Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Thursday, February 5, 2009
America's Political Change: A New Party in Power--The Same Corruption and Stupidity
Politicians are an interesting breed. They have buried deep in the recesses of their own psyche a self delusion that allows them to magically forget that they have been elected to serve the people of the United States of America. Rather, they feel that by being elected, the American people have allowed them to look to personal interests and force the American people to serve the politicians' own desires. One would think that politicians would learn from the failures of previously elected officials, but no, in their narcissism, they believe that they are immune where others failed.
Take the current political situation in America. We are in a financial crisis. The American people have made sweeping changes to the electorate, offering the Democratic party an opportunity to control the branches of government. The American people are thinking that the Republicans had an opportunity to live up to their promises and failed, so lets give the Democrats a try. The problem, instead of learning from the failures of the Republicans, the Democrats are making extremely poor decisions.
Two key examples are the Obama Administration's desire to offer cabinet level positions to political allies that have broken laws for which average Americans would be brought to trial, and the Democratic Congress and Senate's push for an outrageous "Stimulus" bill. In the first case, Obama has attempted to defend his political friends, to whom he has offered cabinet positions, stating that what they have done (tax evasion) is no big deal, yet he expects the average American to be "patriotic" by paying higher taxes in order to meet the needs of government. Of course, once he learned that the American people saw right through his hypocrisy he began to speak of his moral decision to have his friends withdraw their nominations from the process. This is the exact corruption that the American people were hoping Obama would transcend--it has proven to be quite disappointing for those who shared the "audacity of hope" that Obama frequently championed on the campaign trail. Further corruption by the Democrats is evidenced by their push to pass a Stimulus Bill for the American people. The speak of it as if it must be passed now or the whole country will crumble economically and we will never recover (a true apocalypse that far surpasses the Great Depression) and that they are doing it for the good of the American people and their economy. Unfortunately for these Democrats, the majority of Americans see through their smoke and mirrors, recognizing that they are using the term "Stimulus" as a cover for "Spending Bill." Instead of truly being concerned with what will benefit the American people, the Bill focuses on Democratic special interests--things that will not benefit the economy or the average American but will benefit those who voted for the Democratic party. It is exactly this type of political stupidity that has turned the American people against the Republicans and now that we have elected the Democrats in the hopes to overcome this stupidity, they are doing the same thing, only spending far more than the Republicans ever proposed.
This is sad really. All Americans should be outraged by this phony "Stimulus" Bill. I think that it is high time we elect new blood in both the Republican and Democratic Parties--fresh faces with fresh ideas from among the ranks of average American citizens rather than this life-long politicians who give us smiles and kisses to our faces and offer us the finger behind our backs. Remember this over the course of the next few election cycles. We need to take back our government or create a new party that will do the bidding and the interest of the American people, not the bidding of politicians which will injure our nation.
Take the current political situation in America. We are in a financial crisis. The American people have made sweeping changes to the electorate, offering the Democratic party an opportunity to control the branches of government. The American people are thinking that the Republicans had an opportunity to live up to their promises and failed, so lets give the Democrats a try. The problem, instead of learning from the failures of the Republicans, the Democrats are making extremely poor decisions.
Two key examples are the Obama Administration's desire to offer cabinet level positions to political allies that have broken laws for which average Americans would be brought to trial, and the Democratic Congress and Senate's push for an outrageous "Stimulus" bill. In the first case, Obama has attempted to defend his political friends, to whom he has offered cabinet positions, stating that what they have done (tax evasion) is no big deal, yet he expects the average American to be "patriotic" by paying higher taxes in order to meet the needs of government. Of course, once he learned that the American people saw right through his hypocrisy he began to speak of his moral decision to have his friends withdraw their nominations from the process. This is the exact corruption that the American people were hoping Obama would transcend--it has proven to be quite disappointing for those who shared the "audacity of hope" that Obama frequently championed on the campaign trail. Further corruption by the Democrats is evidenced by their push to pass a Stimulus Bill for the American people. The speak of it as if it must be passed now or the whole country will crumble economically and we will never recover (a true apocalypse that far surpasses the Great Depression) and that they are doing it for the good of the American people and their economy. Unfortunately for these Democrats, the majority of Americans see through their smoke and mirrors, recognizing that they are using the term "Stimulus" as a cover for "Spending Bill." Instead of truly being concerned with what will benefit the American people, the Bill focuses on Democratic special interests--things that will not benefit the economy or the average American but will benefit those who voted for the Democratic party. It is exactly this type of political stupidity that has turned the American people against the Republicans and now that we have elected the Democrats in the hopes to overcome this stupidity, they are doing the same thing, only spending far more than the Republicans ever proposed.
This is sad really. All Americans should be outraged by this phony "Stimulus" Bill. I think that it is high time we elect new blood in both the Republican and Democratic Parties--fresh faces with fresh ideas from among the ranks of average American citizens rather than this life-long politicians who give us smiles and kisses to our faces and offer us the finger behind our backs. Remember this over the course of the next few election cycles. We need to take back our government or create a new party that will do the bidding and the interest of the American people, not the bidding of politicians which will injure our nation.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The Sometime Idiocy of the American People
Let me preface my remarks by stating that I love America, and I love the American people. . . most of the time. The sad reality is that Americans can sometimes be complete and utter idiots (as I suppose any nation's people may be). I do not wish to be pessimistic, but I honestly do not believe that one should confuse observation with pessimism. The following is simply an observation of a segment of the American psyche. It by no means reflects people as a whole (I know, generalizations are bad), nor does it reflect a sustained attitude or action of a people. People can change and they do. Needless to say, here are some of my most dissappointing observations:
1. I am amazed that there is a large portion of American society that feels that government has an obligation to them beyond providing the basic necessities of a civilization. While it is true that government should have to answer to the people, some of the people are oblivious to the fact that government is the people. I am surprised and shocked by so many Americans who feel that it is the government's obligation to provide for them. There are so many people that feel that government should pay for education, should pay for abortions, or for out-of -wedlock children, or. . . the list goes on and on. There are so many people that abuse the system by taking government grants for selfish and personal reasons, that abuse welfare, and take advantage of "the system" in so many different facets. And what do Americans say to this fleecing of American money? "It isn't hurting anybody--I'm just taking money from the government." Hello people! Who do you think the government is and from where do you think the government gets its money? The people are the government and it is the taxation of you and me that pays for all of this frivolous spending. And yet Americans don't see it that way. The government is simply a rich entity that owes us. Sad and idiotic.
