My apologies, everyone. It has come to my attention that my previous post was chock full of punctuation errors, due largely to my terrible, terrible formatting. Oh well. If I were not being lazy right now, I'd go back and fix it. Now, on to other business.
Last month, the Missouri Information Analysis Center released a report on how to identify domestic terrorists involved in militia movements. The report contained a controversial passage that stated that such people usually identify with third party political candidates, and mentioned Libertarian Bob Barr, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, and Republican Ron Paul.
Obviously, many libertarian-minded people took offense with being lumped in with the Tim McVeighs of the world. The whole thing caused a bit of an uproar among conservative commentators, and after pressure from the public and Missouri state officials, the report was recently retracted, with apologies issued to the candidates mentioned.
I mention this, obviously, for its ridiculousness and for the fact that I'm a little insulted (only a little though). I also mention it for the fact that a staff member of the Campaign for Liberty, the organization that grew out of the Ron Paul campaign, was recently detained at security checkpoint for carrying a large amount of cash. He had the cash because he was returning from an event they had where merchandise was sold and donations were accepted. They wanted to know why he had the cash, and he was reluctant to tell them. The key to all this is that he was flying out of St. Louis, MISSOURI. The great thing is that the sly little fellow covertly recorded the entire confrontation with his cell phone.
Honestly, I don't think any of them handled the situation all that well. I can understand Mr. Bierfeldt's hesitation to reveal his employment, and I can understand the cops' frustration with the situation, but seriously, you've got to let people know their rights. This reminds me of Alex's traffic stop. But that's a story for another day, from somebody else!
Seriously though, Missouri: ...and, I just checked, still not a terrorist!
...as does most ranting of the insane. This goes for crazy liberals too... I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews!
This is not to say that I despise all pundits who dare take a position. You know who I'm talking about. I'm talking about the Rush Limbaughs, the Michael Moores, the Bill O'Reillies, the Al Frankens of this world. (The fact that he might be a senator in a few weeks is terrifying). What sickens me about these people is not their political stance, I support a wide variety of positions in the media. What I can't support though, is the fact that most of them rely not on presentation of evidence and analysis of said evidence, they rely on sensationalism and rumor. I suppose I'm just harping on the whole thing with Obama again, where people were afraid he was a Muslim, and even though that's just wrong, if it were true, it would somehow make him less qualified to govern, or less American or something. I'm all for discussing your views, but to be condescending and spread misinformation is not a way to do it.
For a good example of the way to do it, I'd offer up the McGlaughlin Group. That show frequently has people of widely disparate views talking about current issues in a rational manner, rarely if ever resorting to smear tactics. And it's exciting too, you get to watch them yell at eachother! If you've never watched Elenor Clift and Pat Buchanan yell at eachother for ten minutes, you really should.
So concludes my least coherant post in a long time. Yay!
I sit here this morning less than two weeks away from the next presidential election. Since I last expounded on the subject, we've seen more debates, new campaign strategies, and perhaps the best political SNL impression in the show's history. At this point, I'd just like to give my general impression of the goings-on in this race.
On one side, we have John McCain. Senator McCain wants me to identify with a tax-dodging plumber from the upper Midwest. It seems he follows president Bush's economic philosophy; mainly, that by spending money on an ever-growing military budget and off the wall mandated programs, then giving massive tax breaks to everyone from large corporations to the lowest of tax brackets, he'll somehow magically create a boom in the job market. Meanwhile, his VP nominee displays basically zero knowledge of foreign policy issues beyond the "Go, America, Go!" attitude that seems to... *ahem* "excite the Republican base." All the while she's running up a bill for clothes that exceeds my lifetime income to date.
Then, on the other side, we have Barack Obama. Senator Obama is a typical Democrat, economically at least. His grand plan is to get my vote by promising to implement more expensive social programs than his elaborate tax plan can possibly pay for. He's going to subsidize everything from healthcare, to college loans, to environmentally sound industry.
I suppose, in this economic respect, this is a typical election, in that both parties want to spend more money than they can afford to fund their parties pet projects.
