I wrote over half of an article before I realized that my conclusion wasn’t what I thought it would be. In fact, it was the exact opposite. Yet in light of these unexpected findings I am now feeling optimistic about John McCain’s chances in the upcoming election. So how did I come to this conclusion?
My initial premise was that going back to Peter lying about knowing Jesus over 2,000 years ago right up to today, people lie about liking someone if it might be dangerous or unpopular or simply uncool to admit they liked or knew that person. For example, how was it that disco was so popular back in the 70’s if everybody now say they despised it back then? Same with Barry Manilow, who everyone hated yet he still managed to sell millions of albums. Or more recently, if everyone says that Amy Winehouse is, at best, sad and, at worst, mentally deranged, how is it that her Back To Back CD is the biggest selling album of all time on Amazon.com?
I went on to say that this same phenomenon happened during this election where people are lying both for and against the candidates. Obama’s message of change is what everybody says they want. And yes, his race is also a major issue but a positive one, for to say you are voting for Obama proves you are not a racist, right? On the other hand, everybody hates Bush and the Republicans and therefore they dislike John McCain, too. Plus everyone is saying he is too old to be president, and more importantly, voting for him might indicate that you are a closet racist. Therefore if you want everyone to know that you, too, want change and are popular, cool and definitely not a racist then you tell them you are for Obama and against McCain and those awful Republicans.
I continued by saying that we saw this during the primaries. Obama easily won in the caucuses where people had to publicly indicate who they wanted and may have feared being considered a racist or even uncool if they literally didn’t stand in Obama’s corner. On the other hand when people voted in the secrecy of a voting booth where no one would know who they chose then Obama lost.
Where I got in trouble with this article is that based on all of the above I would assume that people are continuing to lie and say they are for Obama in order to look good to the pollsters. So a review of the polls should therefore show that Obama is decisively beating McCain, right? But he’s not. A few polls show he is ahead but only by single digits and one recent poll showed that they were tied!
What does this mean? How can McCain be doing so well when everyone knows that Obama is the man of the hour. He’s even on the cover of Rolling Stone and you can’t get much cooler than that! What about the historically known premise that people tend to lie to pollsters to make themselves look good? This would mean lying that they are for Obama because lets face it, nobody would lie about voting for McCain thinking that would make them look popular. So if you factor in that some people are lying about planning to vote for Obama and if he currently only leads by a few points, at most, then, oh my, it might mean that McCain is actually in the lead.
If the election were held today I wouldn’t be surprised if, to the shock of everybody, McCain is the winner. But the election isn’t for another 4 months and a lot can happen. Nonetheless, Obama shouldn’t be quite so certain that everybody will be voting for him, even including those who are standing in his corner. As for McCain? He needs to let people know that a vote for McCain is definitely not racist nor a third term for Bush. Most of all McCain needs to let us know that it is ok to support him and maybe even popular and cool to vote for him. Although just like disco and Manilow, if you want to deny you liked McCain after the fact, well, once McCain is elected and in the White House he probably wouldn’t even mind if you denied him three times.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Treating Flood Victims Equally
Last week all up and down the Mississippi entire towns were immersed under water as levees were breached or destroyed. Throughout the sporadic news coverage you couldn't help but noticed the unacknowledged elephant in the room. Although none of the reporters mentioned it, the public whispered among themselves what the politically correct news organizations were afraid to discuss. Of course I speak of New Orleans.
I was going to say that it was impossible to watch the horrible results of the century breaking floods without comparing it to the floods in New Orleans except that the mainstream media did just that – ignored any comparison to Katrina. The sad truth is that if someone did do the comparison they would risk being called racist because any comparison of Katrina vs. today's flood victims would not be favorable to the residents of New Orleans, who just happen to be African American. And God help the journalist who gives a nonfavorable report about blacks, even though it is true.
