Thursday, September 11, 2008
Republicans are disenfranchising again
According to this and this, from the Michigan Messenger, Republicans are planning to disenfranchise voters in this swing state. First by having a list of foreclosed properties and challenging voters based on that. Then, when outrage erupted when the plan became public, retracting their plan but admitting that they will probably do the same "voter caging" techniques of using direct-mailers that are returned, that they used in Ohio in 2004. There have been stories of this going on again in Ohio this year.
Monday, August 25, 2008
work hard and reap the rewards
it was the first full day of the convention. I showed up for work this morning and stayed through two shifts. At the start of the 3td shift, my supervisor pulled me aside and asked me if I wanted to go to the convention I was like hell yes I'd like to go. So he slipped off his credentials and gave them to me. I got on the last bus in to pepsi center
Public seating was on the top level, and by the time I got there all the good seating at the front was filled. But I still got pretty good seats to the side of the stage.
I got to see all the evenings speakers, including Caroline Kennedy and Ted, and Michelle Obama and her brother, who was one of the better speakers of the night. It was amazing. Hearing and watching people like Ted Kennedy speak on TV, you lose a lot of the power and energy of the speech. And you could imagine if you feel a speech someone gave was powerful when you watched it on tv, being there is like 1000% more powerful!
Tonight made my trip worth it, save for one thing. Thursday night. I still need to get a ticket in...
Oh and I did a bit of camera man work tonight for an ET blogger. So you might see a video I shot on the site! Not that it would have my name on it or anything.... :)
Public seating was on the top level, and by the time I got there all the good seating at the front was filled. But I still got pretty good seats to the side of the stage.
I got to see all the evenings speakers, including Caroline Kennedy and Ted, and Michelle Obama and her brother, who was one of the better speakers of the night. It was amazing. Hearing and watching people like Ted Kennedy speak on TV, you lose a lot of the power and energy of the speech. And you could imagine if you feel a speech someone gave was powerful when you watched it on tv, being there is like 1000% more powerful!
Tonight made my trip worth it, save for one thing. Thursday night. I still need to get a ticket in...
Oh and I did a bit of camera man work tonight for an ET blogger. So you might see a video I shot on the site! Not that it would have my name on it or anything.... :)
Friday, August 22, 2008
Gonig to Denver
So I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. I'm sitting in the airport about to embark on a crazy adventure to Denver for the Democratic National Convention. I've been a supporter of Obama since the beginning. It was over a year ago that I volunteered at the state convention here in San Diego. I was still a new resident of this beautiful city by the ocean. I was lucky then. I just on a whim went down to volunteer and ended up guarding one of the doors onto the main floor. From my post I was able to listen to Hillary, Obama, Dodd, and Kucinich. I missed Edwards, but I had enough of an idea of who he was from the last election, and knew he wasn't my guy. After listening to each candidate I knew Obama was our best shot at not just winning the White House, but of taking out country back from the right wing war mongerring of the last 8 years
I remember having such optimism for this new millenia back in 2000, even with Bush's illegitimate claiming of victory. That hope and optimism was quickly wiped out after 9/11, and the PATRIOT act, and Iraq, and Guantanamo, and Abu Gahrab, and civil war in Iraq, and Katrina, and 5000 American service members killed, and tens of thousands seriously wounded, and illegal wire-tapping, and political firings at the justice department, and the Valarie Plame scandal, and Scooter Libby, and KARL ROVE....
But I digress. I could go on ad naseum. The point is, Obama has brought that hope and optimism back, and that's the reason I'm out here in Denver. To support him for President.
I remember having such optimism for this new millenia back in 2000, even with Bush's illegitimate claiming of victory. That hope and optimism was quickly wiped out after 9/11, and the PATRIOT act, and Iraq, and Guantanamo, and Abu Gahrab, and civil war in Iraq, and Katrina, and 5000 American service members killed, and tens of thousands seriously wounded, and illegal wire-tapping, and political firings at the justice department, and the Valarie Plame scandal, and Scooter Libby, and KARL ROVE....
But I digress. I could go on ad naseum. The point is, Obama has brought that hope and optimism back, and that's the reason I'm out here in Denver. To support him for President.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Conception/Abortion
So I was watching the "Civil Forum" last night, and I've been reading some responses online about Obama vs. McCain on their views of abortion and when life begins. This is what I believe.
We know that when the sperm fertilizes an egg, that single cell will eventually grow in to a human being. That's not disputable. The question is, at what point between conception and birth do we confer human rights on those cells we call a fetus.
Let's start off with that single cell. No single cell in my current body is assigned human rights. If I slice off the tip of my finger, I'm not going to hold a memorial service and buy a plot of land to bury it in. As great a finger tip as it's been, it's not that important to assign it human rights in and of itself...it's just a clump of human cells.
On the flip side of that, if every cell in my body dies, (ie, I croak), then that group of cells that was once my mortal flesh, is a tragic loss (or so I would hope).
Back to conception... The big picture is that no single cell is important, EXCEPT if that single cell is all there is to the human at that point in their lifecycle. Once that fertilized egg splits in to more cells, (excluding the splitting that occurs when identical twins are born), no single cell is "life" as a whole. What makes that single cell so special? Well, nothing. It's just a cell. There's no consciousness inside its walls. There's no special electrical pulses going on that doesn't happen in other cells. It's just a cell that will do its job, and split to form the cells that will eventually grow in to a human body.
Going back to the fingertip. With today's advancing research in to stem cells, and regrowing human cells from them, maybe some day we'll be able to regrow my whole body just from the cells in my fingertip. When that day comes, is my fingertip given human rights because it could possibly be grown in to another living, breathing, human body? Or does that not count because it's unnatural?
But let's pretend that some rogue science lab does just this. They start growing human clones from people's fingertips. When their lab gets raided by the FBI and their experiments are confiscated, are those FBI agents killing people? Or are those "abominations" not protected?
Let's move this conversation back to this bunch of cells dying thing...if I lop off my arm, no big whoop. I'm still alive, and my arm gets disposed of somewhere. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could have my arm buried, but I choose not to, since it's just a bunch of cells. But what happens if I'm in an accident and I suffer severe brain damage, which is later diagnosed as being brain dead. If my brain stem is still functioning, even though I have no higher cognitive brain activity, I could still be breathing, and my heart could still be beating. Am I alive?
So my parents, or significant other decide that they want to pull the plug, (which is what I would want them to do). It's perfectly legal for them to do that, as technically I'm already dead. So according to the law in this regard, I'm dead if my brain isn't alive and functioning--ie, I have no consciousness.
So when does the embryo form its brain, and when can we detect brain functioning? This is a tough question to answer. From what I've read online, the cells for all the major organs find their places in the first trimester of growth. This is also when the few cells that will become the heart start beating. But are there enough cells of the brain to qualify it as alive and conscious? Not really. You can't really prove it either way, I guess. But you can't really prove that my brain-dead brain is actually dead and won't come back to life either. It's a tough decision that has to be made by those people able and willing to make it.
This is a debate that will never have definitive proof that when X happens, life has begun. And until that proof is found and agreed upon, we have to use our power of reason to determine the best course for our society to take.
My personal belief is that abortion should be totally 100% legal and accessible to anyone while their pregnancy is in the first trimester--this includes the over-the-counter "morning after" pill. During the second trimester, there should be more restrictions on when an abortion is done, and that it should be a last option after the pregnant woman has been informed of all other options. Abortion during the third trimester shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases where there is possibility of death to the mother or child or both if the pregnancy went forward.