Personal attacks have taken on an interesting character in this election as well. Obama and Palin are both getting cries of inexperience from the other side. McCain has been decried as out of touch with everyday Americans. The interesting ones, though, come directed at Obama from that excited Republican base (and their fear-mongering FOX news/ talk radio pundits). There is, of course, the accusation that he's a Muslim, which, while being completely false, I somewhat resent. The idea that being a Muslim would make someone unqualified to be president is ridiculous. These are often accompanied by accusations of ties to al-Qaeda. Then there are the assumptions (fueled by the McCain campaign) that '60s anti-war terrorist Bill Ayers is his closest adviser; the two served together on an education reform committee in Chicago and are friends, but Ayers does not work for the Obama campaign. Similar false accusations were made about failed executives from Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. The silliest ones seem to be about Obama's race. Apparently there's a rumor going around that Obama isn't actually African American, that he's 1/4 black and 1/2 Middle Eastern (again, the implication that an Arab American is automatically unqualified to be president is disgusting), and is only trying to court the black vote. This, of course, is easily debunked. Obama's ethnicity is a matter of public record, plus, he has been very forthcoming about his family history.
Is my bias showing yet? I guess my point is that there are a lot of reasons to dislike both these guys without making stuff up. Hate them for who they are, not for the names their opponents call them.
BUT! I, again, chose optimism! How can we go wrong, America, in an election year where EVERYBODY's the change candidate? At the time of this writing, we've only got 85 days left of George W. Bush, and that's something over 80% of us can celebrate! Keep an eye on it! ------------------------>
As always, my dear silent and few readers, I'd be happy to discuss any of this further, but let's keep something straight... I consider my personal politics personal, and neither of these candidates represent them well, so this would be discussion for the sake of discussion. Politics is fun for me, and I'm a firm believer that we can agree to disagree, and still be friends at the end of the day.
In conclusion, boo Republicans for not supporting Ron Paul.
Here's a thought: in Thursday's Vice Presidential debate, Joe Biden is going to slam Sarah Palin into the ground. His rhetorical victory will be overwhelming on the vast majority of the issues discussed. As a result he will lose.
He will be seen as being too hard on her, too aggresive to this pioneering, family-oriented woman, and will turn a large chunk of swing voters into the arms of the hockey mom.
One thing I hate about election season is that there's so much bullshit thrown about. It's convention season, after all, and that means the major parties are busy congratulating themselves and telling you how horrible their opponents are. It's an interesting part of the process, but often the candidates are so full of it, it just makes me sick.
Recently, I heard about factcheck.org, a site run by a non-profit group out of the University of Pennsylvania, that's dedicated to taking the soundbites and slogans of national politics, and basically filling in the holes. Wondering if McCain really considers everyone making less than $5 million/year middle class? Does Obama really want to give up Iraq to the trrists? Well, they try to answer questions like that. For example, here is an analysis of Obama's nomination acceptance speech, and here is an analysis of Tuesday's Republican convention mudslinging.
It is worth noting that most of the articles seem to be pointed at McCain's campain. Whether this is because they're more full of crap than the Obama side, or it's actually an indication of bias, I'm not sure. But as the campaign ramps up toward November, I'm going to be keeping an eye on it. It seems though, that this site could be a good resource to cut through the crap. God knows, they're laying it on thick these days.
This post has been two weeks coming, and in that space of time, the Republican side of the primaries has gotten extremely boring. While two weeks ago we were talking about a brokered convention, now it's McCain, McCain, McCain. Well, alas, it is not what it could have been. Here they are, following the same guidelines as I followed for the Democrats.
*Former Governor Mike Huckabee Huckabee is still the favorite candidate among the religious right. In addition to all of what that brings, he supports the Iraq war, and is big on national defense, securing the borders, etc. Somewhat refreshingly, he does support the Fair Tax plan, and the abolition of the IRS. That aside though, I'm glad he isn't going to win the nomination, given his statements about wanting to amend the Constitution to "follow God's law." Don't get me wrong, I'm all for following God's law, but that's not the government's place. There are plenty of people in this country who would disagree about what God's law is, what God is giving the laws, or whether or not there's any God with any laws to begin with, so let's not go pulling down the first amendment, okay?