2. It is almost laughable at how many Americans honestly believe that terrorists are upset with America because of our hard-line stance against terrorism since 9/11. The reality is that terrorism and anti-American sentiment has been running high in the Middle East for decades. While our public policy may have somewhat to do with the disdain of Islamic extremists, it is more so our culture as portrayed through the media. What does the Islamic world see in America? Most have never been to America so what they see is what the media presents to them. And what do we present in American media? Hmmm, lets see. . . reality television which portrays Americans as ignorant, selfish, immoral beings who are constantly fighting with one another. American news which portrays our last President as an imbecile and tyrant and covers extensively stories of murder, rape, theft, lawlessness, extremist protesters, and etc. Television and movie drama, comedy and action which portrays Americans as disrespectful, horny, ultra-sexualized, unfaithful, perverse, corrupt, war-mongering people that are secularized to the point of seemingly having no moral value. Is this the real America in which I live? Well, some aspects of it, yes, but overwhelmingly no. But this is how we portray ourselves in the media and sometimes through our actual actions. No wonder people in the Muslim world fear democracy. Think about it. In their eyes, democracy leads to corruption, sexual perversion, immorality, lack of faith, and the list continues on and on. . . all things that are opposed to Islamic teaching. In essence, we are telling the Muslim world, "Hey, be like us great Americans where we disrespect our women, seemingly have no value on family, no concept of honor, and are a bunch of self-satisfying amoral individuals who believe that whatever makes us feel good is right. Isn't that what the Muslim world wants?" It is ridiculous! And what is even more funny (in a dark-humor sort of way) is all of these Hollywood actors who pontificate on how President Bush has destroyed America's image in the Middle East. Really Hollywood actors and screen writers. . . really? I dare say that this is the definition of verbal irony. I honestly believe that Hollywood has done more damage both to the real and perceived America than any other institution or individual. But Americans don't see it.
3. It is interesting to me how Americans tend to project their own characteristics upon the general populace. The stereotype in America is that Conservatives are greedy people who are only concerned with their own economic empowerment and that Liberals and great philanthropists that have a selfless concern for others. The reality is quite different. Recent studies have shown that conservatives contribute 30% more of their income to charity as compared to Liberals. While conservatives feel that it is not governments responsibility to provide for the welfare of others, they take upon themselves the personal responsibility of taking care of others. Liberals on the other hand feel that it is the responsibility of government to take care of others. They believe in raising taxes because they think that most people are like themselves--greedy and unwilling to part with their substance to benefit another. of course, this is a gross generalization. There are plenty of Liberals who do give of their personal means for charitable causes and there are plenty of Conservatives who are money-grubbing individuals. I just think that it is interesting how the actual figures turn the tables on what Americans generally think.
4. The current economic meltdown stemming from the housing market is a great example of the sometime idiocy of the American people. We have idiots in all segments of American society. We have the idiot businessmen who have been conducting shady business (as if they thought it would never catch up to them). We have the idiot bankers who have made loans to people knowing full well that they couldn't afford the loans. We have government encouraging the banks to make such bad loans. And we have the idiot citizen who thought it wise to get into debt far beyond their means, taking out loans they knew they could not afford to pay. What is even more surprising--the concept that some people feel that it is now government's responsibility to bail out the businessmen, the banks, and the homeowners who made these bad deals. And who pays for it? The rest of America. . . people like you and me who have been playing by the rules, having sucked up the responsibility of the day to day struggle, living in apartments or a meagre home which we can actually afford in the hopes to one day save enough money to buy a house. So America wants to save the home of the idiot and screw over the people who are trying to make an honest and intelligent living (I say let the houses default--it makes housing more affordable for all of us who are paying the taxes and struggling to save for such a home).
5. Americans tend to pride themselves on being open-minded and respectful. Concerning politics, we often call upon the need for civility and bipartisanship. Yet, when it comes to action we more often than not prove that talk is cheap. What we often mean is that we are open-minded with like-minded people, respectful of those who share our ideologies, and believe in civility and bipartisanship when it is the other political party that is bending to our positions. It is sad, really. If we look at the example of politics, we witness this hypocrisy quite readily: The very individuals who demonized President Bush and spoke out against the President himself (not the individual policies but the President himself, mind you) are now calling on all of America to support President Obama, regardless of one's difference concerning policy; and those who supported President Bush and called people out for their lack of patriotism for reviling the President are now in turn reviling President Obama. Obviously it is the hard-core political left and right of whom I speak. It is rather pathetic and says much about the virtues of moderates.
6. Americans do not like to be told what or how to think or do things. We embrace the concept of our individuality and tend to pride ourselves on making our own way in the world. We often ridicule people of other nations who are duped through the use of propaganda which is fed to the people by their governments. Americans would not be so foolish as to buy into propaganda peddled by its government. . . O, no, Americans would much rather be duped by the propaganda peddled by the media, movie-stars, and the educational elites who blind themselves by their own ideologies. This is evidenced by the ailing support of the American people for the war on terror and particularly for the war in Iraq. Immediately following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the American people were outraged and called for action. It was not long before an offensive was launched in Afghanistan and shortly thereafter Iraq. While the support for the war was overwhelming by the American people, certain politicians began a ploy to counter the President by making statements that America was acting unilaterally. The media, Hollywood, and the educational elite picked up on this concept and started trumpeting it both to the American people and the world at large. Through these means an image was created of America, and particularly President Bush, being a renagade cowboy, doing things on our own. The propaganda that was spread was that if the United Nations did not sanction war, then the United States must be acting alone. Nevermind that Nations such as Norway dropped bombs for the first time since World War II, targeting sites in Afghanistan. Nevermind that Nations such as Latvia, Albania, Serbia, and Singapore joined the coalition (I guess America thinks that if a nation doesn't have a comparable population that they don't count as a nation). Nevermind that nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia joined the coalition (I suppose that America doesn't think they count because they are Muslim nations). Nevermind that soldiers from such nations as Australia, Poland, and The United Kingdom were sent home from Iraq in body bags (I suppose that casualties only count if they are American). The reality is that we did not go alone and that President Bush established a coalition consisting of diverse nations, but because of propaganda, the American people were duped into thinking that America is going it alone and that President Bush is some sort of tyranical dictator that is trying to overthrow the world. The following is a list of countries that were actually a part of the coalition:
COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE COALITION IN AFGHANISTAN:
United States
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Canada
Italy
Netherlands
Turkey
Poland
Australia
Spain
Denmark
Romania
Sweden
Bulgaria
Belgium
Norway
Czech Republic
Estonia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Croatia
Finland
Georgia
Republic of Macedonia
Ireland
Serbia
Ukraine
Jordan
Mongolia
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Singapore
Switzerland
South Korea
COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE COALITION IN IRAQ:
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Spain
Poland
Denmark
(POST INVASION)
Romania
El Salvador
Estonia
Bulgaria
Moldova
Albania
Ukraine
Czech Republic
South Korea
Japan
Tonga
Azerbaijan
Singapore
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Macedonia
Latvia
Kazakhstan
Armenia
Mongolia
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Norway
Hungary
Netherlands
Portugal
New Zealand
Thailand
Phillipines
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Iceland
*p.s. There is so much more that I had ought to write, but I figure that there are only a select few who will actually read this far, so what is the point of continuing to write when most everyone has already tuned out.