During the floods tens of thousands of people in the Midwest were homeless as their houses were literally washed away or engulfed to the roof tops in water. And yet there was no outrage at being jammed into relief areas, nor was there any talk of gunshots or rapes or even looting as there was with Katrina. There was some concern about FEMA but there were also a lot of discussions about simply helping out their neighbors and themselves. These displaced citizens talked about rebuilding their towns and communities whereas after Katrina it seemed as if the cry to rebuild primarily came from outsiders, actors, musicians and the like, and not from the residents. Multiple fundraising events were held for the New Orleans residents but you haven’t heard of too many celebrities coming to the aid of Iowans. Nor have you heard of these Midwesterns looking for cash handouts such as initially occurred after Katrina.
Yes, some of the difference is due to local politics, with New Orleans government being known as corrupt and inefficient. I honestly don’t know much about the local politics of the affected towns last week but I doubt if they are as scandal ridden as New Orleans and Louisiana. But the major difference is the people themselves. And that is what no one dares to mention because you would immediately be labeled as racist. Next thing you know you have to apologize to everyone, take diversity training and be reprogrammed to be politically correct in the future.
The sad thing is that the way the politically correct ran to aid New Orleans is the racist action, whereas comparing them to those in the Midwest is an act of equality. Comparing the two groups is saying that both are equal to each other regardless of color. You are granting each the same respect as the other and treating them as equals. Shouldn’t we make a judgment based on character and the actions of a person or group of people with no regard to race? And isn’t that the goal – to treat everyone equally?
On the other hand, those who pleaded and sobbed and lectured the country to assist the residents of New Orleans did a major disservice to them. Yes they needed assistance but these politically correct activists treated the New Orleans citizens as helpless victims who needed to be taken care of. That kind of “help” strips away self esteem and any initiative to help themselves. Think about it. Apparently the politically correct assume that the flood victims in Iowa and elsewhere can take care of themselves but those affected by Katrina couldn’t. How insulting and racist is that?
I was going to say that it was impossible to watch the horrible results of the century breaking floods without comparing it to the floods in New Orleans except that the mainstream media did just that – ignored any comparison to Katrina. The sad truth is that if someone did do the comparison they would risk being called racist because any comparison of Katrina vs. today's flood victims would not be favorable to the residents of New Orleans, who just happen to be African American. And God help the journalist who gives a nonfavorable report about blacks, even though it is true.
During the floods tens of thousands of people in the Midwest were homeless as their houses were literally washed away or engulfed to the roof tops in water. And yet there was no outrage at being jammed into relief areas, nor was there any talk of gunshots or rapes or even looting as there was with Katrina. There was some concern about FEMA but there were also a lot of discussions about simply helping out their neighbors and themselves. These displaced citizens talked about rebuilding their towns and communities whereas after Katrina it seemed as if the cry to rebuild primarily came from outsiders, actors, musicians and the like, and not from the residents. Multiple fundraising events were held for the New Orleans residents but you haven’t heard of too many celebrities coming to the aid of Iowans. Nor have you heard of these Midwesterns looking for cash handouts such as initially occurred after Katrina.
Yes, some of the difference is due to local politics, with New Orleans government being known as corrupt and inefficient. I honestly don’t know much about the local politics of the affected towns last week but I doubt if they are as scandal ridden as New Orleans and Louisiana. But the major difference is the people themselves. And that is what no one dares to mention because you would immediately be labeled as racist. Next thing you know you have to apologize to everyone, take diversity training and be reprogrammed to be politically correct in the future.
The sad thing is that the way the politically correct ran to aid New Orleans is the racist action, whereas comparing them to those in the Midwest is an act of equality. Comparing the two groups is saying that both are equal to each other regardless of color. You are granting each the same respect as the other and treating them as equals. Shouldn’t we make a judgment based on character and the actions of a person or group of people with no regard to race? And isn’t that the goal – to treat everyone equally?
On the other hand, those who pleaded and sobbed and lectured the country to assist the residents of New Orleans did a major disservice to them. Yes they needed assistance but these politically correct activists treated the New Orleans citizens as helpless victims who needed to be taken care of. That kind of “help” strips away self esteem and any initiative to help themselves. Think about it. Apparently the politically correct assume that the flood victims in Iowa and elsewhere can take care of themselves but those affected by Katrina couldn’t. How insulting and racist is that?
