Lipstick on a Pig...A pretty common euphemism, right? Even benign? You know what it means, I know what it means - most folks know. You can crap in a bag and wrap it up and call it Christmas, but it still stinks, right?
By now you've seen the headlines, heard the talking heads and seen the videos on TV. The McCain camp came out and demanded an apology from Obama, implying that Senator Obama was calling Sarah Palin a pig. Let's put Obama's statement back in context:
"John McCain says he's about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out George Bush -- except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics -- we're really going to shake things up in Washington,'" he said.
"That's not change. That's just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years. We've had enough of the same old thing."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Was my head stuck in a vice for a moment? Did Obama even mention Sarah Palin in that statement? Wasn't he talking about McCain's policies, i.e. the ACTUAL ISSUES??? McCain himself used the line twice during the Primary season when talking about Hillary's policies. Did Hillary feign mock-outrage at the audacity of McCain calling her a pig? I must've missed that one.
Shifting gears temporarily, the McCain camp launched an ad about Obama's vote for sex education for kindergartners. Yep, the US Senator from IL voted for sex education before reading education...if you believe the McCain camp. Except that the bill Obama voted for was for education aimed at preventing sexual predators from victimizing our children. You know the bear that comes in your kids' schools and talks about good touch/bad touch? Did you have that conversation at home with your kids? You did? Good. One more won't hurt.
After viewing the most recent polling (inasmuch as I don't trust them) I guess where I'm going with this is WHAT FRICKING PLANET ARE WE ON??? Are people paying attention AT ALL to what is happening in the world & in American politics?!?! Where the HELL is McCain (and Sarah Palin) on the issues? I'd like to know. But I don't. Because the last time McCain had a press conference was 4 weeks ago, and the last time he had a town hall meeting (unscripted) was 3 weeks ago. Everything that I've seen since his admittedly genuine but vague speech at the RNC has been scripted. Everything I've seen on TV that McCain so enthusiastically approves has been outright lies about Obama (he's responsible for high gas prices, after all). Even Factcheck.org asked McCain to stop distorting their information! And everything McCain has given us has been carefully crafted to elicit a specific response. Brilliant, sure - I mean, George Bush won an election. A real election. People actually went out in the cold weather & drove their cars to the polls and voted for him because they thought he'd make a good President. The same guy that bankrupted an oil business, nearly ran a professional baseball team into the ground, can almost complete a sentence and skipped out completely on Vietnam. I'll be the first to admit - Karl Rove is a fucking genius. I mean that. If he had Obama to work with, he'd have the American voting public salivating at the mention of his name, waiting like a pack of rabid wolves to attack the voting booth in November like it's a scared little fawn. Jesus, people, where are your goddamned heads? When will I wake up from this nightmare?
Get your un-engaged asses off your emotional couch and pay attention! I mean really pay attention - it's your future, too. Quit letting your vote be guided by the cheap headlines on Fox News & CNN and TV commercials.
Let's examine the result of the last 8 years, shall we? Higher unemployment? Check. Eroding wages? Check. Fewer friends & allies in the world? Check (Oh, that's right, we're America. We don't need the French or anyone else). A Middle East much less stable than in recent times? Check. Deficit? Yes, we won that one! Wait... Higher fuel costs? Check. Same, insatiable appetite for oil? Uh huh. Osama on the loose? Yep. Safer borders? Nope - but we're committed to spending billions to keep the Mexicans out. Less division in our politics? Seriously, now. Better education and stronger health care? Not so much. A long-term vision for Iraq, Afghanistan & anything resembling a comprehensive foreign policy? If by long-term you mean the end of this month, then I might concede the point. Upheaval of Habeus Corpus? I didn't say that.