This won't appease the right-to-lifers who believe conception = life. But for the majority of American's, I think this is a middle road that we can all walk on.
We know that when the sperm fertilizes an egg, that single cell will eventually grow in to a human being. That's not disputable. The question is, at what point between conception and birth do we confer human rights on those cells we call a fetus.
Let's start off with that single cell. No single cell in my current body is assigned human rights. If I slice off the tip of my finger, I'm not going to hold a memorial service and buy a plot of land to bury it in. As great a finger tip as it's been, it's not that important to assign it human rights in and of itself...it's just a clump of human cells.
On the flip side of that, if every cell in my body dies, (ie, I croak), then that group of cells that was once my mortal flesh, is a tragic loss (or so I would hope).
Back to conception... The big picture is that no single cell is important, EXCEPT if that single cell is all there is to the human at that point in their lifecycle. Once that fertilized egg splits in to more cells, (excluding the splitting that occurs when identical twins are born), no single cell is "life" as a whole. What makes that single cell so special? Well, nothing. It's just a cell. There's no consciousness inside its walls. There's no special electrical pulses going on that doesn't happen in other cells. It's just a cell that will do its job, and split to form the cells that will eventually grow in to a human body.
Going back to the fingertip. With today's advancing research in to stem cells, and regrowing human cells from them, maybe some day we'll be able to regrow my whole body just from the cells in my fingertip. When that day comes, is my fingertip given human rights because it could possibly be grown in to another living, breathing, human body? Or does that not count because it's unnatural?
But let's pretend that some rogue science lab does just this. They start growing human clones from people's fingertips. When their lab gets raided by the FBI and their experiments are confiscated, are those FBI agents killing people? Or are those "abominations" not protected?
Let's move this conversation back to this bunch of cells dying thing...if I lop off my arm, no big whoop. I'm still alive, and my arm gets disposed of somewhere. If I really wanted to, I'm sure I could have my arm buried, but I choose not to, since it's just a bunch of cells. But what happens if I'm in an accident and I suffer severe brain damage, which is later diagnosed as being brain dead. If my brain stem is still functioning, even though I have no higher cognitive brain activity, I could still be breathing, and my heart could still be beating. Am I alive?
So my parents, or significant other decide that they want to pull the plug, (which is what I would want them to do). It's perfectly legal for them to do that, as technically I'm already dead. So according to the law in this regard, I'm dead if my brain isn't alive and functioning--ie, I have no consciousness.
So when does the embryo form its brain, and when can we detect brain functioning? This is a tough question to answer. From what I've read online, the cells for all the major organs find their places in the first trimester of growth. This is also when the few cells that will become the heart start beating. But are there enough cells of the brain to qualify it as alive and conscious? Not really. You can't really prove it either way, I guess. But you can't really prove that my brain-dead brain is actually dead and won't come back to life either. It's a tough decision that has to be made by those people able and willing to make it.
This is a debate that will never have definitive proof that when X happens, life has begun. And until that proof is found and agreed upon, we have to use our power of reason to determine the best course for our society to take.
My personal belief is that abortion should be totally 100% legal and accessible to anyone while their pregnancy is in the first trimester--this includes the over-the-counter "morning after" pill. During the second trimester, there should be more restrictions on when an abortion is done, and that it should be a last option after the pregnant woman has been informed of all other options. Abortion during the third trimester shouldn't be allowed except in extreme cases where there is possibility of death to the mother or child or both if the pregnancy went forward.
This won't appease the right-to-lifers who believe conception = life. But for the majority of American's, I think this is a middle road that we can all walk on.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Obama Vs. McCain: The Internet
OBAMA:
[http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38629&ref=rellink]
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama laid out his plans to use technology to increase government transparency, promising online access to federal data and the opportunity for citizens to comment online on pending legislation.
Building upon previous promises to free government from undue political and financial influence, Obama's technology and innovation plan would aim to increase transparency through e-government initiatives.
"We will put government data online in universally accessible formats, [allowing citizens to] track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbying contracts, participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and comment on legislation before it is signed," Obama said during a speech at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. on Nov. 14.
The plan would expand on the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act -- co-sponsored by Obama -- which mandates the creation of a user-friendly Web site to track federal spending data. Rule-making agencies would be required to deliberate issues via live feeds on the Internet that would allow citizens to respond to their efforts. Nonemergency legislation would be posted on the White House Web site, where people would be able to review and comment on it for five days before it was signed into law.
Cabinet officials would be required to hold periodic nationwide online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies, and such technologies as blogs, wikis and social networking tools would be used to enhance internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing.
"Technology empowers people to come together to [drive] change," Obama said. "We have to do more than get our house in order; the opportunity in front of us is bigger than that. Seizing this opportunity is going to depend on more than what the government does and even more than what the technology sector does."
Obama's plan also includes the appointment of the first federal chief technology officer. The CTO would oversee e-government initiatives and be charged with ensuring that all agencies have a modern, secure infrastructure, use best-in-class technologies and share best practices. The CTO also would be responsible for implementing standards to ensure technological interoperability of key government functions.
[http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/]
Obama supports Net Neutrality:
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
MCCAIN:
[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/12/mccain-online/]
In an interview with New York Times, John McCain confirmed that he doesn’t email, doesn’t read blogs, doesn’t go online, but does occasionally read Drudge. While he’s not a consumer of online information, McCain said he does “understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns”:
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?
Mr. McCain: No
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml]
McCain opposes Net Neutrality
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,”
---------------
The choice is between someone who seems to understand the new paradigm of the internet, the issues we face, and how we should be using technology in our government, OR someone who doesn’t use the internet, relies on others to know what it’s about, and falls back on conventional, standard responses when confronted with new issues involving the internet and business.
As someone involved in an internet technology based company, isn’t it better to have someone in the Oval Office who understands the issues that will likely affect our business? I think so.
[http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=38629&ref=rellink]
Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama laid out his plans to use technology to increase government transparency, promising online access to federal data and the opportunity for citizens to comment online on pending legislation.
Building upon previous promises to free government from undue political and financial influence, Obama's technology and innovation plan would aim to increase transparency through e-government initiatives.
"We will put government data online in universally accessible formats, [allowing citizens to] track federal grants, contracts, earmarks and lobbying contracts, participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and comment on legislation before it is signed," Obama said during a speech at the Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. on Nov. 14.
The plan would expand on the 2006 Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act -- co-sponsored by Obama -- which mandates the creation of a user-friendly Web site to track federal spending data. Rule-making agencies would be required to deliberate issues via live feeds on the Internet that would allow citizens to respond to their efforts. Nonemergency legislation would be posted on the White House Web site, where people would be able to review and comment on it for five days before it was signed into law.
Cabinet officials would be required to hold periodic nationwide online town hall meetings to answer questions and discuss issues before their agencies, and such technologies as blogs, wikis and social networking tools would be used to enhance internal, cross-agency, and public communication and information sharing.
"Technology empowers people to come together to [drive] change," Obama said. "We have to do more than get our house in order; the opportunity in front of us is bigger than that. Seizing this opportunity is going to depend on more than what the government does and even more than what the technology sector does."
Obama's plan also includes the appointment of the first federal chief technology officer. The CTO would oversee e-government initiatives and be charged with ensuring that all agencies have a modern, secure infrastructure, use best-in-class technologies and share best practices. The CTO also would be responsible for implementing standards to ensure technological interoperability of key government functions.
[http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060608-network_neutral/]
Obama supports Net Neutrality:
"It is because the Internet is a neutral platform that I can put out this podcast and transmit it over the Internet without having to go through any corporate media middleman. I can say what I want without censorship or without having to pay a special charge.
