this clip:
As I've personally told many people; I strongly considered McCain as worthy of my vote in 2000.
Sadly, the man who ran the "straight talk" campaign 8 years ago is gone. Replaced by an automoton who will do and say anything to become President.
The folks at the Daily Show have nailed it succinctly with this clip:
The Daily Show clips I couldn't post before
I've decided to see if I can get the other Daily Show clips to embed this time. They're just too priceless to ignore.
First, I'll try the one they called "Sarah Palin - 'Vet This'.."
Okay, that seemed to work. Let's see if I can get the one of Samantha Bee trying to get Republicans to say the C-word on television:
First, I'll try the one they called "Sarah Palin - 'Vet This'.."
Okay, that seemed to work. Let's see if I can get the one of Samantha Bee trying to get Republicans to say the C-word on television:
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Olberman, the RNC and 9/11 TM
My man, Keith Olberman has once again hit the nail on the head. The so-called 9/11 tribute video shown at the RNC was clearly just more GOP fearmongering, and more of their BS claim that "only we can keep America safe".
I find it especially interesting that in that video, they end it with the tag line:
"... and we will never let it happen again."
Really? After 7 years of saying "It's not a matter of if Terrorists will strike again, but when." They are now confidently saying that if kept in power they will NEVER allow it to happen again?
I'll give them one thing... they've got balls. Unfortunately they're made of paper-thin glass and will shatter into a million pieces the moment another terror strike happens.
They've concentrated almost totally on Iraq - a country that hated Al Quaeda before we invaded - and virtually ignored Afghanistan, the country long-believed to be the safe-haven of BinLaden.
Yet they expect us to believe them when they say they are our Protectors. And only they can be trusted with the safety of our nation.
Have you heard about how porous our ports are? I've personally gotten on 2 airplanes with a lighter in my pocket without being questioned. It very easily could have been a glass knife or other non-metalic object. However, they made damn sure my shampoo bottle was the right size.
Anyway... here's a clip of the assinine "tribute" video from the RNC, along with Keith's live reaction:
While I've been working on this post, midnight has come and gone. So it is officially the 7th anniversary of that tragic day.
I remember a certain level of incredulity when I was a kid and heard adults talking about how they all remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assasinated. Ever since 9/11 I've understood what they meant. I still remember the moment I was told that something was going on, and even more vividly remember the first televised images I saw.
I also remember being inundated with those images to the point of saturation. I avoided the television altogether for days. I remember quite well the way I felt that day, and for weeks afterward. The images will never fade from my memory. And I didn't know a single person lost.
A true tribute to 9/11 would have focused on the heros of that day, and the families directly effected, and the healing that has occured over the years - as well as the scars that remain.
Instead, the RNC and McCain/Palin chose to once again smack us across the face with the brutality, violence and terror that we all remember quite well, thank you very much.
All in the interest of furthering their bid for the White House, with their preposterous claim that they are the more qualified or caring party when it comes to protecting America from terrorists.
Oh... and the best part is this - McCain has been claiming since January that he knows how to stop BinLaden. Yet apparently will only share this revelation with the rest of us if we elect him POTUS. Nice.
Olberman puts it much more succinctly than I ever could in his "Special Comment" - so here it is:
'Nuff said for now.
I find it especially interesting that in that video, they end it with the tag line:
"... and we will never let it happen again."
Really? After 7 years of saying "It's not a matter of if Terrorists will strike again, but when." They are now confidently saying that if kept in power they will NEVER allow it to happen again?
I'll give them one thing... they've got balls. Unfortunately they're made of paper-thin glass and will shatter into a million pieces the moment another terror strike happens.
They've concentrated almost totally on Iraq - a country that hated Al Quaeda before we invaded - and virtually ignored Afghanistan, the country long-believed to be the safe-haven of BinLaden.
Yet they expect us to believe them when they say they are our Protectors. And only they can be trusted with the safety of our nation.
Have you heard about how porous our ports are? I've personally gotten on 2 airplanes with a lighter in my pocket without being questioned. It very easily could have been a glass knife or other non-metalic object. However, they made damn sure my shampoo bottle was the right size.
Anyway... here's a clip of the assinine "tribute" video from the RNC, along with Keith's live reaction:
While I've been working on this post, midnight has come and gone. So it is officially the 7th anniversary of that tragic day.
I remember a certain level of incredulity when I was a kid and heard adults talking about how they all remembered exactly where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assasinated. Ever since 9/11 I've understood what they meant. I still remember the moment I was told that something was going on, and even more vividly remember the first televised images I saw.
I also remember being inundated with those images to the point of saturation. I avoided the television altogether for days. I remember quite well the way I felt that day, and for weeks afterward. The images will never fade from my memory. And I didn't know a single person lost.
A true tribute to 9/11 would have focused on the heros of that day, and the families directly effected, and the healing that has occured over the years - as well as the scars that remain.
Instead, the RNC and McCain/Palin chose to once again smack us across the face with the brutality, violence and terror that we all remember quite well, thank you very much.
All in the interest of furthering their bid for the White House, with their preposterous claim that they are the more qualified or caring party when it comes to protecting America from terrorists.
Oh... and the best part is this - McCain has been claiming since January that he knows how to stop BinLaden. Yet apparently will only share this revelation with the rest of us if we elect him POTUS. Nice.
Olberman puts it much more succinctly than I ever could in his "Special Comment" - so here it is:
'Nuff said for now.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Dateline Wasilla, 2000
Today I came across a story I hadn’t heard about since McCain’s announcement of Palin as his running mate. Many others have spoken about it online, but once I found the original article from the local newspaper from Wasilla, Alaska from 2000 - I felt an overwhelming desire to have my say as well.
Unlike many of the other stories about Gov. Palin, this one includes hard numbers claimed by her administration when she was Mayor of Wasilla. This one is straight out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So please check out the actual article (linked below) before continuing.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
I’ll address Palin’s culpability later. First, let’s do a little math.
The article states that the tests cost between $300 and $1200 apiece. The mean (average) of these numbers is 750, so let’s use that as our estimated cost.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon claims in the article that the (then) new law would cost Wasilla between $5,000 and $14,000 per year. The mean (average) of these numbers is 9.5, so let’s say the average yearly cost to Wasilla would be about $9,500.
By dividing 9,500 by 750 we arrive at 12.66666... So let’s call it 12.7. This is the average number of investigated rapes in Wasilla per year, according to the Chief of Police.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Statistics), the per-capita incidence of rape is around 0.4 per 1000 people over the age of 12.
I’ve heard the population of Wasilla variously reported as being anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000. Apparently, some of this discrepancy is due mostly to rapid growth during the ’90s. Let’s continue to use the mean (average) number for our calculations: in this case, we’ll call the population of Wasilla 6,000.
Using wikipedia’s numbers, the average annual number of rapes in a city the size of Wasilla should come in somewhere around 2.4. And that’s assuming that every person living in Wasilla in 2000 was over the age of 12!!