And what do we get from republicans? "Drill, baby! Drill!" In unison - almost like they practiced. But drilling will lower my heating bill this winter. What's that? It won't? And not the year after that, or that or that or that... 12 years! At a minimum, per the Bush administration. They promise to find Bin Laden. They promise to cut taxes, yet keep spending money in Iraq with no end in sight (even in spite of Iraq's gi-normous oil $ surplus), because our economy is "fundamentally strong" according to McCain. How's that worked out for Fannie & Freddie, Bear Stearns & now Lehman, not to mention the lower-middle class? They promise pro-life, even though they are for increased stem-cell research. (Really? So where does life begin? "Conception," if you ask them. What about an IUD, which allows fertilization but not implantation, as well as other birth control? Overturn Rv.W and watch what happens to our mothers' health in the US when it's a crime to take basic birth control.) They promise us cleaner energy - with coal, and responsible drilling (I threw up in my mouth on that one). They promise us better times ahead, to which I say, that's easy - it can't get much worse for some folks.
And the "liberal media" (my ass, liberal) keeps fueling the fire. I've seen more negative Obama articles and headlines taken out of context than I can remember. Did you hear Joe Biden said that Hillary would have been a better VP pick? And Elizabeth Hasselbeck (insert seriously? again) doesn't like Michelle Obama? And Barack did mean Palin when he talked about the pig? Didja hear? And the "liberal media" stood by, even played a part, while Republicans shamefully carried out the Swiftboat campaign. I'm embarrassed by people - really, I am. They stood by and were complicit in the character assassination of John Kerry, who won a Silver & Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts in Vietnam. Imagine if the Democrats had done that? What would the reaction of the public & the media be? But you know what? We'll never know, because Democrats don't do shit like that. Maybe they should. But we won't. - Attack candidates on the issues, attack them for their past, whatever. But let's talk about and carry on conversations that are relevant and ethical. Sarah Palin was against the Bridge to Nowhere. But that was after Congress killed it, and after originally SUPPORTING it - & Alaska still got the money anyway. Yet the McCain campaign is still banging that drum - she's an original maverick, after all. Where is the media on this one? How is that not an outright, blatant lie?
So it boils down to the problem with Democrats. We're too nice. As Stephen Covey (and someone else before that) taught us well, "seek first to understand." "You know, I think I'm really starting to know Newt as a person, and he's not that bad of a guy." Yes, there are the leftover 60's radical hippie punksters, and they're still pretty loud at times, but most folks have tuned them out. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi don't help our cause much. They may be talented politicians, but like many politicians they're out of touch and removed from the day to day fray.
Democrats are nice. And they want to be liked. And, generally speaking, they are intellectual folks that appreciate an intelligent debate. We get caught up in thinking that if I get to know you better politically, you'll want to know me better - that's how it's supposed to work. I know some Republicans like that, but not many. They're nice people too, giving a chunk of change to the local charities and churches - like Democrats. But they want to win. At all costs. They'll rip your throat out to win. Karl Rove? Dick Cheney? Warm fuzzies? Just win, baby. They're the Oakland Raiders of politics.
Why the rant? Why go on & on? Because I haven't ranted enough! I've been too quiet, and as such, complicit in the current direction of our country. It's time for Democrats to get a little pissed off. Why? Because if you're paying attention, you have no excuse but to be pissed off. If you want to win, if you believe in what Obama can accomplish for America, then raise your voice a little. Talk to your neighbors. Check with your local campaign office and see how you can help. Engage friends and colleagues in discussion. If they don't bend, move on, and get them out to vote! America needs your help, for God's sake (I try not to get emotional about this, but who am I kidding?). Get out there, and speak up, people!
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Couric Interview
Not sure what Katie is trying to accomplish in her recent interview of Barack Obama, other than create some attention out of vanity. Katie commented that "people are scratching their heads about your opposition to the surge." Who the "people" are is not clarified. Couric belabored the point, even when Obama restated his point that he believes our actions in over the past 18 months in Iraq contributed to a reduction in violence, asking the questions 3 different times. Obama's point that our actions have limited bearing on an overall strategy in Iraq made in the interview, were largely overshadowed by the repeated surge question by Couric.
