|
Blogging to the attention deficit generation |
Having "so-called" executive experience doesn't mean you are not completely incompetent. Sarah Palin has proven, yet again, that she is a figurehead who gets the vast majority of information she receives from the mouth of some unseen advisor or aide. If there were a machine that could detect and measure common sense, she would not register any reading whatsoever. While recently conducting a radio interview in Montreal (Quebec - zero electoral votes) she was the victim of, what would seem to be, an obvious prank call. It's not so much as she was caught unaware that bothers me. It's that it was carried out with such incredible ease and she was unaware that this was a ruse despite several "red flags." While sympathizers will call this an extreme example of gotcha journalism, I call it evidence that Sarah Palin is a vacant and uninformed twit who is in way over her head. This incident does nothing to shatter my vision of her as a woman who has lived in a self-indulgent bubble for the last 30 years. Listen to this snippet for yourself and explain how this daft creature has any place in the White House. If she's so easily hoodwinked by harmless pranksters, how is she going to stare down the real threats we face in international diplomacy (oh yeah.. under McCain, we won't have diplomacy, just missle strikes)? This isn't going rogue. It's something else.
Most likely, primates and whales- both seemingly intelligent--live their entire lives not knowing of the others existence.
I admit it--I look at the Drudge Report everyday. Its a strange breed of obsession that would require a painful form of self-reflection for me to truly understand. I tell myself that everyone in D.C. looks at it daily (which is sadly true)so I need to peruse its content to keep up. After all, I am a professional.
But that would be the easy way out, and I am learned enough to know that virtually everything that is easy is also bad, and most bad things (especially destructive habits) necessitate an ugly cleansing process.
So here is my pledge: Obama wins on Tuesday and I swear off Drudge's bullshit site forever. No need for a double take, I said FOREVER, and I urge anyone else with my affliction to do the same.
Vote Obama as many times as you can. If not for the country, than out of spite to destroy that pervert-hat wearing twit that would be cleaning highways if the right people were running the show.
Remember, when it comes t Drudge, if we don't look, he won't eat.
- Lastly, is anyone else pissed that this, of all weekends, is the one that we get an extra hour?
I had just opened this article that details how the right are going to get nasty, the same moment a group called the GOP Trust ran a Rev. Wright add here in Florida. Granted, it occurred in the middle of 5 Dem ads, and was on behalf of a "blockhead" of a candidate that has virtually no chance of winning, but still, it was terrible. Kind of like getting rocks on Halloween.
Also, we are going to be having a "blog pool" for the Electoral College on Monday, so stay tuned.
Till then:
At least according to himself. In a debate last night he announced that he has not been convicted of anything, despite a difference of opinion with the judge and jury that convicted him earlier this week on 7 counts of corruption.
The center-right leaning British publication, the Economist, has come out for Obama, and done so in what I think is a, quite frankly brilliant way. Three things stand out for me about this endorsement that make it more striking than any of the others I have come across. Heres why:
1) The Economist has some of the smartest and best researched material political material on the international circuit. It challenges the average reader and forces he or she to elevate their game when consuming their writing (much like this site!). They don't dumb down to reach a broader audience. Instead they choose to reach out to intellectuals and aspirants of intellectuality throughout the world.
In order to do so they must understand the world or they will have no readers. So this endorsement further spotlights a world behind Obama. The Economist, as a whole, understand the geo-political temperatures better than any other publication I have come across-- be it academic or commercial.
2) A center-right publication is classic McTurd territory, and this just deepens the sketch of the Arizona Senator as a man that has at the very least lost his political soul, if not his moral compass.
3) The way they framed their endorsement was powerful and forward thinking. They ask us to examine what the next 8 years might be like, as opposed to merely (and appropriately) mocking the eight that we are about to conclude. Here is an excerpt:
The immediate focus, which has dominated the campaign, looks daunting enough: repairing America’s economy and its international reputation. The financial crisis is far from finished. The United States is at the start of a painful recession. Some form of further fiscal stimulus is needed, though estimates of the budget deficit next year already spiral above $1 trillion. Some 50m Americans have negligible health-care cover. Abroad, even though troops are dying in two countries, the cack-handed way in which George Bush has prosecuted his war on terror has left America less feared by its enemies and less admired by its friends than it once was.
Yet there are also longer-term challenges, worth stressing if only because they have been so ignored on the campaign. Jump forward to 2017, when the next president will hope to relinquish office. A combination of demography and the rising costs of America’s huge entitlement programmes—Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid—will be starting to bankrupt the country. Abroad a greater task is already evident: welding the new emerging powers to the West. That is not just a matter of handling the rise of India and China, drawing them into global efforts, such as curbs on climate change; it means reselling economic and political freedom to a world that too quickly associates American capitalism with Lehman Brothers and American justice with Guantánamo Bay. This will take patience, fortitude, salesmanship and strategy.At the beginning of this election year, there were strong arguments against putting another Republican in the White House. A spell in opposition seemed apt punishment for the incompetence, cronyism and extremism of the Bush presidency. Conservative America also needs to recover its vim. Somehow Ronald Reagan’s party of western individualism and limited government has ended up not just increasing the size of the state but turning it into a tool of southern-fried moralism.
