He's outraged!
Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."
Because in the 20 years he attended this church, he certainly never knew about Wright's comments, thoughts, feeling, or anything else. But now, since the fact this his own judgment comes under scrutiny (since he has no real record to go by, his apparent judgment is looked at) he's simply outraged. He wasn't outraged for 2 decades, but now he is. He acts as if what Wright says now is something new. Phoney.
"This is his [McCain] solution to the problems of the energy crisis and your tax bills," Obama told several thousand at a noisy rally in Wilmington. "Keep in mind that the federal gas tax is about 5 percent of your gas bill. If it lasts for three months, you're going to save about $25 or $30, or a half a tank of gas."
I'm not exactly sure why Obama thinks a few months of an 18.4 cent cut in gas prices would somehow not be a good idea. Would he think that a natural drop in per-gallon prices of the same amount also aren't a big deal? I think his numbers, considering most families have multiple drivers, is incorrect. Plus, the fact that people tend to drive more over the summer months, so this could be a good amount of savings in American's pockets. Especially, for people who have longer commutes or sit in traffic much of the time. Not to mention how a 24.4 cent drop in diesel fuel somehow isn't good for truckers (and the rest of us, since when they pay more, we pay more). If saving $30 doesn't mean much to Mr. Obama, he can certainly whip out his wallet and give me $30.
"That's his big solution," Obama said of McCain. "He had the gall yesterday to tell me that because I don't agree with his plan, I must not be sympathetic to poor people. This is at the same time as he is proposing hundreds of millions of dollars in tax breaks for corporate interests, for the wealthiest Americans."
This is a typical Obama statement. Instead of addressing how his plan is better, he just doesn't give what his plan is and changes direction.
Oh.. wait..
"There's a problem, everybody's upset about gas prices. Let's fund some short-term, quick-fix so we can say we did something, even though we didn't do anything," Obama said. He argued that reducing consumption and increasing the use of alternative fuels represent real long-term solutions to rising gasoline and diesel fuel prices.
His plan is the same as everyone else's. Figure out how to reduce consumption and use more alternative fuels. Not original, and those things will take years. What's wrong with some short-term thing? What's wrong with a variety of short-term solutions to help us not-so-rich people? For 98% of Americans, $30 here, $20 there, $50 over there can make a difference.
So, Mr. Obama, I'll wait for my $30 from you since that's such a piddly amount.
UPDATE: I had gone to the Obama website, and sent an email asking for $30, since it's no big deal to Obama. Of course, I know I wouldn't get it, or that the email would even be read. However, by sending an email on their web form, you apparently get subscribed to their mailings (There is no way to not have this happen on the form, or any verbiage that it does happen). Anyways, today I get an email from "Barack" asking for a $25 donation. So, let me get this straight.. $30 in our pockets is no big deal, but we should send him $25. Just ask many people sending him $25 makes a difference (to HIM), $30 in all our pockets would make a different (to US).
Funny, I was just thinking this two days ago. I thought I heard something about the gov't talking to oil companies about all the money they are making off us, and thought "Well, so is the government. They should stop taxing gas for a while." It would be good if they do this, as I cringe when I go to the gas station these days.
I also wondered what would happen if we ('we' as the US, or "Western" nations) said "We'll only play $75/barrel of oil." We all know there is really no reason for these high oil prices, aside that we keep paying it. I'd think $75/barrel is probably reasonable, so that's what we should pay. What would happen? They won't sell to us? We could use our reserves, while the fact that we aren't buying boosts supply, which would naturally lower prices. Crazy thought, but I'm not really sure it wouldn't ultimately make prices lower. This scenario would never happen, but I think it could work!
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-01-voa63.cfm
It's funny, since nobody cares about Tibet until there is violence there. Once people get hurt, suddenly lawmakers care. Or, do they? I don't think so, it's the latest cause of the week, but they really don't care. If they did, they would have done something in the decades since China occupied Tibet.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html
*sniff* What's that? *sniff* I smell something *sniff* Oh, that's bullshit I smell. It's very convenient for him that he already did retire, and was going to retire when the mainstream media picked this story up. Because, he sure didn't leave the church in the time before he retired and the story broke.
Novel idea, eh? Bush didn't collaborate much, Obama wants to talk to enemies and McCain want to talk with allies.
Great article.
Today I heard a clip of Obama speaking on the anniversary of the Iraq War and saying how the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I and World War II. What he didn't mention was:
Civil War: 600,000 people died (2% of the population). Many of those people died because of the opposition to slavery. Something he, nor his buddy Pastor Wright mention.
World War I: Globally, 20 million dead, 21 million wounded. The USA had 116,708 military deaths.
World War II: 416,800 US military deaths, with total deaths estimated in upwards of 70 million. The attack on Pearl Harbor alone took around 2,350 lives.
Vietnam War: Although he didn't mention Vietnam, there were 58,209 US deaths.
Korean War: Again, not mentioned, but 36,516 dead.
