I'm so tired of hearing about the economic stimulus. So tired, in fact, that I just want Republicans to say "OK, sure, whatever" and pass it so that maybe we can move on with the next phase of our lives!
However, given that our country already has a sizeable deficit, we're in a recession and we need to cut excess spending... Is it really in our best interest to have the President skipping from town to town to peddle his stimulus package at town hall meetings?
I mean, has anyone really calculated it? The amount of fuel needed for Air Force One (never mind the damage that it's probably causing our environment) and the President's ground transportation/motorcade, the possible overtime pay for Secret Service agents and others who have to arrive ahead of the President and his entourage, the cost of flying the President's Advance team out there and paying for their per diem/hotel rooms/rental cars... From DC to Indiana, back to DC and then out to Florida.
I feel like Presidential travel is one thing that needs to be downscaled a bit in next year's budget! Of course, President Bush held his town hall meetings and such too... But aren't we supposed to be celebrating change?
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Groundhog Day
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about Groundhog Day (which was celebrated yesterday, Tuesday, February 2). I understand that it's rooted in "tradition" -- but this morning's Washington Post Express showed Punxsutawney Phil (the groundhog, of course) looking frightened as two hands, belonging to one of his handlers, held him high in the air after announcing Phil's weather forecast.
It's one thing to wait for a groundhog to emerge from his little home and try to gauge whether he was able to see his shadow... But it's quite another for humans to get actively involved and force the groundhog to endure fright and discomfort for the sake of our amusement. The poor little guy looked completely scared, with his feet flailing and his mouth open seemingly in shock!
There are other traditions that should be ended now that we Westerners think we're so "civilized." But tell me, how is bullfighting civilized? The bull is stabbed before being released into the arena, where he's provoked to charge at some guy wearing a silly-looking costume. It makes me think of the movie "Gladiator," when Joaquin Phoenix's character, the emperor, is about to fight Maximus (Russell Crowe) but goes to see him ahead of time and stabs him with a poisonous dagger, thus ensuring -- or so he believes -- his victory against the gladiator. How is that fair sportsmanship? I ask the same of the matadores in Spain. How is that fair sportsmanship? Bullfighting is a barbaric "sport" that should have ended decades ago, and yet it continues, supposedly because it's a part of Spanish culture.
Meanwhile, foie gras is considered essential to French cuisine, or so they say in France. But again, what a barbaric practice! Imprisoning geese and force feeding them until they're sick with an enlarged liver, they endure injuries such as broken beaks, and/or they flat out die. Unfortunately, there are people who say, "Who cares? It's just a bird." Well, last I checked, geese are sentient creatures -- they feel pain, and they are not here solely for our pleasure. It is ignorant to dismiss animals' wellbeing. Ignorant, primitive and uncivilized, I should say. Geese are animals, just like our household pets. If people did to their dogs and cats what foie gras producers do to geese, guess what? They'd get arrested for animal abuse!
If we want to say we're civilized, then we need to start acting as though we were. We need to stop consuming foie gras, we need to condemn bullfighting, we need to end the circus, and we need to stop dismissing the suffering of animals as "unimportant" or worse, "laughable." After all, as Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
It's one thing to wait for a groundhog to emerge from his little home and try to gauge whether he was able to see his shadow... But it's quite another for humans to get actively involved and force the groundhog to endure fright and discomfort for the sake of our amusement. The poor little guy looked completely scared, with his feet flailing and his mouth open seemingly in shock!
There are other traditions that should be ended now that we Westerners think we're so "civilized." But tell me, how is bullfighting civilized? The bull is stabbed before being released into the arena, where he's provoked to charge at some guy wearing a silly-looking costume. It makes me think of the movie "Gladiator," when Joaquin Phoenix's character, the emperor, is about to fight Maximus (Russell Crowe) but goes to see him ahead of time and stabs him with a poisonous dagger, thus ensuring -- or so he believes -- his victory against the gladiator. How is that fair sportsmanship? I ask the same of the matadores in Spain. How is that fair sportsmanship? Bullfighting is a barbaric "sport" that should have ended decades ago, and yet it continues, supposedly because it's a part of Spanish culture.
