hkellick: (Political)
The more I read, the more centrist I get. I'm sorry but some of the people in Congress are idiots.

So, Sunday the health care bill passed WITH the bit about federal government not paying for abortions included. And then the huge furor including members of the house WHO HAVE ALREADY VOTED saying they won't vote for a bill with this attached (???)

I understand that the attachment makes it harder for women who can't afford an abortion to pay for one, but.. since when was the government involved in giving women money for abortions anyways? I thought this was settled back in '76 with the Hyde Amendment, but apparently not.

I'm not anti-abortion, but I think any liberal who wants to attach a rider saying that the federal government is going to pay for a woman's abortion should be taken in back by Obama and beaten until they get that to do so would undoubtedly mean the end of the Health Care Bill.

This is Liberal Idiocy. No more and no less.

What I want is for the Health Care Bill to pass. Bringing abortion into the debate is .. it's stupid! It's a great way to kill a much needed bill. And for that reason, that one reason, I reject it.

I'm not thrilled with the Health Care Bill. I'd be thrilled if they could include the public option, but include federally-funded abortion and I guarantee you, the Dems would once again be snatching failure out of victory.
hkellick: (Political)
I am so disappointed in Maine. Maine isn't exactly a bastion of Liberalism, but I fail to understand the hate of gay marriage. I honestly do. There is no legitimate reason why gays should not marry. It comes down to people's personal morality, no more and no less.

McDonnell won. What a shock. I'm saddened that Deeds never came together as a candidate, never made himself electable. I hope that McDonnell doesn't do too much to hurt the state. And I hope to god the Virginia Dems get together, take some pointers from their mauling and find someone who's actually electable to run in four years.
I keep wondering if McAuliffe would have done a better job. I didn't like McAuliffe, but he might have, at least in getting a better message out and making himself appear electable. That's all in the past for now, though, isn't it?

NY-23... well, well, well.. lookie here. It turns out that if you divide the republican vote between the ultra-right and the moderate right that the Dems win. Who'dathunk it. Memo to the RNC on this.. this is your future if you can't get your act together. You're on a death spiral to becoming a minority party, pure in thought, I'm sure, but entirely unelectable. Hope you get the memo this time and start thinking about local moderates you can stand behind and get elected instead of the most conservative among you.
Who'd have thought that NEWT would get it? No one else seemed to... certainly not T-Paw or Palin (PS, hey.. if you're going to get involved in local politics like that, you really gotta make sure it's wrapped up before you do, cause there's egg ALL OVER your face now.)

No comments on New Jersey, or the NY mayor. Didn't care too much about those...
hkellick: (Political)
Of all the things to get upset about, with all the balls he's juggling in the air, why is anyone really making a big deal out of the fact that Obama wants to invite a bunch of boys over to play basketball.

I mean, are you going to tell me that a Basketball game means that much more than the advisor's he's chosen, the staff he's hired, etc., or are you trying to maybe hold him to some impossible standard you've set for him?

The president wants to play basketball, a sport he clearly loves, with other men. Can't imagine why, except that I can count the number of women I know who even PLAY basketball on one hand. Well, say the whackos, it means unfair access to the President. Sure. It could. So ask the president for fair access. Invite him to do something else. Don't sit there and whine and complain and scream 'Oh my god! The president prefers spending time with men! It's not fair! It's not fair! it's not fair!'

I can't think of a single guy who doesn't just appreciate spending time with his own sex occasionally. Come to that, I can't think of a single woman who doesn't enjoy spending time with her own sex occasionally either. Why is this whole thing some big faux scandal?

Seriously, I think some people need to get over themselves.
hkellick: (Political)
I have mentioned before my total disdain for obstructionism, the political belief that if you stop the other party from doing anything worthwhile that your party will look better in comparison and thus have a chance of being voted in come next election. It's in the Negative Politics playbook, right there next to negative ad campaigns, and I don't care for it at all.

Right now, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that health care needs to be reformed. That the system, as it stands, isn't really working and needs to be changed.

Now, I am somewhat naive as to how it is we came to have five separate health care reform bills, but what *IS* clear is that we did, and that to move forward in the process, everyone was waiting for the reform bill from the Finance Committee. Senator Max Baucus really worked hard to try to craft an actual bipartisan bill. Everyone in the Finance Committee has said so, that Mr. Baucus really tried his best to bring everyone into a room and come up with something that everyone could agree with, but he met a wall, the wall of Obstructionism.