According to it’s Chief of Police, in 2000 the small town of Wasilla, Alaska was experiencing incidents of rape almost 5.3 times higher than the national average. Even higher if you factor out children under the age of 12.
Now add to that the fact that “only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police” and it would appear that Wasilla had a very serious problem with rape and sexual assault 8 years ago, during Palin’s 1st term as Mayor.
Whoa!
So what to make of all this? Seems pretty clear to me that one way or another, Sarah Palin was demonstrably ineffective on at least this one issue during her tenure as Mayor.
Why do I say that, you might ask. After all, it wasn’t Palin who made the claims quoted in the article - it was the Police Chief.
Who do you suppose the Chief of Police is subordinate to? Who does he report to? Who is his boss?
The Mayor, that’s who.
So either Palin was behind the policy of charging rape victims for their examinations to save the paltry amount of money claimed by Fannon for such a service - which strengthens the claims that she is a ruthless, money-hungry , cold-hearted bitch . Or she wasn’t even aware of it., which confirms other contentions that she was an ineffective (if not damaging) presence in local politics during her 2 terms as Mayor.
To those Palin supporters who want to write this issue off as “aww… you can’t blame her, she must not have known.” I say: You are the people directly responsible for the state of government in this country. Stop buying the rhetoric on face-value. Do some research.
So either she was the force behind the policy, or she simply knew about it and did nothing to change it, or even worse - she was totally clueless.
None of these scenarios supports the claim that she was an effective Executive at even the level of small-town Mayor. Let alone Governor. And surely not as 2nd in command of the United States of America.
All it points to if McCain/Palin wins this election is more obfuscation, deception and cronyism.
In other words - more of the same from the GOP in DC.
If that’s what you’re looking for, we have nothing to talk about. However, if you are one of the millions buying into McCain’s new-found claim to be an advocate for real change in Washington because it’s what you truly want - I implore you to keep reading. Keep googling. Seek out people who are able to speak about the candidates honestly - warts and all.
If you come across someone who claims that their candidate is perfect… walk, no RUN away.
Do the same if you find someone who is placing a vote AGAINST a candidate.
If you truly want to learn which candidate is right for you, YOU must do the leg-work. Don’t let the media or the pundits do it for you.
Visit websites like www.snopes.com, and www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com to find truly non-partisan parsing of the facts. Be aware that in doing so you will learn things about your candidate that you might not like, but with enough searching and stumbling, you’ll eventually begin to form your own true opinion.
Further searching will land you on blogs like mine. Some you will agree with wholeheartedly.
Others you will wish could be wiped off the face of the earth (the GOP might actually help you with that… just remember that if they can ban the ones you disagree with, they can do the same to the ones you like).
Regardless of where you go or what you find - if you keep yourself open to hearing differing perspectives - you WILL learn something.
About yourself, about our government, and about how you really feel about the future of this great nation.
I encourage everyone to do this, knowing that by doing so I am risking the possibility that some “fence-riders” might be influenced by a position I disagree with and turn to the Dark Side. If you do so of your own accord, with actual facts and personal opinion to back you up - I’m okay with that.
Just don’t walk into the voting booth with the voices of politicians or pundits echoing in your head. Do it truly of your own free will.
And if I meet you in a bar - be prepared to explain your decision without using party-line rhetoric. Use your own words and give me real-world examples of how your candidate is going to benefit you during his time in the White House.
That way, when 2012 rolls around… one of us will be able to say “I told you so.”
And actually mean it.
Unlike many of the other stories about Gov. Palin, this one includes hard numbers claimed by her administration when she was Mayor of Wasilla. This one is straight out of the horse’s mouth, so to speak. So please check out the actual article (linked below) before continuing.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
I’ll address Palin’s culpability later. First, let’s do a little math.
The article states that the tests cost between $300 and $1200 apiece. The mean (average) of these numbers is 750, so let’s use that as our estimated cost.
Wasilla Police Chief Charlie Fannon claims in the article that the (then) new law would cost Wasilla between $5,000 and $14,000 per year. The mean (average) of these numbers is 9.5, so let’s say the average yearly cost to Wasilla would be about $9,500.
By dividing 9,500 by 750 we arrive at 12.66666... So let’s call it 12.7. This is the average number of investigated rapes in Wasilla per year, according to the Chief of Police.
According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#Statistics), the per-capita incidence of rape is around 0.4 per 1000 people over the age of 12.
I’ve heard the population of Wasilla variously reported as being anywhere from 3,000 to 9,000. Apparently, some of this discrepancy is due mostly to rapid growth during the ’90s. Let’s continue to use the mean (average) number for our calculations: in this case, we’ll call the population of Wasilla 6,000.
Using wikipedia’s numbers, the average annual number of rapes in a city the size of Wasilla should come in somewhere around 2.4. And that’s assuming that every person living in Wasilla in 2000 was over the age of 12!!
According to it’s Chief of Police, in 2000 the small town of Wasilla, Alaska was experiencing incidents of rape almost 5.3 times higher than the national average. Even higher if you factor out children under the age of 12.
Now add to that the fact that “only 16% of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police” and it would appear that Wasilla had a very serious problem with rape and sexual assault 8 years ago, during Palin’s 1st term as Mayor.
Whoa!
So what to make of all this? Seems pretty clear to me that one way or another, Sarah Palin was demonstrably ineffective on at least this one issue during her tenure as Mayor.
Why do I say that, you might ask. After all, it wasn’t Palin who made the claims quoted in the article - it was the Police Chief.
Who do you suppose the Chief of Police is subordinate to? Who does he report to? Who is his boss?
The Mayor, that’s who.
So either Palin was behind the policy of charging rape victims for their examinations to save the paltry amount of money claimed by Fannon for such a service - which strengthens the claims that she is a ruthless, money-hungry , cold-hearted bitch . Or she wasn’t even aware of it., which confirms other contentions that she was an ineffective (if not damaging) presence in local politics during her 2 terms as Mayor.
To those Palin supporters who want to write this issue off as “aww… you can’t blame her, she must not have known.” I say: You are the people directly responsible for the state of government in this country. Stop buying the rhetoric on face-value. Do some research.
So either she was the force behind the policy, or she simply knew about it and did nothing to change it, or even worse - she was totally clueless.
None of these scenarios supports the claim that she was an effective Executive at even the level of small-town Mayor. Let alone Governor. And surely not as 2nd in command of the United States of America.
All it points to if McCain/Palin wins this election is more obfuscation, deception and cronyism.
In other words - more of the same from the GOP in DC.
If that’s what you’re looking for, we have nothing to talk about. However, if you are one of the millions buying into McCain’s new-found claim to be an advocate for real change in Washington because it’s what you truly want - I implore you to keep reading. Keep googling. Seek out people who are able to speak about the candidates honestly - warts and all.
If you come across someone who claims that their candidate is perfect… walk, no RUN away.
Do the same if you find someone who is placing a vote AGAINST a candidate.
If you truly want to learn which candidate is right for you, YOU must do the leg-work. Don’t let the media or the pundits do it for you.