US deaths, as of now, in Iraq is around 4,000. 9/11 took the lives of 2,998. I'm not saying that the war in Iraq is being "well run" because of what's really a relatively low number of deaths for a war. But, I am saying that you shouldn't spew out rhetoric on the duration of a war, when in reality, that war hasn't had as many deaths as any you compare it against.
So, using these stats in contrast to what Obama said, the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the Civil War, World War I and World War II. However, there has currently been only 3.2% of the deaths in WWI, .92% of WWII, and .65% of the Civil War.
So, Obama, why a longer war against unconventional fighters with the mentality to blow themselves up, but so fewer deaths than all the other wars? And, with an estimated 14,700 insurgent/militia deaths.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4480868&page=1
For so long, if he said it was raining on a sunny day, they would say to grab an umbrella. If it were snowing outside and he said it was warm, they would say to put some shorts on. Is this finally the time Obama stops being the media darling? Was his "historic" speech, filled with spin and curiosity, finally what will get people to realize he's probably not the person to be in the Oval Office? For someone who wants to be a "uniter", his lack of judgment for choosing an anti-America, anti-unity church and pastor is astounding. Do you really want a lapse in judgment choose any Supreme Court justices?
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/03/14/playing_by_obamas_rules
I was thinking about the situation with the statements given by Geraldine Ferraro:
"If Obama was a white man he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up with the concept."
Obama, said about the remarks:
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd," he told the Allentown Morning Call. "And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign they shouldn't have a place in Senator Clinton's either."
People got all upset, said she's injecting race (which is injected anyways), and people generally weren't happy. But, why? I guess I couldn't understand what the hubbub is about this. He is where he is because he's black, isn't he? Black voters are out in force voting for him, because he's black. Romney won Utah because he's Mormon, Huckabee won the bible belt because he's evangelical. Clinton gets some female voters because she a woman. Obviously, Obama gets votes because he's black.
Don't get me wrong, I think Obama is a fantastic speaker (if I said he's articulate, then I too may be called racist). He's someone who can pump people up, and he seems like someone people would want to follow. I do believe this has indeed helped him as well. However, being that his support has grown while having no real policy to speak of, it can't all be that he's a great orator (there are some great orators in history who ended up having some pretty bad policies).
Anyways, I have to say I agree with Buchanan on this one. I don't think what Ferraro said was "wrong". In a sense, it's hard to say it's not right. I don't really care, but I do care that you can't seem to say anything negative about Obama without then being called a racist. But, I'll wager if he lost to McCain, people would be all about saying it's because he's black.
For me, white, black, male, female.. I don't care. I just want someone who's not going to tax me to death, and take the country in a good direction.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gSu1RI33g5jZfU8YAz7ZFmoPbb7AD8VCTJ200
Democrats in both House and Senate pressed ahead with budget plans that would saddle millions of Americans with higher tax bills in three years by allowing some or all of President Bush's reductions to die after he leaves office.
Thanks Congress! You Democrats are sure doing some fine work since taking over. And, if Clinton or (especially) Obama end up in office, expect more taxes. In fact, I wouldn't doubt it if employers just send your paycheck right to the government, and they just send you whatever is left for you to spend, which you'd again be taxed, of course.
I think, not including property tax and school taxes which I put into an escrow, about $.33 of every dollar I earn goes to either federal/state (withholding) taxes, or sales tax. That means, I need to make $1.50 to buy something which costs $1. Maybe in 3 years, that'll be up to $1.80! Unfortunately, it won't be because I'm in a new tax bracket.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/10/paterson.bio/
As not to focus on race, I'll point out he'll be the first BLIND governor. Which, I think, is more interesting than his blackness. If he were also gay, and Jewish, this could become a banner day for various minorities!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/07/obama_team_charges_double_stan.html
So, I'm confused here (surprise!). In this interview, an Obama adviser basically says that Obama may not pull troops out of Iraq in 16 months. I recall, a few times, hearing him say that and being quite proud of himself for saying so (many cheers occur when he says it). In fact, I think a lot of anti-win people have flocked to him because of that.
BBC:Ok, so the 16 months is negotiable?
POWER: It's the best case scenario.
BBC: It's the best case scenario.
POWER: It is -
BBC: And of course in Iraq we've never seen best case scenario.
POWER: We have never seen best case scenario
BBC: So we needn't necessarily take it seriously at all.
POWER: What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out as quickly and as responsibly as possible. And that's the best case, estimate of what it would take.
But, this is on Obama's website:
That pretty much states what I've heard him say.. "I'm in office, 16 months later we're out of Iraq." Is it that now he's be back-peddling on that, since it shows he is inflexible an unadaptive, or is his website misleading and disingenuous? Or, is he really inflexible, and unadaptive?
A Democratic line is emerging about Sen. John McCain that is voiced daily by Sen. Obama (and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton) in the presidential campaign. "Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq," Obama says, "which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House." Or more directly, as Obama told a Houston audience, McCain "says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq."