Restated another way by Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post, here is the success of the surge in the contextr of an overall strategy rife with broken promises and goals:
"Even if we could cast the "Surge" as an unqualified success, the overall strategy has netted America four major failures. And within the larger context of a failure to find WMDs, a failure to improve America's security, a failure to thwart or even impede al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and a failure to prevent malign regional forces like Iran and Hezbollah from increasing their regional influence, the "Surge" is entirely without relevance - a fourth quarter field goal when you're down four touchdowns."
Doesn't sound so successful... Now I'm not belittling the work any of our troops have done - I commend them especially in this. But looked at in the spectrum of a broader set of problems, the surge is a small victory in an ongoing battle - a battle in which we are fighting alone without the help of other countries with no foreseeable end. And as the intensity heats back up in Afghanistan, it seems apparent that the focus of Al Quada has moved away from Iraq.
On another note, amid all of the coverage of Obama's overseas trip, CBS recently aired an interview with McCain by Couric. In the interview, McCain, in talking about Obama's lack of understanding of foriegn affairs & strategy, stated that the Surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening, where a major Sunni religious/military tribe switched allegiences to the US (temporarily). Only problem is, this was months before the surge was even announced, and long before troop levels were increased. A major misstatement about the turn of events in Iraq. What is much more interesting, however, is that this misstep wound up on the editing room floor at CBS... There's your liberal media bias... hey, wait a minute... Oh - and this was a week after McCain had twice referred to current events in "Czechoslavakia", which has not been a country in over a decade.
One last note - Bush has blocked the attending of the Obama rally in Germany by any US foreign officials. That's great stuff, huh?
Next up: Obama's overall foreign policy
Restated another way by Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post, here is the success of the surge in the contextr of an overall strategy rife with broken promises and goals:
"Even if we could cast the "Surge" as an unqualified success, the overall strategy has netted America four major failures. And within the larger context of a failure to find WMDs, a failure to improve America's security, a failure to thwart or even impede al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, and a failure to prevent malign regional forces like Iran and Hezbollah from increasing their regional influence, the "Surge" is entirely without relevance - a fourth quarter field goal when you're down four touchdowns."
Doesn't sound so successful... Now I'm not belittling the work any of our troops have done - I commend them especially in this. But looked at in the spectrum of a broader set of problems, the surge is a small victory in an ongoing battle - a battle in which we are fighting alone without the help of other countries with no foreseeable end. And as the intensity heats back up in Afghanistan, it seems apparent that the focus of Al Quada has moved away from Iraq.
On another note, amid all of the coverage of Obama's overseas trip, CBS recently aired an interview with McCain by Couric. In the interview, McCain, in talking about Obama's lack of understanding of foriegn affairs & strategy, stated that the Surge was responsible for the Anbar Awakening, where a major Sunni religious/military tribe switched allegiences to the US (temporarily). Only problem is, this was months before the surge was even announced, and long before troop levels were increased. A major misstatement about the turn of events in Iraq. What is much more interesting, however, is that this misstep wound up on the editing room floor at CBS... There's your liberal media bias... hey, wait a minute... Oh - and this was a week after McCain had twice referred to current events in "Czechoslavakia", which has not been a country in over a decade.
One last note - Bush has blocked the attending of the Obama rally in Germany by any US foreign officials. That's great stuff, huh?
Next up: Obama's overall foreign policy
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
A Bright Blue Dot in a Big Red Sea
I received this email from a buddy of mine. It seems a number of my friends and colleagues see things differently than I do. Problem is, they think these things without thinking about them, and there seems to be a good deal of this kind of thoughtless thinking out there. Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This is my response to an email that outlined Railia Odinga's agreement discussing the relationship between his political party and Sudan's Muslim leaders. The email alleges that Barack Obama is cousins with Odinga:
Hey - Weigh in on this for me. I'm not passing judgment just yet, but this kinda stuff is what scares the bejesus right out of me.
My response:
You bet -
For starters, here's a snippet on Snopes.com that disputes that Railia is Barack's cousin:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
Odinga was the opposition leader in the most recent Sudanese elections. Obama certainly hasn't campaigned with or for him.