Meanwhile, foie gras is considered essential to French cuisine, or so they say in France. But again, what a barbaric practice! Imprisoning geese and force feeding them until they're sick with an enlarged liver, they endure injuries such as broken beaks, and/or they flat out die. Unfortunately, there are people who say, "Who cares? It's just a bird." Well, last I checked, geese are sentient creatures -- they feel pain, and they are not here solely for our pleasure. It is ignorant to dismiss animals' wellbeing. Ignorant, primitive and uncivilized, I should say. Geese are animals, just like our household pets. If people did to their dogs and cats what foie gras producers do to geese, guess what? They'd get arrested for animal abuse!
If we want to say we're civilized, then we need to start acting as though we were. We need to stop consuming foie gras, we need to condemn bullfighting, we need to end the circus, and we need to stop dismissing the suffering of animals as "unimportant" or worse, "laughable." After all, as Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The wisdom of Hollywood
Yes, the title of this post is, in fact, an oxymoron. Wisdom? Hollywood? The two words don't belong together in the same sentence.
I am completely fed up with celebrities meddling in politics. I mean, Martin Sheen might as well say, "Well since I did play the President of the United States on TV, I feel like I have a thorough understanding of the Executive Branch and the issues at hand..." Riiiiiight.
Look, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Pink, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon and you other self-righteous hypocrites: YOUR political opinion is no more important than mine, even though I'm just one of the "little people." You know, those lesser-known middle-class Americans who helped propel your careers to where they are now. Remember us? Yes, hard-working, God-fearing Southerners and Midwesterners -- not just West- and East-Coasters, as you might forget -- whose jobs require them to do more than wear costumes and regurgitate scripted lines in front of a camera.
Sure, it's noble to go out there and promote those less fortunate than you, but if you really cared about the poor, the hungry and the abused, you would sell two of your homes and a few of your cars (and maybe consider spending less than $1,000 on an outfit -- "yes, you can!"), and use that money to build shelters for the homeless, or create hundreds more scholarships for inner city school children, or construct free clinics for the less fortunate. Hell, Hollywood, you're the ones who love social programs! Why not finance some of them yourselves?
And yes, those $10 thousand-a-plate fundraising dinners -- with the ladies wearing $3,000 designer name gowns -- are a start, but truthfully, it's a little silly to invest tens of thousands of dollars in a one-night dinner with a not-so-significant rate of return. Sure, I bet it's nice to dress up and show off your new clothing in front of hordes of papparazzi and show the public just how magnanimous you are... But why not just launch your own organizations to go out there and do the dirty work? Forget the glitz and the glamour, and stop worrying about seeing your photo in People Magazine.
True bleeding hearts don't own seven large houses in numerous countries across the world or keep a fleet of luxury cars sitting in a dusty, cobwebbed garage; they don't spent $10 thousand a night on a month long tropical island getaway and keep six closetfuls of designer clothes. They learn to live a little more modestly than that so that they can contribute money towards something greater than themselves.
And I don't mean to disparage those Hollywood celebrities who do live more modestly so as to give back -- Paul Newman was a fine example of someone who walked the walk and didn't just talk the talk. He gave back and even launched his own earth-friendly brand, Newman's Own, whose profits went toward making the world a better place.
And yes, maybe celebrities give back more than I realize... But even so, they're not giving back enough. If you make $20 million a year and you only give back $1 million, that is definitely NOT enough! You could donate $2 million a year to charitable causes and still not know you were missing any of it.
Of course you don't have to give back anything, Hollywood -- the choice is yours. But don't pretend to be such bleeding hearts if you're not going to practice what you preach. And don't make snide comments about those who do give back more than you, such as conservative Southerners. A study was done years ago to see which state gave back the most, as a percentage of income. Know what the highest-ranking state was? Alabama. And the state that gave back the least? Massachusetts.
If you make $20 thousand a year and of that money you give back $2,000, then you're still giving back more than someone who makes $100 thousand and gives back only $5,000.