I'm not saying here if I'm agreeing with McCain (however, I am a man of logic and sense), but about what the author of this opinion points out. Almost daily, and surely even more often as the general election closes in, we will hear Clinton (hopefully) or Obama (God help us) take what McCain said out of context. And, the problem is, in the case of Obama, people just seem to listen to him like he's a prophet and eat up whatever he says. If he said he likes eating shit burritos, Taco Bell would be serving them tomorrow, and the line of sheep would round the corner (I'm no Obama fan.. again.. logic and sense. Neither of which tell me he'd be a good President in the current state of the world and his wet-behind-the-ear track record).
Anyways, what McCain really said was:
On Jan. 3 in Derry, N.H., a voter prefaced a question to McCain by saying, "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years ..." Here, McCain cut him off, interjecting, "Make it a hundred."
The voter tried to continue his question, but McCain pressed on: "We've been in ... Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It's fine with me, I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day."
McCain is NOT talking about having a WAR IN IRAQ for 100 years. He's talking about a presence there. Just as we have in other countries for the same reason we'd have one there. So, what Obama repeats over and over is simply not true. McCain doesn't want the war to go on for 100 years like Obama wants you to believe (and people do). And, he isn't crying for us to leave South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy and other countries which we stayed at after the wars.
And, he's also right about (most) Americans not caring how long we are there, as long as Americans aren't being harmed or injured. You know you don't care. If you did, you'd be able to name every country we have troops in, and you know you can't. Why? Because if nobody is being hurt, you don't care.
What everyone does care about is Americans (or anyone) being injured in Iraq, right now. But, that's a different topic on policy.
This sort of goes along with what I just said. People listen to others endorsements (I guess), but then they can just switch. Either you support person A over B until A is no longer a factor and B is your only choice, or you don't say you support anyone. Going from A to B shows your decisions must be based on something other than policy. I don't believe Clinton has changed her policy ideas since John Lewis originally supported her. So, he now swings his support because people in his district do? Sounds pretty lame and fishy to me.
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=78922
With any question of a possible run for the White House now firmly laid to rest, the question remains who Mayor Michael Bloomberg will endorse in the upcoming general election.
An endorsement from the mayor could possibly steer a wealth of independent voters toward his chosen candidate, perhaps even propelling that candidate toward victory.
Do people really really care about who endorses who? I've now been voting for some time, in every local election, primary and presidential race.. and never ever thought "Oh, [some well known person] likes so-and-so, so they must be the right choice!" No, I do it the old fashioned way and listen to what they say, try to cut out the bullshit, look at records, and try to research as much as I can. But, I've never been moved towards anyone, or away from anyone, when someone endorses them.
Do people really do this? Did anyone swing from Clinton to Obama when Oprah endorsed him? I really hope not. I hope people listen and read and don't care about who is supporting who.
Are there really independent voters sitting around saying "Well, I'll decide when Bloomberg says who he likes. I like who he likes. *baaaaaa*"
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-usnader0224,0,6060514.story
Gotta agree with her. He basically ruined the election for Gore, and people will surely again throw their votes away on him this time. For someone who, likely, would rather see the Democrats take the White House, it seems pretty egotistical for him to again enter the race. One of two things can happen; it'll not mean a thing, or he can take just enough votes away (again) to lose the election for someone who could actually win. Anyone who would vote for Nader would either not otherwise vote, or vote for the Democratic candidate.
But, depending on who the Democratic candidate will be, it may not be a bad thing.
The Associated Press: McCain Faces Conservative Test
I hear a whole lot of talk about how conservative Republicans don't like McCain since he isn't conservative enough, since he's more of a moderate. And, I hear talk about how he has to win over these more right-wing people. But, I think.. why? Chances are he'll get the nomination, not the more favorable to the less-moderates, Romney. So, what exactly would the conservatives do? Vote for the Democratic candidate? You may say "Well, they just will stay home and not vote", but in the general election, that's like voting for the Democratic candidate. When you don't vote for someone who can win (like all you people who voted for Nader), it's essentially not voting. You may feel warm and fuzzy for doing you civic duty, but you really help the person who you'd rather NOT win.
Do right wing conservatives really want to see Clinton or Obama in the White House? Of course not! I guess I don't see what the issue really is. I think these people will vote for the Republican candidate. That's what they do, they vote for the party, not the person. And, they know not vote they don't cast is a vote for the other party. If the general election turnout is anything like the most recent primaries, the Republicans have to start car pooling to the polls or the Democrats would win based on turnout alone.
Any more conservative folks who don't like McCain out there? What's the reality of the situation? Would you stay home, or vote for McCain? Shouldn't McCain be spending more time trying to get undecideds and moderate Democrats to swing his way, instead of the hard-core people in his own party?
(I don't expect an answer, or one to my Obama question.. but one day I'll look back and know I at least posed these questions)
Can someone explain to me why they want Obama as President? Honestly, I can't figure it out. When I hear him speak, I hear a lot of "change" rhetoric, but I believe you hear that from someone every time there is an election. Someone wants to change the "status quo of the broken government in Washington." It's always "broken" and someone will always "fix it". But, why *really* vote for Obama?