*Senator John McCain McCain, for better or worse, is the guy for the Republicans. He lacks somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 delegates before he has the required count for the nomination, and has a 600 delegate lead over his closest competition, Mitt Romney, who endorsed him this week. He also has the endorsements of President Bush, the Governator, and a whole slew of prominent Republicans. McCain is best known for being a prisoner of war in Vietnam, and being a moderate in the Senate, crossing party lines on a number of votes, most notably the 2001 "Bush tax cuts", and co-sponsoring a number of bills with Democrats, most notably the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Recently, though, he's been trying to appeal to conservatives, saying that if he had the chance again, he would vote for the tax cuts, as well as being a strong proponent of the Iraq war, and the president's "surge" strategy. He was recently quoted as saying that we would stay in Iraq for "100 years" if necessary. Personally, I think he's much more moderate than he's been making himself out to be recently, and I'm going to wait to see how he stacks up against his eventual Democratic opponent before I make a decision reguarding McCain.
* Representative Dr. Ron Paul From the beginning of this, Ron Paul has been my candidate. Really, he represents the only time in my short voting life that a major party's candidate has lined up with the majority of my views. Though he's a long-time Republican, he conforms much more to the party's long-time basic ideals than its recent practices, advocating small government and low taxes. What truly set him apart from the rest of the Republican field is his opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning. Essentially, he comes out to being fairly libertarian. In the preliminary campaigning season, it looked like he might surprise some people in the elections; he put up some astounding fundraising statistics, and made a splash going toe-to-toe with Rudy Giuliani over foreign policy in the debates. The media, though, never really gave him a lot of publicity, and while his supporters may be some of the most dedicated, he never really caught on with the larger party base, and has consistently brought in 5-15% of the voters in most Republican contests. Frankly, I had much higher hopes that the candidate I actually registered for a party to vote for would make a stronger showing, but I'm content that there are other people (and at least one actually in government) that feel the way I do about the way our country is going. A vote for Paul has become a vote for his message, and I'm encouraged that that message is not dead yet.
There is one positive I failed to mention about Governor Huckabee...he rocks!
So, I lied. I didn't get this done yesterday. But here it is...today. Anyway.
As I sit here and write this, there is currently less than an hour until the polls close in the South Carolina primary. This could mean the end of the road for one or more candidates, but I'm writing right now with the current candidates still in mind. So, without further ado, the Democrats:
*Senator Hillary Clinton Basically, when you get down to it, I'm not really a big fan. First of all, I disagree with her on many issues. She's been known for a long time as a major proponent of a socialized healthcare plan. On the war, she's been inconsistent. She made a major mistake in the beginning, voting to approve war funding and to give the president permission for a long-term deployment. She's since advocated a withdrawal from Iraq. Whether this is truly what she wants, or if she's merely following the popular sentiments of her party, God only knows. As far as most domestic issues go, she's basically a classic Democrat, favoring increased government programs and assistance, and covering the cost through tax increases. To her credit, she has recently advocated a balanced budget, but personally, I don't want to cover the costs for a lot of things she'd be paying for. On the positive side, I do like the ideas behind her plan to increase confidence in government. Also, her immigration reform plans seem like a step in the right direction, if not a genuine solution. She likes to paint herself as the experienced candidate. Apparently, being first lady gives her experience, because being a Senator makes her soooo unique in this years' field. What it ultimately comes down to for me, though, is that I just don't trust her. I look at Hillary and I see a politician's politician. I realize this is truly subjective, and that if she does get elected, she may turn out to be a noble leader, but I'd be willing to bet that she'd do whatever she could and step on whoever she could to get her personal agenda ahead. Also, a Hillary win means a return to Bill. Anyone who's been paying attention can see that, for better or worse, they're operating this thing as a team, and though it probably won't be in any official capacity, he would wield influence in a Hillary White House.
*Former Senator John Edwards Edwards, who was a major player in the 2004 Democratic primaries, and the eventual running mate for John Kerry, has fallen somewhat by the wayside in this year's elections. He, like all the Democratic candidates, favors a comprehensive healthcare system; his plan would call for across the board coverage by 2012, paid for by repealing tax cuts passed during the Bush administration. Also, poorer families would receive tax subsidies. He's also proposed a plan to end poverty by 2037, of which one of the steps would be to move the poverty line. Some of the policies make sense to me, some do not, but considering I could write an entire post about it, I'm not going to get into details. Needless to say, it would entail a lot of government handouts. For foreign policy, on one hand, he favors a quick withdrawal from Iraq, but on the other hand, advocates US intervention in other countries on other issues. He also favors education reform, and giving legal status to some illegal immigrants. The way things look now, if he does not put together a strong showing in today's South Carolina primary, he may drop out of the race. South Carolina being his home state, this probably represents his best chance for a win. That said, he may stay in all the way to the convention on principal. If his history is any indication, he may try for a spot in the administration of an eventual Democratic winner.
