Change
Hypocrisy of Being Green
I just read a fascinating article by Alice Thompson of the Times Online who was discussing a new book “Not In My Name - A Compendium of Modern Hypocrisy” by Julie Burchill:
The premise is that as the economy gets worse, people no longer care about being green because they can’t afford it any more. It makes perfect sense. When you were making a good salary and had enough to satisfy your basic needs then you had the extra to buy the higher priced green items. But today, when money is tight, buying green is a luxury available only to the upperclass or “toffs”.
Perhaps because most people can’t afford to go green, there is a growing trend to mock the rich who are green. There is a collective sarcastic laugh by the masses when Al Gore and his ilk continue to lecture everyone else. In a bad economy that “Truth” of Gore’s is not simply “Inconvenient” but is now ridiculous. Who is going to pay extra for green
foods when they have barely enough to put any food on the table? Not only are people backing away from the expensive green ideology but they are also laughing at far left greenies and monitoring their hypocrisies. The conservative bloggers and other right wings take delight in finding and counting the hypocrisy of Gore and other greenies who preach that we must be green while they fly around in their private gas guzzling jets.
Although Gore and his Hollywood sycophants still tout the green doctrine, the politicians are observing which way the wind is blowing and are now changing their tune.
Maybe that’s another reason Gore is such a lousy politician, but even Obama has given fewer and fewer green speeches. Because as long as the economy is lousy, only Kermit can afford to be green.
Disco, Manilow and Obama
I wrote over half of an article before I realized that my conclusion wasn’t what I thought it would be. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Yet in light of these unexpected findings I am now feeling optimistic about John McCain’s chances in the upcoming election. So how did I come to this conclusion?
My initial premise was that going back to Peter lying about knowing Jesus over 2,000 years ago right up to today, people lie about liking someone if it might be dangerous or unpopular or simply uncool to admit they liked or knew that person. For example, how was it that disco was so popular back in the 70’s if everybody now say they despised it back then? Same with Barry Manilow, who everyone hated yet he still managed to sell millions of albums. Or more recently, if everyone says that Amy Winehouse is, at best, sad and, at worst, mentally deranged, how is it that her Back To Back CD is the biggest selling album of all time on Amazon.com?
I went on to say that this same phenomenon happened during this election where people are lying both for and against the candidates. Obama’s message of change is what everybody says they want. And yes, his race is also a major issue but a positive one, for to say you are voting for Obama proves you are not a racist, right? On the other hand, everybody hates Bush and the Republicans and therefore they dislike John McCain, too. Plus everyone is saying he is too old to be president, and more importantly, voting for him might indicate that you are a closet racist. Therefore if you want everyone to know that you, too, want change and are popular, cool and definitely not a racist then you tell them you are for Obama and against McCain and those awful Republicans.
I continued by saying that we saw this during the primaries. Obama easily won in the caucuses where people had to publicly indicate who they wanted and may have feared being considered a racist or even uncool if they literally didn’t stand in Obama’s corner. On the other hand when people voted in the secrecy of a voting booth where no one would know who they chose then Obama lost.
Where I got in trouble with this article is that based on all of the above I would assume that people are continuing to lie and say they are for Obama in order to look good to the pollsters. So a review of the polls should therefore show that Obama is decisively beating McCain, right? But he’s not. A few polls show he is ahead but only by single digits and one recent poll showed that they were tied!
What does this mean? How can McCain be doing so well when everyone knows that Obama is the man of the hour. He’s even on the cover of Rolling Stone and you can’t get much cooler than that! What about the historically known premise that people tend to lie to pollsters to make themselves look good? This would mean lying that they are for Obama because lets face it, nobody would lie about voting for McCain thinking that would make them look popular. So if you factor in that some people are lying about planning to vote for Obama and if he currently only leads by a few points, at most, then, oh my, it might mean that McCain is actually in the lead.
If the election were held today I wouldn’t be surprised if, to the shock of everybody, McCain is the winner. But the election isn’t for another 4 months and a lot can happen. Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be quite so certain that everybody will be voting for him, even including those who are standing in his corner. As for McCain? He needs to let people know that a vote for McCain is definitely not racist nor a third term for Bush. Most of all McCain needs to let us know that it is ok to support him and maybe even popular and cool to vote for him. Although just like disco and Manilow, if you want to deny you liked McCain after the fact, well, once elected and in the White House McCain probably wouldn’t even mind if you denied him three times.