To be perfectly frank, I've not heard much constructive anything out of the Republican Party since President Obama became president in January. If you listen to the Republican Party speak, they don't talk about their own brilliant ideas, how THEY have a plan that can fix the Health Care System AND Not blow up the federal deficit. All I hear is how the Liberals will tax and spend, bring up the deficit and stick the government's nose where it doesn't belong.

In short, it's more negative politics. I know they have at LEAST one bill they've written, so it's interesting that they never discuss the merits of it, how it would work, etc. It makes me question what precisely is in the bill and whether or not it actually reforms Health Care or not.

The most Ironic moment of watching the vote from the finance committee last night was watching Senator Chuck Grassley get up and try to explain how a vote against the bill was not a vote for Status Quo. It was pure bull poop and I swear I saw Grassley's nose grow even as he spoke. Grassley has been an obstructionist from the start. He did not work with Max Baucus to find a bill everyone could agree on. He's not happy with the bill that's crafted now and he knows that had that bill not passed, Health Care Reform would have been forced to wait until such time as Baucus found a bill that COULD pass. Mr. Grassley, your vote against the Baucus Bill WAS a vote for the status quo, it was a vote against change, against much-needed reformm. You may be covering your butt as far as your electorate is concerned, but I, for one, do not buy it.
hkellick: (Political)
So... as I'll assume everybody knows now, Jimmy Carter got on national TV two days ago and accused alot of the attacks on Obama personally (the birthists, the calling him the antichrist, the comparing him to hitler) as nothing more than racism.

It's... quite an attack on the republican party.

The republican party, as a whole (from RNC Chairman Michael Steele to the REAL Heart and Soul of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh) has denied this, but.. when a man who was actually alive and living in the South when the Jim Crow laws were reality speaks about racism, can we truly dismiss him so quickly?

The facts are... the attacks by many of the Far Right are indefensible. Questioning his Birth, believing him a Muslim Terrorist, Calling him the Antichrist? These are not opinions that even TOUCH reality. They're born of fear, hatred and the desperate need to illegitimize the president.

And there are many republicans that HAVE been racist towards him. I mean.. hello, Barack the Magic Negro? Pictures of Obama being lynched, or his head on a monkey? How are these anything BUT Racist?

What the Far Right hasn't answer is.. if it isn't racism, what is it? Do they really expect us to believe they're arguing about his POLICIES when they say they don't believe he was born in the U.S.? Nuh uh! Try again!

As far as I can see, the Republican Party isn't arguing policies, they're spreading fear. The man pals around with terrorists, says Attack Bull Palin at McCain's Behest, and people still believe it. The man's healthcare reform is just an excuse to kill off old people screams ex-governor Palin, and people believe that too. I'm not seeing ARGUMENTS, what I'm hearing is a wall of Bullshit. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until it stops.

Was Joe Wilson a Racist? Signs point to yes. Is that the reason he screamed out "You Lie!" maybe. Whatever it is, at the heart of it, is the truth that Joe Wilson did not respect the president. That is the core of it. That's the core of all of this garbage about where he's from, whether he's a terrorist, etc., a basic lack of respect for a duly elected president.

Is some of it Racism? Yes. Is all of it Racism? .. I'm not sure it's all of it, but...let's say maybe. Maybe, until the Birthers and the Deathers and the Antichristers give us a compelling reason to believe otherwise, we'll say it remains a possibility.
hkellick: (Political)
I've voiced my displeasure with both parties, especially the Republican Party, in this journal. I stand by my feelings. The Republican Party, as a party, is increasingly finding itself beholden to a group of way out there far right nutsos who are so unhappy with the state of affairs that instead of asking what they can do to make things better go off on tirades about how Obama is not an American Citizen and apparently asking kids what they can do to make their country a better place is a socialist agenda. These are the same far right wackos who are against any real Health Care Reform.

And while I'm on Far Right Wackos... and I'm not looking JUST at Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina.. since when is it OK to heckle a president during a speech, to boo and hiss? Very uncool.
But I digress...

Often on CC, I see someone trying to argue with a virtual wall. People arguing with people who have already made up their mind. And to some extent, I saw the same in Obama's speech.