1. I am amazed that there is a large portion of American society that feels that government has an obligation to them beyond providing the basic necessities of a civilization. While it is true that government should have to answer to the people, some of the people are oblivious to the fact that government is the people. I am surprised and shocked by so many Americans who feel that it is the government's obligation to provide for them. There are so many people that feel that government should pay for education, should pay for abortions, or for out-of -wedlock children, or. . . the list goes on and on. There are so many people that abuse the system by taking government grants for selfish and personal reasons, that abuse welfare, and take advantage of "the system" in so many different facets. And what do Americans say to this fleecing of American money? "It isn't hurting anybody--I'm just taking money from the government." Hello people! Who do you think the government is and from where do you think the government gets its money? The people are the government and it is the taxation of you and me that pays for all of this frivolous spending. And yet Americans don't see it that way. The government is simply a rich entity that owes us. Sad and idiotic.
2. It is almost laughable at how many Americans honestly believe that terrorists are upset with America because of our hard-line stance against terrorism since 9/11. The reality is that terrorism and anti-American sentiment has been running high in the Middle East for decades. While our public policy may have somewhat to do with the disdain of Islamic extremists, it is more so our culture as portrayed through the media. What does the Islamic world see in America? Most have never been to America so what they see is what the media presents to them. And what do we present in American media? Hmmm, lets see. . . reality television which portrays Americans as ignorant, selfish, immoral beings who are constantly fighting with one another. American news which portrays our last President as an imbecile and tyrant and covers extensively stories of murder, rape, theft, lawlessness, extremist protesters, and etc. Television and movie drama, comedy and action which portrays Americans as disrespectful, horny, ultra-sexualized, unfaithful, perverse, corrupt, war-mongering people that are secularized to the point of seemingly having no moral value. Is this the real America in which I live? Well, some aspects of it, yes, but overwhelmingly no. But this is how we portray ourselves in the media and sometimes through our actual actions. No wonder people in the Muslim world fear democracy. Think about it. In their eyes, democracy leads to corruption, sexual perversion, immorality, lack of faith, and the list continues on and on. . . all things that are opposed to Islamic teaching. In essence, we are telling the Muslim world, "Hey, be like us great Americans where we disrespect our women, seemingly have no value on family, no concept of honor, and are a bunch of self-satisfying amoral individuals who believe that whatever makes us feel good is right. Isn't that what the Muslim world wants?" It is ridiculous! And what is even more funny (in a dark-humor sort of way) is all of these Hollywood actors who pontificate on how President Bush has destroyed America's image in the Middle East. Really Hollywood actors and screen writers. . . really? I dare say that this is the definition of verbal irony. I honestly believe that Hollywood has done more damage both to the real and perceived America than any other institution or individual. But Americans don't see it.
3. It is interesting to me how Americans tend to project their own characteristics upon the general populace. The stereotype in America is that Conservatives are greedy people who are only concerned with their own economic empowerment and that Liberals and great philanthropists that have a selfless concern for others. The reality is quite different. Recent studies have shown that conservatives contribute 30% more of their income to charity as compared to Liberals. While conservatives feel that it is not governments responsibility to provide for the welfare of others, they take upon themselves the personal responsibility of taking care of others. Liberals on the other hand feel that it is the responsibility of government to take care of others. They believe in raising taxes because they think that most people are like themselves--greedy and unwilling to part with their substance to benefit another. of course, this is a gross generalization. There are plenty of Liberals who do give of their personal means for charitable causes and there are plenty of Conservatives who are money-grubbing individuals. I just think that it is interesting how the actual figures turn the tables on what Americans generally think.
4. The current economic meltdown stemming from the housing market is a great example of the sometime idiocy of the American people. We have idiots in all segments of American society. We have the idiot businessmen who have been conducting shady business (as if they thought it would never catch up to them). We have the idiot bankers who have made loans to people knowing full well that they couldn't afford the loans. We have government encouraging the banks to make such bad loans. And we have the idiot citizen who thought it wise to get into debt far beyond their means, taking out loans they knew they could not afford to pay. What is even more surprising--the concept that some people feel that it is now government's responsibility to bail out the businessmen, the banks, and the homeowners who made these bad deals. And who pays for it? The rest of America. . . people like you and me who have been playing by the rules, having sucked up the responsibility of the day to day struggle, living in apartments or a meagre home which we can actually afford in the hopes to one day save enough money to buy a house. So America wants to save the home of the idiot and screw over the people who are trying to make an honest and intelligent living (I say let the houses default--it makes housing more affordable for all of us who are paying the taxes and struggling to save for such a home).
5. Americans tend to pride themselves on being open-minded and respectful. Concerning politics, we often call upon the need for civility and bipartisanship. Yet, when it comes to action we more often than not prove that talk is cheap. What we often mean is that we are open-minded with like-minded people, respectful of those who share our ideologies, and believe in civility and bipartisanship when it is the other political party that is bending to our positions. It is sad, really. If we look at the example of politics, we witness this hypocrisy quite readily: The very individuals who demonized President Bush and spoke out against the President himself (not the individual policies but the President himself, mind you) are now calling on all of America to support President Obama, regardless of one's difference concerning policy; and those who supported President Bush and called people out for their lack of patriotism for reviling the President are now in turn reviling President Obama. Obviously it is the hard-core political left and right of whom I speak. It is rather pathetic and says much about the virtues of moderates.