Visit websites like www.snopes.com, and www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com to find truly non-partisan parsing of the facts. Be aware that in doing so you will learn things about your candidate that you might not like, but with enough searching and stumbling, you’ll eventually begin to form your own true opinion.
Further searching will land you on blogs like mine. Some you will agree with wholeheartedly.
Others you will wish could be wiped off the face of the earth (the GOP might actually help you with that… just remember that if they can ban the ones you disagree with, they can do the same to the ones you like).
Regardless of where you go or what you find - if you keep yourself open to hearing differing perspectives - you WILL learn something.
About yourself, about our government, and about how you really feel about the future of this great nation.
I encourage everyone to do this, knowing that by doing so I am risking the possibility that some “fence-riders” might be influenced by a position I disagree with and turn to the Dark Side. If you do so of your own accord, with actual facts and personal opinion to back you up - I’m okay with that.
Just don’t walk into the voting booth with the voices of politicians or pundits echoing in your head. Do it truly of your own free will.
And if I meet you in a bar - be prepared to explain your decision without using party-line rhetoric. Use your own words and give me real-world examples of how your candidate is going to benefit you during his time in the White House.
That way, when 2012 rolls around… one of us will be able to say “I told you so.”
And actually mean it.
Monday, September 8, 2008
YAY!! It's time for more clips!!!
First; special thanks to Jon Stewart and the folks at "The Daily Show" for putting together the following piece. IMHO it's a pretty good benchmark for the duplicity of the GOP and is a clear indication that FoxNews is anything but fair or balanced.
Here's another one from "The Daily Show". I know, I know... they're fake News. However, they're never too far away from the video archives - and it seems people there have really good memories. This bit is from the night after McCain's acceptance speech, and it's freakin' hilarious. And what's the old line about good comedy? "It's funny because it's true."
That's it for the fun and games for now. For some reason the other 2 clips that I wanted to use won't embed for me. Hope you enjoyed these ones, and perhaps some of you gained a little perspective.
Here's another one from "The Daily Show". I know, I know... they're fake News. However, they're never too far away from the video archives - and it seems people there have really good memories. This bit is from the night after McCain's acceptance speech, and it's freakin' hilarious. And what's the old line about good comedy? "It's funny because it's true."
That's it for the fun and games for now. For some reason the other 2 clips that I wanted to use won't embed for me. Hope you enjoyed these ones, and perhaps some of you gained a little perspective.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
On being a blowhard
I've been thinking about last night's post (and the fact that I invited several people to check it out) all day. While I can't really say I regret writing it, I probably would prefer had I not ranted quite so much at the time.
Politics is such a hot-button issue, and many of us take it pretty personally. So I'm perfectly comfortable with that part of the post. However, I can't STAND it when someone with an opposing view takes a condescending or insulting tone with me just because we disagree. And it seems to me that I'm a little guilty of that in this case, so that is something I wish I'd done differently.
Truth be told, I'd been collecting those speeches for a couple of days to show them to a couple of people. Once I had them all, I wanted to put them out there right away rather than waiting until it was convenient. As I did, I got all wound up and indignant. I get frustrated that others don't see things that seem very plain to me in the same way. So I ranted and railed.
My apologies if I took it too far, but the overall message of the post remains the same. And I have a feeling there might be folks out there who'd like to see the videos all in one place like that, so I'm leaving it as it is.
Politics is such a hot-button issue, and many of us take it pretty personally. So I'm perfectly comfortable with that part of the post. However, I can't STAND it when someone with an opposing view takes a condescending or insulting tone with me just because we disagree. And it seems to me that I'm a little guilty of that in this case, so that is something I wish I'd done differently.
Truth be told, I'd been collecting those speeches for a couple of days to show them to a couple of people. Once I had them all, I wanted to put them out there right away rather than waiting until it was convenient. As I did, I got all wound up and indignant. I get frustrated that others don't see things that seem very plain to me in the same way. So I ranted and railed.
My apologies if I took it too far, but the overall message of the post remains the same. And I have a feeling there might be folks out there who'd like to see the videos all in one place like that, so I'm leaving it as it is.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Ahh the '08 DNC
Where to begin?
I'm really excited, but scared as hell at the same time.
I feel like I know just enough about all there is to consider, but am surprised and disgusted by the fact that I am pretty much the most educated person I know (locally/personally) about the impending election.
Day in and day out I encounter people who just don't get it. By which I mean they're making decisions based on myth, not that they disagree with me.
I've given up on trying to reason with them. I'm embarrased about this, but it is a fact. I simply don't have the time to de-brainwash Bushies any more.
I have YET to encounter someone who actually discredits Obama. However, I've come across many people who just don't want to vote for him. And to a one, they say it's a "feeling".
Bullshit.
Your "feeling" has been created for you. Do some research. We're talking about the most powerful office in the world. Take a couple of hours and study the candidates. If after doing so you still prefer the alternative - then we can talk. But PLEASE stop parroting the right-wing pundits without an original thought.
If you're uncomfortable with the fact that he has a funny name... admit it. But don't claim that his name makes him a Muslim extremist. He is neither. Which you would know if you had paid even a moments attention over the past 18 months.
Holy fuck... white people are freaking out 'cause he's black - and black people are claiming he isn't black enough. Whatever group you are in... if you've had either of those thoughts - you're a fucking Racist.
Arrgh! I could rant on like this all night, but the reason for this long-overdue post is to discuss the convention. So let's go to the videos, whatya say?
Sorry for the ads on the MSNBC clips, but it was the only way I could get them. Most are less than 30 seconds.
First: Michelle Obama's Keynote address -
Hillary's Convention Speech -
President Clinton's Speech -
Senator Biden's Speech -
Smartest Candidate Ever?
Al Gore's Speech -
Obama's Speech -
And while I would love to comment ad nauseum about the DNC - an email that I've been working on for a friend of mine has led me to make an admission and include further content on this post.
I've said before on this blog that Keith Olberman has big, clanky brass balls for saying what he does on TV every night. I'm now saying that I often feel like he is putting my thoughts into words. With an eloquence and indignation that is beyond my ability at this point in my life. So I want to include some "Special Comments" from his show "Countdown" before closing this post. These are comments he made that have struck me to the point that I've watched each of them over and over again. Sometimes looking for chinks if the arguement... other times just wanting to hear another open-eyed person as frustrated as me. I give great thanks to Keith for his willingness to risk his career by openly offering his personal opinion on-air like this. And I further thank him for putting my thoughts out there as eloquently and with as much ferocity as he does:
Olberman to McCain: "Grow Up!"
Olberman to McCain: "Not too important?"
Olberman to Bush: "This is your sacrifice? Really? Golf?"
Unfortunately, viewership of this blog is SO strictly limited that no one will ever challenge the assertions of this post. And anyone who does - I guarantee - will be someone who hasn't taken the time to watch the posted videos in their entirety.