My main issue with him is that I don't think he's ready to be President in the current state of the world (in 2000, maybe.. but not 2008). Here is a quick list of 10 very large, very important, issues the next President will need to be able to juggle on day 1 (no particular order, and the list is not complete).
1. Iraq
2. Iran
3. N. Korea
4. Strained relations with Russia
5. Oil prices
6. Global terrorism
7. Healthcare
8. Recession, maybe recession? At least, the falling dollar.
9. Border control
10. Illegal immigration.
But, the list can certainly go on...
11. Israel/Palestine (different than usual as Hamas has some control)
12. Lebenon
13. "Global warming"
14. The housing "crisis"
15. Hugo Chavez
And, of course, it could go on...
16. Possible death of Castro
17. China getting even stronger
18. India/Pakistan
19. Afghanistan
20. Deficit
It could go on, but those are some of the major issues of right now. On day 1, the next President needs to get to work on almost all of them (16, 17 and 18, maybe not day 1). How do people really believe Obama will be able to handle these issues? Is his draw really the fact that he wants to pull us out of Iraq? If so, what's his plan for the impending intensified war between the Sunni, Shia and Kurds when that happens? The unfettered Iranian and Syrian influence that will happen?
I'm sorry, but I really don't see that he's ready for the job. Not withstanding the fact I may not agree with his politics, even if I did, I don't know that he can really do it.
I did read his website. Not all the issues, but some of them. Most I don't see an actual plan laid out. A lot of "Obama will fix XYZ", but nothing detailed as to how. What I did see that I didn't like was this, in his "plan" for Iraq:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.
That right there shows a pretty naive view of the Iraq situation. What if things deteriorate while this "plan" is in action? Will he still remove the troops, or keep them there? What happens if some are right, and as soon as we're gone (or enough gone) what's left of us is slaughtered because the opposition knew in advance when to plan for it? I simply don't like this "plan", and don't see any indication that Obama knows he may have to keep this plan adaptable to the real-world situation on the ground.
The 'Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile' section also seems a bit naive. These people have hated eachother for ages. All many of them know is hatred of eachother. It's not just a regional thing, it's a deep rooted religious difference. This isn't the US, where a Christian and Jew can agree to share something, this is where nobody wants to give an inch, because it would show "weakness", even if it were the right thing to do. It's a culture we don't understand logically, and it's a mindset so engrained that "pressing" anyone doesn't seem like a working strategy. Not to mention it seems like these people don't like being "pressed" by the West. They don't want us meddling, and I think that's somewhat clear. We should support things, and the pressing should be done by countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey.
So, Obama supporters, 'splain it to me. What do you see in him beyond being a good orator and saying "change" many times? How do you feel that in today's world he is really the best person to handle all these major issues in tandem? Assuming you vote for a party and not a person, why do you think he could do it better than Clinton?
U.S. Senator Wants to Revoke Funding From City of Berkeley, Calif., for Vote to Boot Marines
This is something that bugs me about far-from-center liberals. They have the rights they have, and the rights to fight for more rights because of people like the Marines. Code Pink, who the city is essentially helping antagonize the Marines, only can exist because of the brave service men and women through history. These are the same people who if, God forbid, had a terrorist attack or natural disaster in their town would raise hell if the military wasn't there to help.
C'mon people. Just because you don't agree with Iraq (you know that's the issue here), doesn't mean you should disrupt a military office or try to kick them out. That's the thing about war, you can't always pick and choose which ones you like. You have to take the good with the bad. If China were invading us, you'd hope there were plenty of Marines. If Americans were taken hostage somewhere, you'd want Marines. So, what's your problem?
And, I think I agree with Sen. Jim DeMint. If you want to kick out a federal office, then you may not deserve some federal money. People forget where they came from, how they got there, and who did it for them.
Giuliani fights political fall in Florida - CNN.com
It was a pretty bad move for Rudy to ignore the other primaries. He put all his eggs in one basket, and polls show it may bite him in the ass. I'm no politician, but I do know you can't visit every home in a state to talk to people. I also know that taking part in primaries gets you free air-time in the media, and helps rally people around you. So, while Rudy was in the Sunshine State, everyone got to see more of McCain, Romney and Huckabee. Now, his leads has fallen, and he may be lucky to take 2nd or 3rd in the FL primary.
On a side note, anyone who pays attention knows that "9/11" is constantly coming out of Rudy's mouth. So much so, that it's pretty annoying and is on the cusp of being a drinking game during debates. I thought this Daily Show clip was pretty funny.
I watch debates, interviews, etc... and here's how I sum up the candidates for anyone not paying attention. Here's how I think they would sum themselves up in a quote.
Republicans:
Guliani: "I was the mayor of NYC during 9/11. Really, I was the mayor of NYC."
Romney: "I, like a greek god, saved the Olympics."
Paul: "Welfare state.. did I say 'welfare state' enough?"
Thompson: "You're not Reagan enough."
Huckabee: "I did good in Arkansas."
McCain: "I backed the surge when nobody else did, and will keep giving this creepy grin after everything I say. *grin*"
Democrats:
Edwards: "Working class!! Oi Oi Oi!"