6. Americans do not like to be told what or how to think or do things. We embrace the concept of our individuality and tend to pride ourselves on making our own way in the world. We often ridicule people of other nations who are duped through the use of propaganda which is fed to the people by their governments. Americans would not be so foolish as to buy into propaganda peddled by its government. . . O, no, Americans would much rather be duped by the propaganda peddled by the media, movie-stars, and the educational elites who blind themselves by their own ideologies. This is evidenced by the ailing support of the American people for the war on terror and particularly for the war in Iraq. Immediately following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the American people were outraged and called for action. It was not long before an offensive was launched in Afghanistan and shortly thereafter Iraq. While the support for the war was overwhelming by the American people, certain politicians began a ploy to counter the President by making statements that America was acting unilaterally. The media, Hollywood, and the educational elite picked up on this concept and started trumpeting it both to the American people and the world at large. Through these means an image was created of America, and particularly President Bush, being a renagade cowboy, doing things on our own. The propaganda that was spread was that if the United Nations did not sanction war, then the United States must be acting alone. Nevermind that Nations such as Norway dropped bombs for the first time since World War II, targeting sites in Afghanistan. Nevermind that Nations such as Latvia, Albania, Serbia, and Singapore joined the coalition (I guess America thinks that if a nation doesn't have a comparable population that they don't count as a nation). Nevermind that nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia joined the coalition (I suppose that America doesn't think they count because they are Muslim nations). Nevermind that soldiers from such nations as Australia, Poland, and The United Kingdom were sent home from Iraq in body bags (I suppose that casualties only count if they are American). The reality is that we did not go alone and that President Bush established a coalition consisting of diverse nations, but because of propaganda, the American people were duped into thinking that America is going it alone and that President Bush is some sort of tyranical dictator that is trying to overthrow the world. The following is a list of countries that were actually a part of the coalition:
COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE COALITION IN AFGHANISTAN:
United States
United Kingdom
Germany
France
Canada
Italy
Netherlands
Turkey
Poland
Australia
Spain
Denmark
Romania
Sweden
Bulgaria
Belgium
Norway
Czech Republic
Estonia
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Albania
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Croatia
Finland
Georgia
Republic of Macedonia
Ireland
Serbia
Ukraine
Jordan
Mongolia
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Singapore
Switzerland
South Korea
COUNTRIES INVOLVED IN THE COALITION IN IRAQ:
United States
United Kingdom
Australia
Spain
Poland
Denmark
(POST INVASION)
Romania
El Salvador
Estonia
Bulgaria
Moldova
Albania
Ukraine
Czech Republic
South Korea
Japan
Tonga
Azerbaijan
Singapore
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Macedonia
Latvia
Kazakhstan
Armenia
Mongolia
Georgia
Slovakia
Lithuania
Italy
Norway
Hungary
Netherlands
Portugal
New Zealand
Thailand
Phillipines
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Nicaragua
Iceland
*p.s. There is so much more that I had ought to write, but I figure that there are only a select few who will actually read this far, so what is the point of continuing to write when most everyone has already tuned out.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
When Institutions Discriminate--A Call For Equality
Backlash to the Passing of Proposition 228 Sparks Protests
Brit Johansson
The Associated Press
November 8, 2018--Over the course of the past election cycle there has been heated debate regarding California Proposition 228, which restores California Colleges and Universities the issuance of traditional diplomas. The measure was voted into law this past Tuesday by a narrow margin with 52% of Californians in favor of the proposed law. This law effectively overturns the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision stating that traditional diplomas are unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature in denying the rights of individuals who are born without an intellectual capacity or drive to fulfill academic requirements. The court extended the right of people obtaining diplomas to anyone who wished to apply, not just those who completed required coursework and mandatory units. The passage of the proposition restores the traditional practice of students fulfilling unit requirements in order to obtain a degree. It is unclear if those diplomas that were issued to non-college applicants between last spring’s Supreme Court ruling and last weeks vote will remain legal.
The fallout from the passage took place immediately with opponents of the proposition taking to the streets and pundits taking to the airwaves. A large crowd of angry protesters amassed at various private Universities who had contributed heavily to the “Yes on 228” campaign. The protesters shouted such slogans as “Don’t educate with hate” and “Burned by the hate degree.” The gates of the University were vandalized with “No on 228” slogans and “Go back to home-schooling you Bigots!”
One protestor that was interviewed said, “I can’t believe after all we have come through in our nation’s history that civil rights are still being denied. Everyone deserves a diploma. I just don’t understand how people can hate someone simply because they are born without the intellectual capacity of those who have obtained college degrees. Shame on educators for discriminating—Shame on you!”
Opponents of proposition 228 often site the economic disparity that exists due to the discrimination of our nation’s universities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “Workers 18 and over sporting bachelors degrees earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734.” It is evident that there is economic disparity between those who do and do not have degrees. Alexis Peabody, a college graduate who sympathizes with the protestors said, “It amazes me that people want to deny this particular group of American citizens of their fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to deny an individual’s happiness by denying that individual of a college degree? It isn’t their fault that they do not have the natural disposition to learn. This is blatant discrimination and it should not be tolerated by America’s institutions.”
Jim Johnson, a college dropout, was appalled by the passage of the proposition. “I don’t understand why people have to hate. I can’t help that I am born this way. I’ve tried and tried to earn a degree, but it just was not natural to me. Imagine how it feels to see others dressing in their ceremonial gowns and knowing that the government does not recognize me and what I have to offer to the world. I don’t understand why they just won’t let me have a degree. It isn’t affecting anyone else’s life. I just want to be viewed as normal, to be like everybody else. Is that so wrong? ”
Protestors on the streets of California and around the nation are not the only one’s to chime in on this controversial issue. Governor Arned Schweister (R-CA) was disappointed with the results of the election. He stated: “It is a shame that Californians would vote for a proposition that is obviously discriminatory in nature. I am confident that this issue will go before the California State Supreme Court and that they will strike it down as being unconstitutional.” Senator Dina Funstone (D-CA) appeared in several “No on Prop 228” commercials wherein she claimed that the proposition is “wrong and unfair” and urged Californians to “vote against discrimination.” Upon learning of the election results, Funstone said, “It is sad that Californians have voted to deny individuals the right to have a degree. Everyone deserves to have a degree, regardless of one’s abilities. To establish requirements in obtaining a degree is obviously aimed at denying a particular segment of society of their fundamental rights. I have seen this type of discrimination before and it has no place in our society.”
News commentator Ken Olbermum took several minutes of his program on MSNBC to passionately decry the passage of proposition 228: “Finally, a special comment tonight, as promised, on the passage last week of proposition 228 in California which rescinded the right of individuals to obtain a degree. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about prop 228, and I don’t have a personal investment in this. I’m not without a degree; I had to strain to think of even an extended member of my family who is. I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues who are fighting prejudice that still pervades their lives, and yet to me this vote is horrible, HORRIBLE! Because this isn’t about politics, it is about the human heart. If you voted for this proposition I have a few questions for you because I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? In a time when there are so many sources for information, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—to have a diploma. But no, you are saying that you cannot have it on these terms. Maybe something similar like a GED if they behave, if they don’t cause too much trouble. You even give them all the same legal rights even as you take away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them anchored in a college degree and you’re saying, “no, you can’t have a degree.” What if someone passed a law that said you can’t have a degree? I keep hearing this term “redefining diploma.” If we didn’t change the types of degrees that universities issue, we would not have any of the science and technological degrees that are offered today that were not offered in 1862. 1862! This is obviously a civil rights issue because before 1862 slaves were not allowed to have a degree. Those who support traditional degrees are the moral equivalent of slave owners. Just like the white taskmasters of our jaded American history, you want to make this segment of our society servile. And why? All because they have been born without the intellectual capacity or the drive to follow the requirements that you have established for earning a college degree! What is this to you? No one is asking you to embrace their lack of knowledge. But don’t you as human beings have to embrace what they have? With so much hate in the world; with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against each other, for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadness, this is what your conscience tells you to do? With your knowledge of life with endless vigor to tilt the playing field in favor of unhappiness and hate, this is what your heart tells you to do? Do you want to honor your degree and the God that has given you intelligence? Then spread happiness. Offer a degree to those who choose not to go to college, but still want one.”