I'm not making any of this up. Yet if anyone were to read this, I would surely be accused of doing so. I am amazed and saddened that there are people in this country (some who I consider friends) that truly believe in the Bush/Cheney/Rove/McCain bullshit. And that no amount of contrary evidence will sway them. I am petrified at the thought that America might chose to allow them to continue their deflowering of our national pride.
And if they succeed in their desire for a sequel... I can't even imagine the damage.
I am so disgusted with the current state of affairs, and so excited about the possibilities for the future that I am wary of making any declarations.
However, I think it is worth noting - for the people who believe Obama's vision is overly optimistic - that on May 25, 1961 John F. Kennedy made a speech declaring his intention that an American would walk on the moon within that decade. Many people thought he was nuts. That his optimism was over-extending the bounds of reality. Yet Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface on July 20, 1969.
If not for JFK's optimism and refusal to maintain the status quo - America would have been forced to play catch-up in the space-race, instead of setting the standard for the world.
We would be well-advised to permit the visions of Barack Obama the same leeway - as it applies to the deep, dark hole Dubya's administration has dug for us.
We would be equally well-advised to be leery as hell of John McCain's "more of the same" platform.
More on this later, but please don't force me to say "Don't blame me, I voted for Obama"... the stakes are too high this time.
Yours,
~Kev
I'm really excited, but scared as hell at the same time.
I feel like I know just enough about all there is to consider, but am surprised and disgusted by the fact that I am pretty much the most educated person I know (locally/personally) about the impending election.
Day in and day out I encounter people who just don't get it. By which I mean they're making decisions based on myth, not that they disagree with me.
I've given up on trying to reason with them. I'm embarrased about this, but it is a fact. I simply don't have the time to de-brainwash Bushies any more.
I have YET to encounter someone who actually discredits Obama. However, I've come across many people who just don't want to vote for him. And to a one, they say it's a "feeling".
Bullshit.
Your "feeling" has been created for you. Do some research. We're talking about the most powerful office in the world. Take a couple of hours and study the candidates. If after doing so you still prefer the alternative - then we can talk. But PLEASE stop parroting the right-wing pundits without an original thought.
If you're uncomfortable with the fact that he has a funny name... admit it. But don't claim that his name makes him a Muslim extremist. He is neither. Which you would know if you had paid even a moments attention over the past 18 months.
Holy fuck... white people are freaking out 'cause he's black - and black people are claiming he isn't black enough. Whatever group you are in... if you've had either of those thoughts - you're a fucking Racist.
Arrgh! I could rant on like this all night, but the reason for this long-overdue post is to discuss the convention. So let's go to the videos, whatya say?
Sorry for the ads on the MSNBC clips, but it was the only way I could get them. Most are less than 30 seconds.
First: Michelle Obama's Keynote address -
Hillary's Convention Speech -
President Clinton's Speech -
Senator Biden's Speech -
Smartest Candidate Ever?
Al Gore's Speech -
Obama's Speech -
And while I would love to comment ad nauseum about the DNC - an email that I've been working on for a friend of mine has led me to make an admission and include further content on this post.
I've said before on this blog that Keith Olberman has big, clanky brass balls for saying what he does on TV every night. I'm now saying that I often feel like he is putting my thoughts into words. With an eloquence and indignation that is beyond my ability at this point in my life. So I want to include some "Special Comments" from his show "Countdown" before closing this post. These are comments he made that have struck me to the point that I've watched each of them over and over again. Sometimes looking for chinks if the arguement... other times just wanting to hear another open-eyed person as frustrated as me. I give great thanks to Keith for his willingness to risk his career by openly offering his personal opinion on-air like this. And I further thank him for putting my thoughts out there as eloquently and with as much ferocity as he does:
Olberman to McCain: "Grow Up!"
Olberman to McCain: "Not too important?"
Olberman to Bush: "This is your sacrifice? Really? Golf?"
Unfortunately, viewership of this blog is SO strictly limited that no one will ever challenge the assertions of this post. And anyone who does - I guarantee - will be someone who hasn't taken the time to watch the posted videos in their entirety.
I'm not making any of this up. Yet if anyone were to read this, I would surely be accused of doing so. I am amazed and saddened that there are people in this country (some who I consider friends) that truly believe in the Bush/Cheney/Rove/McCain bullshit. And that no amount of contrary evidence will sway them. I am petrified at the thought that America might chose to allow them to continue their deflowering of our national pride.
And if they succeed in their desire for a sequel... I can't even imagine the damage.
I am so disgusted with the current state of affairs, and so excited about the possibilities for the future that I am wary of making any declarations.
However, I think it is worth noting - for the people who believe Obama's vision is overly optimistic - that on May 25, 1961 John F. Kennedy made a speech declaring his intention that an American would walk on the moon within that decade. Many people thought he was nuts. That his optimism was over-extending the bounds of reality. Yet Neil Armstrong set foot on the lunar surface on July 20, 1969.
If not for JFK's optimism and refusal to maintain the status quo - America would have been forced to play catch-up in the space-race, instead of setting the standard for the world.
We would be well-advised to permit the visions of Barack Obama the same leeway - as it applies to the deep, dark hole Dubya's administration has dug for us.
We would be equally well-advised to be leery as hell of John McCain's "more of the same" platform.
More on this later, but please don't force me to say "Don't blame me, I voted for Obama"... the stakes are too high this time.
Yours,
~Kev
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Of Forwarded Vids from FoxNEWS
So I got this video clip from FoxNoise in a forwared email a few days ago. As usual with their blather, it sent me into a bit of a tizzy. The results are posted below, but to give you a sense of my experience up to now I thought I'd include the text of the original forwarded message.
I got it from a friend of mine, and even at this point I'm not totally sure how she feels about it, or how she expected me to react.
Subject line: Fwd: Fwd: A 36 second video. You won't believe what you hear
Oooh... sounds good so far, yeah? Intriguing.
First response (from my friend):
OK - REALLY?!!! Exciting, but I still don't even know what its about.
From the person prior to my friend:
A sign of things to come....... Ah, a harbinger. But of what? Sorrow? Victory? Tell me more!
And before that:
Grrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!! We need to revolt !!!! A growl, a call for revolution, and 13 exclamation points! Allright... this is sounding better and better. Let's get to the clip and see what all the fuss is about, shall we? I'm dying to know.
I got it from a friend of mine, and even at this point I'm not totally sure how she feels about it, or how she expected me to react.
Subject line: Fwd: Fwd: A 36 second video. You won't believe what you hear
Oooh... sounds good so far, yeah? Intriguing.
First response (from my friend):
OK - REALLY?!!! Exciting, but I still don't even know what its about.
From the person prior to my friend:
A sign of things to come....... Ah, a harbinger. But of what? Sorrow? Victory? Tell me more!
And before that:
Grrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!! We need to revolt !!!! A growl, a call for revolution, and 13 exclamation points! Allright... this is sounding better and better. Let's get to the clip and see what all the fuss is about, shall we? I'm dying to know.
Ah, fuck. Not this shit again.