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Save Children from Art and Music Classes
Art and music classes should be abolished in all schools. There I said it! Actually, I never really thought about this until recently when we had to have budget cuts in our local schools. The outrage over cutting back on art and music classes was never ending and you thought the children would end up as boorish dolts without it. This made me take a second look at it and to start questioning the decision to have these classes in the first place.
Seriously, when was it decided that art and music should be standard classes taught to all children? Why art and music? Why not drama or band, too? Or here’s a better idea, why not classes in logic or ethics or things they might actually need when they grow up? What is the big deal in teaching art and music to children other than to give jobs to third rate artists and musicians? The more I thought about this the more I realized I not only agreed with the administration’s decision to cut these classes but I now think it shouldn’t have been offered in the first place. I know I sure wouldn't have missed them.
In grade school I despised art and music classes in the same way other children feared and hated gym class. I can’t sing. Even worse, I can hear how off tune I am but for the life of me I can’t find the right note. Heck, I can’t find any note on the scale. So it was embarrassing for me and painful for everybody when it was my turn to sing. And forget musical instruments. After two years of piano I still couldn’t find middle C on the keyboard! Hard to believe but I was even worse in art class. I couldn’t draw a straight line much less any type of picture. The undeterminable blobs on paper were cute when I was 5 but made me feel like an imbecile as I grew older. I was equally bad at mobiles, shadow boxes and anything requiring visual arts. To make it worse, I “inherited” this ineptitude from my parents so they were no help, either.
I do realize that the other purpose of art and music is to teach children to appreciate them; to broaden their knowledge of the “finer” things in life. If that is the case, why stop at art and music, why not also teach drama, ballet, band, cinema etc.? And who decides what is “good” art and music and what should be taught? Why is it that “old” is always considered to be better than “new”? Perhaps if they tried to try to cover other types of music and art it might have been more interesting but they only ever taught classical music (and I don’t mean the 1960’s). So year after year it is the same old dead artists and composers, except for that one when you had that one music teacher who tried too hard to be one of the kids by playing your music. And what other class was being shortchanged so that a 10 year old boy could listen to Bach (and most likely fall asleep)?
I admit to being impressed when my 6 year old niece looked at a print of Starry Starry Night that was on my wall and commented “I like your Van Gogh.” Wow. When asked how she knew this she said she learned it on Baby Einstein, a TV show. So again, who needs an art class if she is getting it elsewhere?
There are so many things to teach children today that I no longer see why we are using valuable class time for art and music. I would vote to eliminate these classes forever and instead teach students computer programming or science or spend more time on reading, writing and arithmetic. Yes I know that this is a very politically incorrect view. Too bad. Let kids appreciate art and music on their own time – use class time to teach them the skills they need to survive in this world.
Seriously, when was it decided that art and music should be standard classes taught to all children? Why art and music? Why not drama or band, too? Or here’s a better idea, why not classes in logic or ethics or things they might actually need when they grow up? What is the big deal in teaching art and music to children other than to give jobs to third rate artists and musicians? The more I thought about this the more I realized I not only agreed with the administration’s decision to cut these classes but I now think it shouldn’t have been offered in the first place. I know I sure wouldn't have missed them.
In grade school I despised art and music classes in the same way other children feared and hated gym class. I can’t sing. Even worse, I can hear how off tune I am but for the life of me I can’t find the right note. Heck, I can’t find any note on the scale. So it was embarrassing for me and painful for everybody when it was my turn to sing. And forget musical instruments. After two years of piano I still couldn’t find middle C on the keyboard! Hard to believe but I was even worse in art class. I couldn’t draw a straight line much less any type of picture. The undeterminable blobs on paper were cute when I was 5 but made me feel like an imbecile as I grew older. I was equally bad at mobiles, shadow boxes and anything requiring visual arts. To make it worse, I “inherited” this ineptitude from my parents so they were no help, either.
I do realize that the other purpose of art and music is to teach children to appreciate them; to broaden their knowledge of the “finer” things in life. If that is the case, why stop at art and music, why not also teach drama, ballet, band, cinema etc.? And who decides what is “good” art and music and what should be taught? Why is it that “old” is always considered to be better than “new”? Perhaps if they tried to try to cover other types of music and art it might have been more interesting but they only ever taught classical music (and I don’t mean the 1960’s). So year after year it is the same old dead artists and composers, except for that one when you had that one music teacher who tried too hard to be one of the kids by playing your music. And what other class was being shortchanged so that a 10 year old boy could listen to Bach (and most likely fall asleep)?