Obama: "Even though during every election people say there needs to be change, I will bring change. Like everyone else did, but different. Sort of a change in the way change is usually changing things. I.. will.. bring.. change"
Clinton: "I have experience, and my speech writers will tell you what it is."
Gravel: "Hello? Anyone there?"
Kucinich: "I'm here Gravel!"
Probably one of the funniest non-spoof ads I've seen from a candidate in a while. Not to mention.. Chuck Norris!
Spitzer Drops Bid to Offer Licenses More Widely - New York Times
Good. This was a stupid idea. Why you'd give anything like this (which is a gov't issued ID and we all know what pays for these things.. taxes) to illegals was beyond me.
VOA News - Iran Denounces New US Sanctions
But Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized the U.S. decision during a visit to Lisbon, Portugal. He said the sanctions threaten to make the situation worse.
Really? Do you really thing Vlad cares? I don't know about that. He visited Iran last week, and I have a feeling Bush waited until he spoke to Vlad about these sanctions before having them announced. After all, I can't think of any reason to announce them today, as opposed to any other except Bush and Vlad talking about it. Vlad has to be all nice with Iran, they owe him money, are from the same region, and he needs to keep up his anti-US rhetoric.
I mean, what will it make worse? Iran hasn't stopped anything as it is. The only thing punishing Iran at all is sanctions. Plus, I think this is more because of them helping the Taliban and fighters in Iraq than the nuclear issue. The nuclear issue is a back-room-meeting situation right now. Even if Iran wanted to halt activity, they won't if it just looks like they are because of US pressure. They don't want to seem that weak.
Al Jazeera English - News - Pkk Fighters 'Offer Turkey Truce'
"We are ready for a ceasefire if the Turkish army stops attacking our positions, drops plans for an incursion and resorts to peace," a statement from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) said on Monday.
Sooooo.. "we're ready to stop attacking you if you stop your plans to attack us back, and stop shooting back at us. We didn't expect that you would plan to attack us back, so we want a ceasefire."
Pelosi's judgment questioned over Armenia issue | U.S. | Reuters
I said before this was really a stupid thing. And, Pelosi wanting to push for a vote was the Stupid Cherry on top of the Stupid Cake.
President George W. Bush warned the symbolic resolution to affirm the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide would harm Washington's relations with Ankara. But as long as it looked like it would pass, Pelosi stuck to her guns.
Her tone changed a bit as it lost some support. But, this is a good example of how some Dems really don't seem to "get" the war of terror, or our need to succeed in Iraq and that region. Turkey is a key ally for us, and a needed country. Maybe the push to piss them off was a strategy to undermine the war in Iraq? Either they didn't care about the likely repercussions of bothering with this useless resolution, which would be ignoring the importance of Turkey to us, or they were just too stupid to notice. In either case, it's all just plan stupid.
And, after all.. who the hell are we to determine if that was genocide or not? What the hell business is it of ours? It's a perfectly fine topic for college classrooms and places for us to debate if we want (who really wants to?), but not for our government to quibble over, and certainly not for them to vote on.
I think the biggest enemy of the Democratic party right now is the Democratic party. They were voted in because people wanted a change, and wanted to send a message to the Republican controlled government. But, I don't think this new government has done squat. No Iraq timetable (which personally, I think is stupid but that was a big part of the platform and certainly why they got many votes), gas prices still rising, healthcare is the same, borders are still porous, etc... Maybe I forgot something I read, but I don't know what they have done. Anyone? Beuller?
VOA News - China Says US Award for Dalai Lama Gravely Undermines Relations
Oh, and sending our kids lead painted toys doesn't? Why don't you shut up?! Keep your wolf tickets for something people will pay attention to.
Al Jazeera English - News - China Snubs Us Over Dalai Lama
China has pulled out of an international meeting on Iran to protest against the US giving the Dalai Lama an award, a US state department official says.
Waaaaahhh... you like Johnny and I don't so I'm taking my lead painted toys and going home!
Is it me, or are more news stories about who has more money, ads, celebrity friends, fundraising, web ads, etc... than actual stances on issues? I think I see 10 who-cares headlines to every 1 saying what someone is lying going to not really do when in office.
Pelosi says she'll press on with Armenian 'genocide' resolution - CNN.com
Yeah.. push on with it. Who cares that NOT pushing on with it would not do anything because nobody really cares, and you have better things to do but pushing on with it DOES hurt relations with a good ally.
Sometimes, you need to know when to drop something, and this is one of those times.
"There's never been a good time," [Pelosi] adding that it is important to pass the resolution now "because many of the survivors are very old."
And, soon they will be dead and not have to live through any political and diplomatic aftermath of your stupid decisions.
QUICK!! Condemn Germany a few more times for Hitler before all WWII era people die!!
VOA News - US Congressional Committee Approves Armenian Genocide Resolution
Not much else going on for Congressional Committees to do. It's even a "non binding" resolution. So, it's basically a group of elected officials saying that a bunch of Armenians killed about a century ago was genocide. Not much else for these guys to talk about, eh?