But I don't think Obama's speech was to congress, though I'm glad he looked a certain side RIGHT in the virtual eye and said "Those things you're saying about us funding abortions and death panels: They are a Lie." I think Obama's speech was to the part of the country that was trying to make sense of it all through the lies and misinformation and find out specifically how it would affect them and why they should back it.

All summer, we've heard stories of the GARBAGE the other side has spewed out: the Birthist movement, the Death Panel lies, the Funded Abortion lies. There is no way to defend this garbage. It's total far right wacko garbage and the people who spread this garbage should be ignored and shunned (if not taken back and beaten until we get the stupid out of them.)

There are some legitimate concerns about the Health Care Reform bill. Death Panels is not among them. If the conservatives would be serious and offer some serious discussion about the legitimate concerns to this bill, I think the country would be alot better for it. We might even be able to pass a bill that America, as a whole, could live with.

But I don't see that as likely. It's far easier and far less scary to stand up to your diminishing base and say "I hear you. Screw the Socialist Terrorist President of ours. We won't pass anything he wants." It's also a whole lot of a better plan to get you reelected because clearly, for some, being reelected is far more important than doing something good and right in this country.

And finally, I'm with those Americans that believe that our nation should be judged not based on the quality of life of our average citizen, but our lowest citizen. Good, moral nations do not let millions of citizens rot in bankruptcy, unable to afford taking themselves or their loved ones to get real health care in the case of a sickness or accident. Universal Healthcare *IS*, for me, a moral prerogative.

Palin

Jul. 7th, 2009 07:09 am
hkellick: (Political)
You all knew I was going to take a swing at this, right?

When I was at the July fourth party and [profile] blueslives (I think) mentioned Palin had quit I was shocked. I've had some chance to read up on it and get a little bit more information and I'm still.. OK not shocked, but confused.

The primary question is "Why?" Why would Sarah Palin quit? There's a great number of people trying to figure out the answer, and I won't get into most of the theories, but the short answer is.. nobody really knows. Because it came out of nowhere.

I'll say this.. you haven't heard the last of Sarah Palin. For one, I don't think she'd allow it. I think the limelight is far too important to her to truly give it up entirely.

But... let's take a moment to say our goodbyes to Sarah Palin's political career, because I would say it's over. I think she'll RUN for office a few times.. as I said, you haven't heard the last of Sarah Palin, but I doubt you'll ever see her in office again.

The problem with Sarah Palin.. is Sarah Palin.

She can dish out the criticism, but as far as taking it.. any perceived attacks on her or her family are immediately met with all guns blazing. This denotes a lack of a certain level of maturity. There are going to be some situations when you can go out with all guns blazing, but every perceived insult?

Palin also doesn't seem to be very good at understanding the consequences of certain actions. Without any doubt, she thrust her family into the spotlight. Sarah, when you bring your family up onto the stage so we can all sit there and see you in your "natural element" holding baby Trig and whatever.. this is thrusting your family into the spotlight. And the spotlight, as you've hopefully learned now, is a harsh mistress and shows your weaknesses as well as the politicized perceived strengths.

When you politicize your family, that means it's open season on your family. That it's OK to trot out Todd being a member of the AIP and make jokes at Bristol and Levi's expense (especially since you, yourself, guaranteed that actually made news at all by getting personally involved.)

Without a doubt, Sarah Palin has SOME minor political talents, but it's arguable that they're enough to seriously make her a good choice for any political role. What she did in Alaska, the Success she saw there was due to her going after her own party there and working hand in hand with the Democrats to take on Big Oil. Then after things fell apart in November and she'd been used for months to be McCain's attack dog, she came back to Alaska, having said things about Obama pal'ing around with terrorists and "Real Americans" and she found she'd lost her political friends. She's gotten very little done since coming back to office and has been swamped with ethics charges, which she feels were frankly silly.

In other words.. she didn't have the political know-how to go back to her old job and do it effectively after her run as VP. She didn't know how to soothe angry nerves and bring her coalition back and, as a result, she became a Lame Duck.

Palin prides herself as someone who is different from 'all those Washington insiders' and she prides herself on being a Susie Soccer Mom, which definitely works for some of her voters, but maybe doesn't work so well with her peers. Regardless of whatever she prides herself as, if she's unable to work with her peers.. whether that be the Alaska Legislature, the US congress, or the government as a whole (for when she does run for president), she won't be an effective leader.