I admit to being impressed when my 6 year old niece looked at a print of Starry Starry Night that was on my wall and commented “I like your Van Gogh.” Wow. When asked how she knew this she said she learned it on Baby Einstein, a TV show. So again, who needs an art class if she is getting it elsewhere?
There are so many things to teach children today that I no longer see why we are using valuable class time for art and music. I would vote to eliminate these classes forever and instead teach students computer programming or science or spend more time on reading, writing and arithmetic. Yes I know that this is a very politically incorrect view. Too bad. Let kids appreciate art and music on their own time – use class time to teach them the skills they need to survive in this world.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Goodbye Tim Russert
Years ago I first became interested in politics by watching David Brinkley every Sunday morning. I was saddened when he retired thinking that Sunday mornings wouldn't be the same. Yet I soon found another monitor and even though Tim Russert on Meet the Press couldn’t replace David Brinkley, as he was one of a kind, over the years I grew to admire and enjoy Tim Russert for his own originality.
So to hear of his death today was shocking as he was so young and it was so unexpected. Political junkies such as me will sorely miss his insight, wit and vast political knowledge which he shared with us every Sunday morning. He will be particularly missed this fall when we will all fondly recall Russert’s white board through which he showed more political wisdom than everyone else with their multi colored computerized high tech charts. And unlike most journalists Tim Russert truly seemed impartial, except, of course, when it came to his beloved Buffalo Bills.
In addition to neither leaning to far to the left or right, another reason that Tim Russert was so good at what he did was because he never allowed himself to become the story. Be it on Meet the Press or in-depth interviews or even moderating a presidential debate, Russert was old school, believing that the spotlight should be on the news or newsmaker but never on him. Today it seems as if most journalists make the story be about them. They are no longer content to stay behind the microphone and are instead coming around to the other side where they become the story.
This is why the coverage of his demise bothers me. It seems that whenever I turned on the TV every cable news channel had continuous coverage of the death of Tim Russert. I didn’t know the man other than what we all have seen on TV but I have a feeling he would have not only been embarrassed but he would have hated it. After being one of the few remaining journalists who never made the story about himself it is almost a disgrace that they are now turning him into the news after his death.
Yes Tim Russert’s death is sad, yes it is shocking, yes he will be missed but he would have wanted a brief mention and then on with the real news. And as for Sunday mornings, just as he couldn’t replace David Brinkley but instead brought his own uniqueness to Meet the Press then neither can Tim Russert now be replaced. Instead, down the road someone else will come along. And yet Tim Russert’s memory will live on as long as there are elections and white boards and Florida, Florida, Florida.
So to hear of his death today was shocking as he was so young and it was so unexpected. Political junkies such as me will sorely miss his insight, wit and vast political knowledge which he shared with us every Sunday morning. He will be particularly missed this fall when we will all fondly recall Russert’s white board through which he showed more political wisdom than everyone else with their multi colored computerized high tech charts. And unlike most journalists Tim Russert truly seemed impartial, except, of course, when it came to his beloved Buffalo Bills.
In addition to neither leaning to far to the left or right, another reason that Tim Russert was so good at what he did was because he never allowed himself to become the story. Be it on Meet the Press or in-depth interviews or even moderating a presidential debate, Russert was old school, believing that the spotlight should be on the news or newsmaker but never on him. Today it seems as if most journalists make the story be about them. They are no longer content to stay behind the microphone and are instead coming around to the other side where they become the story.
This is why the coverage of his demise bothers me. It seems that whenever I turned on the TV every cable news channel had continuous coverage of the death of Tim Russert. I didn’t know the man other than what we all have seen on TV but I have a feeling he would have not only been embarrassed but he would have hated it. After being one of the few remaining journalists who never made the story about himself it is almost a disgrace that they are now turning him into the news after his death.