The selection of Mr McCain as the Republicans’ candidate was a powerful reason to reconsider. Mr McCain has his faults: he is an instinctive politician, quick to judge and with a sharp temper. And his age has long been a concern (how many global companies in distress would bring in a new 72-year-old boss?). Yet he has bravely taken unpopular positions—for free trade, immigration reform, the surge in Iraq, tackling climate change and campaign-finance reform. A western Republican in the Reagan mould, he has a long record of working with both Democrats and America’s allies.
If only the real John McCain had been running
That, however, was Senator McCain; the Candidate McCain of the past six months has too often seemed the victim of political sorcery, his good features magically inverted, his bad ones exaggerated. The fiscal conservative who once tackled Mr Bush over his unaffordable tax cuts now proposes not just to keep the cuts, but to deepen them. The man who denounced the religious right as “agents of intolerance” now embraces theocratic culture warriors. The campaigner against ethanol subsidies (who had a better record on global warming than most Democrats) came out in favour of a petrol-tax holiday. It has not all disappeared: his support for free trade has never wavered. Yet rather than heading towards the centre after he won the nomination, Mr McCain moved to the right.
I am a white guy. I'm not bragging or complaining, I'm just saying I'm white. One thing that I have noticed consistently over the years is that white people try to conceal when they use the descriptive term "black" when talking about black people. It goes like this. A white person tells a story and gets to the part to describe a black person. At this time White Person forms an L with his hand and places it along side his mouth, thumb along bottom of chin and forefinger pointing up along cheek. It is now safe for White Person to say "black" in a very soft voice. White Person's bigoted actions do not go unnoticed. Black Person notices the gesture of White Person's secret pose and feels the heavy eyes glancing in his direction. Of course White Person says, "Don't Look", which makes the recipient look more. This is going to surprise some of you, Black People Know they are Black! It's not a secret. I imagine that it is not offensive to black people to be referred to as black but is very offensive to hear people say "black" as though it's a bad word.
Democrats and Republicans have come across the aisle in mass bipartisanship agreement in regards to George W. Bush being one of the worst, if not thee worst, president of all times. They agree that W. has the Midas Touch in reverse. Everything the guy does turns to portapotty shit. It can't be flushed. It piles up. It smells really really bad. John McCain brags about having agreed with Portapotty Bush more than most of his Republican colleagues.
On the other hand, Obama is thoughtful, rational, and reasonable in his thought, ideas, and clear opposition of what Portapotty Bush has done to our country. So why isn't Obama further ahead in the polls?
In the primaries when the Clintons bashed Obama for his relationship with his reverend, Obama addressed the ongoing race tensions and unequalities in our country brilliantly. He delivered the most powerful civil rights speech of my lifetime (Sadly, Dr. King was assassinated before I was born.) Obama has already made major strides in getting people talking about major issues that plague our nation, such as negative race relations. Obama is opening people's minds to accept great ideas that will move our country forward positively across the board. I don't expect neo-nazis to embrace him, but all of them would benefit from his leadership. These extremists rather be raped by greedy white control than prosper under sound, fair, black leadership.
The McCain ticket (particularly Momma Maverick) needs to grow up. They're grabbing at straws and riling up the race card votes. Their campaign isn't even about winning anymore. It's all for polar diva seizing her moment in the spotlight and jockeying for her next endeavor. I actually had a McCain sticker put on my car today. Even my faded old piece of shit car felt degraded. What is most disgusting is that this party is gung-ho for this stance that is so obvious and childish. They chose to name call instead of discussing the issues. Because they either have bad ideas or only rough sketches of what they think they might kinda understand better if they weren't so unaware or misinformed about what they were supposed to be overseeing. Or something like that.
I went to foxnews.com for about 5 seconds last night and I nearly vomited. Every headline was skewed hate. Even the font was chunky and weird. I got dizzy and zipped over to my emergency website and picked up a Wally to bring me down. Helped save a Koala in the process.
At any rate, John McCain lost his way on this stumble to the White House and should promote a message that provides solutions or challenges the topics instead of all this nonsense. And Sarah Palin is a dumb cunt. I'm sorry, but it's true. She knows shit from shinola and is milking this close up for all its worth. She's not For the people. She's for herself. And she is projecting a racist message. When unbiased news sources (or the law in her home state) dig into her past it's the liberal media bullying, but she can stand at a podium and send this ignorant message that vitalizes people like Timothy McVeigh and this guy. There is no dignity in what they are doing.