That is, to some extent, you NEED to work like a Washington Insider to do the job effectively. If you can't, you become moot, useless, a lame duck, a dead fish. Whatever metaphor you want to use.

So we'll see where things go from here for Ms. Palin, but unless she learns a new more mature tune, I doubt you'll ever see Ms. "Quitters take the easy way out but I'm Quitting my job." in any sort office again.

PS I also hope Sarah Palin learns to grow out of this constant victimization of herself by everyone else too. How sad it must be to be Sarah Palin who is constantly misunderstand and mischaracterized by everyone else in Washington: Washington insiders, the main stream media, everyone. People who do the research into what she does, what she says and the consequences of her actions.. no one understands poor victimized Sarah.
Which is why she's going to sue you. :p
Seriously, Sarah, if you can't learn to work with other people, you can't be an effective politician. You simply can't.
hkellick: (Political)
Let me start by stating where I stand.

Yes, I am White, Male and Middle Class. This means, on average, I am more likely to find a job and more likely to get a raise and a promotion than a Woman or Colored Person. I acknowledge this as the fact that it is.

That said... I believe very strongly in fairness. Denying anyone a promotion simply because of their race or sex is wrong.

That's why I stand against Quotas.

Don't get me wrong. I DO believe that when deciding whether or not a person should be hired or promoted, your race, sex, age, sexuality or religion should simply not enter the picture. They are besides the point. What SHOULD be the point is whether or not you are the right person to get the job/move up in the company. Whether you have the qualifications, the experience, whether you would be the right cog to put into that particular place in the machine.

I also realize as I stated in the second paragraph above that that isn't necessarily true, that people do still account for race, sex, etc. when making these decisions. That's not right either.

But neither is Quotas. The predetermination that a certain percentage of the managers of a company or the employees of a company NEED to be a minority class, whether they're the best person for the job or no.

Looking at the argument the Supremes heard today, the issues as I understood it was that a group of firefighters were offered a chance for a promotion but because none of those who'd been noted as promotion-worthy were colored, the test was thrown out.

This is simply unfair. These were chosen as the best among their company, the people who deserved a promotion but because none of them was colored, they weren't even offered the CHANCE for a promotion? How is this fair? How is this right?

So, I agree with the Supreme Court. This was the right decision. It should not be legal to bar someone from a job or promotion simply because they're 'different', but it also shouldn't be legal to bar someone from a job or promotion simply because they're not. That's just plain nuts!

So.. yeah.
I'm done.
hkellick: (Political)
Ensign - Had an affair, may have used position to help his affair's husband keep a job and to pay affair's son.
Sanford - Not only had an affair but abandoned post and lied to staff
Jindal - Had an opportunity to show how well thought and intelligent he is and blew it.
Palin - Appeals strongly to the base, but it's arguable that she could ever win anything but a primary election
Romney - Does not particularly appeal to the base, but has kept out of the headlines at least. Would Romney even get past the primaries, however?
Gingrich - Saddled with a great deal of baggage, most of his own making. May have some good relatively fresh ideas, but can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth.

So... seriously.. am I missing anyone?

Oh, I know! Huckabee!
Huckabee will be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee!
hkellick: Words Like Violence Break The Silence (Enjoy the SIlence)
I remember... just after Obama had won the nomination to be the Democratic Presidential Nomination hanging out on CC and having two people explain to me how sexism had played a role in Obama winning the nomination. And.. I couldn't argue the fact.
The expectations for Hillary, as a woman, were DIFFERENT than those for Obama, a black man. Sometimes Hillary herself wasn't sure what those expectations were, sometimes showing her "I can play with the big boys" face and sometimes showing her more sensitive female side. The final view of Hillary was.. a woman of 1,000 faces. And it's an image some of us bought.
I can't argue that Hillary was, in part, a victim of these different expectations. The same expectations any woman in power probably has to deal with. What it means to be a Woman in a "Man's World."

I didn't like Hillary. I didn't want another Clinton in office so quickly and Hillary's "I'm going to play with the big boys" attitude.. always bothered me somewhat.
Which is probably sexism on my end.