Yes Tim Russert’s death is sad, yes it is shocking, yes he will be missed but he would have wanted a brief mention and then on with the real news. And as for Sunday mornings, just as he couldn’t replace David Brinkley but instead brought his own uniqueness to Meet the Press then neither can Tim Russert now be replaced. Instead, down the road someone else will come along. And yet Tim Russert’s memory will live on as long as there are elections and white boards and Florida, Florida, Florida.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Goodbye Jim McKay and the Triple Crown
Did you see the horse race yesterday? I switched over after watching Hillary’s speech. The sportscasters spent hours and hours saying how great Big Brown was and how this horse will most likely win the race and therefore be the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years. They focused on everyone surrounding this horse until you began to believe that Big Brown would be running the race by himself. That is what his owner thought when he told the world that of course Big Brown was going to win. Of course.
In the middle of the media attention over Big Brown there was one sad note. Jim McKay had died. He was the ultimate sportscaster that generations grew up listening. He made the Olympics real to us and then there was that line, you know the one I mean, “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.” I forget most of the stuff I learned when I was in fifth grade but I remember that line and that poor skier.
Then back to Belmont and Big Brown’s run for the Triple Crown. Having previously listened to Hillary’s speech I found an odd kind of connection to the Democratic primary when at one point a sportscaster remarked that the only horse that gave any kind of competition to Big Brown was the filly, Eight Belles, in the Kentucky Derby. And you might recall that after coming in a strong second the big filly had given all she could and collapsed, never to get up again.
After three hours we knew everything about Big Brown. That he had a small crack in his hoof that they repaired but they didn’t see that as a problem. It was also known that in the Derby and Preakness, Big Brown had been dosed with drugs, which is legal in horse racing. Perhaps because of this horse, these drugs will be illegal next year but for now they could be used. However the owner wanted to prove that his horse could win on his own and so he did not inject Big Brown for this race. And after hearing the sob stories regarding the owners and jockeys children, more than tired of the braggadocio of the winner, after all the excitement leading up to finally having a Triple Crown winner, we were more than ready for the race.
By now you know once again there wasn’t a Triple Crown winner. It wasn’t so much that Big Brown was beaten as it was that the favorite horse lost. Coming down the final stretch Big Brown just deflated while Da’Tara who led from the start was still in the lead and crossed the finish line in first place. Meanwhile Big Brown just didn’t have it in him to compete much less win. And so his jockey pulled him up and Big Brown leisurely galloped in at last place. The audience was stunned – once again they were denied seeing a Triple Crown winner while the other owners, trainers and jockeys were secretly pleased that the boasting and annoying owner of Big Brown was denied the ultimate horse racing prize.
Of course now came the analysis to find out what exactly happened. Many say it was that crack in Big Brown’s hoof which caused him to miss some training on the days leading up to the race. Luckily the vets who checked him out after the race found nothing physically wrong with him. I think, as do many others, that the horse didn’t act right because of the missed drug injections. And if that is true then I am glad he didn’t win for perhaps like in baseball Big Brown might have had an asterisk next to his name indicating that he was on drugs when he won. Better to deny him the Triple Crown then to have a Barry Bonds type controversy. And then again, maybe it really was a tiny hang nail type crack in his hoof that brought the huge horse down. And so in one last nod to Jim McKay and childhood silliness perhaps it was “the agony of de-feet”.
In the middle of the media attention over Big Brown there was one sad note. Jim McKay had died. He was the ultimate sportscaster that generations grew up listening. He made the Olympics real to us and then there was that line, you know the one I mean, “The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat.” I forget most of the stuff I learned when I was in fifth grade but I remember that line and that poor skier.
Then back to Belmont and Big Brown’s run for the Triple Crown. Having previously listened to Hillary’s speech I found an odd kind of connection to the Democratic primary when at one point a sportscaster remarked that the only horse that gave any kind of competition to Big Brown was the filly, Eight Belles, in the Kentucky Derby. And you might recall that after coming in a strong second the big filly had given all she could and collapsed, never to get up again.