Has any Dem said anything different to this yet?
Top Five Republican Gay Sex Scandals
I have nothing against Republicans, sex, or gays... but it is kind of amusing how many Republican sex scandals are not only of the "same plumbing" variety, but they are usually done by people who publicly appear anti-gay.
Edwards challenges Coulter for wishing her husband dead and raises cash for campaign
I'm no fan of Ann Coulter. In fact, when I hear her name mentioned, I throw up in my mouth a little. But, what I see being done regarding her comment on John Edwards by the (liberal) media, it's just partisan spin. Here is what she said:
And, here is how the media is saying it:
The wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has embarked on a campaign to silence Ms. Coulter after the bestselling author told ABC's Good Morning America she hoped the White House contender would be killed by terrorist assassins.
She didn't say she hoped he'd be killed. She didn't say she wished him dead, or even to have a bad head cold. She was making a comment and (bad) joke on what Bill Maher once said about Cheney, and got no flack about it from the (liberal) media.
Again, I'm not a fan of Ann Coulter, but this blatant spin is annoying.
Congressman: Cheney challenges classified oversight - CNN.com
Vice President Dick Cheney's office refused to cooperate with an agency that oversees classified documents, then tried to abolish the office when it challenged the actions, House oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman said.
I wish that when I went to an expensive restaurant, and didn't want to pay my bill, I could abolish the restaurant. Or, when the IRS wants money from me, I abolish it. Of course, I haven't shot any of my friends in the face before, so I guess Cheney has that going for him.
I'm not sure what Harry Reid is smoking, but there is no such thing as an "undocumented American". Who he's referring to, and using a dangerous term to refer to, are NOT Americans, and are "illegal immigrants".
Maybe he meant "undocumented workers" (which I'd think he'll come out and say he meant). However, he's still not talking about "undocumented workers". That would be someone who is just paid under the table and doesn't pay taxes. The context of the debate is immigration, and those "undocumented" people are "illegal immigrants", not Joe Schmoe day-worker being paid under the table, and not someone who is American.
Obama finds easy target in auto firms | Chicago Tribune
"While our fuel standards haven't moved from 27.5 miles per gallon in two decades, both China and Japan have surpassed us, with Japanese cars now getting an average of 45 miles to the gallon," Obama said.
Huh? No they aren't. The Prius does, but that shouldn't be factored into any MPG average anyways, since it's a hybrid. That'd be like averaging in motorcycles or mopeds. And, as the article states, the 27.5MPG standard was set by the government (which Obama is a part of), not automakers, or the aliens which must have 45MPG cars.
I don't think 27.5 MPG is all too bad. It's the price per gallon which is. I'd rather see gas prices drop than MPG rise. Unless there is some free-to-upgrade motor, new cars having higher MPG ratings means nothing to those of us who won't be buying the new cars.
Obama should get to the bottom of why gas prices appear to be rising for no reason right now, and do something towards reversing that. Don't worry about MPG for cars which don't yet exist, and the majority of Americans won't be buying anytime soon after they do exist.
U.S. Democratic leader says Iraq war "lost"
"Now I believe ... this war is lost, and that the surge (U.S. troop increase in Iraq) is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said at a press conference.
Have you ever heard our enemy say their cause was "lost", or their battle was "lost"? I haven't. You know why? Because you DON'T SAY THAT. I mean, really.. I'm no politician, and no war strategist, but I'm pretty sure you don't announce to the world that you have lost the war, while you're still fighting it. It doesn't take Sun Tzu to figure that out.
I really wish the Dems would STFU, and stop politicizing the war. Or, at least, stop saying how we're "losing" every day and instead, oh.. I don't know.. come up with some ideas to NOT LOSE. I haven't heard of any, have you? Just a lot of nay-saying and talk which is only propaganda for the enemy.
The Saratogian - NAACP: Housing in Saratoga is a racial issue
"There is no denying it any longer," Blanton [local NAACP president] wrote. "Those in power and influence have demonstrated a commitment to maintaining the current social, economic and housing characteristics within the city and are not to be
persuaded by the moral or compelling public purpose that affordable housing serves."
Right. Those in power like the un-ghettoness of the area. They like having a community of (a majority of) non-welfare, gainfully employed, middle (and way up) class people, high property values and a good, safe, standard of living for their citizens. HOW DARE THEY!!! They should be doing whatever they can to introduce more poor people into the environment.
"What are we going to do to make sure poor people, low-income people, and moderate-income people have housing in the city of Saratoga?" he asks.
Nothing! It's a pretty stupid question to ask. When someone comes up to you and asks "How to we make sure POOR PEOPLE can living in your neighborhood?" you kick them in the shin. Unless you are homeless, where poor people would raise the standard of living, nobody wants poor people in their area. Let's face it, it doesn't do much for a city (I still chuckle that they call Saratoga a "city"). South Florida, for example. As areas became more "integrated" and more "socio-economically" mixed, they became the LESS integrated and "socio-economically" mixed they became over time.
