It's official. I have given up on this election and everyone running in it. I can invest no more time and energy in voicing my opinion about who is running, because in the end they are all full of bovine excrement and no matter who wins, as usual the rest of us will be the losers.
My apologies to everyone who received any kind of political email or anything like it, from me in the past few months. I thought you would be able to make informed decisions but your replies tell me otherwise. Don't ask me how I voted, because it's a secret ballot and I ain't tellin' ya!
I don't have all the answers, and can't tell who would be the best to bleed lead us. I can tell you this, it's not a woman, it's not a black man, and it's not a veteran.
There are many of us that know that one political party is about the same as the other. They all represent big business and whomever has the most bucks will "win" each election. If you think it's about idealogy or something equally erudite, think again. They all get up on their podiums and promise us what they think we want to hear so we will go on being their cash cows and open check books.
Which brings me to the McCain's choice for VP running mate. First of all, I think McCain is an old past-his-prime doddering fool who goes along with the party line, and that means he's a Bush toady, nothing else. So, fine. He chooses a woman to be his running mate, like that is going to sweep all us mindless females over to his side because :::gosh::: she's a woman. You might have seen on this blog a few months ago that I was promoting Hillary when she first began to run. You can't even compare her to Palin. Palin is small potatoes compared to the intellect of Hillary Clinton. Like Hiller, or not, she is one smart dame. But I digress, again...
I am just beginning to 'research' just want Palin is all about, so I can make an informed decision, backed up by some facts, and not just my gut feelings. Here is what I have found out so far:
In this day and age of tests to determine the health of a fetus, Sarah Palin chose to have a Down Syndrome child. Personally, I would not have done that, and if McCain gets into office as President and happens to croak, then Palin will become President and "we the people" will be taking care of her physically and mentally challenged child for the rest of its life. It was selfish to bring that child into this world both for the impact it will have on Palin's other children, as well as the child itself. Now today I read that Palin's other daughter who is age 17 is pregnant and will now get married to her baby's father. Somebody order a shotgun cake from Charm City Cakes!
Moving right along...let's touch on the wolf issue. Sarah Palin, as governor of Alaska has been alright with the notion that it's OK to track wolves from planes and helicopters and slaughter them. WHY? Why because the caribo and other big game hunters have the notion that these wolves are decimating the herds. Yeah, right. They call it game management. I call it another kow-tow to big business. Ask Rep. George Miller.
Miller, D-Martinez, a member of the House Natural Resources
Committee, introduced federal legislation last year to end Alaska's
policy of allowing people to shoot wolves from airplanes - a practice
used to keep the number of wolves in check so they don't eat all the
state's moose and caribou.
"Congressman Miller doesn't understand rural Alaska (and) doesn't
comprehend wildlife management in the North," the Alaska governor said
in a statement issued last September.
Miller is also clueless to the fact that game hunters rely on the
moose and caribou "to put healthy food on their families' dinner
tables," Palin said.
Not only does she condone shooting wolves from the air, she also condones "denning". That is when they watch a wolf den, wait for the adult wolves to come out, kill them, and then go in and shoot the pups in the head. Republican or Democrat, this is sick and inhumane behavior and this woman is dangerous. I don't want her for my VP, or President, someday!
Sign the petition here to end aerial hunting of wolves.
Now that I have thoroughly made myself sick just thinking about this horrible woman and what she stands for :::urp:::: that's all for now.
There is an interesting discussion going on at Gather on my article about Obama being the Ralph Nader of this election, and someone said something about democracy. I made the mistake recently of saying something to the effect of "what kind of democracy is this?" to one of my smarter friends, and she corrected me by saying that we do not live in a Democracy. We live in a Republic. The following is from Merriam Webster Online:
French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public — more at real, public
1 a (1): a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president(2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of governmentb (1): a
government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens
entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and
representatives responsible to them and governing according to law(2): a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of governmentc: a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>2: a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>3: a
constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of
Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia.