But the big telephone and cable companies want to change the Internet as we know it. They say that they want to create high speed lanes on the Internet and strike exclusive contractual agreements with Internet content providers for access to those high speed lanes.
Everyone who cannot pony up the cash will be relegated to the slow lanes."
MCCAIN:
[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/12/mccain-online/]
In an interview with New York Times, John McCain confirmed that he doesn’t email, doesn’t read blogs, doesn’t go online, but does occasionally read Drudge. While he’s not a consumer of online information, McCain said he does “understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns”:
Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?
Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.
(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)
Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.
Q: But do you go on line for yourself?
Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.
Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?
Mr. McCain: No
Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.
Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.
[http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml]
McCain opposes Net Neutrality
"When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,”
---------------
The choice is between someone who seems to understand the new paradigm of the internet, the issues we face, and how we should be using technology in our government, OR someone who doesn’t use the internet, relies on others to know what it’s about, and falls back on conventional, standard responses when confronted with new issues involving the internet and business.
As someone involved in an internet technology based company, isn’t it better to have someone in the Oval Office who understands the issues that will likely affect our business? I think so.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Ron Paul on Barack Obama
Just read down my blog and you'll see that at one point I was torn between Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I chose Obama (being the Democrat I am), and I haven't looked back. But I still believe Ron Paul is a great American, who would make a great President. He is intelligent, and understands this world, probably better than Obama does. But I personally just felt Obama would make a better President, regardless.
Anyway, Paul made some comments on Obama the other day, and I thought they were great. Give them a listen:
Anyway, Paul made some comments on Obama the other day, and I thought they were great. Give them a listen:
Thursday, June 5, 2008
The Path to Victory!
Obama has done it!! I'm so excited! And not only that, but just today, the Democratic National Committee has committed to not accepting donations or money from PACs or lobbyists! Simply amazing! Obama has been the "unofficial" nominee for only a few days, and he's already affected the direction of the national Democratic party! How sweeet is that??
I've grown so tired of the Hillary show. The fact that she upstaged Obama's victory by not conceding was absurd! But I'm getting over it now that the "buzz" on her being VP is dying off. I hope Obama doesn't choose her!! PLEASE OBAMA!! heh.. But Obama is talking up "something new", which I think signals that Hillary is NOT going to be his nominee.
On the McCain front, it's awesome seeing all the "remix" videos of his green speech on YouTube. They're freakin hilarious!! I still can't believe he said that we need to give bottles of hot water to dehydrated babies!! wtf?? and for him to actually say he was running for Bush's third term? Who planned that one? You couldn't ask for a better sound bite!! hahaha.. Love it!! :)
Go donate to Obama and the DNC!
I've grown so tired of the Hillary show. The fact that she upstaged Obama's victory by not conceding was absurd! But I'm getting over it now that the "buzz" on her being VP is dying off. I hope Obama doesn't choose her!! PLEASE OBAMA!! heh.. But Obama is talking up "something new", which I think signals that Hillary is NOT going to be his nominee.
On the McCain front, it's awesome seeing all the "remix" videos of his green speech on YouTube. They're freakin hilarious!! I still can't believe he said that we need to give bottles of hot water to dehydrated babies!! wtf?? and for him to actually say he was running for Bush's third term? Who planned that one? You couldn't ask for a better sound bite!! hahaha.. Love it!! :)
Go donate to Obama and the DNC!
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Aliens vs. God
So I just had a thought. Bear with my ramblings...
If we're not alone in this universe, we should hope that alien life doesn't come to Earth, but that we begin to explore the universe and then discover life out there.
The reason for this is simple. We have this notion that God created us, humans, in his own image, and we are his children. We are superior creatures to everything else on our planet. In the extra-solar world, would that view of ourselves change?
If extra-terrestrial life comes to Earth and finds us, we can no longer claim superiority. We are not superior to those aliens. They've obviously developed more and better technologies than we have. So how could we claim to be superior any longer?
If the aliens had a civilization older than our own, then God must have created them first. They would be God's first born children. If their civilization were younger than ours, then they are superior in their surpassing our technologies in less time.
Our only claim for superiority would be if their civilization was older than ours. We could then claim that God "fixed" his design between creating the aliens and creating us. We are the "new & improved" beings.
If we're not alone in this universe, we should hope that alien life doesn't come to Earth, but that we begin to explore the universe and then discover life out there.
The reason for this is simple. We have this notion that God created us, humans, in his own image, and we are his children. We are superior creatures to everything else on our planet. In the extra-solar world, would that view of ourselves change?
If extra-terrestrial life comes to Earth and finds us, we can no longer claim superiority. We are not superior to those aliens. They've obviously developed more and better technologies than we have. So how could we claim to be superior any longer?
If the aliens had a civilization older than our own, then God must have created them first. They would be God's first born children. If their civilization were younger than ours, then they are superior in their surpassing our technologies in less time.
Our only claim for superiority would be if their civilization was older than ours. We could then claim that God "fixed" his design between creating the aliens and creating us. We are the "new & improved" beings.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Obama hit piece
Happy birthday to me! Okay, enough celebration.. Who needs to be reminded that every day they are one day closer to their death? :P
So a friend of mine sent me (and a bunch of other people) an email with a link to a video. The video was a straight-up right-wing Obama hit piece, touching on every rumor and innuendo about Obama that has circulated the internet. I'm choosing not to link to it from here because I don't want to give it any more traffic. It's absurd. But I wanted to post my reply to his email, where he asked for comments on what people thought:
----------------------------------------------
Here's what you need to know about this video. It's right-wing scare propaganda. It's actually perpetuating lies and half-truths about Obama in order to scare people in to not voting for him. Whenever you see a video about Obama that emphasizes his middle name, you know that it's a scare piece. The underlying message is this: Obama is new, he's black, and he has ties to Muslims (through his name, his father, his upbringing in Malaysia), and he is unpatriotic (refusal to wear flag-pin or put his hand over his heart during national anthem), and so we should be scared, during this time of terror, to vote for him.
But the truth of the matter is this: Obama's Muslim father left him and his mother when he was a young kid. The school he attended in Malaysia wasn't a Muslim "Madrassa", it was a regular public school with both Muslim and Christian students. Obama refuses to wear the flag-pin because he says it has been put forth as a replacement for true patriotism, and he would rather show his patriotism for real, rather than just by wearing a pin (and BTW, neither McCain or Clinton wear lapel-pins). As for the national anthem, putting your hand over your heart is something you do during the pledge of allegiance, and is not what you do during the national anthem. That's the part of the story they don't tell you.
The Rev. Wright is crazy! I see how what he says could scare people away. But what we all know is that the black church is very different than the typical white church, or Hispanic churches. But that doesn't mean that they are trying to destroy America. And that doesn't mean that Obama follows blindly what Rev Wright preaches about. Idk if you go to church regularly, but look at people you know who do, and think about whether they blindly follow the teachings of their church pastors and priests. Most people take away what they will, which is the idea that we should aspire to better ourselves and our communities. And if you look at Obama's history, you'll see that that's what he's done his whole public life. And in his statements about the Wright controversy, he states this idea, that he doesn't agree with Wright's view of the US, and what he's always tried to do is help his community.
All of these things are non-issues, which the right-wing conspirators are propagating to scare people away from him. Look, Obama is not a black muslim looking to enslave the white race and convert America in to a Muslim nation run by terrorists. That idea is totally ridiculous, regardless of what the people who made this video think. They even touch on communism and a supposed tie to Che Guevara, (in that case it was a local Obama staffer in Texas who had the flag up, and was asked by the national campaign to take it down, which she did). The communism plot is typical right-wing scare tactic harking back to the red scare with Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 50's. This video will likely work to lock older Republicans in to John McCain, but I have faith most reasonable people will dismiss it for what it is.