I mention this to bring up the point that Sexism.. AND Racism are not just Black and White. There's shades of grey, quite a lot of them, and the fact, for example, that I wasn't comfortable with Hillary in power might have been sexism on my part.

I'm of an "Avenue Q" point of view about the whole thing. I think we're all a little Racist, and all a little Sexist. I hear comments all the time, jokes, a certain sort of humor that, while maybe funny, are still Sexist or Racist.

So, when you hear Sonia Sotomayer's comment, EVEN IN CONTEXT, I think it's Racist. And Sexist.

For the record, her comment was the following...

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

You can read her entire speech, to get a feeling for the context of this paragraph here.

I think the fact that if you flipped the comment around so it says "Secondly, I would hope that a Caucasian Male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latino Woman who hasn't lived that life."... the fact that that's a little more clearly racist and sexist, I think... shows the comment is, in fact Racist and Sexist.

I think, if she's said that "With my experience, and the life I've lived, I think I have the ability to make a better conclusion regarding race and sex discrimination cases.", she would have sounded potentially conceited, but not racist or sexist.

It was the way she said it.

I'm not here to yell at her like Newt or Rush. I'm sure she'll be a fine justice. But I feel the need to make my case heard, if only here in my personal journal. And, so far, there's two camps here.. only two.. the Left who's screaming it isn't Racist at all and how DARE those idiots on the rights suggest that Sonia Sotomayer is Racist.. and the Right who's screaming "REVERSE RACISM! REVERSE RACISM!"

If we're committed to fighting Racism, and Sexism. I think we need to be realistic here about what counts. And all the various grays of Racism and Sexism. If we're really going to end Racism and Sexism, which alot of groups claim is the right end.. the right end for Feminism and the Civil Rights movement, it has to stop, all of it.

Catchup

May. 21st, 2009 07:10 am
hkellick: (Political)
This was going to be a snarky post about the RNC. When I last looked, the RNC was gearing up to vote on a resolution to rename the Democratic Party the Democratic Socialist Party. Which is, frankly, stupid and also factually wrong.

But they didn't pass that resolution.

Instead, they passed a resolution to call on Dems to stop pushing us towards Socialism.. which at least has a little more basis in fact, though I don't think is going to make an awful lot of difference in the political battle.

It also doesn't, as far as I can tell, help the Republican party make money or win elections. There's undoubtedly a core of far right republicans who buy that the Democrats are Socialists/Communists, etc.. but the bulk of the country, from what I saw, didn't buy it when the RNC said that a year ago, so I'm not sure what makes the RNC think they'll buy it now.

I get it for what it is, an attempt to brand the Democratic Party. Just as the Dems have branded the RNC 'the party of No' recently. But I'm not sure how effective this will be. Time will tell..

-----------------------

Sims 3 is coming up in 12 days. My excitement, already on high, has gone to LUDICROUS (Spaceballs Reference). Seriously! I've been reading alot of articles, looking at a Sims 3 Board and, I am so freakin' excited, man.

... not much else to say. See some of you in Vegas, soon!
hkellick: (Political)
Two great bits of news this week, if you are a supporter of Gay Marriage.

The bigger one is that Maine has decided that they will allow Gay Marriage. The second, lesser, piece of news is that DC will acknowledge gay marriages done in other states.

I honestly have never seen where it's government's place to say that you two people who love each other and are devoted to each other, but you don't get the same rights (and responsibilities. If you don't think marriage isn't about responsibility too, you're doing it wrong) as these other two people who love each other and are devoted to each other.

I think there's alot of social wrongs in the world. I think it's utterly horrible that the family seems to be falling apart, that bullies are left to bully and hurt and harass until someone finally loses it and brings a gun to school, and that nobody can get a crackpot dictator out of Africa before he kills half his population, but Gay Marriage just doesn't make it onto the list.

I've seen no proof, ever, that Gay Marriage destroys society. I've seen no proof ever that two Gay Parents are somehow worse than two Straight Parents (especially given some of the LOVELY examples of Straight Parents I, myself, know!)

To me, the whole thing STINKS of small-mindedness and arrogance. Arrogance that your morality is The Only Way to live, instead of learning to say "Well, I don't approve of this, but it's not my place to say it should be outlawed."