If Hollywood were to stop acting like a bunch of self-indulgent spoiled children, and instead contribute more money toward the greater good, then THAT would be change I could believe in.
I am completely fed up with celebrities meddling in politics. I mean, Martin Sheen might as well say, "Well since I did play the President of the United States on TV, I feel like I have a thorough understanding of the Executive Branch and the issues at hand..." Riiiiiight.
Look, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Pink, Julia Roberts, Alec Baldwin, Matt Damon and you other self-righteous hypocrites: YOUR political opinion is no more important than mine, even though I'm just one of the "little people." You know, those lesser-known middle-class Americans who helped propel your careers to where they are now. Remember us? Yes, hard-working, God-fearing Southerners and Midwesterners -- not just West- and East-Coasters, as you might forget -- whose jobs require them to do more than wear costumes and regurgitate scripted lines in front of a camera.
Sure, it's noble to go out there and promote those less fortunate than you, but if you really cared about the poor, the hungry and the abused, you would sell two of your homes and a few of your cars (and maybe consider spending less than $1,000 on an outfit -- "yes, you can!"), and use that money to build shelters for the homeless, or create hundreds more scholarships for inner city school children, or construct free clinics for the less fortunate. Hell, Hollywood, you're the ones who love social programs! Why not finance some of them yourselves?
And yes, those $10 thousand-a-plate fundraising dinners -- with the ladies wearing $3,000 designer name gowns -- are a start, but truthfully, it's a little silly to invest tens of thousands of dollars in a one-night dinner with a not-so-significant rate of return. Sure, I bet it's nice to dress up and show off your new clothing in front of hordes of papparazzi and show the public just how magnanimous you are... But why not just launch your own organizations to go out there and do the dirty work? Forget the glitz and the glamour, and stop worrying about seeing your photo in People Magazine.
True bleeding hearts don't own seven large houses in numerous countries across the world or keep a fleet of luxury cars sitting in a dusty, cobwebbed garage; they don't spent $10 thousand a night on a month long tropical island getaway and keep six closetfuls of designer clothes. They learn to live a little more modestly than that so that they can contribute money towards something greater than themselves.
And I don't mean to disparage those Hollywood celebrities who do live more modestly so as to give back -- Paul Newman was a fine example of someone who walked the walk and didn't just talk the talk. He gave back and even launched his own earth-friendly brand, Newman's Own, whose profits went toward making the world a better place.
And yes, maybe celebrities give back more than I realize... But even so, they're not giving back enough. If you make $20 million a year and you only give back $1 million, that is definitely NOT enough! You could donate $2 million a year to charitable causes and still not know you were missing any of it.
Of course you don't have to give back anything, Hollywood -- the choice is yours. But don't pretend to be such bleeding hearts if you're not going to practice what you preach. And don't make snide comments about those who do give back more than you, such as conservative Southerners. A study was done years ago to see which state gave back the most, as a percentage of income. Know what the highest-ranking state was? Alabama. And the state that gave back the least? Massachusetts.
If you make $20 thousand a year and of that money you give back $2,000, then you're still giving back more than someone who makes $100 thousand and gives back only $5,000.
If Hollywood were to stop acting like a bunch of self-indulgent spoiled children, and instead contribute more money toward the greater good, then THAT would be change I could believe in.
Friday, January 30, 2009
If lobbyists are the devil...
... Then apparently, the Obama Administration is in league with the devil after all!
After every single time that President Obama vilified lobbyists on the campaign trail (especially associating them with the Bush Administration), and after his repeated promises to ensure that there were no lobbyist connections to his administration, guess what? Secretary Geithner's chief of staff is a former lobbyist, and President Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, is chairman and partner at DLA Piper, a DC lobbying firm with numerous clients based in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey is being scrutinized for his own potential lobbyist-related ethical shadiness. His son, Craig Obey, lobbies for the National Parks Conservation Association, which is receiving more than $2 billion in the $819 billion stimulus bill by the Democratic-led Congress. Sound fishy? In an $819 billion stimulus package to jump-start our economy, our national parks are suddenly at the forefront of the agenda... Why?