Ok.. so since this is an NAACP guy, poor people not being able to live in a middle to upper class city HAS to be racism.
"If you exclude classes of people, obviously there are a significant number of people of color who can't afford to live here," Stanley [VP of Saratoga NAACP] said.
So, why is he focusing on where they can afford to live, instead of ways to help them afford it? Job training, edumacation, skills training, etc... Don't whine that people want their area to keep a nice standard of living, and don't want to risk having much "low cost housing". Instead, concentrate on raising people standards of living so they don't NEED low cost housing.
And, this area isn't exactly "color"-ful. There are probably more lost-income white people than those of "color". The low income black families are likely the minority of the minority of low-income families. So, it's not a racist issue, it's a "If you want to live where I live, work hard and earn it" issue.
Blair escalates pressure on Iran to release sailors - Los Angeles Times
"What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released, and that there is absolutely no justification for holding them," Blair said.
"I hope we manage to get them to realize that they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase," he said.
He didn't say what "different phase" meant. Maybe it means "resolutions" saying Iran did a bad thing. Then, bringing to the U.N. so they can also have "resolutions" saying Iran is a bad boy. We all know nobody will do anything but yap their gums. And, Iran knows this as well. Between oil and the nuke program, Iran can basically do what they want, since we know nobody will do squat to actually make them be a good neighbor.
Chavez says Venezuelan aid to Latin America surpasses U.S. - International Herald Tribune
So, Chavez says how Venezuala, a Latin American country, gives more aid to Latin America than the US does. Good for you. Is this supposed to somehow offend us? We're still the #1 aid donor in the world, which no Latin American country will ever be able to say. I'd be much happier if more countries gave more aid to those in their own neighborhood so we can keep our money in-country. I guess he wants to drum up popularity in Latin America, but.. you know.. it's Latin America. No offense or anything, but that's not America.
Iran asks to address Security Council
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has asked to address the U.N. Security Council to defend Tehran's nuclear programmes, the president of the 15-member body said on Thursday.
Odd, since just hours earlier Ahmadork said the Security Council was "illegitimate". Is this showing his true feelings about what's happening? With his rhetoric will he end up being like N. Korea and stomping his feet all these months, but then just want to make a deal?
So, what is it? An illegitimate body or one you need to speak to? Can't be both, now can it?
VOA News - McCain Enters US 2008 Presidential Race
I must be the only one who thought he already did this! I was surprised today to learn he entered the race, since I thought he had about a year ago.
KWTX | Debate On War Resolution Nears End; Vote Scheduled Friday
It's not healthcare, Social Security, National Security or even a debate and resolution on which Dallas Cowboy cheerleader they think is hotter. No, it's an even larger waste of time. Debate and voting on a resolution which does nothing.
Get over it people.. and start living in the present doing things towards helping the future. What's next? Debating for a resolution that they rebuke the decision to drop nukes on Japan? Maybe there would be time for that, if you were working the full 5 days of the promised "5 day work week" we heard about.
Ban iPods, cellphones when crossing the street: NY senator
State Senator Carl Kruger on Wednesday will introduce legislation that would allow officers to fine people crossing the street while chatting on a cellphone, using a Blackberry or listening to an MP3 player in New York City or Buffalo.
I live in neither NYC or Buffalo, but that doesn't mean the same legislation wouldn't come to.. well, anywhere. I really hope this one dies. It's stupid. First, I don't think anyone should be told you can't use anything on a public street. Second, if you are stupid enough to walk into traffic without paying attention.. then Darwinism is at work when you get hit and killed by the oncoming bus you didn't notice because you were too busy trying to get that Tetris on your Razr while crossing the street.
Krueger says the government has a responsibility to protect citizens.
How would Kruger "protect" the deaf who have to cross the street? Mentally handicapped? The little old lady with a walker and a broken hearing aid?
What a load of crap. Carl Kruger is from the Brooklyn area, and I think he could likely be spending his, and the State Senate's time with something a little more productive.
Democrats move to condemn Bush plan for troop buildup - CNN.com
I say build them up. I'd throw as many troops there as we can afford to do. Wake up people, we need manpower to help and train the Iraqi's to handle this stuff themselves. That's the point of the buildup.. HELP and TRAIN. I don't understand why people want us to just get out of Iraq. What'll happen then? I'll tell you... people who would be happy to slice you, your children and your mom from pelvis to throat with a dull knife will be in control of the country, and the oil riches. Southern Iraq will be an Iranian year-round training camp for anti-Western (not just anti-US) terrorists. Radical Islam will thrive freely and any chance of Democracy will fail.
I do think the Iraqi's need to start handling their own business, but we really need to do whatever we can to make sure they can do it. This isn't about if we should have invaded Iraq, if you agreed, if you didn't agree, if you're elected official voted for it then and now wishes they didn't, if you think the war was a vendetta, for oil or whatever. We ARE there, and we need to make sure Iraq doesn't become the old Afghanistan, times 10. And, we sure aren't going to accomplish this with fewer troops. I say, give it a chance.