So - being me - I had to respond. I hate my drive to do this to my friends, since they're not really the Windmills I want to tilt at, but in situations like this I only have the one outlet. So I sent the following email:
I respectfully decline to comment at this time, as there are not enough hours in the day to explain why that channels broadcasting privileges should be revoked.
To which she responded:
Dost thou knowest something of this channel in particular which the rest of us are unaware?? (I don't even know what channel it was...)
First of all, no she doesn't really talk like that. Its a long story... we're weird.
But to not know what network had ellicited the above responses and caused her to forward their drivel to her address book? Unacceptable. The logo is right there throughout the entire clip. Can I pray that people will check their sources before blindly sending me shit? Agree with it or not, but please know from whence it came. What if it was from the Charles Manson, David Koresh or Tim McVeigh collection? Would you have passed it on? Apparently.
So, once again - I had to respond:
Just a sec... need to step up onto my soapbox... Okay, here goes:
Rupert Murdoch's FoxNEWS... entertainment and opinion masquerading as journalism.
That extremely biased/one-sided clip is a perfect example. Starts off with the admission that there is "urgent need" for firefighters due to "2 dozen MAJOR wildfires".
Ignoring the Volunteer (by which I mean they're the ones who've stepped-up, not that they're working for free) aspect of the "new recruits", the "report" becomes a biased op-ed on foreigners costing American jobs. Only slight allusion is made to the fact that crew bosses are being laid-off or demoted - not fired. It ignores the fact that this is likely a temporary situation, steps taken to get through the current crisis.
The report completely ignores the fact that these firefighters are willing to run into the most dangerous type of fire, risking their lives in the process. I guess only American-born firefighters are worthy of the title of hero, huh?
Why not require the workers to speak English? DUH!!! There is an urgent NEED (see above) for firefighters to battle 2 dozen major wildfires!!
If your house was in the path of one of those fires, would you be worried about what language the guys with the hoses were speaking? Or would you just be thankful they were there?
Virtually every story on that network can be picked apart in much the same way. Adding insult to injury is the fact that their tag-line is "fair and balanced". Nothing could be further from the truth. If they're going to call themselves a News channel, they should be required to practice actual journalism. Otherwise, they should be categorized as what they are: an entertainment channel pandering to the neo-con agenda and the politics of fear. Or their broadcasting license should be rescinded.
My .02.
<---- off soapbox.
Which I thought was a fairly even-handed response that succinctly described my feelings about FNC and the immigration debate.
She likes to fan my flames though, so she sent me this:
Oooh... While I agree with you fully that we should make whatever adjustments are necessary to meet an urgent need, I think this might the part where I respectfully decline to suggest that ALL of the other "news" channels sway to the left? Just an instinct... I DO love a well-informed and eloquent opinion, though!! Have I thy permission to forward your rebut to he who sent the original to me? (Yet another highly-opinioned Irish man named Kevin...)
I admit to being a little blindsided by the "I agree..." line. I still feel that if she really did, she wouldn't have been forwarding that clip, but now the whole "left wing conspiracy" angle had been proposed. Likely her fanning my flames again, but it opened a floodgate that resulted in the email I sent this evening:
I happen to disagree with the notion that most media outlets are left-leaning, since we only hear that from neo-cons and the radical right, but okay... lets say they are. Leaning in one direction is one thing... being at the farthest reaches of that direction is another. One can lean to one side and still offer unbiased reporting. To be clear... it isn't the fact that Fox is to the extreme right that bothers me. It is the fact that they pretend to be otherwise. And most of their target demographic can't be bothered to look elsewhere to recognize the difference. For example; Limbaugh's fans (I know he's not on Fox, but it's the same demographic) are called "Dittoheads" for a reason. They just parrot everything he says without a moment's reflection or comparitive research. They're sheep. Scary and sad at the same time.
An example of a left-leaning but fair network is MSNBC. Which employs pundits from both sides of the aisle. Sometimes they report, sometimes they opine. What I like about them is that they are clear about which they are doing at a given moment, and everyone is allowed to have their say. Unlike O'Reilly on Fox who will shout down a dissenting guest, or even have their mic shut off if they're making too much sense. MSNBC as a whole is more lefty, for sure. I'm not claiming otherwise. Just that they have actual GOP members and conservatives on-staff. Fox has Colmes... panty-waist token Dem who only serves as Hannity's whipping boy. Its a joke.
If you fully agree with me that drastic times call for drastic measures... I'm wondering why you sent the clip? Not being smarmy, actually curious.
Sure, you can send my rantings along to Mr. Kevin if you wish. If he sent the original out of a sense of outrage akin to the pulse of the clip, you might want to send him this one, as well. If he sent it (as I can only hope and pray) to say: "Look at the BS Fox is pandering now." This one will be mere preaching to the choir.
Not sure I want to get into another debate about immigration though.
First, as a descendant of Irish immigrants - I know well the stories of how they were treated when they first came to this country. "No Irish Need Apply" and so on. Maybe I have a soft-spot for immigrants, shouldn't we all? Ever go to an Irish of our parent's or grand-parent's generation and ask them how they feel about the word Paddy? If you ever try it, make sure you take a few steps back first. Second, I wrote a research paper on immigration about a year ago and the actual facts of the matter are startlingly different than what most people believe them to be. Third, I've lived and worked with immigrants my whole life, both legal and illegal. The majority of the time, it is a myth that even illegal immigrants are working for substantially less money than their American counterparts. The reason they get hired (especially Mexican immigrants, in my experience) is that they work harder, longer and with a smile. They lac k the nauseating sense of entitlement that most of us Americans have.
Give a Mexican worker a shovel, point to a spot on the ground and tell him to dig. He will dig until you come back and tell him to stop. The American will come find you every 5 minutes to ask: "Uh... is this deep enough?" And then sigh dejectedly and shuffle back toward the slight impression he's created when you say no. If you're the boss and are offering both workers the same wage, which one are you going to keep and which one are you going to fire? And what do you suppose the lazy-ass you fired is going to tell his friends and family? That he lost his job to a more talented, more dedicated, more loyal worker? Hell no. He's going to say a Mexican stole his job.
We've become a nation of complacent people who aspire toward mediocrity.
When I was working on my research paper, I was still working construction. Several of the subcontractors on the job I was running at the time employed mostly Mexican and Brazilian workers. I asked every one of them about it. From roofing to painting to landscaping to framing to drywall, they all told me the same things. Their pay scale was roughly the same as ours (my company employed mostly Americans), from 7 or 8 bucks an hour up to around 25. Most of their guys were making around 15 to 20 dollars an hour, just like in our company. So why use them? Simple. They show up on time every day. They work overtime and weekends or in the heat, cold and rain whenever its needed without complaint. They don't drink or do drugs on the job. They work efficiently and constantly all day long and take pride in their work. And they do it all with a smile on their face. All for the same cost of the cry-baby Americans who have to have their hands hel d throughout the day, call in sick when they're really just hung over, show up late, leave early and complain constantly.