*Former Senator Mike "Give 'em Hell" Gravel Mike Gravel is the only marginal candidate still in the race for the Democrats. He is most known for being from Alaska, strange YouTube videos, and standing on the edge of the stage during debates, yelling about how he doesn't get enough opportunities to speak. He is staunchly anti-war, emphasizes environmental responsibility, supports the Fair Tax plan, universal health care, and increased funding for education. All that said, none of his positions hold any importance in his race, as his party has completely written him off. None of his opponents pay him any mind, and the commentators don't even bother dismissing him anymore.
*Senator Barack Obama Obama, unlike the other viable candidates in this race, has consistently voted against the war in Iraq. He supports tax reforms to make the code more simple, and also provide tax credits to the working class. He supports the establishment of a preschool education system, as well as further reforms for national education requirements to encourage higher performance. He also supports universal health care. Uniquely, he favors negotiating with our enemies, rather than ending all relations completely. The main problem with him is that I can't see him speak without thinking of Dave Chappelle impersonating a white guy! Seriously though, he says he's the change candidate...again, whether or not he would actually change anything, time may tell. A lot of people seem to talk about him affecting the vote simply by virtue of being black. This may be true, but the same situation could be said of Clinton being a woman.
Together, their mudslinging has brought the race to a point of constant accusations, the funniest of which took place in last weeks' debate, in which they spent ten minutes arguing about who liked Ronald Reagan the least. Anyway, this election is still tight, and depending on how super Tuesday comes out, this one may go deep into the primaries without being decided.
The next post will cover the Republicans. Meanwhile, I'll leave you with this thought:
This post was supposed to outline my impressions of the current presidential candidates. As I began reading and writing, though, I realized that these impressions were inherently tied to my views on the "hot button" issues. It quickly became apparent that I'd have much more explaining to do than I originally intended, so, I've decided to write this one in a few separate parts. Part one here covers my opinions on some of the big issues this election year. I haven't covered every little thing, and I'd be happy to respond to inquiries about other issues. So, here it is, the post to inform my readership (which, by my estimates, fluctuates from around 2-5) of my opinions on some issues, because I feel it's necessary if I'm going to discuss my opinions on the current crop of candidates. Also, because I like talking politics. Now, with that tripe out of the way, on to the post proper:
Here are my basic stances on a few key campaign issues:
I am against national healthcare. Yes, our current system is broken, but putting it in the hands of the government is not the way to fix it. That will only break it in new, different ways.
The war in Iraq is wrong. We went there under false pretenses, and threw a relatively stable country into chaos. Yes, Saddam was an evil man and deserved to be dealt with, but not by us. Now, we are stuck maintaining an occupation that's costing billions of dollars that could be spent on a worthy cause at home, while we watch as some thousands of our finest men and women, who could be working to ensure the security of our nation, are killed propping up a weak government. We've lost sight of our true, direct enemy, Al Qaeda who attacked us on our own soil, and still considers themselves to be in a state of war with all Americans, military and civilian. Meanwhile, we anger less extreme Muslims and bolster our enemy's cause with our unjust war. All that said, we cannot abandon Iraq just yet. We need to work DIPLOMATICALLY with the disputing IRAQI parties, and broker some sort of consensus, where they can govern and police the country themselves. Then, we can pull the troops out.
Yes, we have a problem with illegal immigration. Does it bother me? Not a whole lot. People want to come here because, despite its myriad problems, this is the freest country in the world. Rather than simply step up enforcement to try keeping people out, we should make it easier for those who want to come here and contribute to our economy to get here legally. Also, people who are here on some sort of work or study visa, and desire to stay longer should be able to, but if they desire to stay, they should have to become citizens, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. This issue is very simple, really. Those who want to live here permanently should become citizens. If they do not, they need to extend their visa or go back home. None of this hanging around, undocumented business. As for the illegal immigrants already here, I favor blanket amnesty on a track to citizenship. If they do not want citizenship, they should obtain some sort of documentation or face deportation. This is unpopular with many people, because it rewards illegal behavior. I suppose it does. But it also provides a pragmatic solution to a problem that's not going away. This would be a one time thing, and before it took place, enforcement would have to be ramped up. Once the amnesty program was complete, nothing like it should be needed again, unless the situation drastically changed.