On a broad basis, much has been made of Barack's background - my father-in-law even commented last weekend that he wasn't sure he could vote for him because of his background. "What do you mean?" I asked. He went on to tell me that his background as a Muslim makes him apprehensive about his intentions as President, among "other" things (race, I assume).
I hear as much now and then, and it never ceases to confound me. Obama has never been Muslim. Period. He has little exposure to Islam. His only ties to Islam are the fact that his father was Muslim, though a non-practicing Muslim, and for a short time Barack went to a public grade school in Indonesia (he also went to a private Catholic school there) that was partially populated by Muslims. Barack's father left when he was two, and Barack only saw him one other time in his life. He was raised a Christian by his single mother, but spent most of his time growing up in Hawaii under the watch of his white Kansan Grandparents. By all measures, he could have turned into a typical, fatherless angry young man, but instead put his energies into school, graduating from Columbia & Harvard.
One more item I don't understand is the fear of Islam that certain people want to foster. There are 1.5 billion (that's 1,500,000,000) Muslims worldwide. Of those, 10,000 or so of them are extremists, brought up in poverty and fed hate by their elders. If you were to look at most religions, there are sub-sects of extremists - Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Protestants, etc. The one religion with little or no violence in its history is Hindu. It's not Islam that's evil, it's the Taliban extremists and their allies who've hijacked their own specific brand of Islam to spread hate towards the west. By most counts, we don't understand Islam - - yes, we may know their practices from books, but we don't really understand it - so we're helped into fearing it by those that want to push a certain agenda. Islam=Fear=Obama. If someone can powerfully align those three items (whether or not they're based in reality), then McCain's got a chance, right?
As it relates to some of the statements & ideas in the attached letter and the perception that they are extreme (which some are, grant you): I'm Catholic, went to Catholic school, still go to Catholic church. Last year, the Pope again issued a statement that Catholicism is the "one true way" to salvation. Evangelicals believe that you must accept Christ as your savior to go to Heaven, Lutherans believe they own the one true path, Jews use the Old Testament as their gospel but dismiss the New Testament in its entirety, Mormans believe the Promised Land is in two places; Israel & Missouri, and Muslims believe they own the one true path in to Allah through the teachings of Muhammed. Free Masons believe a little of everything. Most religions have published a manifesto of sorts of how they wish to organize, popularize and spread their beliefs. When thrown out on the table and measured against each other, there are obvious differences. But no one religion is less abstract in its beliefs & teachings than the other - they're all based in faith. In other words, you believe what you believe because that's what you Believe, if that makes sense. Other people might believe something different. That's there prerogative - and it really doesn't affect me, And to me, as long as they're living a quality life and treat those around them with love and respect - which most religions teach - that's all I ask for. They're no better or worse than me.
To me, there aren't Muslims, Hindus, Jews or others. There's only good and bad. Hitler was raised Catholic, Osama is Muslim, Stalin was Atheist, Saddam was a moderate Sunni Muslim, Pol Pot claimed to be Buddhist - but nearly anyone who has ever committed atrocities, from Ivan the Terrible to Mussolini & his mustard gas, has twisted and contorted their respective religions to meet their agendas. I guess what I'm saying is that religions don't scare me, but some people certainly do. Kind of like the gun argument (guns don't kill people...)
I sort of took off on a tangent, but this is all tied together. I don't think Obama is the perfect candidate - there isn't one - but I trust him. I'm certainly not afraid of him. I feel like what you see is what you get with him. And really, I feel that same sentiment about McCain. I just happen to like Obama's ideas much more and have much more faith in his ability to get things done. The letter attached in your email has little to nothing to do with Barack & who he is as a person or politician. Keep 'em coming, and feel free to pass this back to whomever sent this to you. - JG
So there you go...
Hey - Weigh in on this for me. I'm not passing judgment just yet, but this kinda stuff is what scares the bejesus right out of me.