After three hours we knew everything about Big Brown. That he had a small crack in his hoof that they repaired but they didn’t see that as a problem. It was also known that in the Derby and Preakness, Big Brown had been dosed with drugs, which is legal in horse racing. Perhaps because of this horse, these drugs will be illegal next year but for now they could be used. However the owner wanted to prove that his horse could win on his own and so he did not inject Big Brown for this race. And after hearing the sob stories regarding the owners and jockeys children, more than tired of the braggadocio of the winner, after all the excitement leading up to finally having a Triple Crown winner, we were more than ready for the race.
By now you know once again there wasn’t a Triple Crown winner. It wasn’t so much that Big Brown was beaten as it was that the favorite horse lost. Coming down the final stretch Big Brown just deflated while Da’Tara who led from the start was still in the lead and crossed the finish line in first place. Meanwhile Big Brown just didn’t have it in him to compete much less win. And so his jockey pulled him up and Big Brown leisurely galloped in at last place. The audience was stunned – once again they were denied seeing a Triple Crown winner while the other owners, trainers and jockeys were secretly pleased that the boasting and annoying owner of Big Brown was denied the ultimate horse racing prize.
Of course now came the analysis to find out what exactly happened. Many say it was that crack in Big Brown’s hoof which caused him to miss some training on the days leading up to the race. Luckily the vets who checked him out after the race found nothing physically wrong with him. I think, as do many others, that the horse didn’t act right because of the missed drug injections. And if that is true then I am glad he didn’t win for perhaps like in baseball Big Brown might have had an asterisk next to his name indicating that he was on drugs when he won. Better to deny him the Triple Crown then to have a Barry Bonds type controversy. And then again, maybe it really was a tiny hang nail type crack in his hoof that brought the huge horse down. And so in one last nod to Jim McKay and childhood silliness perhaps it was “the agony of de-feet”.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Gay Divorcee
This may anger some of my very conservative friends but I am in favor of marriages for gays. I think it is awful that a gay or lesbian partner is not allowed to visit their “spouse” in the hospital since they are not considered to be family. Nor can they share health packages or any number of benefits that are available to male – female marriages.
I also get angry when the religious right argue that the primary reason for marriage is “to be fruitful and multiply” as the Bible would put it. Well guess what. Since I can’t have children nor did I want them anyway, then based on the above argument I would be unable to get married, too. Not to mention the big business in contraceptives which would also defy that argument. If you don’t want gays or lesbians to be married in your church, then that is your right. But they should be allowed to marry elsewhere.
I think that whether you like it or not this country is moving towards allowing gay marriages. To appease the religious right they may call it civil unions instead of marriage but over the next few years it will be available in more and more states. As so often happens in this country, what was shocking or unthinkable five years ago will be mundane and commonplace within the next five years.
So this brings me to main point. As night follows day, where there are marriages then there will be divorces. If I were a young law student there are two new areas I would look into: internet law and gay divorce law. Just think about all the new legal questions a gay marriage and divorce would create. If Rosie O should marry her partner and then later divorce, which one would get custody of their children as they are both the “Mothers”. What about alimony? If one man makes more money then the other would he have to pay support until the lower earning male finds another partner? There would also be more demand for prenups as many of these couples are older, more established and have a greater need for a prenup. (I sure don’t see Elton John getting caught without a prenup after what just happened to fellow singer Paul McCartney.) Then there are the Private Investigators to be hired when one thinks their partner is cheating on them.
As the country moves slowly but surely towards civil unions for same sex marriages I wonder if anyone has thought about this. Then again, all those hungry lawyers and PI’s who see a huge new market have probably already figured out how they can make the most money for themselves. So even though gays and lesbians might win the right to get married it seems as if, once again, the biggest winners will be the lawyers.
I also get angry when the religious right argue that the primary reason for marriage is “to be fruitful and multiply” as the Bible would put it. Well guess what. Since I can’t have children nor did I want them anyway, then based on the above argument I would be unable to get married, too. Not to mention the big business in contraceptives which would also defy that argument. If you don’t want gays or lesbians to be married in your church, then that is your right. But they should be allowed to marry elsewhere.
I think that whether you like it or not this country is moving towards allowing gay marriages. To appease the religious right they may call it civil unions instead of marriage but over the next few years it will be available in more and more states. As so often happens in this country, what was shocking or unthinkable five years ago will be mundane and commonplace within the next five years.