Leading up to the election there were many television advertisements that appealed to viewers emotions in hopes to sway them from voting for this amendment. One such advertisement showed a young woman dressed in her beautiful and distinguished black graduation gown. As she pulled up in her car for the graduation ceremony her car door jammed and she needed help opening it from her father. Next, a tree branch caught her graduation cap and flipped it to the ground. As she approached the podium in order to receive her diploma, members of the crowd stuck their feet out to trip her and yanked on her gown in order to stop her. Fighting them off, she continued up the steps only to be straight-armed by one of the professors. A tearful family looked on as their daughter was denied the right to receive a diploma. A voiceover then stated, “Imagine if you couldn’t get a degree. Vote no on proposition 228.”
Another commercial showed footage from the Japanese-American internment camps during World War II, followed by scenes from the 1960s of African American students being denied entry into all-white schools by police and politicians at the height of the civil rights movement. A voiceover stated: “It wasn’t long ago that discrimination was acceptable in our society. Japanese-Americans were pulled from schools and forced into internment camps. African Americans were not allowed in public schools. We have come a long way since those times, yet even today we have people that wish to deny others of the fundamental right of a college degree. Please stop the discrimination and hate and vote no on proposition 228.”
Due to the amount of money donated to the “Yes on 228” campaign by religious individuals, such as Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Protestants, and Muslims, protestors have targeted a number of churches, synagogues, and mosques. Demonstrations have been organized in front of many places of worship, crying foul for churches to get politically involved. They chanted demands of separation of church and state and called upon the government to tax these religious organizations because their members had donated money to a political cause. These religious organizations claim that their members have a right to support whatever proposition they choose, and that while these religious organizations have encouraged their members to earn an education and to value the traditional meaning of a college degree, they have not directly contributed to the campaign. Many opponents are particularly angry with Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who donated an estimated 40% of the total funds spent by the “Yes on 228” campaign and offered countless hours of their time to promote the proposition. One member of the LDS church stated, “We believe that ‘The glory of God is intelligence,’ and that by giving access to college degrees to anyone who simply wants one without following the intellectual requirements associated with traditional degrees diminishes the true purpose of a degree. This is not a message of hate. We feel that everyone has the right to pursue what course in life that they wish. We just do not believe that we should change the fundamental requirements of earning a college degree.”
Resentful of individual Mormon’s involvement in backing the proposition, many have rallied throughout the nation at Mormon temples. In Los Angeles, protestors scribbled on the temple gates such phrases as: “Church of Latter-day Lies,” “Go back to Utah you bigots!” and “The Mormon church encourages its members to get more than one degree, yet they won’t let me have one. Hypocrites!” Protestors also carried many signs and chanted “Tax the Mormon church,” “Separate church and hate,” “Expel hate—vote no on 228.”
Opponents are also extremely upset with the African American community who voted overwhelmingly in support of proposition 228. It is estimated that 70% of all African Americans supported the proposition, which has led to vitriol from those who are opposed to it. One angry protestor screamed, “Shame on you blacks! Of all people! You should know better. You should know that we stood with you to help you obtain your civil rights and now you turn your backs on us by denying our civil rights. SHAME ON YOU!”
John Alexander, an African American who supported prop 228, said, “It is shameful that people want to equate this issue with the civil rights movement. There have been many who have said that this is a fundamental right for everyone and that by limiting college degrees to those who attend college and fulfill the requirements outlined by the institution, we are discriminating. I just don’t see it that way. People who don’t have a college degree have never had to drink from a different drinking fountain, or ride at the back of the bus, or have been hosed down by law enforcement and locked out of schools by politicians. To compare what we as African Americans had to go through in order to obtain our civil liberties is nothing like the current movement to issue college degrees to anyone who applies for one, regardless of whether or not they have attended college. As a matter of fact, it is insulting, and to point an accusatory finger at African Americans simply because we are smart enough to recognize that this is not a civil rights issue and to vote accordingly, that is just wrong.”
One thing remains certain. While the election has passed and the people of California have spoken, this issue is not going away. Opponents of proposition 228, with support of the ACLU and other organizations, have already submitted half a dozen challenges to the California Supreme Court in hopes to overturn the recent amendment. While the people of California have exercised their democratic right, those who do not agree with the outcome are hoping that the judicial branch of the state government overturns the will of democracy. Win or lose, this battle will continue to play out both in California and throughout the United States.
*This satire was composed by Brett Hall on November 18, 2008
Brit Johansson
The Associated Press
November 8, 2018--Over the course of the past election cycle there has been heated debate regarding California Proposition 228, which restores California Colleges and Universities the issuance of traditional diplomas. The measure was voted into law this past Tuesday by a narrow margin with 52% of Californians in favor of the proposed law. This law effectively overturns the California Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision stating that traditional diplomas are unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature in denying the rights of individuals who are born without an intellectual capacity or drive to fulfill academic requirements. The court extended the right of people obtaining diplomas to anyone who wished to apply, not just those who completed required coursework and mandatory units. The passage of the proposition restores the traditional practice of students fulfilling unit requirements in order to obtain a degree. It is unclear if those diplomas that were issued to non-college applicants between last spring’s Supreme Court ruling and last weeks vote will remain legal.
The fallout from the passage took place immediately with opponents of the proposition taking to the streets and pundits taking to the airwaves. A large crowd of angry protesters amassed at various private Universities who had contributed heavily to the “Yes on 228” campaign. The protesters shouted such slogans as “Don’t educate with hate” and “Burned by the hate degree.” The gates of the University were vandalized with “No on 228” slogans and “Go back to home-schooling you Bigots!”
One protestor that was interviewed said, “I can’t believe after all we have come through in our nation’s history that civil rights are still being denied. Everyone deserves a diploma. I just don’t understand how people can hate someone simply because they are born without the intellectual capacity of those who have obtained college degrees. Shame on educators for discriminating—Shame on you!”
Opponents of proposition 228 often site the economic disparity that exists due to the discrimination of our nation’s universities. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “Workers 18 and over sporting bachelors degrees earn an average of $51,206 a year, while those with a high school diploma earn $27,915. Workers with an advanced degree make an average of $74,602, and those without a high school diploma average $18,734.” It is evident that there is economic disparity between those who do and do not have degrees. Alexis Peabody, a college graduate who sympathizes with the protestors said, “It amazes me that people want to deny this particular group of American citizens of their fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who are we to deny an individual’s happiness by denying that individual of a college degree? It isn’t their fault that they do not have the natural disposition to learn. This is blatant discrimination and it should not be tolerated by America’s institutions.”