It’s Not As Black and White As It Is Black And White.
May 21-22 study by Princeton Survey Research Associates International finds 72% disapprove of giving preferences to blacks and other minorities in things like hirings, promotions, and college admissions., and 75% believing it sometimes or often leads to less qualified people getting hired, promoted, or admitted. Most, 57%, do not believe America has not gone too far in pushing equal rights but about as many think blacks are losing out 30% as say whites are losing out 26% because of racism.
68% say the “poor” have become too dependent upon government assistance, and 67% say the reason blacks “can’t get ahead” is their own fault.
A CNN/Essence magazine poll finds that while only 11% of whites say discrimination against black is very serious 43% of blacks say that. 46% of Whites and 44% of blacks say it is somewhat serious .
World Ends With A Whimper Not A Bang.
The National Policy Institute estimates what the world will look like in 2060 – about 50 years hence.
According to an article in Human Events authored by Pat Buchanan and published on May 2, 2008 in 1950 whites were 18% of the world’s population and Africans accounted for 9%. By 2060 the percentages will be about the same but the colors reversed. Two hundred million whites will vanish by then. Arabic people, counted among whites, will rise ten-fold to 743 million and account for 75% of whites.
Iran’s population will rise from 71 to 100 million. Pakistan will grow to 300 million from about 71 million today. Afghanistan will triple to 79 million and Iraq will leap from 29 to 62 million. In America Hispanics will triple to 127 million while Mexico will grow to 130 million.
Last October PEW RESEARCH asked 45,000 people in 47 countries what they thought and majorities in 46 countries expressed fear about loss of their national culture. Sixty-two percent of Americans said more must be done to protect “our way of life.” Three-fourths wanted stiffer immigration laws and restrictions. Asians, Africans and Middle Easterners appear, by simple weight of numbers appear to be poised to inherit the earth.
“This is the way the world ends, “wrote T. S. Eliot in his closing couplet of “The Hollow Men,” “Not with a bang but a whimper.” It begs the question of whose world to which he referred.
Howard Dean Clarifies
In an interview today with Tim Russert, alleged new foe of the Democrats, Howard “Dean conceded that there is no set criteria laid out for the superdelegates on how they should vote. “They have to vote with their conscience,” he said. “My personal view is that they should vote for the person who can best beat John McCain.””
Earlier in the interview he said he wants the Super delegates to commit by the end of June because if they go into the convention in Denver divided, they will come out divided. Further he said he has never seen the Super delegates go against the will of the voting majority. He was not clear how Michigan and Florida votes figure into that calculation, but said one way or another they will somehow be seated. That’s clear.
I wonder who he believes can most handily beat John McCain? He did not clarify that and of course it would be an egregious move if he did but it seemed he was making it clear that the Super delegates can meet their original mandate, that of preventing the majority from making “mistakes” as the Democratic leadership believed has happened in several past primaries that yielded Muskie, Carter and Dukakis.
I agree with Jeffry Tubin, legal analyst for MSNBC who said last week that if the Democrats can not take the White House in 2008 they should change their party name to the Whigs.
Obama Throws Bomb — Blows Up In His Face
As of Monday morning fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.
A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%–agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.
Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.
Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin.
PINOCCHIOBAMA
Pinocchiobama – in 1996, Barack Obama’s campaign answered a questionnaire saying he favored bans on manufacturing and selling of guns, opposed parental notification of abortions for minors, and opposed the death penalty. When asked about that, Obama threw his campaign staff under the bus, claiming the staff had sent in the questionnaire. He issued a blanket denial that he had ever held those positions. Except that is not true. As Human Events RedState noted, a review of the actual questionnaire shows “that [Obama] reviewed the answers closely revising some of the answers in his own handwriting.”