And what is our "Patriotic" response to this phenomenon? Do we strive to become more reliable, efficient and hardworking? Gosh, no. That would take too much effort. Instead we say "put up a fence!" and "they're increasing the crime rate and driving down property values!" and "they're criminals! Kick them out! All of them! Right freaking NOW!"
Forget the fact that none of our ancestors had to go through the rigamarole that's required these days to come here. They didn't have to come up with the equivalent of 5 years salary just to apply for citizenship. They just had to GET here. Were the Dutch, German, Polish, Russian or Italian immigrants of the 18th and 19th century required to speak English to come here? Nope. Yet we see their descendents every day, driving around with bumper stickers reading; "Welcome to American, Learn English" and "Welcome to America, now Go Home."
Its asinine.
Jobs aren't stolen. They're either lost or given away.
Our federal, state and local governments and law enforcement agencies have better things to do than concentrate on the "Criminally Here."
We have people who are more concerned about illegal immigrants than they are about pedophiles, rapists, wife beaters and drug dealers. And if an illegal alien is also any of those things, I submit that it is his behavior rather than his status which is the problem. Yet the same people who accuse immigrants of such behavior are the ones who resist the efforts to provide them with identification.
Does no one think anymore?
And what about the effect the suggested mass-deportation would have on the economy, which is already in shambles? Oh... I forgot, Americans are lining up to be dishwashers, nannies, housekeepers, lawn-cutters and farm workers. Those highly desirable jobs have been stolen from the Americans who once took so much pride in them.
Gimme a break.
And please, don't anyone send me the skewed health care, crime rate and welfare numbers that are being bandied about these days. The true percentages are so strongly in favor of immigrants it'll make your head spin. Just take an afternoon and do some research, rather than believe everything that someone with an agenda tells you.
Oddly enough, the current immigration problem is totally of our own doing. Just like it was before and after the Mexican-American War. Just like it was during the initial waves of immigration from China. Just like it was during the initial waves of immigration from Eastern Europe and Japan. This is merely another spin of a cycle that has been running in this country since our inception; Those already here fear the changes the newcomers will bring. Eventually, through perseverance the newcomers get a toe-hold and are able to hang on through pure tenacity. Usually until another new group begins to threaten the status quo, at which point the previously outcast are brought into the fold to rage against the new ones.
What is history for if not to learn from? Yet we as a people seem unwilling or unable to do so on this subject.
Does any of this mean that I think anyone who desires citizenship should be allowed in with merely a thumb print and a signature? No. But there is no reason that the process need be so complex, time consuming and expensive. Especially for people who just want a better life for their family. We have no problem granting extensive visas to educators, scientists, intellectuals and professionals from other countries. Yet the family who dreams of a life outside of their one room shack (with no running water and a diseased well, in a village in a country with no hope of a better future) are deemed criminals by their mere presence within our borders.
Its sickening.
Its heartless.
And it insults our national heritage.
I submit that anyone who disagrees likely doesn't know their own family's immigration story, is ignorant of the history of immigration in America, subscribes to the politics of fear doctrine, and/or is just a plain old bigot.
This is the Land of Plenty, remember?
How can we claim to be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, if we behave like citizens of the Land of the Indoctrinated and the Home of the Meek?
Think. Feel. Do. Be.
Do not merely follow.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Daytona 500
I've been a NASCAR fan for about 17 years.
This has forced me into many conversations with non-fans who just don't get it.
"It's just a bunch of rednecks turning left for 4 hours."
"NASCAR stands for Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks."
I've heard them all, and admit they're funny and partially accurate.
The thing is, I don't understand why I am expected to defend my appreciation of Stock Car Racing. Or even why I feel the need to explain it.
Anyone who says watching baseball is more exciting than watching a race must be high.
"He scratches his balls... checks the runner... grabs the rosin bag... adjusts his cap... foot on the rubber... checks the runner again... shakes off the first sign... shakes off the second sign... accepts the third sign... scratches his balls again... here's the wind-up... and the pitch... low and outside for ball one."
There's a minute of my life I'll never get back.
Basketball (hate it) and Football (love it) have time limits to keep the action moving... why not baseball?
Watching the machinations of some batters makes me want to shoot the TV. 10 seconds of ritual prior to every pitch? Can your cleats possibly have become packed with dirt in the last 4 seconds? Do you really need to cross yourself and kiss your necklace up to God for every pitch?
I've spent a lot of time over the years trying to explain my appreciation for auto racing to people who just don't get it. Its usually time wasted. Just like anyone telling me how exciting baseball is on TV would be a waste.
I suppose it comes down to a couple of things; I've been to races live, which is one of the most visceral experiences one can have. Perhaps I now transfer that experience into the races on TV. I know the smells, the thunder of the engines in my chest.
More than that - and this is the shortest explanation I can think of :
Consider you own car for a moment. Next, consider the fastest speed you've ever driven that car in tight traffic. What is that speed? 70 miles per hour? 80 at the most?
Remember, I'm not talking about the fastest you've ever driven when alone on the highway. I talking about the fastest you've gone when there was nowhere to go. Cars in front, back and on both sides. Consider driving in that situation among cars without brake lights or turn signals, and anyone might jig from lane to lane at any moment without notice.
Might that be a little bit stressful to do for 10 minutes?
Now increase the speed by more than double, up to almost 200 MPH - but maintain the same proximity to the cars around you.
Now do that for 4 hours.
In addition, consider the fact that you are running your car all-out the entire time.
Most of us do basic maintenance on our cars prior to a 2 hour trip at 60 MPH. When going to the beach for the weekend, as an example.
Consider running your own car full-throttle for 4 hours. How confident are you that every system in the car will survive the trip?
Are you able to recognize by feel when your left rear tire is exhibiting excessive wear?
Would you be able to perform at your best throughout the 500 full-throttle miles strapped into a five-point harness, full-face helmet strapped to the body of the car, without the ability to turn your head to look out the side windows?
Would you further be able to do all of this while enduring 120 degree temperatures?
I don't offer this quiz in hopes of building support for auto racing. Nor do I expect to change your mind about NASCAR in particular.
I'm just trying to offer a minimal insight into some of the things that drew me to the sport, and keep me tuning in week after week throughout the longest season in professional sports.
Think of the toughest guy you personally know, or pick your favorite tough-guy athlete.
Neither of them could compete in a NASCAR event at half the distance or speed.
Says something about the guys in the drivers seat of those gaudy-looking cars, don't you think?
This has forced me into many conversations with non-fans who just don't get it.
"It's just a bunch of rednecks turning left for 4 hours."
"NASCAR stands for Non Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks."
I've heard them all, and admit they're funny and partially accurate.
The thing is, I don't understand why I am expected to defend my appreciation of Stock Car Racing. Or even why I feel the need to explain it.
Anyone who says watching baseball is more exciting than watching a race must be high.
"He scratches his balls... checks the runner... grabs the rosin bag... adjusts his cap... foot on the rubber... checks the runner again... shakes off the first sign... shakes off the second sign... accepts the third sign... scratches his balls again... here's the wind-up... and the pitch... low and outside for ball one."