Now look at the definition of DEMOCRACY:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a: government by the people; especially: rule of the majorityb: a
government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and
exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections 2: a political unit that has a democratic government 3. capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts> 4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority 5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
As you can see, there is a vast difference in the two forms of government. And this, from Wikipedia:
I am incredulous, but not surprised, that the American people are again being hoodwinked by the Republican party into dividing their powerful votes for the Democratic contenders. Can’t you see that Obama is the Ralph Nader of this election? I haven’t seen such an untried and idealistic Presidential candidate since Carter was running in the 1970’s. Why in the heck do you think Obama has such good backing? Because the Republican candidates were not as strong as Clinton and they knew if they got some momentum behind the weaker of the Democrats they would stand a chance of buying winning this year’s election too! Are you too naïve to even consider, much less think, that the Republicans are probably pumping money into the Obama coffers?
And while I am at it, let me just berate the women who are not voting for Clinton. What in the heck are you thinking? For once in the history of this nation we have a viable candidate that could lead. You don’t have to agree with all of her policies, and keep in mind they are not all going to fly anyway, but you should be voting for her because she is a woman. We have consistently voted men into the highest office in our country and they have effectively kept women down now for 232 years. Instead of worrying about Hillary standing by her man, you should see that she was tough and smart enough to keep him in her life because she knew a divorced woman would never stand a chance of getting elected.
Hillary Clinton could do a lot of good for this country if she was given the chance. Women of this country love to do good things, but they are still living under men’s thumbs. That probably won’t change even if Clinton is elected. We think we are such a progressive, modern country and yet the women here give their votes away while keeping a woman, yet again, beneath the highest glass ceiling in the land.
Don’t you get it? It isn’t even this woman that could make our country strong again, it is that we need to set the precedent that a woman can be elected here. Stop being Sheeple and think for yourselves!
If you apply *Pareto’s Rule to the mechanism of the 2008
election, it could be argued that 20% of the voters will determine 80% of the
outcome of the election. Could this be true? What about other factors, like the
incessant meddling of the news media that constantly skews the outcome?
* Originally, the Pareto Principle referred to the
observation that 80% of Italy’s
wealth belonged to only 20% of the population.
More generally, the Pareto Principle is the
observation (not law) that most things in life are not distributed
evenly. It can mean all of the following things:
·20% of the input creates 80% of the result
·20% of the workers produce 80% of the result
·20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue
·20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes
·20% of the features cause 80% of the usage
·And on and on…
I just have some random thoughts about this election and the
people running. It doesn’t matter a bit to me if you agree or not, but at least
read what I have to say and mull it over.
Today on CNN the question was asked asked if women should vote for Clinton because she is a
woman running for President. The short answer is ‘no’, but here is my longer
answer. Just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for Hillary because she is a woman any more than I would vote for Barack Obama because he is black.
Of all the candidates running for President, I feel that Clinton has the best record of being ‘for the people’. Clinton has campaigned for better health care in this country since her husband was
first elected in 1993. She was dismissed and thwarted every step of the way. Truthfully,
I am not sure it is the best way to go, but at least we should be covering our children’s health. Bush declined to do that, but he has allocated billions for this bailout of our lending institutions. Gee, another handout for big
business. But, I digress.
Maybe your memory has failed you, but I remember that when
Bill Clinton was President that we had a balanced budget. Clinton didn’t do all that by himself. He had
other smart people around him and they did good work. Personally, I couldn’t care
less if Bill was unfaithful to his wife. That’s between the two of them. Was he
unfaithful to his country? NO. Has George Bush been unfaithful to us…? Yes,
Hillary Clinton is no slouch in the brains department, and
if you elect her, you get a package deal, whether it has been declared or not. You
get Bill too. He’s a dumb ass when it comes to his libido, but smart as a whip
when it comes to being President. So why are so many gravitating towards Obama?
Because Hillary is a strong woman, and we all know what happens to strong women
in this country, right? Ask Martha Stewart. Do you think a man would have been
thrown in jail like her. NO! As proof, revisit the Enron scandal. Martha was
made an example. If you are on the fence between Hillary and Barack, it would
probably be a safer bet to vote Hillary.
Obama is a ‘fad’ as far as I am concerned. He has no
practical experience in dealing with foreign entities. Just today I heard him
say that he would actually go to Tehran and talk with the leaders of that country with an open mind. OK, fine. Does he
think that as a Muslim that he will be welcomed with open arms? Maybe so, but
at the same time they are laughing out the other side of their mouths at the naïveté
of this malleable President. Obama might be acceptable as a Vice-President, but
(to me) he is not Presidential material. I wonder if he “gets it” that he is
just being promoted as a Presidential candidate because he would be the easiest
to defeat by the Republicans? Duh! No, he has that holier-than-thou Oprah
backing him, and the irrelevant Kennedy’s. Geez, WAKE UP PEOPLE! If you vote
for him you are giving our country away!