Obama claims to be the only one willing to re-engage the Taliban. He faults the Bush Administration for depleting the number of military personnel in Afghanistanand claims we need to increase the number of ground forces to 92,000 troops, something Obama says the Bush administration is opposed to. Funny how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates offered the exact same policy prescription and number of troops back in 2007. Obama said, “John McCain got upset today apparently because I had repeated exactly what he said, which is that we might be there [Iraq] for 100 years if he had his way.” Only, that is another lie. As RedState documented, the Washington Post’s FactCheck, the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s nonpartisan FactCheck.org, and the Columbia Journalism Review all report Obama’s words were grossly misleading. The Annenberg Public Policy Center called Obama’s statement a “serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood.” In Pennsylvania, Obama is running a television ad saying, “I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washingtonlobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.” Fact is no federal candidate can accept money from a corporation – no one. But, Obama has dodged that law cashing $213,000 in checks from oil company employees. Obama conceded Saturday that his comments about working class voters who cling to guns or religion were “ill chosen.” Others point to his remarks as insightful of his core beliefs.
Vote for McCain in 2008 (if you think George Bush deserves a third term)
Maybe my reasoning is flawed. But why would Americans want to give a third term to the most unpopular administration in American history? While many Americans still envision John McCain as the straight talking, special interest-disdaining maverick candidate of the 2000 election season, the fact is that he’s never really been any of those things. To make it worse, he’s even changed his position on the issue of waterboarding. Why? Now 71 and perhaps sensing his “running” days are coming to an end, he is John McCain, candidate for President of the United States and it is now or never. Be afraid. Be very afraid. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush and a McCain win is akin to giving our current imperial president an undeserved third term.
Marching in step with the Bush war doctrine
Mr. Bush recently stated that the GOP will prevail in the 2008 election so that we can continue what he no doubt feels is the good fight in Iraq. If this is the case, then Bush’s worldwide aggression is in good hands. John McCain is a full-fledged “hawk” and a staunch supporter of President Bush’s war effort. Not only is he on record stating that the surge is “working,” but McCain also believes that the Iraq war is winnable and that winning is essential. Citing our long-term occupation of Korea, Mr. McCain has no problem at all seeing U.S. soldiers stationed in Iraq for many years to come. He has acknowledged, however, that he must convince the American people that the war is noble and worthwhile during the campaign’s stretch run. Another notable point is that McCain is in lockstep with George Bush on Iran. There is no question he’d use military force against Iran if he deemed it necessary. This is a dangerous equation, given the milquetoast character of Congress. Would they stand up to John McCain or roll over and play dead as they have for George W. Bush?
America’s reputation has deteriorated under the Bush regime. Regardless of the thought process behind the “Bush Strategy,” his unwarranted invasion of Iraq has reduced America to worldwide bully status. George Bush proudly refers to himself as a “war president,” and he is right. In seven years, George W. Bush has, excuse the term, “pissed away” more than two hundred years of diplomacy, favoring instead the pre-emptive strike position so strongly advocated by the neo-cons. The Bus administration was so intent on attacking Iraq that it managed 935 outright lies to justify American aggression in the lead-up to the invasion.* Make no mistake that John McCain was one of the leading advocates of the Iraq war, he is presently one of the most vocal “cheerleaders” of the Iraq war, and he will no doubt carry on with (or expand) Bush’s Iraq policy. Invading Iran remains on the table now and, unless Mr. Bush twists a few facts and tells a few lies to justify invading Iran before he leaves office, it will remain on the table for the entire term of a John McCain presidency.
Out of touch with reality on reproductive rights
An issue that should be of concern to all American women is that of reproductive rights. On this count, the National Right to Life Committee gives McCain a 72% rating for the years between 1997-2000, while NARAL Pro-Choice America gives him a 1% for the same time frame. Senator McCain is generally out of touch on this subject. When pressed on the issue of contraception during a bus trip between campaign stops, McCain fumbled around for an answer, sounding like anything but presidential material. It was actually painful to read this exchange. Yet, when McCain was asked specifically if grants for sex education should speak to the the use of contraception or if it should adhere to Bush’s “abstinence only” position, he chose abstinence only. McCain’s mentor on all things reproductive is none other than Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), whose name he invoked several times on that bus trip. Coburn is not only a Senator, but also a doctor who has delivered more than 4,000 babies during his career. Senator Coburn believes that life begins at conception and opposes abortion in all cases, except in the rare case where the mother’s life is in danger. It should also be noted that Senator/Doctor Coburn advocates the death penalty for abortion providers, a position that is – at best – disturbing for a doctor to take.