The bottom line is this: When you don't care enough to look at what the candidate stands for, and what he or she is trying to do (put forth by their policies), and instead make your judgment based on far-fetched hate conspiracies (like Obama is going to convert us all to Muslims and enslave the white race), you get someone in control like Bush, who doesn't give a rat's ass about the American people, and does whatever he wants to do, which usually benefits the few elite upper 2% of Americans at the cost of the lower and middle class Americans.
If you agree with John McCain's policies and vision for the future, then vote for him. If you agree with Obama's, then vote for him. But don't make a decision based on this crap! :)
So a friend of mine sent me (and a bunch of other people) an email with a link to a video. The video was a straight-up right-wing Obama hit piece, touching on every rumor and innuendo about Obama that has circulated the internet. I'm choosing not to link to it from here because I don't want to give it any more traffic. It's absurd. But I wanted to post my reply to his email, where he asked for comments on what people thought:
----------------------------------------------
Here's what you need to know about this video. It's right-wing scare propaganda. It's actually perpetuating lies and half-truths about Obama in order to scare people in to not voting for him. Whenever you see a video about Obama that emphasizes his middle name, you know that it's a scare piece. The underlying message is this: Obama is new, he's black, and he has ties to Muslims (through his name, his father, his upbringing in Malaysia), and he is unpatriotic (refusal to wear flag-pin or put his hand over his heart during national anthem), and so we should be scared, during this time of terror, to vote for him.
But the truth of the matter is this: Obama's Muslim father left him and his mother when he was a young kid. The school he attended in Malaysia wasn't a Muslim "Madrassa", it was a regular public school with both Muslim and Christian students. Obama refuses to wear the flag-pin because he says it has been put forth as a replacement for true patriotism, and he would rather show his patriotism for real, rather than just by wearing a pin (and BTW, neither McCain or Clinton wear lapel-pins). As for the national anthem, putting your hand over your heart is something you do during the pledge of allegiance, and is not what you do during the national anthem. That's the part of the story they don't tell you.
The Rev. Wright is crazy! I see how what he says could scare people away. But what we all know is that the black church is very different than the typical white church, or Hispanic churches. But that doesn't mean that they are trying to destroy America. And that doesn't mean that Obama follows blindly what Rev Wright preaches about. Idk if you go to church regularly, but look at people you know who do, and think about whether they blindly follow the teachings of their church pastors and priests. Most people take away what they will, which is the idea that we should aspire to better ourselves and our communities. And if you look at Obama's history, you'll see that that's what he's done his whole public life. And in his statements about the Wright controversy, he states this idea, that he doesn't agree with Wright's view of the US, and what he's always tried to do is help his community.
All of these things are non-issues, which the right-wing conspirators are propagating to scare people away from him. Look, Obama is not a black muslim looking to enslave the white race and convert America in to a Muslim nation run by terrorists. That idea is totally ridiculous, regardless of what the people who made this video think. They even touch on communism and a supposed tie to Che Guevara, (in that case it was a local Obama staffer in Texas who had the flag up, and was asked by the national campaign to take it down, which she did). The communism plot is typical right-wing scare tactic harking back to the red scare with Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 50's. This video will likely work to lock older Republicans in to John McCain, but I have faith most reasonable people will dismiss it for what it is.
The bottom line is this: When you don't care enough to look at what the candidate stands for, and what he or she is trying to do (put forth by their policies), and instead make your judgment based on far-fetched hate conspiracies (like Obama is going to convert us all to Muslims and enslave the white race), you get someone in control like Bush, who doesn't give a rat's ass about the American people, and does whatever he wants to do, which usually benefits the few elite upper 2% of Americans at the cost of the lower and middle class Americans.
If you agree with John McCain's policies and vision for the future, then vote for him. If you agree with Obama's, then vote for him. But don't make a decision based on this crap! :)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
From my dad...
Kids: This is a sad commentary. My late friend Eddie Hall was a WWII vet who happened to be a black man (born and reared in Sacramento). Eddie had a high school education and a wealth of practical, worldly wisdom. One day we were talking about the internal politics of the “black community” in Sacramento and he told me that generally speaking, the most corrupt political leaders in the black community were the pastors. He said you can tell which ones they were because the always dressed real fancy and had nice cars. His theory was that powerful “white folks” bought off the pastors to keep the black folks in line. In that spirit, Eddie claimed the pastors would lead them out on proverbial wild goose chases, instead of doing the homework needed to advance their community economically and socially.
Eddie’s been dead about 7 years. I haven’t thought of Eddie for a long time, but when I saw the footage of Rev. Wright’s assault on Obama’s candidacy and he made his aside about a book that he will publish later this year, the light went off. The question the bloggers need to find out is, who is going to publish the book and how much of an advance payment have they already made to Wright.
When you have the answers to those two questions, you will know why Wright is trying to bring Obama down. It may be that Judas Iscariot has nothing on Rev. Wright. I suspect it’s a publishing company owed by our fascist friend Rupert Murdoch. He has a long history of trying to corrupt politics through book deals (for example, former speakers Wright and Gingrich). Uncovering this information quickly may save us from Hillary-gate redux. There’s about 4 days to do it in. Any suggestions on how it could be uncovered?
Eddie’s been dead about 7 years. I haven’t thought of Eddie for a long time, but when I saw the footage of Rev. Wright’s assault on Obama’s candidacy and he made his aside about a book that he will publish later this year, the light went off. The question the bloggers need to find out is, who is going to publish the book and how much of an advance payment have they already made to Wright.
When you have the answers to those two questions, you will know why Wright is trying to bring Obama down. It may be that Judas Iscariot has nothing on Rev. Wright. I suspect it’s a publishing company owed by our fascist friend Rupert Murdoch. He has a long history of trying to corrupt politics through book deals (for example, former speakers Wright and Gingrich). Uncovering this information quickly may save us from Hillary-gate redux. There’s about 4 days to do it in. Any suggestions on how it could be uncovered?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Was it worth it?
It's been 5 years. Almost hard to imagine it was that long ago. I remember it very well. I had a white T-shirt with the words "I won't be happy until I kill again" printed all in black bolded capital lettering across the front. Under it I drew an American flag. The red permanent marker I used to draw the stripes bled some into the white cloth. It wasn't intended, but it made the flag appear to be soaked with blood. It went perfect with the bucket of blood I planned to carry.
It wasn't really blood. I mean who would be able to get a gallon of blood? It was tomato soup. Still, it was red, and a relatively close consistency. It was blood to anyone else.
I went downtown in Chico, the small northern California town I lived in while in college. There were large protests going on a few hours away in San Francisco, and I had thought about going there. But I figured there were enough people protesting there. There weren't enough up here.
I walked past the little shops and restaurants that lined the main drag, pulling a soaked sponge out of my bucket and squeezing it onto the sidewalk. Puddles of blood marked my trail. Parents and little kids alike gave me puzzled looks as to what I was doing, and what I was spilling out. Nobody seemed to realize what was about to hit them.
I met up with a group of about 50 protesters. I somewhat knew about 15 of them from school. We had planned to meet downtown on the day the invasion started, and start our protest march. It was good to see that more people showed up than I had expected. They were already there at the city park, waving flags and holding signs. A bullhorn echoing statements reflecting our anger.