I have followed McCain’s voting record for quite a while now
and as far as I can see he is an opportunist. He votes whatever way that keeps
him out of trouble. He tries to come off as a “military man” and I respect and
appreciate his prior service to our country, but he has done little to keep us
out of unnecessary war. He is also too old and out of touch with what this
country’s needs. If I was going to vote for a Republican, I would vote for him
though. Only because I think our President should have some honorable military
service and an understanding of when to Presidentially lead, and when to get
out of the way and let the Generals do what they have been trained to do.
Save your money guys. I wouldn’t vote for either one of you.
Too bad Edwards had to drop out, but it wasn’t for lack of ability. It’s all
about money and backing. He didn’t have enough. Remember, Presidency’s can be
bought. Right George?
I am ready for a change! I am sick of hearing that we need
it. Hell yeah, we need it! We need a lot of change. Let’s quite paying lip
service to the word and spell it out how you are going to make this country
better with change.
No matter what…..at least get out and VOTE. And try to use
some common sense when you do it. 80% of you are going to be unhappy….20%, we
are in your hands.
I always thought that Rumsfeld was a megalomaniac, but this latest revelation goes a long way to confirm it. Daily, I am in awe of the American public that continues to exalt the likes of Rumsfeld and his cronies. It is no secret that I am firmly against anything this current administration has done. What infuriates me is that there are still twits out there willing to believe the swill that comes out of Washington DC via news conferences and news bites. Read this article and take a look at the propaganda this nut was/is promoting. They truly think the majority of Americans are ignorant sheep. If they elect another Republican this time, I am inclined to agree!
Hillary Clinton was in New Hampton, Iowa this week on Friday, and her rival Obama was there on Sunday. Notice the background corn in the Obama picture? My husband's cousin Charlie was in attendance and snapped these candid shots. Charlie seems to think that one of them will be the next President. Makes one wonder, huh?
By the way, that flap this week about Hillary's laugh...that just irks me as something disrespectful by those who have never been taught any respect for the office-holders. There are those of us who know that there is a lot at stake in the next election, and in my opinion, having a female President is "about time". After all, could she be any worse than the MEN we have had in that position?
From its inception, the United States of America has been, and should still be, a predominantly English speaking nation. Up until more recent decades, we have always expected those who immigrate to learn to speak English or not thrive here. It was expected and respected. Now, we have a whole new set of rules for those who speak Spanish or Farsi. What is driving this new language concession? As usual, it is economics. Those who have the money dictate to the elected who are suppose to be representing all of us, and they tell them they want rules just for them.
In California, because the Persian population is wealthy, they have asked for voting ballots in Farsi. See: BEVERLY HILLS, California: The city's decision to publish its first completely bilingual election manual featuring Farsi side-by-side with English has generated hundreds of complaints…
And, this week when I emailed my own Representative, Norm Dicks, his response was that it would limit voter materials from being written in any language than English. My question is, why do we have to have them in other languages at all?
When my husband’s German ancestors came to the USA they had to learn to speak English. They did. When my own Swedish ancestors came to this country in the late 1890’s, they had to learn to speak English. They also did so. When we lived in Germany from 1970-72, we knew we were not going to live there the rest of our lives, but we still tried to learn our host country’s language because we were residing in Germany. We didn’t ask for any special services, nor did the German or Swedish ancestors. They were proud to adapt, and so were we.
We have become a country afraid to stand up for what it right and normal. When I go to the grocery store, I don’t want to look at labels on my products and have to scan down until I get to the English translation. I want my ballots in English only. I don’t want to have to push 1 or 2 for English when I call a business. I want the immigrants to adapt to my country and its language, not demand that we cater to their special needs. If they don’t want to learn English, then they will have to suffer the consequences, or go back to their own birth land.
And, to my elected officials: Stop voting with your re-election in mind. Vote what your constituents dictate. That is why you are in office. You serve us, not the other way around.