I'm pro-choice, anti-abortion. I think unless the health of the mother is at risk, it's always a better decision to carry a baby to be born, and if you don't want a child, give it up for adoption. At the same time, I know it's not my place to make decisions for pregnant women. It may be an ugly practice, but it's not the government's place to say whether or not it can be done. That's between the woman in question, her doctor, and her God.
Our tax system is inherently broken. It is complicated and unfair. Depending on your particular occupation and level of income, your money may be taxed five times before it leaves your hands. For a long time, I've favored a flat tax, with breaks built in for charitable donations. Then again, income tax was unconstitutional in this country until 1913, with the passage of the 16th Amendment. I read somewhere that without income taxes, the government's budget would only be cut down to the size of that in the late 90's. While I don't see this as entirely practical, it's clear that our tax system needs to be scrapped completely, not tweaked.
The rampant deficit spending out country has been up to since 2001 needs to end, now. In order to stop our currency and our economic standing with the rest of the world from plummeting, we need to get away from the constant meddling with the money supply and balance the budget. Congress needs to wrest control of the dollar from the federal reserve (as is its constitutional responsibility), and stop creating larger bureaucratic structures for and throwing money at every problem that comes along. Though the current system is entrenched in the minds of most people as the only way, Congress has the power to change it. Unfortunately, it will never happen without a push from the American people.
Again, this is far from comprehensive. Part two should come tomorrow; it'll be about the Democrats.
I've decided that I love events that occur every four years. This has come to my attention in light of the recent political goings-on. I love election season, despite the unsavory qualities it tends to bring out in some; the primaries, I think, are particularly exciting. There's so much possibility before we're confined to the lesser of two evils.
Ah, yes, the lesser of two evils... the eternal plague of what has become of the American political system. George Washington knew his stuff. All that business about staying out of foreign wars and avoiding partisan politics made a lot of sense to me. Trouble is, nobody listened...but anyway, that's neither here nor there. What I'm trying to say here is that such a rigid two party system is bad for the country. It encourages division and polarization, and tyranny of the majority, when such a thing exists. It's even more frustrating for an independent like me, whose views line up with neither of the major parties' platforms. The last presidential election, my first, was particularly depressing. Knowing what I know of recent American political history (which is probably not enough, but certainly a cursory knowledge), you'd have to go back to 1976 to find another presidential election with no major candidate that I could be satisfied voting for. Every four years, from nine before I came onto this earth to the time when I actually had the opportunity to vote, there was, in my opinion at least, a palatable major candidate for president. I voted, of course...there was no way I would skip my first presidential election. But it felt flat, empty. But, again, this current election brings new hope... hope that a decent candidate will emerge from the two-faced buffoons... hope that will probably be dashed like so many plates at a big, fat, Greek wedding. (Worst Simile Ever? I think it's possible.)
This reminds me of the World Cup. Most of the time, like most other Americans, I show almost no interest in association football. Every four years come summer, though, I'm a pretty big soccer fan. It's hard to pry me away from the World Cup, and every time I watch it, I hope it will be the United States' year. Every year, we disappoint. At least six years ago, in Japan/S. Korea, we made a run in the elimination round. Seems every time the cup's played in Europe, we don't even get out of group play. Qualifying for the 2010 cup (which will be in South Africa) will take place over the next two years in the form of the CONCACAF qualifying tournament. The top three teams will go to S. Africa.
I have a similar rabid enthusiasm for the Olympics (the winter ones, more so than the summer, but I love those too), though they're usually much less disappointing. There's always some sort of American success story at the Olympics, and whether or not we do well, the Olympic hockey tournament is always up for some great watching.
So, yeah. Quadrennial stuff...gotta love it. In-depth-ish presidential election post forthcoming. Hasta luego, internets.