There's a minute of my life I'll never get back.
Basketball (hate it) and Football (love it) have time limits to keep the action moving... why not baseball?
Watching the machinations of some batters makes me want to shoot the TV. 10 seconds of ritual prior to every pitch? Can your cleats possibly have become packed with dirt in the last 4 seconds? Do you really need to cross yourself and kiss your necklace up to God for every pitch?
I've spent a lot of time over the years trying to explain my appreciation for auto racing to people who just don't get it. Its usually time wasted. Just like anyone telling me how exciting baseball is on TV would be a waste.
I suppose it comes down to a couple of things; I've been to races live, which is one of the most visceral experiences one can have. Perhaps I now transfer that experience into the races on TV. I know the smells, the thunder of the engines in my chest.
More than that - and this is the shortest explanation I can think of :
Consider you own car for a moment. Next, consider the fastest speed you've ever driven that car in tight traffic. What is that speed? 70 miles per hour? 80 at the most?
Remember, I'm not talking about the fastest you've ever driven when alone on the highway. I talking about the fastest you've gone when there was nowhere to go. Cars in front, back and on both sides. Consider driving in that situation among cars without brake lights or turn signals, and anyone might jig from lane to lane at any moment without notice.
Might that be a little bit stressful to do for 10 minutes?
Now increase the speed by more than double, up to almost 200 MPH - but maintain the same proximity to the cars around you.
Now do that for 4 hours.
In addition, consider the fact that you are running your car all-out the entire time.
Most of us do basic maintenance on our cars prior to a 2 hour trip at 60 MPH. When going to the beach for the weekend, as an example.
Consider running your own car full-throttle for 4 hours. How confident are you that every system in the car will survive the trip?
Are you able to recognize by feel when your left rear tire is exhibiting excessive wear?
Would you be able to perform at your best throughout the 500 full-throttle miles strapped into a five-point harness, full-face helmet strapped to the body of the car, without the ability to turn your head to look out the side windows?
Would you further be able to do all of this while enduring 120 degree temperatures?
I don't offer this quiz in hopes of building support for auto racing. Nor do I expect to change your mind about NASCAR in particular.
I'm just trying to offer a minimal insight into some of the things that drew me to the sport, and keep me tuning in week after week throughout the longest season in professional sports.
Think of the toughest guy you personally know, or pick your favorite tough-guy athlete.
Neither of them could compete in a NASCAR event at half the distance or speed.
Says something about the guys in the drivers seat of those gaudy-looking cars, don't you think?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
... drive like an idiot.
As someone who spends a lot of time in my car – and even drove professionally for a time – idiot drivers might be my biggest pet peeve.
If you’re reading this and wondering whether you’re an idiot driver, you probably are. If you’re reading this and thinking “This isn’t about me… I’m an excellent driver… definitely an excellent driver”, you’re probably an idiot too.
If people cut you off all the time or if you feel like everyone on the road is out to get you – you’re an idiot driver.
Here’s the deal folks, you are NOT the only person on the planet.
The key to being a good driver is to become like a leaf in a stream. Most of you are boulders. If you learn to flow with the current, you will find that time spent in your car will become much more enjoyable.
I’m not referring to the speed with which traffic is flowing, although that is important. I am talking about not making a spectacle of yourself.
Being a smart driver is about more than being technically proficient with the pedals, switches and levers.
It has little to do with whether you talk on the phone.
However, if you text message while driving, you’re an uber-idiot.
Let’s get a few things out of the way right off the bat:
· The left lane is called the passing lane for a reason.
· The lines painted on the road and in parking lots are there for a reason.
· Turn signals matter. As does shutting them off.
· Corner gas stations are not short cuts.
· A yield sign means that if continuing forward will impede the progress of another driver, you are to STOP until such time that the coast is clear. It does not mean to let off the accelerator for a second and then blindly forge onward.
· A merge sign means that you are to match speed with the flow of traffic BEFORE joining the stream. Similar to a yield, your task is to avoid effecting the progress of other drivers.
Very few people seem to understand either the tricks or the etiquette for driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The first key is that the closer you follow the car in front of you, the worse the traffic jam will be and the longer it will last. Every time you brake hard or come to a complete stop, there is an accordion effect behind you. The first guy jumps on the binders a little faster and harder than you did, and so on down the line, which extends the jam further and further back. In fact, most jams are caused by someone jamming on the breaks unnecessarily when traffic is still flowing at speed.
Why do you stick to the bumper of the car in front of you when traffic is barely moving? I know, you’re afraid someone from an adjacent lane will cut in front of you if you leave any room.
So what if they do? You’ll get to work one car-length later?
There is no speed at which this is a viable argument.
The only time tailgating is permissible relates to item one in the above list; when some asshole has determined that the left lane is just the spot for a leisurely drive.
Even in such a situation, the tailgating should only last a few seconds. A good driver will recognize that you want to get by and will move aside at the first opportunity. Staying on their bumper when the right lane is crowded is pointless and dangerous.
The idiot will continue on for miles with your grill in their mirror. Don’t bother risking your life sending a visual message to the blind. You may be forced to pass on the right, always the more dangerous option, especially on a multi-lane highway.
If you are someone who is often passed on the right, you’re an idiot. Stop driving in the left lane.
Other than while sending a “move over” message to the highway pace car, at all times – and all speeds – you should keep enough room between you and the car in front to allow another car in.
At high speed, this allows others to slide over when they encounter slower traffic.
At low speeds, it allows you to release the gas pedal and let the engine’s compression slow you down without having to flash your brake lights at the car behind you – possibly causing him to extend the jam.
At any speed, it gives you the opportunity to react to sudden changes. The more room, the more options you have. If you’re too close, your only option is to mash the brakes and pray. With just a little more room, you might be able to steer to the side. Even if you end up off the road, you’ll likely be better off than if you slammed into the other car.
If everyone on the road were willing to leave just a little more room between cars, our traffic problems would be greatly reduced. It is a myth that jams are caused purely by volume. Most of them are caused by idiots. Think of the past fifty traffic jams you’ve been stuck in. How many of them had any discernable cause, like an accident or a disabled car? Ten, maybe?
That means the other forty were caused by idiots.
If it sets your mind at ease, most drivers are idiots. So if the things I’m saying are hitting a little close to home, you have plenty of company.
The typical rush hour jam is caused by a train of cars following too closely at speed. Perhaps the first guy sees brake lights a quarter mile ahead (the minimum distance you should be watching) and lets off the gas in anticipation… he is not the idiot. The second guy, who is already following too close panics when the other car suddenly gets closer, and hits the brakes. Upon seeing his brake lights, car #3 overreacts even more.
The pisser about this is, these first idiots remain clueless to the disaster unfolding behind them. After their initial tap of the brakes, they’ve continued on without further issues. Within a minute or two, due to the accordion effect – the cars a mile or so back suddenly find themselves at a dead stop.
Don’t block intersections when you’re stuck in traffic. Leave room for cross traffic to get through. And allow drivers from cross streets to join the misery if they’re indicating a desire to do so.