So this brings me to main point. As night follows day, where there are marriages then there will be divorces. If I were a young law student there are two new areas I would look into: internet law and gay divorce law. Just think about all the new legal questions a gay marriage and divorce would create. If Rosie O should marry her partner and then later divorce, which one would get custody of their children as they are both the “Mothers”. What about alimony? If one man makes more money then the other would he have to pay support until the lower earning male finds another partner? There would also be more demand for prenups as many of these couples are older, more established and have a greater need for a prenup. (I sure don’t see Elton John getting caught without a prenup after what just happened to fellow singer Paul McCartney.) Then there are the Private Investigators to be hired when one thinks their partner is cheating on them.
As the country moves slowly but surely towards civil unions for same sex marriages I wonder if anyone has thought about this. Then again, all those hungry lawyers and PI’s who see a huge new market have probably already figured out how they can make the most money for themselves. So even though gays and lesbians might win the right to get married it seems as if, once again, the biggest winners will be the lawyers.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
My VP Choice for Obama
The news should only be about Barack Obama tonight . He came from nowhere, defeated the “inevitable” Hillary Clinton and oh yeah, he just happens to be our first black candidate for President. And yet thanks to Hillary, this just isn’t that big of news. Even though the numbers were against her she stayed until the last primary, thereby dragging out the truly inevitable outcome until people became numb to Barack’s winning. Then on the afternoon when he finally has enough delegates, Hillary again tries to trump this with news of her own. Will she be second on the ticket or not?
I can’t see that happening. Think about it. You have to have a pretty big ego to think you are the best person to run the US of A. Having two large egos together as President and VP is looking for trouble. Now add in another ex-President plus a strong willed and opinionated President’s wife and you really have trouble. So I just don’t think Obama would be crazy enough to even try it.
Instead I have the perfect Vice President for Obama. For if he doesn’t go with Hillary he needs to pick a person who trumps her in terms of name, prestige and voter appeal. There is only one name that is a bigger draw in the Democratic Party than Clinton and with the highest prestige. Of the choices of people with this name there is one that really stands out.
This person was also a Lt. Governor thus showing some voter draw in a southern state. This candidate is also the President of Operation Respect a nationwide character education program. That’s a two-for-one deal; great topic that appeals to conservatives plus shows business experience. And in answer to Obama’s continuing church problems this same person wrote a book called “Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches are Mixing God and Politics and Losing their Way". (I didn’t even know about this book before I was researching this name but you couldn't find a more appropriate topic for Obama's running mate!)
And who is this paragon of a VP? Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Enough said.
I can’t see that happening. Think about it. You have to have a pretty big ego to think you are the best person to run the US of A. Having two large egos together as President and VP is looking for trouble. Now add in another ex-President plus a strong willed and opinionated President’s wife and you really have trouble. So I just don’t think Obama would be crazy enough to even try it.
Instead I have the perfect Vice President for Obama. For if he doesn’t go with Hillary he needs to pick a person who trumps her in terms of name, prestige and voter appeal. There is only one name that is a bigger draw in the Democratic Party than Clinton and with the highest prestige. Of the choices of people with this name there is one that really stands out.
This person was also a Lt. Governor thus showing some voter draw in a southern state. This candidate is also the President of Operation Respect a nationwide character education program. That’s a two-for-one deal; great topic that appeals to conservatives plus shows business experience. And in answer to Obama’s continuing church problems this same person wrote a book called “Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches are Mixing God and Politics and Losing their Way". (I didn’t even know about this book before I was researching this name but you couldn't find a more appropriate topic for Obama's running mate!)
And who is this paragon of a VP? Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. Enough said.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Game, Set and Match
My neck hurts more than usual. It is a good thing I am scheduled for some treatment later this week because it sure had a work-out over the weekend. On one hand I was swiveling my head back and forth watching the French Open tennis tournament. At the same time I was flipping channels Saturday to watch the verbal battle in the DNC meeting as they debated what to do with Michigan and Florida.