Is it right for a single woman to send a nation's sons to war? - World - Times Online
Personally, I don't think a non-parent can understand the loss of a child or the sacrifice. Hell, I sometimes don't even like watching TV shows with sick kids on it since I became a parent. But, is it right for a single woman to send "sons" to war? Sure. Listen, we're a volunteer army. So, wherever the President would send them is where they should go, no matter marital status, parent status or gender. If you don't want to go to war, don't join the military. Going to war is part of the job description, and agreeing with the cause is moot.
Nato accused over Afghan deaths
I am happy that I finally can see a headline that isn't blaming America or Zionists for something happening in the Middle East.
Reuters AlertNet - Saddam hanging could have been "more dignified"
I'm not exactly sure what anyone expected with Saddam's execution. The Iraqi's have proven themselves to be somewhat barbaric. These are the people who cut off heads with knives, line up and shoot people in the streets and will protest and kill eachother when a fly lands on the wrong grave 100 miles away. So, what did anyone expect for the execution? I'm surprised they didn't cut off one of his ears first.
Ahmadinejad suffers election blow
Iranian President Ahmadork seems to have just experienced what Bush did. In many local elections Iranians voted in moderates. It may seem that they don't care for his anti-Western and anti-Semitism rhetoric as much as he may think.
Maybe it's time he and Bush have a talk to discuss the ways to turn your country people away from you. They now have something in common!
We'll be hearing the president saying he looks forward to working with the Dems, and he'll have all these good positive spins. But, you know in private he's not too happy, at all.
The funny thing here is that if Bush listened to the people, things would be different. He has said over and over that he doesn't pay attention to polls. Yet, the polls have been telling him that people aren't happy with his performance, or with what's going in in Iraq. He doesn't care about the polls, and just has wanted to "stay the course" and now it's bit him on the ass.
When the polls give you dismal numbers, you really need to pay attention. Mrs. Cheney was on O'Reilly the other night and when he asked her about this, she said "[they] believe what they are doing is right". This is ignoring that the majority of Americans believe it's wrong. If they weren't so arrogant, and listened to what the people/polls were saying, such a large switch in Congress probably wouldn't have just happened.
I hope other countries take note on this. Especially, the Middle Eastern ones. This is what happens in a Democracy. When the leader refuses to listen to the people, the people can then basically say "Screw you, sir.. now let's see if you'll listen."
Voting Machines Woes Cause Early Delays - Forbes.com
I'm against electronic voting machines. Here in my town we use the Wizard of Oz kind. Those are the old school ones where you putt a big handle and the curtain surrounds you, and you have little levers which display red arrows for your choices. I guess these aren't too bad, although I don't know their inner workings. I don't like the touchscreen ones at all. The 'scantron' like optical ones, are OK. But, nothing beats a punch card, hand counted election.
I know all of these methods can have issues, and be fooled/hacked/wrong. But, when you physically put a mark on a piece of paper, it can be tallied in multiple ways. Be it automatic via a machine, or by human eyes. The touch screens don't allow this. There is no way to know what the voters intent was, only what the machine records as the vote.. which may not be what the voter intended or even saw marked on the touch screen. This means you can't audit intent vs. counted like you can with punch cards and bubble forms. With those, you can let a machine count it, then you can also audit by hand.
If I were an election official and needed to use touch screens or optical readers, this is how I would try to validate them.
I would have a sample set of fake votes (well, test votes) where I know the result. If it's for an optical reader, then I'd fill in the forms. If it were touch screen, then I'd make a lot of votes to store on the memory card (which can be hacked, but let's assume it hasn't been). This sample set would be made via an independent party, so nobody involved with the voting knows how the results should turn out. I'd then have the machine count the results of my sample set before counting election votes. If it comes out as I'd expect, I'd run the real votes. Then, I'd re-run my sample set. If my sample sets both came out correct, I'd certify the results. If they didn't, then I'd go into recount mode.
Not perfect, but if nobody who could hack/alter a machine knows the results of the sample set, it could help verify that the machines are working properly. Or, better yet, stop using machines and just use paper ballots which are hand counted.
I'm not sure why I don't generally say who I voted for. I generally don't vote along party lines, although sometimes I do. I'd like a change in Congress, but am not too sure I like the very-liberal Nancy Pelosi having the Speaker of the House position. Of course, Newt, who is probably the polar opposite of Nancy, had it and the world didn't implode. But, with the Republican controlled D.C., the world is sort of imploding, isn't it?
Make sure you vote tomorrow. It's the only thing you can do which allows you to complain later on.
Think Progress � Bush: ‘We’ve Never Been Stay The Course’
Bush seems to forget that what he says is documented so the whole "Nope, didn't say that" thing won't work. I wonder if his now change in course is because of poll numbers, which he has repeatedly said he doesn't pay attention to.
UPDATE: Found this on YouTube.
Hastert blames troubles on Dems, ABC News - MarketWatch
Next week, he'll blame the Jews... then bin Laden.. oh, maybe then he can blame the blacks! It's not HIS fault he didn't follow up on the odd behaviour he knew about Rep. Mark Foley.