I guess people only get angry when Republicans are associated with lobbyists -- Democrats, meanwhile, are free to do as they like in that regard.
Personally, I don't have a problem with presidential administrations hiring former lobbyists, but if President Obama and Vice President Biden wanted to make the vilification of lobbyists a central part of their campaign, then they should stand by their word and ensure that the administration has no ties to lobbyists whatsoever. No excuses, and no exceptions to the rule!
After every single time that President Obama vilified lobbyists on the campaign trail (especially associating them with the Bush Administration), and after his repeated promises to ensure that there were no lobbyist connections to his administration, guess what? Secretary Geithner's chief of staff is a former lobbyist, and President Obama's special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, is chairman and partner at DLA Piper, a DC lobbying firm with numerous clients based in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, Democratic Congressman and House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey is being scrutinized for his own potential lobbyist-related ethical shadiness. His son, Craig Obey, lobbies for the National Parks Conservation Association, which is receiving more than $2 billion in the $819 billion stimulus bill by the Democratic-led Congress. Sound fishy? In an $819 billion stimulus package to jump-start our economy, our national parks are suddenly at the forefront of the agenda... Why?
I guess people only get angry when Republicans are associated with lobbyists -- Democrats, meanwhile, are free to do as they like in that regard.
Personally, I don't have a problem with presidential administrations hiring former lobbyists, but if President Obama and Vice President Biden wanted to make the vilification of lobbyists a central part of their campaign, then they should stand by their word and ensure that the administration has no ties to lobbyists whatsoever. No excuses, and no exceptions to the rule!
Friday, November 21, 2008
The respect that President Bush never got
Bottom line: President George W. Bush was never given a fair chance. Period. Does anyone remember the protests, signs saying "All hail the crackhead" and eggs being thrown at his motorcade in January 2001 during the inaugural parade? This behavior was happening well before he even took office -- before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, before Guantanamo Bay, before the Valerie Plame blame game, before any of the controversies occurred in the Bush Administration.
That display of extreme disrespect followed President Bush throughout his entire eight years in office (and is clearly still being shown today, mostly by certain groups of American citizens, from what I've seen). It's no wonder that people all over the world keep saying he's the "worst president in U.S. history," which, by the way, isn't exactly true.
So his approval rating is currently just under 30 percent. So what? Has anyone heard of President Truman? His approval ratings plummetted to 22 percent during the Korean War, and I don't think he ever quite recovered from that. Meanwhile, LBJ's (remember the Vietnam War?) approval ratings never dipped below 35 percent, despite the mess into which he led our country. And no one seems to remember JFK's involvement in launching the Vietnam War either, and meanwhile he has one of the highest presidential approval ratings still! It seems that history has forgiven the previous "warmonger" presidents, but I wonder if it will be as kind to President Bush?
My personal belief is that the domino effect has taken place regarding the disrespect that President Bush has endured during his time in office. The media focuses on a few groups of people who chant and hold signs that call Bush all sorts of names, and other people are influenced by witnessing these vast displays of discontent with the president. It's hard not to let so much negativity seep into your subconscious -- myself included. The more discontent I see directed towards the president, the lower my approval rating of his performance has been. I freely admit that!
And yet President Bush doesn't get credit for the fact that he's had to face unique challenges that no other president has yet had to face, such as the War on Terror and a struggling economy, neither of which is his fault. People are certainly allowed to voice their opinions and disagree with the Bush Administration, but to my way of thinking, there are proper and respectable ways to do so without all the name calling! Come on, how old are we?
That's today's little rant. Wow, I'm tired! Sure hope this posting is coherent... :)
That display of extreme disrespect followed President Bush throughout his entire eight years in office (and is clearly still being shown today, mostly by certain groups of American citizens, from what I've seen). It's no wonder that people all over the world keep saying he's the "worst president in U.S. history," which, by the way, isn't exactly true.