As the men and women of the tennis matches returned volley after volley with speed, determination and skill so did the two sides at the DNC Committee meeting. Although there was no “scoreboard” in the jam packed board room, everyone was keeping track of the ebb and flow of the delegate count.
Ironically, neither the tennis match nor the committee’s finding were beneficial to American women. The most famous current women tennis players were defeated early on in the French Open. As both Serena and Venus Williams were beaten in the third round so was Hillary in Saturday’s rulings. The biggest blow was in the Michigan ruling where Clinton hoped to walk away with more delegates than what was given to her.
What next? Hilary’s supporters hinted that they might take it to the convention as the small crowd of middle aged white women cheered in the background. But no matter what they do, the odds are slim and none that she will eventually win.
Perhaps the greatest result of the meeting is it marked the beginning of the end for the Clinton dominance and control of the DNC. By nearly a 2-1 vote the committee members showed that it is now an Obama party. You could say that Obama and his supporters kept serving ace after ace which Hillary could never return.
How will an Obama controlled DNC act during the upcoming national election? That is the biggest unknown out there. Barack is an untested, inexperienced politician who so far is playing this game brilliantly. He continuously has beaten anyone who goes up against him in spite of being an “unranked” newcomer. How has he done this against some of the biggest names in the Democratic party? Maybe he is just that good at the game and yet….
Newsmakers are just now beginning to come out of their trance over this young man to dig into his history. On Saturedy he left his controversial church but who knows what else may be out there about him? Hillary’s complaint that Obama is unvetted may prove to be prophetic. All we can do now is watch the game unfold between Obama and McCain and see what happens over the next six months.
As for my aching neck, it got one more workout on Saturday. Late in the afternoon I finally got up off my couch and walked outside. And in the beautiful sun drenched Florida afternoon I lifted my head up to the blue sky. Looking to the east I saw the familiar sign of a large white puffy spiral climbing towards the heavens. Another successful space shuttle launched. No matter how many times I have seen this, it is still an awesome sight. And maybe in the political games we all could use an occasional time-out not only to rest but to remind us of what they are fighting for and the high stakes that will go to the winner.
As the men and women of the tennis matches returned volley after volley with speed, determination and skill so did the two sides at the DNC Committee meeting. Although there was no “scoreboard” in the jam packed board room, everyone was keeping track of the ebb and flow of the delegate count.
Ironically, neither the tennis match nor the committee’s finding were beneficial to American women. The most famous current women tennis players were defeated early on in the French Open. As both Serena and Venus Williams were beaten in the third round so was Hillary in Saturday’s rulings. The biggest blow was in the Michigan ruling where Clinton hoped to walk away with more delegates than what was given to her.
What next? Hilary’s supporters hinted that they might take it to the convention as the small crowd of middle aged white women cheered in the background. But no matter what they do, the odds are slim and none that she will eventually win.
Perhaps the greatest result of the meeting is it marked the beginning of the end for the Clinton dominance and control of the DNC. By nearly a 2-1 vote the committee members showed that it is now an Obama party. You could say that Obama and his supporters kept serving ace after ace which Hillary could never return.
How will an Obama controlled DNC act during the upcoming national election? That is the biggest unknown out there. Barack is an untested, inexperienced politician who so far is playing this game brilliantly. He continuously has beaten anyone who goes up against him in spite of being an “unranked” newcomer. How has he done this against some of the biggest names in the Democratic party? Maybe he is just that good at the game and yet….
Newsmakers are just now beginning to come out of their trance over this young man to dig into his history. On Saturedy he left his controversial church but who knows what else may be out there about him? Hillary’s complaint that Obama is unvetted may prove to be prophetic. All we can do now is watch the game unfold between Obama and McCain and see what happens over the next six months.
As for my aching neck, it got one more workout on Saturday. Late in the afternoon I finally got up off my couch and walked outside. And in the beautiful sun drenched Florida afternoon I lifted my head up to the blue sky. Looking to the east I saw the familiar sign of a large white puffy spiral climbing towards the heavens. Another successful space shuttle launched. No matter how many times I have seen this, it is still an awesome sight. And maybe in the political games we all could use an occasional time-out not only to rest but to remind us of what they are fighting for and the high stakes that will go to the winner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)