Jim Johnson, a college dropout, was appalled by the passage of the proposition. “I don’t understand why people have to hate. I can’t help that I am born this way. I’ve tried and tried to earn a degree, but it just was not natural to me. Imagine how it feels to see others dressing in their ceremonial gowns and knowing that the government does not recognize me and what I have to offer to the world. I don’t understand why they just won’t let me have a degree. It isn’t affecting anyone else’s life. I just want to be viewed as normal, to be like everybody else. Is that so wrong? ”
Protestors on the streets of California and around the nation are not the only one’s to chime in on this controversial issue. Governor Arned Schweister (R-CA) was disappointed with the results of the election. He stated: “It is a shame that Californians would vote for a proposition that is obviously discriminatory in nature. I am confident that this issue will go before the California State Supreme Court and that they will strike it down as being unconstitutional.” Senator Dina Funstone (D-CA) appeared in several “No on Prop 228” commercials wherein she claimed that the proposition is “wrong and unfair” and urged Californians to “vote against discrimination.” Upon learning of the election results, Funstone said, “It is sad that Californians have voted to deny individuals the right to have a degree. Everyone deserves to have a degree, regardless of one’s abilities. To establish requirements in obtaining a degree is obviously aimed at denying a particular segment of society of their fundamental rights. I have seen this type of discrimination before and it has no place in our society.”
News commentator Ken Olbermum took several minutes of his program on MSNBC to passionately decry the passage of proposition 228: “Finally, a special comment tonight, as promised, on the passage last week of proposition 228 in California which rescinded the right of individuals to obtain a degree. This isn’t about yelling, and this isn’t about politics, and this isn’t really just about prop 228, and I don’t have a personal investment in this. I’m not without a degree; I had to strain to think of even an extended member of my family who is. I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues who are fighting prejudice that still pervades their lives, and yet to me this vote is horrible, HORRIBLE! Because this isn’t about politics, it is about the human heart. If you voted for this proposition I have a few questions for you because I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? In a time when there are so many sources for information, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don’t want to deny you yours. They don’t want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—to have a diploma. But no, you are saying that you cannot have it on these terms. Maybe something similar like a GED if they behave, if they don’t cause too much trouble. You even give them all the same legal rights even as you take away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them anchored in a college degree and you’re saying, “no, you can’t have a degree.” What if someone passed a law that said you can’t have a degree? I keep hearing this term “redefining diploma.” If we didn’t change the types of degrees that universities issue, we would not have any of the science and technological degrees that are offered today that were not offered in 1862. 1862! This is obviously a civil rights issue because before 1862 slaves were not allowed to have a degree. Those who support traditional degrees are the moral equivalent of slave owners. Just like the white taskmasters of our jaded American history, you want to make this segment of our society servile. And why? All because they have been born without the intellectual capacity or the drive to follow the requirements that you have established for earning a college degree! What is this to you? No one is asking you to embrace their lack of knowledge. But don’t you as human beings have to embrace what they have? With so much hate in the world; with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against each other, for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadness, this is what your conscience tells you to do? With your knowledge of life with endless vigor to tilt the playing field in favor of unhappiness and hate, this is what your heart tells you to do? Do you want to honor your degree and the God that has given you intelligence? Then spread happiness. Offer a degree to those who choose not to go to college, but still want one.”
Leading up to the election there were many television advertisements that appealed to viewers emotions in hopes to sway them from voting for this amendment. One such advertisement showed a young woman dressed in her beautiful and distinguished black graduation gown. As she pulled up in her car for the graduation ceremony her car door jammed and she needed help opening it from her father. Next, a tree branch caught her graduation cap and flipped it to the ground. As she approached the podium in order to receive her diploma, members of the crowd stuck their feet out to trip her and yanked on her gown in order to stop her. Fighting them off, she continued up the steps only to be straight-armed by one of the professors. A tearful family looked on as their daughter was denied the right to receive a diploma. A voiceover then stated, “Imagine if you couldn’t get a degree. Vote no on proposition 228.”
Another commercial showed footage from the Japanese-American internment camps during World War II, followed by scenes from the 1960s of African American students being denied entry into all-white schools by police and politicians at the height of the civil rights movement. A voiceover stated: “It wasn’t long ago that discrimination was acceptable in our society. Japanese-Americans were pulled from schools and forced into internment camps. African Americans were not allowed in public schools. We have come a long way since those times, yet even today we have people that wish to deny others of the fundamental right of a college degree. Please stop the discrimination and hate and vote no on proposition 228.”
Due to the amount of money donated to the “Yes on 228” campaign by religious individuals, such as Mormons, Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Protestants, and Muslims, protestors have targeted a number of churches, synagogues, and mosques. Demonstrations have been organized in front of many places of worship, crying foul for churches to get politically involved. They chanted demands of separation of church and state and called upon the government to tax these religious organizations because their members had donated money to a political cause. These religious organizations claim that their members have a right to support whatever proposition they choose, and that while these religious organizations have encouraged their members to earn an education and to value the traditional meaning of a college degree, they have not directly contributed to the campaign. Many opponents are particularly angry with Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who donated an estimated 40% of the total funds spent by the “Yes on 228” campaign and offered countless hours of their time to promote the proposition. One member of the LDS church stated, “We believe that ‘The glory of God is intelligence,’ and that by giving access to college degrees to anyone who simply wants one without following the intellectual requirements associated with traditional degrees diminishes the true purpose of a degree. This is not a message of hate. We feel that everyone has the right to pursue what course in life that they wish. We just do not believe that we should change the fundamental requirements of earning a college degree.”
Resentful of individual Mormon’s involvement in backing the proposition, many have rallied throughout the nation at Mormon temples. In Los Angeles, protestors scribbled on the temple gates such phrases as: “Church of Latter-day Lies,” “Go back to Utah you bigots!” and “The Mormon church encourages its members to get more than one degree, yet they won’t let me have one. Hypocrites!” Protestors also carried many signs and chanted “Tax the Mormon church,” “Separate church and hate,” “Expel hate—vote no on 228.”
Opponents are also extremely upset with the African American community who voted overwhelmingly in support of proposition 228. It is estimated that 70% of all African Americans supported the proposition, which has led to vitriol from those who are opposed to it. One angry protestor screamed, “Shame on you blacks! Of all people! You should know better. You should know that we stood with you to help you obtain your civil rights and now you turn your backs on us by denying our civil rights. SHAME ON YOU!”
John Alexander, an African American who supported prop 228, said, “It is shameful that people want to equate this issue with the civil rights movement. There have been many who have said that this is a fundamental right for everyone and that by limiting college degrees to those who attend college and fulfill the requirements outlined by the institution, we are discriminating. I just don’t see it that way. People who don’t have a college degree have never had to drink from a different drinking fountain, or ride at the back of the bus, or have been hosed down by law enforcement and locked out of schools by politicians. To compare what we as African Americans had to go through in order to obtain our civil liberties is nothing like the current movement to issue college degrees to anyone who applies for one, regardless of whether or not they have attended college. As a matter of fact, it is insulting, and to point an accusatory finger at African Americans simply because we are smart enough to recognize that this is not a civil rights issue and to vote accordingly, that is just wrong.”
One thing remains certain. While the election has passed and the people of California have spoken, this issue is not going away. Opponents of proposition 228, with support of the ACLU and other organizations, have already submitted half a dozen challenges to the California Supreme Court in hopes to overturn the recent amendment. While the people of California have exercised their democratic right, those who do not agree with the outcome are hoping that the judicial branch of the state government overturns the will of democracy. Win or lose, this battle will continue to play out both in California and throughout the United States.