So his approval rating is currently just under 30 percent. So what? Has anyone heard of President Truman? His approval ratings plummetted to 22 percent during the Korean War, and I don't think he ever quite recovered from that. Meanwhile, LBJ's (remember the Vietnam War?) approval ratings never dipped below 35 percent, despite the mess into which he led our country. And no one seems to remember JFK's involvement in launching the Vietnam War either, and meanwhile he has one of the highest presidential approval ratings still! It seems that history has forgiven the previous "warmonger" presidents, but I wonder if it will be as kind to President Bush?
My personal belief is that the domino effect has taken place regarding the disrespect that President Bush has endured during his time in office. The media focuses on a few groups of people who chant and hold signs that call Bush all sorts of names, and other people are influenced by witnessing these vast displays of discontent with the president. It's hard not to let so much negativity seep into your subconscious -- myself included. The more discontent I see directed towards the president, the lower my approval rating of his performance has been. I freely admit that!
And yet President Bush doesn't get credit for the fact that he's had to face unique challenges that no other president has yet had to face, such as the War on Terror and a struggling economy, neither of which is his fault. People are certainly allowed to voice their opinions and disagree with the Bush Administration, but to my way of thinking, there are proper and respectable ways to do so without all the name calling! Come on, how old are we?
That's today's little rant. Wow, I'm tired! Sure hope this posting is coherent... :)
Friday, November 14, 2008
Even though I've never touched a gun...
I just find it ironic that ultra-liberal, rabidly left-wing Americans talk about American freedoms expressed in the Bill of Rights -- most notably, the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are mentioned in the First Amendment.
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
However, these same individuals rail against the very thought of Americans owning guns. And that's not to say that I'm comfortable with the idea of guns in general, but there's a reason that the freedom to own guns is listed in the Second Amendment. Yup, that's right! Directly behind the First Amendment.
So you can't have it both ways -- keep referring to the Bill of Rights to make your point about the freedom of speech while simultaneously ignoring the Second Amendment that gives Americans the right to own guns. No picking and choosing!
Don't get me wrong, I think that it's necessary to have restrictions on the types of guns that Americans are allowed to own, and it's necessary to do background checks on individuals looking to purchase guns... But the bottom line is, if the "bad guys" want guns, they'll find a way to get them, whether they're legal or not. So how is it fair to the people who want guns for protection against these criminals to not be allowed to own them?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The conservative "morality police" strikes again!
Ugh, I am SO, SO sick of the Bible-thumping religious right trying to dominate the GOP. They're the ones who keep pushing moderates such as myself away from the Republican party.
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
It is IGNORANT to say that Republicans don't need moderates -- do conservatives really think that by being inflexible right-wingers relying on the Bible to guide the country, they'll attract a large enough voting base to get anyone elected to national office? Ha! Good luck on that one.
The Republican party needs to go back to its libertarian ideals of low taxes, small government and personal responsibility. Allowing civil unions between gay couples and keeping abortion legal (on a related note, can we say "sex education"?) are issues that again go back to the theme of personal responsibility.
If two people want to get married, it's between them and the state to sign a contract granting them the same rights that heterosexual couples get, and it's their own personal responsibility to initiate and uphold (or dissolve) that civil union. It's no one else's business but theirs, and it's not up to the government to impose morality on any American.
If a woman (for whatever reason -- she shouldn't have to explain her motives) decides to terminate a pregnancy, that's her decision and her responsibility. None of us can pretend to know why anyone would go through an abortion, but the reasons are numerous: rape, incest, fear, and so on. And you can't say, "Oh, well you're allowed to have an abortion only in this particular circumstance: [insert circumstance here]," because you can't give the right to a select few without extending it to others. Women shouldn't be questioned or interviewed about why they want to terminate a pregnancy -- it's a choice they have to come to on their own, almost always after a great deal of agonizing internal debate. However, everyone can clearly agree that abortions are NEVER an ideal "solution."
Bottom line... Individuals should choose the paths that their lives take. That entails personal responsibility. It isn't up to you or me or anyone to tell someone how to live their life in the afore-mentioned cases, and that's something that conservative Republicans need to understand.
Rather than tell moderates to leave the Republican party, why don't conservatives establish their own? Maybe the "American Christian Party" or something? Hey, it's an idea...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)