My response:
You bet -
For starters, here's a snippet on Snopes.com that disputes that Railia is Barack's cousin:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kenya.asp
Odinga was the opposition leader in the most recent Sudanese elections. Obama certainly hasn't campaigned with or for him.
On a broad basis, much has been made of Barack's background - my father-in-law even commented last weekend that he wasn't sure he could vote for him because of his background. "What do you mean?" I asked. He went on to tell me that his background as a Muslim makes him apprehensive about his intentions as President, among "other" things (race, I assume).
I hear as much now and then, and it never ceases to confound me. Obama has never been Muslim. Period. He has little exposure to Islam. His only ties to Islam are the fact that his father was Muslim, though a non-practicing Muslim, and for a short time Barack went to a public grade school in Indonesia (he also went to a private Catholic school there) that was partially populated by Muslims. Barack's father left when he was two, and Barack only saw him one other time in his life. He was raised a Christian by his single mother, but spent most of his time growing up in Hawaii under the watch of his white Kansan Grandparents. By all measures, he could have turned into a typical, fatherless angry young man, but instead put his energies into school, graduating from Columbia & Harvard.
One more item I don't understand is the fear of Islam that certain people want to foster. There are 1.5 billion (that's 1,500,000,000) Muslims worldwide. Of those, 10,000 or so of them are extremists, brought up in poverty and fed hate by their elders. If you were to look at most religions, there are sub-sects of extremists - Jews/Catholics/Muslims/Protestants, etc. The one religion with little or no violence in its history is Hindu. It's not Islam that's evil, it's the Taliban extremists and their allies who've hijacked their own specific brand of Islam to spread hate towards the west. By most counts, we don't understand Islam - - yes, we may know their practices from books, but we don't really understand it - so we're helped into fearing it by those that want to push a certain agenda. Islam=Fear=Obama. If someone can powerfully align those three items (whether or not they're based in reality), then McCain's got a chance, right?
As it relates to some of the statements & ideas in the attached letter and the perception that they are extreme (which some are, grant you): I'm Catholic, went to Catholic school, still go to Catholic church. Last year, the Pope again issued a statement that Catholicism is the "one true way" to salvation. Evangelicals believe that you must accept Christ as your savior to go to Heaven, Lutherans believe they own the one true path, Jews use the Old Testament as their gospel but dismiss the New Testament in its entirety, Mormans believe the Promised Land is in two places; Israel & Missouri, and Muslims believe they own the one true path in to Allah through the teachings of Muhammed. Free Masons believe a little of everything. Most religions have published a manifesto of sorts of how they wish to organize, popularize and spread their beliefs. When thrown out on the table and measured against each other, there are obvious differences. But no one religion is less abstract in its beliefs & teachings than the other - they're all based in faith. In other words, you believe what you believe because that's what you Believe, if that makes sense. Other people might believe something different. That's there prerogative - and it really doesn't affect me, And to me, as long as they're living a quality life and treat those around them with love and respect - which most religions teach - that's all I ask for. They're no better or worse than me.
To me, there aren't Muslims, Hindus, Jews or others. There's only good and bad. Hitler was raised Catholic, Osama is Muslim, Stalin was Atheist, Saddam was a moderate Sunni Muslim, Pol Pot claimed to be Buddhist - but nearly anyone who has ever committed atrocities, from Ivan the Terrible to Mussolini & his mustard gas, has twisted and contorted their respective religions to meet their agendas. I guess what I'm saying is that religions don't scare me, but some people certainly do. Kind of like the gun argument (guns don't kill people...)
I sort of took off on a tangent, but this is all tied together. I don't think Obama is the perfect candidate - there isn't one - but I trust him. I'm certainly not afraid of him. I feel like what you see is what you get with him. And really, I feel that same sentiment about McCain. I just happen to like Obama's ideas much more and have much more faith in his ability to get things done. The letter attached in your email has little to nothing to do with Barack & who he is as a person or politician. Keep 'em coming, and feel free to pass this back to whomever sent this to you. - JG
So there you go...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