I was listening to the news on NPR earlier today, and they were interviewing people in a French town about the candidates in their upcoming presidential election. The French political system on the national level is my favorite. I wish our system was more like theirs, but even with a good system, there will always be complaining in politics. There will never be a case where absolutely everyone is happy. One man had a priceless comment. It was something to the effect of "In this election it won't be about voting for the candidate you like the best, but voting for the one you hate the least."
We have a chance to make sure our state quarter is not dumb, like Montana's, where cows go to die, apparently.
Instead of just picking one himself, Governor Henry is putting it to a vote between five final designs (none of which are as bad as Montana's). You can vote online here, or do it by mail.
As someone in an ongoing effort to become an informed voter, I've found this website to be quite helpful, for those voting in the Sooner State, that is. Give it a look-see.
Sean posed a good question on his blog. This is an attempt to answer it.
So, how can we, a society of garbagemen, investment bankers, extreme sports enthusiasts, kickboxers, short-order cooks, tech support phone operators, and Wal-mart greeters be qualified to choose our leaders? Well, I agree with you that we can't. While the presidency could be seen as an extention of running a small business, and maybe, at its core, it is, the American political game has made the situation much more complicated. What's more, is that most of our founding fathers agree with you. True democracy on the national level died in Athens. The closest example in our history is the New England town meeting, which was never applied on more than a local level. Democracy is probably the most inefficient form of government. Remember that constitution thing you probably heard about once or twice in highschool? It was never the intention for populace to elect the president. The president would be elected by the Electoral College, whose members would be appointed by state legislatures, who were elected by the people. The elites of the early years of our nation saw the most notable citizens of communities who comprised state legislatures appointing some of their finest to elect the president. The oft unruly House of Representatives was the haven of the people, and they had to share their power with the Senate. All this considered, I'm not saying that we shouldn't elect our leaders. In fact, I maintain that it is essential that we elect our leaders.
The political elites of a nation must be held accountable for their actions by someone other than their peers. Ideally, and usually in the case of the U.S., that's us, the public at large, the librarians, doughnut bakers, and stockbrokers. If the elites are the only ones with the power to keep tabs on the elites, then the little guy suffers, if not with the current leaders, then sometime down the road. Through this important check, somehow we've been able to maintain a government that's been more or less of the people, by the people, and for the people for 230 years. It is not a question of qualification, it is a question of the necessity of maintaining our most basic national ideals.
Well, as my begin-the-semester post promised, I've been a busy guy. Though I haven't had to take up residence in the library yet, I have been considerably out of action as far as fun and hanging out go. Another thing I've missed is reading the news. I did a little bit of this lately, and I'm pleased to report that it's just as funny as ever. Who needs The Daily Show? Headlines like this take care of themselves.
Though it's not really funny, the biggest news for me lately has been the beginning of the Olympics. This biannual international athletic spectacle has always been one of my favorite things to watch. The winter ones are so much fun. I mean, who'd have guessed you could make so many sports out of sliding around on ice? Come to think of it, curling is kinda funny...he he he, brooms.
In international news, Muslims are upset (and by upset, I mean rioting in the streets) because a Danish newspaper published a comic depicting the prophet Muhammed as having a turbin that was actually a ticking timebomb. And it's not like there are a few looneys trying to get political in the streets...in nearly every Muslim majority country, people have been gathering in throngs to chant anti-Danish slogans and burn Danish flags, parliaments have passed resolutions comdemning newspapers. In some cases, the rioters have stormed embassies and newspaper offices. Can you imagine if this sort of thing happened in the US? What if the Republicans rioted in the streets every time a cartoonist depicted Bush as a monkey? Or, even more parallel, what if mobs of Christians razed local FOX affiliates every time Family Guy depicted Jesus in an insulting way? None of us would get a moments peace, or American Idle for that matter!
Iraq has recently elected a new prime minister, who happens to be a Shi'ite. The Sunnis say they're being oppressed as retaliation for the oppression of Shi'ites under Saddam Hussein, and the Kurds say that they're not getting enough sovereignty. Meanwhile, a large U.S. military force occupies the country, trying to keep the three factions from being blown to bits while they chomp at eachothers' throats.
Speaking of Saddam Hussein, they made him come back to his trial. He responded by screaming things like "Down with Bush!" and "Long live Iraq!" and calling the judge a criminal. I can't really say I blame him though. Nobody stays in power for 30+ years by being stupid, and anyone with half a brain would know he's totally going down. I guess he figures if he's going out, he might as well do it with a bang.