This wasn't an organized protest. We didn't know when the war was going to start, and we couldn't get permits from the city to march on its streets. But we could no more plan this protest than we could stop it.
We hit the streets about 6 blocks down from the heart of the main downtown area. We marched on the sidewalks, shouting and yelling for anyone who might be within earshot. People gave us some dirty looks. Some honked and waved in support. I was surprised about 2 blocks down to realize that more people were actually joining us. By about the 4th block, our line of protesters stretched for nearly 2 blocks. More college kids had joined our ranks. But there were also middle-age folk, who looked to have just come out of one of those shops or restaurants we were passing.
And then we reached the main intersection. By this time a few police officers in cars or on motorcycle had joined our march. Well, not joining it per se, but walking with us to make sure no laws were being broken, and nobody was jumping out into the street. Chico's main drag consisted of 2 one-way streets going in opposite directions. We started our march heading up the street going in to town. That was the busiest one.
Our plan was to reach this intersection, and then cross over the other street and march back down. And maybe do this circuit a couple of times. But as a few of the more vocal protesters started across the street, some redneck guy in an old beat-up Ford pickup truck started honking and trying to drive through the line of protesters. This started a commotion and would change the course of the day for all of us.
It started with one guy. He was in front of the truck as it tried to push its way through the crowd. As we all ran in front of the truck to make sure it didn't move, he sat down. And then a girl that was marching by his side sat down next to him. And then two more joined him. Right in the middle of the crosswalk.
Then I sat down.
The police who were not far, came and saw what was going on. They directed the man in the truck and the numerous cars behind him down a side street. They told us what we were doing was illegal and we needed to get up. But we were strong. We didn't move.
We were sitting some 30 people deep. All spread out across the street. The police moved a block down from us and started diverting traffic. So we took over the whole intersection. A group of us sat down in the middle while many more danced and shouted around us. Word was quickly spreading of what was happening, and it seemed like within no time the crowd around us ballooned. The police didn't know what to do.
This lasted about 30 minutes. During which time the police had started increasing their ranks. They had brought out the riot cops, with shields and face masks, forming a line across one side of the intersection. A group of the commanding officers sat kitty-corner to them putting their heads together while looking at us, figuring out their strategy. All around us, the streets and sidewalks were filled with people.
"What you are doing is illegal, and you need to clear this intersection," shouted the commander after walking up to us. "If you do not leave, you will be arrested."
With that he turned and walked back to his cabal. The lady who ran the local Peace & Justice center, who helped organize this march, went to the police officers to talk to them. We didn't budge.
Again the police officer addressed us, this time from his position on the sidewalk with the help of a bullhorn. "If you do not want to be arrested, you need to move to the sidewalks. Anyone blocking the street or in the crosswalk will be arrested."
With that pronouncement, our strength splintered. The people dancing and marching around all started moving to the sidewalk. Half our group of sitters began standing up, curious if anyone would be willing to get arrested. "I don't want to get arrested," I told the guy sitting next to me as I slowly stood up and started making my way to safety.
The thoughts going through my head were fear of the unknown. How would an arrest look on my record? What impact would this have on my future career or life in general? What would happen to us? Was it worth it?
I glanced at another girl who was walking away. "I want to be a school teacher. I can't get arrested here today." I nodded that I understood. I tried to think of my excuse to respond, but I couldn't. The only excuse I had was fear.
So I stopped.
I turned around and went back and retook my place in the circle. "Fuck it," I said with a grin to the guy next to me. I couldn't let fear be my excuse. Everyone was scared, from the people sitting here, to the people protesting in San Francisco and across the country. The US soldiers invading Iraq and the Iraqi people were all fearful. But we all had to face our fears, and do what we needed to.
The police in riot gear encircled us. A school bus had been parked in one of the side streets. Then a group of three officers approached one of the girls with us. They riot-cuffed her hands, and walked her off to the bus. Then the guy next to her. They dragged him off. The Peace & Justice lady shouted to us, "Don't resist or they'll add that to the charges against you. Get up and walk to the bus."
One by one they came for us. When it was my turn, I smiled. I wasn't scared or fearful. I was proud. This needed to be done, and I was proud that I was strong enough to do it. The riot-cuffs hurt, and the police were anything but gentle. But it was all worth it.
After the last of us were on the bus, we departed to cheers and shouts from our supporters in the streets. We each had about 8 hours of dealing with asshole cops and following strict rules ahead of us at the county jail. But as I looked around at my fellow protesters I saw only proud faces. There was no fear or regret. We knew the sacrifice we made today was small compared to what was happening half a world away. And we each hoped, and I think KNEW, that what we had done would be something we could be proud to say we did.
And here we are 5 years later. Over 60% of US Citizens now feel this war was a mistake and we shouldn't have gone in. We were right. It was a mistake that should never have been made. And although we were right, there's no pride in knowing it. Even though we were right, nearly 4000 US Soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have paid the ultimate price for this mistake. There can be no pride in that.
UPDATE: So today we take to the streets again. And I see the same fears and pride in pictures of protesters being arrested. They are right. We are right. We must fight on.
It wasn't really blood. I mean who would be able to get a gallon of blood? It was tomato soup. Still, it was red, and a relatively close consistency. It was blood to anyone else.
I went downtown in Chico, the small northern California town I lived in while in college. There were large protests going on a few hours away in San Francisco, and I had thought about going there. But I figured there were enough people protesting there. There weren't enough up here.
I walked past the little shops and restaurants that lined the main drag, pulling a soaked sponge out of my bucket and squeezing it onto the sidewalk. Puddles of blood marked my trail. Parents and little kids alike gave me puzzled looks as to what I was doing, and what I was spilling out. Nobody seemed to realize what was about to hit them.
I met up with a group of about 50 protesters. I somewhat knew about 15 of them from school. We had planned to meet downtown on the day the invasion started, and start our protest march. It was good to see that more people showed up than I had expected. They were already there at the city park, waving flags and holding signs. A bullhorn echoing statements reflecting our anger.
This wasn't an organized protest. We didn't know when the war was going to start, and we couldn't get permits from the city to march on its streets. But we could no more plan this protest than we could stop it.
We hit the streets about 6 blocks down from the heart of the main downtown area. We marched on the sidewalks, shouting and yelling for anyone who might be within earshot. People gave us some dirty looks. Some honked and waved in support. I was surprised about 2 blocks down to realize that more people were actually joining us. By about the 4th block, our line of protesters stretched for nearly 2 blocks. More college kids had joined our ranks. But there were also middle-age folk, who looked to have just come out of one of those shops or restaurants we were passing.
And then we reached the main intersection. By this time a few police officers in cars or on motorcycle had joined our march. Well, not joining it per se, but walking with us to make sure no laws were being broken, and nobody was jumping out into the street. Chico's main drag consisted of 2 one-way streets going in opposite directions. We started our march heading up the street going in to town. That was the busiest one.
Our plan was to reach this intersection, and then cross over the other street and march back down. And maybe do this circuit a couple of times. But as a few of the more vocal protesters started across the street, some redneck guy in an old beat-up Ford pickup truck started honking and trying to drive through the line of protesters. This started a commotion and would change the course of the day for all of us.
It started with one guy. He was in front of the truck as it tried to push its way through the crowd. As we all ran in front of the truck to make sure it didn't move, he sat down. And then a girl that was marching by his side sat down next to him. And then two more joined him. Right in the middle of the crosswalk.
Then I sat down.
The police who were not far, came and saw what was going on. They directed the man in the truck and the numerous cars behind him down a side street. They told us what we were doing was illegal and we needed to get up. But we were strong. We didn't move.