Take 5 seconds to back and fill if your first attempt at parking didn’t end with you between the lines. I personally think I should be within my legal rights to do physical damage to your car if it is straddling the line.
If you are one of the first 4 cars at a stop light, pay attention. Driver number 10 might actually get through on the green if you move your ass promptly.
If a light turns yellow before you reach the intersection, stop at the limit line.
If you’re not POSITIVE that you’ll make it through a congested intersection before the light changes, don’t try.
Give tractor trailer drivers a break. Signal well ahead of time when changing lanes in front of them, and don’t make the move until you’re well in front of them. Not only can they not stop as quickly as you, they can’t see the road right in front of them.
When a trucker signals a lane change in front of you, flash your hi-beams when he’s clear to move over. He’ll give a thank you flash of his trailer lights, and you will have helped clear the left lane for other drivers.
If you drive/ride a vehicle with loud exhaust, be considerate while driving through residential neighborhoods. Nobody is impressed when you burp the throttle at 2 in the morning and wake up their kid.
If you ride a bike and can’t be bothered to be considerate, you’re the reason people fight for noise ordinances. It is true that ‘loud pipes save lives’, but if you expect people to support the idea – stop being a dick.
That’s it for now, but I have a feeling this is only the first in a series.
If you’re reading this and wondering whether you’re an idiot driver, you probably are. If you’re reading this and thinking “This isn’t about me… I’m an excellent driver… definitely an excellent driver”, you’re probably an idiot too.
If people cut you off all the time or if you feel like everyone on the road is out to get you – you’re an idiot driver.
Here’s the deal folks, you are NOT the only person on the planet.
The key to being a good driver is to become like a leaf in a stream. Most of you are boulders. If you learn to flow with the current, you will find that time spent in your car will become much more enjoyable.
I’m not referring to the speed with which traffic is flowing, although that is important. I am talking about not making a spectacle of yourself.
Being a smart driver is about more than being technically proficient with the pedals, switches and levers.
It has little to do with whether you talk on the phone.
However, if you text message while driving, you’re an uber-idiot.
Let’s get a few things out of the way right off the bat:
· The left lane is called the passing lane for a reason.
· The lines painted on the road and in parking lots are there for a reason.
· Turn signals matter. As does shutting them off.
· Corner gas stations are not short cuts.
· A yield sign means that if continuing forward will impede the progress of another driver, you are to STOP until such time that the coast is clear. It does not mean to let off the accelerator for a second and then blindly forge onward.
· A merge sign means that you are to match speed with the flow of traffic BEFORE joining the stream. Similar to a yield, your task is to avoid effecting the progress of other drivers.
Very few people seem to understand either the tricks or the etiquette for driving in bumper-to-bumper traffic. The first key is that the closer you follow the car in front of you, the worse the traffic jam will be and the longer it will last. Every time you brake hard or come to a complete stop, there is an accordion effect behind you. The first guy jumps on the binders a little faster and harder than you did, and so on down the line, which extends the jam further and further back. In fact, most jams are caused by someone jamming on the breaks unnecessarily when traffic is still flowing at speed.
Why do you stick to the bumper of the car in front of you when traffic is barely moving? I know, you’re afraid someone from an adjacent lane will cut in front of you if you leave any room.
So what if they do? You’ll get to work one car-length later?
There is no speed at which this is a viable argument.
The only time tailgating is permissible relates to item one in the above list; when some asshole has determined that the left lane is just the spot for a leisurely drive.
Even in such a situation, the tailgating should only last a few seconds. A good driver will recognize that you want to get by and will move aside at the first opportunity. Staying on their bumper when the right lane is crowded is pointless and dangerous.
The idiot will continue on for miles with your grill in their mirror. Don’t bother risking your life sending a visual message to the blind. You may be forced to pass on the right, always the more dangerous option, especially on a multi-lane highway.
If you are someone who is often passed on the right, you’re an idiot. Stop driving in the left lane.
Other than while sending a “move over” message to the highway pace car, at all times – and all speeds – you should keep enough room between you and the car in front to allow another car in.
At high speed, this allows others to slide over when they encounter slower traffic.
At low speeds, it allows you to release the gas pedal and let the engine’s compression slow you down without having to flash your brake lights at the car behind you – possibly causing him to extend the jam.
At any speed, it gives you the opportunity to react to sudden changes. The more room, the more options you have. If you’re too close, your only option is to mash the brakes and pray. With just a little more room, you might be able to steer to the side. Even if you end up off the road, you’ll likely be better off than if you slammed into the other car.
If everyone on the road were willing to leave just a little more room between cars, our traffic problems would be greatly reduced. It is a myth that jams are caused purely by volume. Most of them are caused by idiots. Think of the past fifty traffic jams you’ve been stuck in. How many of them had any discernable cause, like an accident or a disabled car? Ten, maybe?
That means the other forty were caused by idiots.
If it sets your mind at ease, most drivers are idiots. So if the things I’m saying are hitting a little close to home, you have plenty of company.
The typical rush hour jam is caused by a train of cars following too closely at speed. Perhaps the first guy sees brake lights a quarter mile ahead (the minimum distance you should be watching) and lets off the gas in anticipation… he is not the idiot. The second guy, who is already following too close panics when the other car suddenly gets closer, and hits the brakes. Upon seeing his brake lights, car #3 overreacts even more.
The pisser about this is, these first idiots remain clueless to the disaster unfolding behind them. After their initial tap of the brakes, they’ve continued on without further issues. Within a minute or two, due to the accordion effect – the cars a mile or so back suddenly find themselves at a dead stop.
Don’t block intersections when you’re stuck in traffic. Leave room for cross traffic to get through. And allow drivers from cross streets to join the misery if they’re indicating a desire to do so.
Take 5 seconds to back and fill if your first attempt at parking didn’t end with you between the lines. I personally think I should be within my legal rights to do physical damage to your car if it is straddling the line.
If you are one of the first 4 cars at a stop light, pay attention. Driver number 10 might actually get through on the green if you move your ass promptly.
If a light turns yellow before you reach the intersection, stop at the limit line.
If you’re not POSITIVE that you’ll make it through a congested intersection before the light changes, don’t try.
Give tractor trailer drivers a break. Signal well ahead of time when changing lanes in front of them, and don’t make the move until you’re well in front of them. Not only can they not stop as quickly as you, they can’t see the road right in front of them.
When a trucker signals a lane change in front of you, flash your hi-beams when he’s clear to move over. He’ll give a thank you flash of his trailer lights, and you will have helped clear the left lane for other drivers.
If you drive/ride a vehicle with loud exhaust, be considerate while driving through residential neighborhoods. Nobody is impressed when you burp the throttle at 2 in the morning and wake up their kid.
If you ride a bike and can’t be bothered to be considerate, you’re the reason people fight for noise ordinances. It is true that ‘loud pipes save lives’, but if you expect people to support the idea – stop being a dick.
That’s it for now, but I have a feeling this is only the first in a series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)