And that, in a nutshell, is how I think a wise society works. We don't all have to love everything that those around us might do, we simply have to accept them and try to be respectful of them (so long, of course, as what they do isn't something that outright hurts people. I'm not saying we should accept psychotic murderers as they are. I'm talking about those who want to live the way they live and whose lives don't hurt each other.)
hkellick: (Political)
So, I'm as shocked as the next man (though, maybe not so much in retrospect, the polling looked really bad) that Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party. And honestly, I'm not certain what to think about it..

Arlen Specter, as far as I know, leans center right. At the very least, he's an independent. He's a hawk and voted for the Iraq War. He's still saying he won't vote for the EFCA.

There are all sorts of Democrats jumping up and down going "Woohoo! We got 60 Senators, more than enough to block filibusters." Except.. well, I don't think so. We have 60 Democratic Senators, it's true, but on what issues do they agree upon? Any?

This is, of course, assuming Norm Coleman finally loses (and that whole thing is.. it's a bad joke. I hope that not every hotly divided vote will end up spiraling into the madness this one Senate Seat has. I, for one, think Norm Coleman looks like a bad loser, one who won't admit he's lost.) and Senator Franken gets the seat.

I'm not sure anyone's "Won" this at all. I'm not even sure Specter really won this. He's just jumped ship on his party. Now, he'll need to convince people he hasn't jumped ship on his ideals or I'd say his chance to be reelected are next to nil.

Though, there is a clear loser here: The GOP.

What Arlen Specter's leaving has symbolized is that there's no place in the GOP for Moderates. So long as people believe that (and I think people DO believe that, that's how Obama won, because he seemed much more moderate than McCain), than the GOP will continue to be politically marginalized.

I'm not sure what it will take the GOP to get out of the wilderness. They need an image rework of some sort. They need to stop appearing to be the party of Old, White, Racist, Religious Right Nuts and come back as a party with a valid viewpoint that accounts for the fact that the world's CHANGED somewhat.

For the record, I'm not stating that the GOP itself truly stands for Racism, or Religious Fanaticism, but a number of the more vocal members of their party DO. So long as the GOP remains the party of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Fixed News, they've got a serious Public Relations Problem.
hkellick: (Political)
Once again, I'm putting off my review of last weekend. I have other things I'd prefer to discuss. I'll get around to it.

I want to discuss that which is being dubbed "The Party of No".

It's a matter of fact that, by and large, America is a two-party government. It's also a matter of fact that both parties don't exactly have a good track record of working together for the betterment of the nation as a whole. The reasons for this are complicated and stuck in, well, alot of backroom politics.

Enter Obama, who at least has made offers to work together.

Whether or not you believe Obama has been sincere in his efforts to try to work with the other party.. seems to depend on where YOU lie on the political spectrum. From my perspective, he's tried to at least engage the other side, the Republicans, in conversation and try to bring them into the national debate, however they've been reticent to do so.

Which is why the Republican Party is being dubbed by some "The Party of No."

No. We will not work with you to find middle ground. No, we will not try to find compromise with you. No. No. No. And, by the way, No.

I know that at least some of my audience thinks that this is not a fair assessment.

Yesterday, Tax Day, was supposed to be a Big Day for the party of No. The throngs of angry tax payers were supposed to throng the streets of cities around the nation to protest Obama's tax and spend politics. However, by the accounts I've seen, not only was the protest a relative fizzle, not getting anywhere near the kind of numbers that anti-war protests and pro-immigration protests have seen in RECENT years, but it became obvious to those who were there, it was less about taxation, than about Obama himself.

The ironic part here is the real likelihood that many of those protesters out there, certainly some of the people I know would read this journal and agree with the protesters... would actually pay LESS tax under Obama's plan than they were under the previous tax plan.

I guess what I'd really like to see from the Republican Party is a viable new alternative. It's fact that things fell apart under President Bush's watch. If it's your belief that how you're taxed has anything to do with the economic explosion (and if you truly believe Obama's Tax Plan is going to harm America, than you DO equate taxes with the economy at least somewhat), than how can you expect America to support any plan that mirrors.. the same plan that was in action when things fell apart? You need a new alternative. That plan did not work.

Really, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Taxes don't directly affect the economy at all, except that it gives the government more money to lend to banks, to offer to states, etc.