We were sitting some 30 people deep. All spread out across the street. The police moved a block down from us and started diverting traffic. So we took over the whole intersection. A group of us sat down in the middle while many more danced and shouted around us. Word was quickly spreading of what was happening, and it seemed like within no time the crowd around us ballooned. The police didn't know what to do.
This lasted about 30 minutes. During which time the police had started increasing their ranks. They had brought out the riot cops, with shields and face masks, forming a line across one side of the intersection. A group of the commanding officers sat kitty-corner to them putting their heads together while looking at us, figuring out their strategy. All around us, the streets and sidewalks were filled with people.
"What you are doing is illegal, and you need to clear this intersection," shouted the commander after walking up to us. "If you do not leave, you will be arrested."
With that he turned and walked back to his cabal. The lady who ran the local Peace & Justice center, who helped organize this march, went to the police officers to talk to them. We didn't budge.
Again the police officer addressed us, this time from his position on the sidewalk with the help of a bullhorn. "If you do not want to be arrested, you need to move to the sidewalks. Anyone blocking the street or in the crosswalk will be arrested."
With that pronouncement, our strength splintered. The people dancing and marching around all started moving to the sidewalk. Half our group of sitters began standing up, curious if anyone would be willing to get arrested. "I don't want to get arrested," I told the guy sitting next to me as I slowly stood up and started making my way to safety.
The thoughts going through my head were fear of the unknown. How would an arrest look on my record? What impact would this have on my future career or life in general? What would happen to us? Was it worth it?
I glanced at another girl who was walking away. "I want to be a school teacher. I can't get arrested here today." I nodded that I understood. I tried to think of my excuse to respond, but I couldn't. The only excuse I had was fear.
So I stopped.
I turned around and went back and retook my place in the circle. "Fuck it," I said with a grin to the guy next to me. I couldn't let fear be my excuse. Everyone was scared, from the people sitting here, to the people protesting in San Francisco and across the country. The US soldiers invading Iraq and the Iraqi people were all fearful. But we all had to face our fears, and do what we needed to.
The police in riot gear encircled us. A school bus had been parked in one of the side streets. Then a group of three officers approached one of the girls with us. They riot-cuffed her hands, and walked her off to the bus. Then the guy next to her. They dragged him off. The Peace & Justice lady shouted to us, "Don't resist or they'll add that to the charges against you. Get up and walk to the bus."
One by one they came for us. When it was my turn, I smiled. I wasn't scared or fearful. I was proud. This needed to be done, and I was proud that I was strong enough to do it. The riot-cuffs hurt, and the police were anything but gentle. But it was all worth it.
After the last of us were on the bus, we departed to cheers and shouts from our supporters in the streets. We each had about 8 hours of dealing with asshole cops and following strict rules ahead of us at the county jail. But as I looked around at my fellow protesters I saw only proud faces. There was no fear or regret. We knew the sacrifice we made today was small compared to what was happening half a world away. And we each hoped, and I think KNEW, that what we had done would be something we could be proud to say we did.
And here we are 5 years later. Over 60% of US Citizens now feel this war was a mistake and we shouldn't have gone in. We were right. It was a mistake that should never have been made. And although we were right, there's no pride in knowing it. Even though we were right, nearly 4000 US Soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have paid the ultimate price for this mistake. There can be no pride in that.
UPDATE: So today we take to the streets again. And I see the same fears and pride in pictures of protesters being arrested. They are right. We are right. We must fight on.
Friday, March 14, 2008
An open letter to Hillary Clinton.
Dear Hillary,
I mean this with all do respect. Please concede the Democratic primary to Barack Obama. You have lost. You are hanging on to a faint notion that you might bloody Obama so much that your margins in the final primaries will push you above him in popular votes and delegates. Or, that your momentum might persuade enough super-delegates to vote for you to give you the win. Either way, you are destroying the Democratic party's chances of winning in November.
Look, there are only two outcomes to this. One, that you'll lose anyway. In that case, you've only successfully helped John McCain in his fight against Obama, and bettered McCain's chances of winning in November. Although your recent statements lead me to think otherwise, I don't think you really believe having McCain in the oval office would be better than having Obama there.
The second outcome is that you'll actually win the nomination. But at what cost? You'll have dissuaded the large number of new, and newly active, Obama supporters. They'll view your win as dirty-tricks, or the underhanded tactics of a political party they had hoped might actually change to support a new, fresh, candidate. You'll help to realize their fears, that being involved in politics really doesn't make a difference.
Everyone has done the "math" on this race, and knows full well that your chances of winning are next to impossible. Obama leads you in pledged delegates (with or without including super-delegates). He leads you in the popular vote. He leads you in the number of primaries won, the number of caucuses won, the number of States won (the number of both "Red" and "Blue" States), and he has raised millions more than you from his millions of donating supporters. What is it you know that keeps you in this?
There is something to be said for someone who doesn't give up in the face of defeat. But as we've seen too many times with President Bush, going forward in doing something that you think is right, when everything and everyone is saying otherwise, isn't a positive trait. We've lived through nearly eight years of wrong-headed stubborn leadership. We don't need more of the same.
I speak for myself only, but as an example of what I'm sure others are feeling. Everything you've done between Ohio and now has turned me off to the possibility of voting for you in November. I used to be one of those who supported Obama but thought that you and he would be great choices for our party. Then you turned negative. And not just negative, but down-right dirty. As your campaign says, you threw the kitchen sink at Obama. Even so, you still didn't gain any noticeable ground on his lead. All you managed to do was lower his polling advantage against McCain in a head-to-head match up. As much as I dislike the thought of having McCain win, I will simply not vote if you are our party's nominee. I'm sorry. But you have brought this on yourself.
The one saving grace for you, Hillary, is to bow out of this race before the convention. Work out a deal with Obama where you become his VP, or just realize this isn't working and drop out. That, or reverse course and turn your fight against McCain. There is no disgrace in losing this race. By conceding, you will restore my respect for you, and I would enthusiastically support you as Obama's VP.
Again I ask you, for the sake of our party and the sake of our country, please Hillary, drop out.
Sincerely,
Jason Holderness
San Diego, CA
I mean this with all do respect. Please concede the Democratic primary to Barack Obama. You have lost. You are hanging on to a faint notion that you might bloody Obama so much that your margins in the final primaries will push you above him in popular votes and delegates. Or, that your momentum might persuade enough super-delegates to vote for you to give you the win. Either way, you are destroying the Democratic party's chances of winning in November.
Look, there are only two outcomes to this. One, that you'll lose anyway. In that case, you've only successfully helped John McCain in his fight against Obama, and bettered McCain's chances of winning in November. Although your recent statements lead me to think otherwise, I don't think you really believe having McCain in the oval office would be better than having Obama there.
The second outcome is that you'll actually win the nomination. But at what cost? You'll have dissuaded the large number of new, and newly active, Obama supporters. They'll view your win as dirty-tricks, or the underhanded tactics of a political party they had hoped might actually change to support a new, fresh, candidate. You'll help to realize their fears, that being involved in politics really doesn't make a difference.
Everyone has done the "math" on this race, and knows full well that your chances of winning are next to impossible. Obama leads you in pledged delegates (with or without including super-delegates). He leads you in the popular vote. He leads you in the number of primaries won, the number of caucuses won, the number of States won (the number of both "Red" and "Blue" States), and he has raised millions more than you from his millions of donating supporters. What is it you know that keeps you in this?