Speaking of dignified politicians, VP Dick Cheney shot some guy this weekend while they were hunting quail. Nobody died, but tell me, is anyone surprised by this, at all?
In local reports, in a recent interview with Hornets rookie Chris Paul, former NBA star and TNT commentator Charles Barkley recently refered to Oklahoma, and the city specifically, as a "vast wasteland". Maybe that's because HALF THE STATE IS ON FIRE! He also said that it "wasn't a place for" black people. Well, anyway, Paul responded by calling Barkley lazy. This whipped the local media into a frenzy, with every leading personality from the local TV stations and newspapers, and even the Governor to challenge Barkley to come to the city and enjoy a Hornet's game, dinner, et cetera. He'd probably change his mind if he came, but then, that might not be a good idea, as some overly-proud country boy would probably punch him in the face.
So, that's my take on the weekend's news. Feel free to leave me comments, and I will feel free to make fun of, I mean answer them.
Loteria, Loteria, Loteria! Last fall's hot button issue in state politics has become this fall's newest craze. On October 12, the Oklahoma state lottery opened for business in grocery and convenient stores around our great state. Working inside a grocery store, I got to experience this firsthand. On opening day, the lines at the Albertson's customer service center were backed up farther than I've ever seen; people came in asking me, in my green apron and Starbuck's hat, if I could sell them lottery tickets. People were smiling and relieved, like little kids on Christmas morning, the focus of their anticipation finally coming to fruition. There was a feeling of excitement and newness in the air. It was look of the wave of the future; it was the sound of the dawn of a new era! It was the arrival of Almighty PROGRESS!
I've never seen so many people so eager to throw their money away.
In last November's election, the lottery passed by an overwhelming majority. I voted against it. The main response I got to that was something along the lines of how wonderful the lottery is because it benefits education. Okay, you should sit down, and if you're already sitting, you should grab on to something, because what I'm about to say may shock some of you:
People who play the lottery do not do it to help education. They do it because for whatever reason they like gambling, or because they think they're going to make money from it. The reality of the situation is that while there are a lot of people and companies making money from the lottery, the schools don't see very much of it. If you really want to help the schools, join your local PTA, volunteer, or make a direct donation to one of the many worthwhile institutions that would be happy to take advantage of your generosity.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm glad Oklahoma's voters finally did something about getting funding for education. I just wish they would have done it in a more worthwhile way. I realize that a state lottery is like a tax on the stupid (statistically, lottery players will not break even) but I still can't condone its inception. I don't think anyone can argue with the fact that, in general, gambling is harmful to society. When overdone, it can turn into a powerful addiction that's harmful to the user's psychological health, and a slow drain on the wallet. Instituting a state lottery to pay for education is like introducing Oklahoma State Legislature Brand cigarettes to pay for highway repair. I have no problem with people gambling away their money, but our government should not be promoting a potentially harmful product to pay for things. This is why I did not and still would not vote to approve a state lottery.
Sean recently asked me if I would rather that they just taxed us to get the money. After some consideration, I've decided the answer is yes. A new tax to pay for education would be more efficient than the lottery, and as opposed to corporate welfare, or foreign aide, it's a tax I wouldn't mine paying. I'm happy to support a service that benefits my state's economy and reputation, even if it means I bring home a little less bacon each year.
To quote the esteemed ultraconservative religious television news host Reverend Pat Robertson in regards to Venezuela's Presidente Hugo Chavez, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."
Now, I'm a big fan of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. I might even say it's my favorite, along with number four and number twenty-five. All that aside, Robertson's a moron. To "apologize" for his idiocy, he came up with this little gem: "I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."
Presidente Chavez has talked about suing Robertson, but I would suggest something a little different. He should use his stranglehold on the policies of his nation and use some of that oil money to train up some crazy spec-ops guys. (You know they'd find some kind of major military power to help them) Then they should do a covert insertion into the United States and "take out" Pat Robertson. This could include a number of things, including kidnapping. I wonder how the Reverend would like spending some time in the South American jungles with those gracious hosts...Seriously though, it would be totally hilarious if the reverend suddenly turned up missing with evidence of military involvement. Rock on Presidente, rock on.