I suspect the real beef is with the idea of raising taxes, period, to pay for all the things Obama wants to pay for. If that is it, couldn't we just discuss this issue. I know it's an age old argument between the two parties, but at least we'd be arguing the right argument. Then from there, you could make bills, attempt to pass them, etc.

One last point...
I know that some of you disagree with me. Some of you feel passionately and strongly against what I'm saying here. I know, and have spoken to, briefly, my ideological opposites.

To you I say: I respect your right to believe what you will and to speak as you may, but ask that if you have something to say, you say it respectfully and thoughtfully. Thank You.
hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)
I think.. having gotten as interested in the political stuff as I did for as long as I did.. and then finally having gotten the president I wanted.. yesterday I was euphoric.. today, I just feel wiped out.

I'm still happy my candidate won, but I'm done with arguing, done with trying to correct people. I see there's still a bunch of active threads in CC's Lounge about the election and I just.. don't have the stomach to be involved.

Tomorrow we'll be seeing the Capitol Steps, Musical Political Comedy. THIS I'm looking forward to. Whereas the stuff in the Lounge almost makes me cringe, I know I'll be busting a gut laughing tomorrow at the Capitol Steps' take on things. There's SO much for them to mock from this past election.
Hopefully this time we don't end up sitting next to the Conservative with no sense of humor who only laughs when they mock Barack but audibly mutters and gives us the fisheye when they mock McCain and we laugh.
hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)
It's 11:30 and in case you haven't heard, the President Elect is Barack Obama.

I feel a sense of relief. I feel a sense of PRIDE. I MADE this happen. My wife and I. We VOTED. We voted and helped turn Virginia Blue the first time in 44 years. We helped to put this country back in track.

And now.. I'm buzzing.

I hope to sleep tonight. I may not. But.. regardless... I just needed to take a second and post.

Congratulations to our newest president, Barack Obama.

VOTE!!!!

Nov. 4th, 2008 06:26 am
hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)
Just got back from voting. We got there a little after 5, and there was almost no line (compared to the HUGE line we saw as we left.)

So, time to have the usual pep-talk. Vote! This is your chance, your big chance, to have your say in the way this country (as well as your local city or state or whatnot) is run! This is your big chance to have a say!

Many of you aren't happy with the way things have been run. Time to change that. Some fear what a certain politician might do in office! Time to stop that! Whatever your feelings, whoever you're voting for.. today is your day!

Um.. kinda rambly. I got like no sleep last night (so I'm staying home today to recuperate and get ready for tonight's election party.)

Um.. so.. K!
hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)
Do you know what I honestly don't get..

it's the number of Republicans who seem to really truly believe that Obama is some sort of terrorist or socialist or whatever, and that once he's elected (as is looking lucky) the end of the world is going to come.

What I really don't understand is the FEAR, the pure unbridled FEAR of Obama? Is it Racism? Is it that they actually believe the oft-corrected lie that Obama is a Muslim? Is it just that despite the last 8 years, they're afraid of what a liberal government is going to do to the 'Morality' they hold so dear? (My God! Obama might make it legal for Gays to marry!!)

I honestly don't understand it, but I don't understand the anti-intellectualism branch of the GOP that seems to comprise at least a pretty good portion of the base. How on earth can people happily live with the belief that science is a crock of ****, but God provides all? I don't understand that. I'm not sure I'd ever want to.

I hope these people find some peace in their president, and can find a way to let the fear go.
hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)

Part the First:

I don't want to think about how much money the wife and I spent yesterday. Nearly all of it was actually necessary, though.
List of things we got:
- K - updated winter wardrobe
- H and K - New Cell Phones (I messaged a bunch of you last night with my new 703 number (I figure.. if I'm staying in the DC area, it's time for a local number)
- H and K - New Knives (we registered for a 15 piece knife set for our wedding and decided to finally buy them. They're niiiice and they cut things GOOD (Yes I know that's not gramatically correct. Trust me, they cut GOOD not Well. OK? OK? OK!)
- PE Review Book ($160 for this, but it's necessary and, with luck, something I'll be using for a looooong time.)
- Plane Tickets to Buffalo for Thanksgiving

So... we've done OUR part to help bolster the economy ;p

The P.E. Review Book is big. It flags the beginning of yet another stage of my life. The exam I want to take is about 7 months away. That means I want to take the next six months reading all 1,088 pages of this book (and the last month doing practice exams) and make sure I actually understand stuff I learned years ago and, by and large, don't regularly use. The good news is I DID understand this stuff once upon a time and haven't entirely lost it (I was looking through the book online and I do at least VAGUELY remember alot of this stuff)

So.. this is Big. Big Big Big BIG!