*This satire was composed by Brett Hall on November 18, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Political Season
To my readers (the few that dare to visit this site), I must forewarn you that all of my blogs between now and November 4th will be political in nature. I will return to happier and lighter topics after that date. In the meantime, feel free to comment on anything-I won't be offended by people who disagree as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Voting Party Li(n)es
VOTING PARTY LI(N)ES
by Brett Hall
8-29-08
Between lies is loyalty found in one letter,
Cherished by the elephant and ass,
And while they think the fourteenth makes them better
Their actions prove that on it they both pass.
For voting party li(n)es is rather simple--
No thought be needed time and time again.
To think for you each party may prove ample,
Just punch the card for party li( )es to win!
Alright, now that you've read my latest political poetry, it is time to return to the humors of the 2008 election cycle (though it be a dark humor). So, I have heard both candidates in their speeches, debates, and ads. The latest farce that both Obama and McCain have dropped like a bone to the salivating voters is the need for America to "Pay our teachers more." This makes me laugh to see both pandering to the American public on an issue that the President has little to no control over. They drop such lines so that the American people will think, "Oh, yes, my candidate is for education. It is important to them and they support teachers in what they are doing for America's youth and future." Okay, so I am a teacher--I wouldn't object to a pay raise, but the argument is truly ridiculous! Think about it. How many teachers are there in America? Now think about the government increasing all of their paychecks. . . and from where do they plan to get this money? Seriously, that would be billions upon billions of dollars a year to take on such a feat. Ah, taxes! Like I said, I wouldn't object to a pay raise, but to force others to pay higher taxes in order to pay me more when I am doing alright on what I make. . . that just doesn't seem fair to me. . . especially during an economic crisis. What makes it even more ridiculous is when one considers that public education is funded primarily through the state in which the teachers are employed. about 93% of all funds alloted to schools come from state government. That means about 7% of all funds comes from the federal government. So, what is a presidential candidate thinking when he makes such a statement as "lets pay our teachers more money"? What they are thinking is, "I can dupe these stupid Americans into giving me their vote over an issue that I have absolutely no control over." Shame on Obama and shame on McCain for being so blatantly deceptive!
Education is primarily a state matter. Only governors and state senators have the right to make such statements as they are the one's who have the means by which to legislate such measures. And even then, it is up to school boards to use whatever additional funds they might receive from government in the actual use within public education.
. . . Politicians! They are certainly an interesting breed. . .
by Brett Hall
8-29-08
Between lies is loyalty found in one letter,
Cherished by the elephant and ass,
And while they think the fourteenth makes them better
Their actions prove that on it they both pass.
For voting party li(n)es is rather simple--
No thought be needed time and time again.
To think for you each party may prove ample,
Just punch the card for party li( )es to win!
Alright, now that you've read my latest political poetry, it is time to return to the humors of the 2008 election cycle (though it be a dark humor). So, I have heard both candidates in their speeches, debates, and ads. The latest farce that both Obama and McCain have dropped like a bone to the salivating voters is the need for America to "Pay our teachers more." This makes me laugh to see both pandering to the American public on an issue that the President has little to no control over. They drop such lines so that the American people will think, "Oh, yes, my candidate is for education. It is important to them and they support teachers in what they are doing for America's youth and future." Okay, so I am a teacher--I wouldn't object to a pay raise, but the argument is truly ridiculous! Think about it. How many teachers are there in America? Now think about the government increasing all of their paychecks. . . and from where do they plan to get this money? Seriously, that would be billions upon billions of dollars a year to take on such a feat. Ah, taxes! Like I said, I wouldn't object to a pay raise, but to force others to pay higher taxes in order to pay me more when I am doing alright on what I make. . . that just doesn't seem fair to me. . . especially during an economic crisis. What makes it even more ridiculous is when one considers that public education is funded primarily through the state in which the teachers are employed. about 93% of all funds alloted to schools come from state government. That means about 7% of all funds comes from the federal government. So, what is a presidential candidate thinking when he makes such a statement as "lets pay our teachers more money"? What they are thinking is, "I can dupe these stupid Americans into giving me their vote over an issue that I have absolutely no control over." Shame on Obama and shame on McCain for being so blatantly deceptive!
Education is primarily a state matter. Only governors and state senators have the right to make such statements as they are the one's who have the means by which to legislate such measures. And even then, it is up to school boards to use whatever additional funds they might receive from government in the actual use within public education.
. . . Politicians! They are certainly an interesting breed. . .
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Political humor and nonsense
since my adult life, I have always been interested in politics, and while I am a self-identified conservative, I realize that no one party has all the right answers and one all of the wrong ideas. The truth of the matter is that there are good and bad ideas in all political parties and there are good and bad candidates in all political parties. What I would like to focus on today is the humor in the inconsistencies within the current presidential election. I must be honest, I have not yet decided who to vote for as I believe both Barack Obama and John McCain are seriously flawed politicians. Anyhow, here are a few of the inconsistencies that I find humorous, especially the way that media, pundits, and voters are hypocritical in their assessment of candidates.
1. The concept that Sarah Palin is a blubbering fool. Yes, she seriously messed up in attempting to defend a statement in an interview with Katie Couric as is seen here:
but to characterize her from this one mistake is disingenuous when Barack Obama has made his own gaffes that are not widely spoken of or shared in the media, as is seen here:
and John McCain makes mistakes too:
And Joe Biden as well:
Needless to say, all politicians, as all people, have moments that they wish they could take back. So it is humorous to me to think that people will say Palin is not fit to be president because of a few fumbling of words when all candidates have done it.
2. The attacks from the media and from the political left that Palin has no foreign policy experience and is therefore not qualified to be Vice President. Hello, people! Barack Obama does not have any more foreign policy experience than Palin in any measurable way, and he wants to be President! If you are going to knock Palin for it, you have to knock Obama in return.
3. John McCain as Maverick? Ok, so McCain has done some things to tick conservatives off, but to say that he is a Washington outsider is funny. He is full-blown Washington!
4. Barack Obama as a bipartisan agent of change? Haha! This one really makes me laugh! It is hard to believe that the media has sold him as such and America is buying it. The reality is that he has voted 94% of the time lock-step with the democratic position in the senate. 94% of the time! How is espousing the democratic platform change? How is never reaching across the aisle to compromise with republicans bipartisan?
5. Barack Obama as an agent of hope? Obama is pure-blood politician who has been involved in some pretty corrupt dealings during his reign in the Illinois state senate. Just listen to him try to explain away his relationships with corrupt politicians, businessmen, and preachers--it is quite humorous!