A sudden change of heart on torture
Until recently, Senator McCain has been vocal critic of the President’s use of waterboarding and other extreme (and inhumane) interrogation techniques, having been subject to torture himself as a POW in Viet Nam. When both Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney bowed out of the race, McCain’s nearly DOA campaign was not only given a new life, but also thrust into “frontrunner” status. With Mike Huckabee dropping out after the Texas and Ohio primaries, McCain is officially the GOP candidate for president. Now comes the need to cater to the very vocal and powerful right wing element in the Republican Party. Make no mistake about it, this is one faction of the party that is not enamored with John McCain and the candidate knows it. Suddenly waterboarding isn’t such a problem anymore. In fact, on February 13 of this year, the new John McCain voted against an intelligence bill designed to effectively outlaw torture by making the Army Field Manual the law of the land.
A legend in his own mind
McCain’s outward disdain of special interests and “soft” money donations is as legendary as Bush’s fundraising prowess. In fact, in 2002, Senator McCain and Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis) teamed up to pass the McCain-Feingold act in an attempt to eliminate large donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. They even won the Profiles in Courage award for their efforts. Do not be fooled. Here the only difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain quietly straddles the line that he himself draws in the sand.
In spite of his rhetoric to the contrary, McCain has done his share of favors for donors over the years. Few recall that McCain was one of the infamous “Keating Five,” five Senators who sought to influence the investigation into the failed Lincoln Savings & Loan and its chairman, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Mr. Keating was faulted for that failure, which reportedly cost taxpayers anywhere between $2.6 and $3.4 billion. After a reprimand, McCain won re-election as a congressman from Arizona’s first congressional district and was then elected to the Senate in 1986. In spite of his efforts to convince people that he and Keating were not friends, the facts show something different. By the time he entered the Senate in 1987, he had received $112,000 in donations from Keating, his family and his employees.
The New York Times reported that McCain’s association with telecommunications lobbyist Vicki Iseman during his first campaign in 1999 concerned his staff. While he was photographed out and about with Iseman and even used the corporate jet of one of her clients, the issue isn’t whether or not they had an “extramarital affair.” The issue is that Iseman “lobbied” McCain on behalf of Paxson Communications, who had business in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, of which Mr. McCain was the Chairman. In spite of his denials, the paper trail shows that John McCain wrote letters to the Federal Communications Commission on behalf of Paxson Communications as a result of her influence.
It’s time for a reality on the wisdom of electing John McCain. His 2008 campaign staff is like a role call of those associated with large soft money donations, like A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision and presently a McCain national finance co-chairman. Mr. Perenchio has raised a whopping $11.3 million in soft money donations since the 1998 elections. Several of George Bush’s moneymen also litter McCain’s landscape.
Can’t you see the real me?
We cannot see the real John McCain because the mainstream media is enamored with the mythological John McCain persona. They helped to create it and they continue to foster it. The one time a mainstream media outlet dares raise something questionable about Mr. McCain and the repercussions are clear. It appears that the Times has come under fire by its readers because they perceived the story as trashing the candidate by intimating he had an extramarital affair with Ms. Iseman without offering proof of said affair. Know what? Even if the Times had offered proof of an affair, that isn’t the most disturbing thing about their relationship. What is disturbing is that the article shows that McCain “talks the talk” but does not “walk the walk.” (This is another trait he shares with Bush.) He does not steer clear of lobbyists and is keenly aware of what they can do to put him in the White House.
It would be nice if we could have a real picture of the candidate so that people would know they are essentially re-electing George W. Bush, architect of the most unpopular administration in American history. George Bush knows it. He has endorsed McCain
SELF HYPOCRISY: THE LIE OF LUCK
Are you feeling lucky? I hope so. But don’t press your luck, because there is no such thing. There is only blind chance and randomness. Luck is a purely historical concept. It only works when you look backwards.
When the dice come up seven, then you know you were lucky. Luck is a word we use to describe the past, it has no meaning for the future.
People have a terrible ambivalence towards chance. On the one hand, we play with it. Blind chance is recreational, from the craps tables to the pick-up bars, we love to play the odds.
But blind chance also terrifies us. Humans need an explanation for everything, a reason. We need that reason because we like to think we’re in control. That’s what humanity is; we’re the animal that controls things, manipulates the environment, makes effects out of causes.
We realize that blind chance plays a big part in our lives, but as soon as it happens we explain it away. That’s where the self-hypocrisy comes in. We look back and attribute a cause to that which had no cause at all; it was merely the working out of random chance.
The upcoming baseball season will give you dozens of opportunities to see what I mean. Baseball is a game of skill and strategy, but it’s chance that makes all those strategies stupid or brilliant.
A fly ball tinks off the foul pole and becomes a grand slam. The pitcher goes from being a gamer to a choker, his manager goes from being a gutsy genius who sticks with his players to a blockhead idiot who froze when he should have yanked the pitcher.
That’s what the broadcasters will say, the sportswriters will write and that’s what we fans will believe. But it was really just a random gust that brought that foul ball back a quarter inch so it hit the pole. It was blind chance. But that’s not the way we’ll remember it. We’ll give it meaning, because that’s what we do.
The inexplicable drives us crazy. We can’t stand it, so we don’t.
We make up stories instead. The trendy, semiotic phrase for it is “the narrative.” People tell nice stories to make sense of the world. We write histories and attribute a cause to everything that happened. And when a better reason eludes us, we call it luck.
Darwin talked about survival of the fittest. He might have added a codicil to that profound thought—survival of the luckiest.
Once upon a time there was a trilobite who was smarter than all the other trilobites, but you never heard of him. He fell into a fumarole and boiled before he could reproduce. Maybe you were born because the two fastest sperm collided and let number three get to the egg first.
“Why me?” people say after a bad break. Well, sometimes it’s because you let yourself get fat, sometimes it’s because you drove drunk—those are reasons, things you could control—but the guy in the car you hit? That was just his bad luck.
Chance can reach out and grab you by the neck at any moment. No wonder we lie to ourselves with hypocritical morality tales about fate and luck, they are very comforting.
They are also highly dangerous. We need to be very careful when we look for reasons why whatever happened—by chance—happened. Because we are going to find some.
When things go our way we cheer our luck like it was real, like we earned it. Acting like we believe in our good luck is a silly hypocrisy, but it’s harmless enough. The real damage comes when things go badly and we look for reasons, for someone to blame, for a scapegoat.
Like, “the witches,” or “the black helicopters,” or “the Jews.” That’s when reason becomes hypocritical and bad stuff happens. Humans have been doing it since the first lucky, mutated ape picked up a rock and slew the first unlucky member of his new species because Zog had an ugly blotch on his forehead that angered the gods.
None of this is an excuse to give up, to do nothing, let the chips fall where they may. Quite the contrary, when you can’t control everything you better control as much as you can as effectively as you can. But save a little space in your worldview for blind chance. It will save you a world of trouble.
Heck, if you’re a politician it could save the world a world of trouble.
SYMPATHY FOR THE SISTERS
If you have a bone of compassion in your body, you gotta feel for the women. This was their year, dude! Finally, finally, 88 years after getting the right to vote, one of their own was poised, on the brink, an easy primary season and a walkover general election away from the presidency.
This was big. This was huge. A woman president. Not Vice President, not Ladies’ Auxiliary President, not Presidentette, but President of The United States of America. The biggest job in the world.
Unionist “Nukes” Obama
Tom Buffenbarger of the Machinists Union, and Hillary Clinton surrogate, blasted Barack Obama by saying Obama is a “Shadowboxer”, “Nose in the Air Pontificator” and “Silver Toungued Warrior.” Buffenbarger said Obama was not with us on the picket line, in the Illinois or U. S. Senate and we are still waiting him to show up. “GIVE ME A BREAK!” he shouted; Obama won’t last one round against the Republicans.
MICHELLE OBAMA HYPOCRISY.COM AWARD NOMINEE
“Michelle Obama’s comment that, for the first time in her adult life, she feels proud of America helps crystallize who Barack Obama is,” says Ronald Kessler chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.
He observes it is difficult to imagine that she would make such a statement suggesting disdain for America unless she felt it comported with her husband’s views. Plus her statement aligns perfectly with the hate-America views of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s minister, friend, and sounding board for more than two decades.
The Obama Affect
I read an interesting article highlighted in the Drudge Report. It was from an article in The Australian about Obama. The journalist, Geoff Elliott compared the reaction Obama is getting to how people reacted to Mandela. In other words, people are looking up to Obama as more than just a new leader, but as a cult figure even something “akin to a messiah”. Wow.
Obama Phenomena
It seems as if Obama is being carried by a tidal wave of adoration and gaining a momentum that Hillary might not be able to stop. There are reports of growing crowds wherever he goes as he mesmerizes all demographic groups: old, young, black, white, rural, suburb. I have even read of women fainting during his speeches as if he is the new Elvis or Beatle or Sinatra (pick your idol based on your generation). And yet….
Anyone who follows Obama and listens to him will agree that as wonderful as his speeches are they still don’t contain any substance. To learn more about him, I checked his website; http://www.barrackobama.com/. To my surprise
Change - that ‘Thing’ we all Want
The argument between the Democratic candidates about who is offering ‘change’, and why one candidate or the other is best suited to provide change, seems to get lost in the exchange of words. How about looking at the policy statements each candidate has provided, plans that each would like to see implemented should they be elected to President of the United States. The meat of the subject lies in the basics of what they are offering, and in the potential for being able to deliver what they are promising.
Perhaps the ‘change’ we ultimately hope to see is for someone to make good on their promises. Having come through an era of failed promises (more children were ‘left behind’ than if the program to make sure that didn’t happen had not been implemented)
OBAMA: IT’S NOT THE WORDS, IT’S THE MUSIC
It’s not official yet, there is still the hurdle of Texas to clear (and wouldn’t it be a kick in the crotch if that state did it to us … again) but with each passing Tuesday Barack Obama is looking less and less like a candidate and more and more like a president. This is an unlikely development. If you’d have wagered on that proposition a year ago you would have gotten a good enough price to pay off your subprime, come November.
Which begs the question: Why? There isn’t enough difference between Obama and Hillary on the issues to start a decent bar fight.
Happy Ground Hog Day
|
|
|
O |
n Gobbler’s Knob in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania on this fabolous Groundhog Day, February 2nd, 2008 Punxsutawney Phil, the Seer of Seers, Prognosticator of all Prognosticators, decreed, ““As I look around me, a bright sky I see, and a shadow beside me Six more weeks of winter it will be!”
In 1723, the Delaware Indians settled as a campsite halfway between the Allegheny and the Susquehanna Rivers. The town is 90 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, at the intersection of Route 36 and Route 119. The Delawares considered groundhogs honorable ancestors. According to the original creation beliefs of the Delaware Indians, their forebears began life as animals in “Mother Earth” and emerged centuries later to hunt and live as men.
CHANGE
Change. It seems to be the most recent political buzz-word. As far as I can tell each and every candidate running for president has talked about and promised change.
Change. Yep, they all claim that America needs change, particularly in Washington, D.C. What makes this amazing is that three of the top four candidates, Clinton (both), Obama and McCain are all current members of the United States Senate. I do agree that if there is any entity in Washington that needs change it is the Senate.
Kerry Endorses Barack Obama - Despite Florida for Hills
The Obama bandwagon is picking up steam in many quarters and being referred to as the candidate of change by more Democrats every day. There are increasing and not so subtle references to taking the high road, for instance as opposed to Hillary’s pandering in Florida, evidently contrary to informal agreements amongst the candidates due to the delegate problem.
Marcia Pappas, New York Chapter Of NOW Claims “Kennedy Betrayal”
Her position is that for the first time women have a chance to have someone who will represent all women in America, which can not be done by any man including African American Barack Obama. The gender and race war tensions are breaking out all over the Democratic Party.
In my humble opinion, Hillary has certainly earned her shot at the top spot,
Go Along To Get Along
In an article in the Wall Street Journal about a thriving capitalist banker who lives amidst confiscatory populism in the current Hugo Hegemony in Venezuela, we can learn a lot about capitalism and survival.
First, we learn that everyone, every country, every social system in the world has one thing in common. And always in common despite rhetoric to the contrary.
Everyone is a Capitalist. Every Country is Capitalistic. Every social and economic system in the world is Capitalistic.
Bad Florida, bad, bad Florida, You Don’t Count
Florida will pay for it’s performance in past presidential elections by being banned from
2008. Democratic candidates are vacationing in Florida but refuse to campaigning there.
Olberman dislikes fist fights on his shows
So instead of having conservatives on his show to balance out liberals, he has chosen to only bring on like minded politicos. Sort of the One Handed Fist Fight he feels is the best he can do to being truth to his show.
Makes sense to me. Same thing worked for Stalin, Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, maybe modern Russia. No nasty fist fights that offends Olberman, and a more uniform Truth that many give homage to a civilized uniformity.