Part the Second: Anti-American Repulican

First of all, let me preface by saying that I DO NOT think ALL Republicans are Anti-American, but let me tell you what I DO think is Anti-Americans, messing with the election system to make your candidate win. Voter Fraud. Laws meant to try to dissuade the poor from voting. THAT is Anti-American.

Some of the people McCain has hired are Anti-American. They want to win at ALL costs.. and if they can't convert you over to their side, they want to make sure you don't vote.

For the record, this has been an ongoing issue. It was a DEFINITE issue in 2006 (and thought to be connected with the U.S. Attorney Scandal of 2006. Some attorneys wouldn't 'play ball' with Bush/the RNC and thus Bush and Gonzales fired them.) Someone screams voter fraud and a stupid law appears on the book that would make it harder for Americans, especially those that are poor, to vote.

Don't believe it's happening? Read the Wall Street Journal. 200,000 new people in Ohio Registered 200,000. Worried about voter fraud in Ohio came up and a Republican Judge tried to put the Kabash on 200,000 new voters until the Supreme Court overruled them. This is UNACCEPTABLE.

THIS is UNAMERICAN. This is UNACCEPTABLE. This country was founded on the idea of all (free white) men getting a vote on how this country should be run, not just those that agree with a certain party.

And it's especially ironic in the face of Sarah Palin, who likes to visit "Pro-American" parts of the country (EXCUSE ME?!?! Listen, you stupid woman, but we love America in New York JUST as much as you love it in Alaska or Texas. Just because we don't agree about how the country should be run does NOT mean we're Anti-American. For God's sake.. is that how you see the world? There's "Us" (The Right-Wing Christians of the world) and everyone else, who's out to get you and everything you stand for? What a sad, pitiful life.)

And then.. and THEN Michelle Bachman (R) Minnesota who not only suggested that Obama is Anti-American, but a number of members of congress are as well. Excuse me? Is this the 1950s again? Are we really back to McCarthyism? That's just.. just.. I don't believe people still believe this shit.

I just hope and pray that the lies don't work, that the voter fraud scare doesn't work this time and that ALL Americans get a chance to vote (and knock those assholes out of government.)

And now.. some amusement, why politicians shouldn't roleplay online (MMPORG for those of you in the know)

hkellick: Pittsburgh, City of Bridges (Default)

The more I see of McCain, the more I'm absolutely CERTAIN he would not make a good President.

First, there's his TOTAL lack of respect for Obama. Just looking at how he acts like Obama in the debates. First debate, he wouldn't shake hands, second, he wouldn't look.. this time.. it was clear he was trying to look in obama's direction (K and I both caught he wasn't looking AT Obama, just in his direction), but in his direction, and as the night wore on, the camera kept seeing him mugging, rolling his eyes, and getting more and more angry.

And if that wasn't enough, McCain would outright interrupt Obama.

This is a man who has no respect for the opposition. Am I to believe this man is going to be able to hold a respectful meaning with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, because I don't see it.

And honestly, some of McCain's answers were.. weak. McCain tried calling Obama out on not supporting free trade with Columbia. Obama explains why (We couldn't guarantee worker safety) and McCain's response was "Well.. well.. he doesn't support free trade with Columbia." (I'm paraphrasing here. It was just... a weak answer.)

And then, dare I say, McCain blew it. He put his foot in his mouth not once but twice, but the biggest one being his mocking of Obama for being pro-choice in situations where the mother's health was at risk.

Oh, and John is PROUD of the people who've attended his rallies. All of them. He didn't distance himself from the nutjobs screaming "Kill Him!" Bad move, John. Very bad move.

So...

we'll see what the future 19 days brings.
But I'm calling it here and now.

I, for one, welcome President Barack Obama.

PS: This moderator was EXCELLENT. Better than ALL the others. I liked him, I liked his questions. They were GOOD questions.

Son of PS: Joe the Plumber for President in 2012.

Grandson of PS: You know, John, some psychologists say that excessively blinking is a sign that you might be lying.

December 2015

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930 31  

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags