In answer to your earlier query in the blog response, I just want to unequivocally say that certainly there are times when I feel the Republicans are wrong. In case you don't remember, this cycle I view it as my civic duty to not vote for either presidential candidate. I feel that both of them are naive, neither has appropriate leadership qualifications, and both the economic plans are patently ridiculous. I will vote for the propositions and so on, but I refuse to vote for either candidate.
Some people at work who have heard me mention this say, "If you aren't going to vote, you have no right to complain about what you get." BS - not exercising one right does not mean I waive another (free speech). Even if you buy the non-sequitor, I still have the right to complain because my refusal to vote is because both are horrible. I will bitch quite loudly about disastrous policy decisions of either one, because I would if I voted for either one anyway.
In terms of why my comments are so resoundingly anti-Democrat, it is because I am not following any of the crap that is going on. I will listen to snippets of news, but I do not cruise the blogs or follow FOX or CNN religiously. I flip on network news every once in a while - since the press seems to have a love affair with Obama and Biden, I will more often hear their idiotic comments and respond to them.
If you recall a couple of blogs ago, I decried the "Carbon-Tax Plan" that Palin mentioned as about an idiotic idea as one could have, especially in the current climate (pun intended - check out the cooling trend of the last 7 years, plus the cooling trend of the economy - a carbon tax would screw up America, but it would condemn 3rd world countries to economic bankruptcy were it ever instituted in a widespread fashion).
As to the racist and overtly homicidal comments, I haven't seen them, but if I had, I would be quick to damn them. Rush's bit on being sexist is surely a joke - that sounds like it is right out of his playbook on commentary that would infuriate the left - and he tends to play this stuff as a "straight-man" style humor for as long as possible. What are you referring to when you talk about comments from the candidates - can you point me to a quote? I am not being flip, I am really not plugged into this campaign because it is such a joke on both sides.
As far as the election fraud, the Disney character bit is extreme, but the voter rolls not being purged of felons and deceased persons is ridiculous - that should be done immediately, because that is where real voter fraud takes place. ACORN is a politically active organization that does actually encourage voter fraud (a bit extreme of an accusation, but it can be backed up - now is not the time, because I need to finish grading (midterm grades due 8:30 am tomorrow)).
But what I really find troubling are the proposals Obama has made in the past - and he is just echoing the Dem. party line on these. He wants to allow "day-of" voter registration. That is you can register to vote the day of the election - eliminating checks on citizenship, residency, and eligibility - not overtly, but because there will be no way of immediately checking. This is a horrible idea, and it only encourages fraud, or at best ignorance in voting and bribing of voters (Chicago machine politics, anyone?). The other thing that he supports is eliminating the secrecy of voting for unionization - labor organizers could petition people and have knowledge of who voted against "organizing" and pursue aggressive campaigns to convince anti-union people. This is dangerous - when someone knows how you vote, they can intimidate you, and just as big monopolies tried to crush unions in the early 1900's, big unions have tried to crush opposition to them in the late 1900's to early 2000's (and yes, I know that I don't need the apostrophes, but dammit they look better).
An unfortunate necessity, however, is that of spoiled ballots being discarded. As much as people complain about this, it affects both sides about evenly. There are neutral parties who inspect ballots and discard any ones that do not meet certain requirements... it is impossible to intuit what a voter would have wanted if they could not follow instructions. While it seems ridiculous to discard a ballot that did not have a line completely connected (for example) when it is "readily apparent" who the person wanted to vote for, we cannot embark on the road of letting a third party interpret who they thought someone was going to vote for. This is the same way people lose points on the SAT and other standardized tests, and when you are dealing with that many votes, it is unfortunately the only way.
I will aways favor paper ballots, because there is a "paper trail". Can fraud occur? Yes. Can it occur more easily and less verifiably with an all electronic system? Oh my yes. To falsify large amounts of ballots, it would take the concerted efforts of many, while to screw up an electronic system on a fairly large scale would require less effort. I am not a tinfoil hat nut that says that evil liberals or evil conservatives would do this, but it puts voter fraud on a massive scale within reach of small pockets of people who, on some level, just like to f__k with computerized stuff.
So, long story short, Republicans piss me off on some level just as much as Democrats. There is nothing I hate more than having an idiot try and defend a position that I hold - and I am sure you feel the same way.
But more on that later, and I would also like to discuss the "Bradley Effect" and race in elections... coming soon to a blog near you :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dude, that is the shortest blog EVER! Hehe. But you got your point across...at least with me. I think it was pretty much a "Yes" or "No" question anyway...or are you finished writing?
Opps. Wierd. I checked your blog and all it had was the Title and nothing more! Now I check back and you have a whole blog written up.
Anywayz, I agree with the paper ballots. I also agree that we should dismiss all registrations for deceased, incarcerated, and duplicate registrations. I've been following the Acorn scandal on FOX News...apparently they're the only ones covering the story.
Anywayz, Greta has been following this story for about 10 days off and on. She's had the Attorney Generals for Ohio, Florida, and I believe even Virginia on her show to talk about registration fraud vs. voter purging and how one is connected or not connected to the other.
Acorn has registered some 1.4 million folks over a four year span targeting urban and low-income areas mostly in swing states; this is a noble effort in my opinion (provided everything is on the up and up, which apparently it is NOT). It sure ain't my theory but for two generations Republicans have held to the notion that an expanded voter population works against their party's interests.
But on the other end, we have voter purging...and to use McCains rhetoric from the last debate when asked about registration fraud (if I can remember exactly), he called it "a phenomenon that shakes the very foundation of Democracy in America". He's completely correct if he was talking about purging votes, but he wasn't...he was talking about Acorn. In my opinion, voter purging is more scandalous, criminal and un-American than registration fraud, particularly given that more than 6 million votes have been purged since 2004!
Combine that with the hysteria regarding Mickey Mouse registrations and you get a climate where voter purging will not only be tolerated, but EXPECTED! THAT is what I fear.
An article by Robert Kennedy in Rolling Stone looked at how 1 out of 5 votes are purged in the state of Colorado in the last presidential election. Now I do believe that it had to do with not counting the provisional ballots particularly when the margin of victory exceeds the number of provisionals yet to be counted. But when you examine how voting districts are serviced by partisans and how only a SSN and a valid ID is needed to vote, they've been throwing out most votes from voters without "driver's licenses". This demographic would include the elderly, the young, the poor, and urban dwellers. I know you made the claim that voter purging is "fair" given it tends to be a wash in the end...and I'd like to believe that and agree with you. But I think I need to take a very close look at voter purging criteria before I can dismiss it as a harmless and benign democratic phenomenon.
(BTW, sorry for the very bad grammer, I'm in a rush!)
And re. Republican podium rhetoric, this is what I've seen and heard (I'll have links when I get the chance).
Surrogates using Obama's middle name like an epitaph with the crowds at Brower county Florida rallies going crazy in response.
Questioning "Who is the real Barrack Obama?" and then insinuating he palls around with terrorists and extremist and questions whether he holds their beliefs. The response from the crowds in Palin's rallies are EVIDENT of this rhetoric's intent; the crowds scream "Kill him" and "Terrorist" and "Treason" and "Off with his head", and it is tolerated by the podium. This you can readily youtube.
Congressman Bachman from Minnesota calling for an investigation of all Un-American Liberals in the Congress and Senate and calling Obama a Socialist. Palin in her stump speeches this week throughout rural Penn. insinuating that Obama is a Socialist. Congressman Hayes on CNN in a speech before McCain (or Palin, I can't remember which) were to come on stage insinuating that Obama and all liberals were God hating Communists. And last night on the Lou Dobbs show, Congressman Dan Patrick of Texas suggesting that Obama had a Socialist agenda and went so far as to say TWICE that Obama wanted young people to drop out of school, get high, and collect welfare checks.
I can seriously go on and on bro. Now I know Rush, Hannity, Savage, O'Rielly, and Beck can be devisive, but I don't count them because they are out to entertain for the most part. They just love to stir shit up. But when you hear surrogates and congressman and the Top of the Ticket echo these same sentiments, I think its going to far.
I will provide more examples. The most vile are the folks who come to rallies with monkey stuffed animals with Obama shirts. THAT one you can also youtube.
The thing is, when I look at McCain, I can see he hates these tactics and begrudgingly accepts it as necessary given his position in the polls. While at a McCain rally in Penn last week, a woman was given the microphone and she told the audience that she was afraid of Obama because he was Arab! McCain grabbed that mic and reassured her that she was wrong, that he was a good man and that she need not fear him in the manner she was...to which half his audience applauded while others boo'd. McCain continued to attempt to assuage some fears re. Obama and the boos rained down. That is the real John McCain right there; the base is filled with rage and he can only look at himself as the cause.
Points taken,
Use of middle name -ridiculous!!! so what (Hussein), no worse than having a first name of Newt - I presume from Newton.
Purging in the way you describe it is wrong, I was merely talking about not using "spoiled" ballots. A bit different.
As to the epithet socialist, I do not find anything wrong with it. He is, by all accounts a liberal democrat, which does mean he favors a form of modern socialism - the "spread the wealth" line is classic. Using that to distinguish is monetary policies - fair game, it is an adequate descriptor. Calling him a terrorist - not kosher. Saying he associated with a terrorist (Ayers) legit, but questionable in its relevance.
PS He played the race card first, and as we all know, politics gets ugly whenever you are losing. This doesn't make it right, just a statement of fact.
Why the negative view of socialism BTW; if that is your policy, just admit it and convince me why it works, don't lie and try to hide it. Look at his policies and tell me where he does not advocate for increased government involvement in the private sector - sorry folks, that is socialism... if you don't like being called that, find a different philosophy to espouse.
OK, you got me there. I guess I am a "tad bit" socialist. Look at my line of work! hehe. And coming from you, I suppose its okay given you see it as an economic system of redistribution of wealth...but I don't see providing housing and health care to the disabled as a "hand-out"...and nor would most fair minded people view many very effective and necessary social programs as "socialist government hand-outs".
One could say that ALL taxation is redistribution in a way. But anywayz, I guess the socialism bit bothers me for one reason:
Its used like an epitaph to describe what I see in many cases as necessary and morally imperative systems within our society...and I guess when people say "government hand-outs" are unilaterally un-American, I just want to punch them in their face.
Granted, we have wasteful spending in our welfare system but not all the services and resources provided to the "poor" are socialist.
Read my latest blog to see where I'm coming from. It really has to do with the work I do and, from an ignorant vantage point, how easy it is in political rhetoric to transform the disabled into the free-loaders of our society.
So YES, I guess I am socialist in a way...with a TON of exceptions of course. I am still a free-market capitalist at heart, for example. The rest I'll put in a manifesto (which will never happen).
Anywayz, we should have dinner sometime this week?
Dinner this week, definitely, though I question your use of the words "moral imperative". I thought we could not legislate morality ;)
That is one of my big problems with socialism in general, but check out the later blog entry on socialism.
In terms of social necessity, however, you and I and most of us agree, though I would define it much more narrowly than you would. One of my contentions is that the government usurped the role of churches and fraternal organizations (Elks, Odd Fellows, Masons, etc) in providing many of those services and they are now being provided more poorly because of the nature of a large government bureaucracy. They are by their very nature arbitrary and indiffernet to individuals as policies must be put in place on a large scale that cannot allow for small scale flexibility...
I could go on, and be very persuasive, and I know that many social workers would actually agree with me were I to outline my ideas in a non-threatening way...
Or maybe I just overestimate my own arguments as well as their openness to new ideas...
Not that any of my ideas could ever be implemented (in my lifetime) as such sweeping changes as I propose would have to occur gradual so as not to unbalance the system and cause unecessary harm to individuals in the short run to benefit others in the long run (rapid change usually screws over the people it purports to help by thrusting social forward too rapidly, but that's just my opinion).
Post a Comment