6. John McCain with his straight talk? Just listen to him twist and turn on his positions.
7. The media's sudden revelation that McCain is dishonest in how he portrays his opponents is hilarious! The media beats up on McCain for "distorting" Obama's record in his web-video adds and they seem shocked by the maneuver. HELLO MEDIA! McCain was doing the same thing in the primary elections when he completely distorted Romney and the media ate it up. McCain hasn't changed in his tactics--it is just that the media ignores it if the tactic is used on a republican then cries foul if it is done on a democrat. This should be no surprise to anyone who is honest in their observations of the political contests.
There is so much more that I could get into, but I do not wish this blog entry to be too long. The fact of the matter is that double-standards do exist with the media, that both candidates have some serious baggage, and the American people on both sides of the issues are being duped into false ideas and perceptions. I'll address more later.
1. The concept that Sarah Palin is a blubbering fool. Yes, she seriously messed up in attempting to defend a statement in an interview with Katie Couric as is seen here:
but to characterize her from this one mistake is disingenuous when Barack Obama has made his own gaffes that are not widely spoken of or shared in the media, as is seen here:
and John McCain makes mistakes too:
And Joe Biden as well:
Needless to say, all politicians, as all people, have moments that they wish they could take back. So it is humorous to me to think that people will say Palin is not fit to be president because of a few fumbling of words when all candidates have done it.
2. The attacks from the media and from the political left that Palin has no foreign policy experience and is therefore not qualified to be Vice President. Hello, people! Barack Obama does not have any more foreign policy experience than Palin in any measurable way, and he wants to be President! If you are going to knock Palin for it, you have to knock Obama in return.
3. John McCain as Maverick? Ok, so McCain has done some things to tick conservatives off, but to say that he is a Washington outsider is funny. He is full-blown Washington!
4. Barack Obama as a bipartisan agent of change? Haha! This one really makes me laugh! It is hard to believe that the media has sold him as such and America is buying it. The reality is that he has voted 94% of the time lock-step with the democratic position in the senate. 94% of the time! How is espousing the democratic platform change? How is never reaching across the aisle to compromise with republicans bipartisan?
5. Barack Obama as an agent of hope? Obama is pure-blood politician who has been involved in some pretty corrupt dealings during his reign in the Illinois state senate. Just listen to him try to explain away his relationships with corrupt politicians, businessmen, and preachers--it is quite humorous!
6. John McCain with his straight talk? Just listen to him twist and turn on his positions.
7. The media's sudden revelation that McCain is dishonest in how he portrays his opponents is hilarious! The media beats up on McCain for "distorting" Obama's record in his web-video adds and they seem shocked by the maneuver. HELLO MEDIA! McCain was doing the same thing in the primary elections when he completely distorted Romney and the media ate it up. McCain hasn't changed in his tactics--it is just that the media ignores it if the tactic is used on a republican then cries foul if it is done on a democrat. This should be no surprise to anyone who is honest in their observations of the political contests.
There is so much more that I could get into, but I do not wish this blog entry to be too long. The fact of the matter is that double-standards do exist with the media, that both candidates have some serious baggage, and the American people on both sides of the issues are being duped into false ideas and perceptions. I'll address more later.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Christian Democrats
I have just finished reading the Norwegian Newspapers on-line and took a survey on my political views as they pertain to Norway. If I were living in Norway and was involved in the countries politics, the formulation from the survey states that I would most likely be a member of the Christian Democratic Party. The results page of the survey describe the Christian Democrats in brief: "Another party in the center, promoting Christian values. The party is anti-abortion, anti-poverty and pro-family." The breakdown is as follows:
The Christian Democrats: 47%
The Progress Party: 37%
The Liberal Party: 32%
The Conservative Party: 28%
The Labour Party: 28%
The Center Party: 15%
The Socialist Left Party: 13%
The Reds: 10%
I am assuming that the percentage is reflecting how many of my answers fit into the specific party's platform. The spectrum is probably so wide because of a number of reasons based on issues dealing with Norway. In the United States, I belong to the Republican Party, but I would consider myself a moderate republican, simply because I am more interested in issues than I am with party affiliation. I tend to agree with republicans on more issues, but I don't agree with everything on their platform.
*The following is a brief description of the parties according to Aftenposten.no:
The Labour Party
The Labour Party: A social democratic party that embraces solidarity and believes the public sector should play a vigorous role in society.
The Progress Party
The Progress Party: Norway's most conservative party, it believes the public sector should play a smaller role in society. It urges tax cuts and restraints on immigration.
The Conservative Party
The Conservative Party: Traditionally the major rival of Labour, the Conservatives promote freedom of choice, more competition within the private sector, and tax relief.
Liberal Party
The Liberal Party: One of Norway's more right-leaning "center" parties that supports tax relief but also a strong public sector, liberalized immigration and environmental protection measures.
The Socialist Left Party
The Socialist Left Party: More left-leaning than Labour, the Socialist Left supports high taxes and fees to finance a vast array of social services.
The Christian Democrats
The Christian Democrats: Another party in the center, promoting Christian values. The party is anti-abortion, anti-poverty and pro-family.
The Center Party
The Center Party: Champion of Norway's farmers and support to the country's rural districts, this party wants less free-market influence and more public sector control of society.
The Reds
The Reds: Formed by a merger of parties including Rød Valgallianse and Norway's communist party (AKP), it wants to break down class differences and promote social equality.
The Christian Democrats: 47%
The Progress Party: 37%
The Liberal Party: 32%
The Conservative Party: 28%
The Labour Party: 28%
The Center Party: 15%
The Socialist Left Party: 13%
The Reds: 10%
I am assuming that the percentage is reflecting how many of my answers fit into the specific party's platform. The spectrum is probably so wide because of a number of reasons based on issues dealing with Norway. In the United States, I belong to the Republican Party, but I would consider myself a moderate republican, simply because I am more interested in issues than I am with party affiliation. I tend to agree with republicans on more issues, but I don't agree with everything on their platform.
*The following is a brief description of the parties according to Aftenposten.no:
The Labour Party
The Labour Party: A social democratic party that embraces solidarity and believes the public sector should play a vigorous role in society.
The Progress Party
The Progress Party: Norway's most conservative party, it believes the public sector should play a smaller role in society. It urges tax cuts and restraints on immigration.
The Conservative Party
The Conservative Party: Traditionally the major rival of Labour, the Conservatives promote freedom of choice, more competition within the private sector, and tax relief.
Liberal Party
The Liberal Party: One of Norway's more right-leaning "center" parties that supports tax relief but also a strong public sector, liberalized immigration and environmental protection measures.
The Socialist Left Party
The Socialist Left Party: More left-leaning than Labour, the Socialist Left supports high taxes and fees to finance a vast array of social services.
The Christian Democrats
The Christian Democrats: Another party in the center, promoting Christian values. The party is anti-abortion, anti-poverty and pro-family.
The Center Party
The Center Party: Champion of Norway's farmers and support to the country's rural districts, this party wants less free-market influence and more public sector control of society.
The Reds
The Reds: Formed by a merger of parties including Rød Valgallianse and Norway's communist party (AKP), it wants to break down class differences and promote social equality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