There is something to be said for someone who doesn't give up in the face of defeat. But as we've seen too many times with President Bush, going forward in doing something that you think is right, when everything and everyone is saying otherwise, isn't a positive trait. We've lived through nearly eight years of wrong-headed stubborn leadership. We don't need more of the same.
I speak for myself only, but as an example of what I'm sure others are feeling. Everything you've done between Ohio and now has turned me off to the possibility of voting for you in November. I used to be one of those who supported Obama but thought that you and he would be great choices for our party. Then you turned negative. And not just negative, but down-right dirty. As your campaign says, you threw the kitchen sink at Obama. Even so, you still didn't gain any noticeable ground on his lead. All you managed to do was lower his polling advantage against McCain in a head-to-head match up. As much as I dislike the thought of having McCain win, I will simply not vote if you are our party's nominee. I'm sorry. But you have brought this on yourself.
The one saving grace for you, Hillary, is to bow out of this race before the convention. Work out a deal with Obama where you become his VP, or just realize this isn't working and drop out. That, or reverse course and turn your fight against McCain. There is no disgrace in losing this race. By conceding, you will restore my respect for you, and I would enthusiastically support you as Obama's VP.
Again I ask you, for the sake of our party and the sake of our country, please Hillary, drop out.
Sincerely,
Jason Holderness
San Diego, CA
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Add it up
Ed Rendell was on Meet the Press last Sunday making the argument that what matters most is winning the big States, which Tim Russert called a "strong argument." I just saw Christ Mathews on Hardball making the position that Super-delegates should go for whichever candidate wins the popular vote, and disregard the delegate count. This is typical pro-Clinton news-spin, that's all over NBC (save for Keith Olbermann who says it like it is).
---------
California 167 . . . . . . 203
Texas 99 . . . . 94
New York 93 . . . . 139
Illinois 104 . . . 49
Ohio 66. . . 75
Georgia 60 . . . 27
New Jersey 48 . . . . 59
Virginia 54 . . . . 29
Washington 53 . . . 25
Total 744 . . . 700
So as it stands now, for the "big" States, Obama has won MORE people, and MORE delegates. So according to their argument, Obama has won both categories as a whole, and should be the winner.
But let's just take the numbers as they stand for the "big" States so far:
| State | Obama | Clinton |
|---|---|---|
| California | 2,126,000 | 2,553,000 |
| Texas | 1,358,000 | 1,459,000 |
| New York | 698,000 | 1,003,000 |
| Illinois | 1,302,000 | 662,000 |
| Ohio | 982,000 | 1,212,000 |
| Georgia | 704,000 | 330,000 |
| New Jersey | 492,000 | 603,000 |
| Virginia | 627,000 | 350,000 |
| Washington | 354,000 | 316,000 |
| Total | 8,643,000 | 8,487,000 |
---------
California 167 . . . . . . 203
Texas 99 . . . . 94
New York 93 . . . . 139
Illinois 104 . . . 49
Ohio 66. . . 75
Georgia 60 . . . 27
New Jersey 48 . . . . 59
Virginia 54 . . . . 29
Washington 53 . . . 25
Total 744 . . . 700
So as it stands now, for the "big" States, Obama has won MORE people, and MORE delegates. So according to their argument, Obama has won both categories as a whole, and should be the winner.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Well, that's another fine mess you've gotten us into
What to do about Florida & Michigan? It's all the talk of the Democratic party these days. The conundrum is centering around Hillary's inability to close ranks on Obama's delegate lead. Her only hope is to try to force the primaries of Michigan and Florida to count. Of course this would only favor her, and give her a boost past Obama. But is it fair to count an election where in one case, the only name on the ballot is Hillary Clinton, and in the other, people were told not to bother voting because it wouldn't count?
In Michigan, the rules were not to file to put your name on the ballot, and not to campaign there. Hillary, while not campaigning there, got her name on the ballot. No other Democratic candidate did. So to count this election would be akin to the likes of Saddam Heussein in his last election, or Fidel Castro in his. Having only one name on the ballot doesn't mean the person with the most votes, (or the only person with votes), is who the voters really wanted. It was their only choice. That's not democracy.
I guess you could work out a deal where Obama gets all the people who voted for "Uncommitted", but I'm sure some of them were John Edwards or Kucinich supporters, and they'd balk at the idea that Obama would get their vote. So the only fair solution, besides sticking to the rules set out for it not to count, would be for a re-vote. It seems the best and easiest way would be mail-in ballots.
In Florida, we have a slightly different scenario. All the major candidates were on the ballot, but nobody (excluding a private function with Hillary) campaigned there. In fact, the turnout in Florida was one of the lowest percentage turnout so far in the primaries. People were told not to bother voting because it wouldn't count. So does that sound fair to suddenly turn around and count them? It seems like to do so would disenfranchise a large number of voters who would then feel like they were hoodwinked in to not voting.
Again, short of sticking to the rules and not counting Florida at all, the only fair solution is to hold another re-vote. Again, the easiest way to do that would be mail-in ballots.
Of course this could all be avoided if Hillary would just admit she has been defeated. We could get on with the battle against John McCain, and not risk our chance of winning the White House. But the Clinton's have never been ones to play fair, and let things die. And now I'm beginning to understand the reason why the Republican's HATED Bill Clinton so much.
Hillary is a monster, and we all know it. She is risking the White House for the Democrats by playing dirty to defeat Obama. She still believes if she injures Obama badly enough, she can clinch the nomination. But by doing so, she will have turned off so many of the new voters that have been brought in to this election by Obama. And I'm sure she's okay with that, as long as she believes she can still defeat McCain.
The problem that Hillary doesn't want to face, is that she's not going to win. And, like George W Bush, she doesn't want to see the reality, but instead futilely fight on. Even if she wins Florida and Michigan, like Texas and Ohio, her margins would most likely be too small to give her any net gain. And by the time the DNC figures out how to fix this mess, any "momentum" she might claim from those victories will be too late for anyone to notice except maybe some of her most die-hard super-delegates.
Give up Hillary. Save some face, and keep the Clinton legacy somewhat intact. If you play nice now, maybe YOU could be on the ticket as VP.
In Michigan, the rules were not to file to put your name on the ballot, and not to campaign there. Hillary, while not campaigning there, got her name on the ballot. No other Democratic candidate did. So to count this election would be akin to the likes of Saddam Heussein in his last election, or Fidel Castro in his. Having only one name on the ballot doesn't mean the person with the most votes, (or the only person with votes), is who the voters really wanted. It was their only choice. That's not democracy.
I guess you could work out a deal where Obama gets all the people who voted for "Uncommitted", but I'm sure some of them were John Edwards or Kucinich supporters, and they'd balk at the idea that Obama would get their vote. So the only fair solution, besides sticking to the rules set out for it not to count, would be for a re-vote. It seems the best and easiest way would be mail-in ballots.
In Florida, we have a slightly different scenario. All the major candidates were on the ballot, but nobody (excluding a private function with Hillary) campaigned there. In fact, the turnout in Florida was one of the lowest percentage turnout so far in the primaries. People were told not to bother voting because it wouldn't count. So does that sound fair to suddenly turn around and count them? It seems like to do so would disenfranchise a large number of voters who would then feel like they were hoodwinked in to not voting.
Again, short of sticking to the rules and not counting Florida at all, the only fair solution is to hold another re-vote. Again, the easiest way to do that would be mail-in ballots.
Of course this could all be avoided if Hillary would just admit she has been defeated. We could get on with the battle against John McCain, and not risk our chance of winning the White House. But the Clinton's have never been ones to play fair, and let things die. And now I'm beginning to understand the reason why the Republican's HATED Bill Clinton so much.
Hillary is a monster, and we all know it. She is risking the White House for the Democrats by playing dirty to defeat Obama. She still believes if she injures Obama badly enough, she can clinch the nomination. But by doing so, she will have turned off so many of the new voters that have been brought in to this election by Obama. And I'm sure she's okay with that, as long as she believes she can still defeat McCain.
The problem that Hillary doesn't want to face, is that she's not going to win. And, like George W Bush, she doesn't want to see the reality, but instead futilely fight on. Even if she wins Florida and Michigan, like Texas and Ohio, her margins would most likely be too small to give her any net gain. And by the time the DNC figures out how to fix this mess, any "momentum" she might claim from those victories will be too late for anyone to notice except maybe some of her most die-hard super-delegates.
Give up Hillary. Save some face, and keep the Clinton legacy somewhat intact. If you play nice now, maybe YOU could be on the ticket as VP.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Family Values Politics
I was reading the GL Times (a local gay/lesbian rag), and this week's main theme is gays and religion. There was a news story about a case in the California courts on gay marriage, and whether its a legal issue or a voting issue. It's in the courts right now, and they're set to decide it in a few months. Anyway a "family-friendly" group is trying to get a ballot measure in the upcoming election banning same-sex marriage. I have a feeling, like abortion, this is an issue that will never die.
So I was thinking about what to do if I see one of these people out gathering signatures for their ballot initiative. And this is what I've come up with. If someone asks to sign this initiative, I'll first ask them what it's about. Then they'll tell me something about how marriage is an institution for a man and woman only. They'll ramble on about how children need a healthy family consisting of both a mother and a father. And that's when I'll stop them and say this:
"Wait.. If heterosexual families are so healthy, why do 99.9% of all gays and lesbians come from heterosexual families?"
I figure that they'll respond by saying something either about homosexuality being a choice, or that the families these homosexuals grew up in weren't healthy, maybe having only a single parent. And then I'll ask them:
"So what you're saying is that heterosexual families aren't all that healthy either? Or that single-parent families aren't a good environment to raise kids in? So maybe the ballot initiative you should be supporting is to take kids away from non-healthy families, or single-parents, of course determined by our government?"
We'll see how they respond to that one.... lol
So I was thinking about what to do if I see one of these people out gathering signatures for their ballot initiative. And this is what I've come up with. If someone asks to sign this initiative, I'll first ask them what it's about. Then they'll tell me something about how marriage is an institution for a man and woman only. They'll ramble on about how children need a healthy family consisting of both a mother and a father. And that's when I'll stop them and say this:
"Wait.. If heterosexual families are so healthy, why do 99.9% of all gays and lesbians come from heterosexual families?"
I figure that they'll respond by saying something either about homosexuality being a choice, or that the families these homosexuals grew up in weren't healthy, maybe having only a single parent. And then I'll ask them:
"So what you're saying is that heterosexual families aren't all that healthy either? Or that single-parent families aren't a good environment to raise kids in? So maybe the ballot initiative you should be supporting is to take kids away from non-healthy families, or single-parents, of course determined by our government?"
We'll see how they respond to that one.... lol
Saturday, February 2, 2008
A New Hope
My life is pretty crazy right now.. a lot of personal stuff going on. So I haven't posted much lately.
So this is likely to be my final post before this Tuesday's Primary in California. I don't know what to say anymore, but that we need Obama. America needs Obama. I need Obama. He is inspiration. This video, I think, sums it all up.
http://www.dipdive.com/
Vote Obama.
So this is likely to be my final post before this Tuesday's Primary in California. I don't know what to say anymore, but that we need Obama. America needs Obama. I need Obama. He is inspiration. This video, I think, sums it all up.
http://www.dipdive.com/
Vote Obama.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
In case you missed it: They're lying us to war again
So this week the Bush administration showed video footage of Iranian speedboats racing around 2 US warships in the Persian Golf (in international waters). They played the video, which showed the boats zooming around, and had audio of some of the radio communication. The voice, (supposedly coming from the speed boats), said: “I am coming to you. … You will explode after … minutes.” The only problem is, it wasn't from the speedboats, and it was dubbed over the video footage.
I won't go in depth on it, but you can check out this blog on it (from New York Times).
Again, Bush and his Administration are fabricating evidence to rile up the American people for war with Iran. Don't believe ANYTHING that comes from these people... We don't want another pointless war!
I won't go in depth on it, but you can check out this blog on it (from New York Times).
Again, Bush and his Administration are fabricating evidence to rile up the American people for war with Iran. Don't believe ANYTHING that comes from these people... We don't want another pointless war!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Diebold (Premier) controls vote count in NH Primary
I just read this blog which tells about Premier (formerly Diebold), running the eVoting machines in New Hampshire. Diebold is the company that has gotten in trouble numerous times over voting machines that can be easily hacked to return bad results. Watch this clip from Democracy Now! And of course the actual testimony of a computer programmer who wrote a program for a Republican to hack the voting machine. Scary stuff!
Now why would anyone want to steal a primary election? Well, whoever did it in the past might be inclined to make sure that a certain candidate wins this time, to further promote their agenda. Or perhaps to make sure certain candidates (Ron Paul) don't win. Or maybe to make other candidates (Hillary) have a surprise victory, to ensure that Republicans have a candidate they can beat..
I'm not saying this is gonna happen.. But look for exit poll numbers which are way off from the actual results. That's a sure sign.. And of course, watch out in November....
Now why would anyone want to steal a primary election? Well, whoever did it in the past might be inclined to make sure that a certain candidate wins this time, to further promote their agenda. Or perhaps to make sure certain candidates (Ron Paul) don't win. Or maybe to make other candidates (Hillary) have a surprise victory, to ensure that Republicans have a candidate they can beat..
I'm not saying this is gonna happen.. But look for exit poll numbers which are way off from the actual results. That's a sure sign.. And of course, watch out in November....
Obama surges! Paul gains!
It's been an exciting week! From the Iowa caucuses: Obama destroyed Clinton and Edwards. Since that time, it's become readily apparent that the Democratic ticket is likely to be Obama/Edwards. Edwards has become the attack wing for Obama. He's taken her on directly in attacks that have hurt her, while leaving Obama still relatively clean. They both talk about removing the lifers from Washington politics and changing the system that is broken. It couldn't be any more apparent.
Now New Hampshire: Obama surges past Clinton! Clinton cires. As always happens when you attack, Edwards goes down with Clinton. But I'm sure he's happy to be the VP on a winning ticket this time.
Go Obama!!
And on the Ron Paul side, Ron Paul takes 10% in Iowa, ahead of Guiliani, who had only 3%. Yet Fox still excludes him from their debate. No worries, Paul just buys an hour of airtime right before the debates! haha.. go suck on that Faux News!
Go Ron Paul!
So if you're a Democrat, vote Obama! And if you're a Republican, vote Ron Paul! And if you're an independent, go google/youtube Obama and Paul, and figure out who you like best.
Now New Hampshire: Obama surges past Clinton! Clinton cires. As always happens when you attack, Edwards goes down with Clinton. But I'm sure he's happy to be the VP on a winning ticket this time.
Go Obama!!
And on the Ron Paul side, Ron Paul takes 10% in Iowa, ahead of Guiliani, who had only 3%. Yet Fox still excludes him from their debate. No worries, Paul just buys an hour of airtime right before the debates! haha.. go suck on that Faux News!
Go Ron Paul!
So if you're a Democrat, vote Obama! And if you're a Republican, vote Ron Paul! And if you're an independent, go google/youtube Obama and Paul, and figure out who you like best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
