Disqus

I'm moving to a new comment system, learn more about it at http://disqus.com/ . The Disqus environment creates dialogue based comments rather than a flat, "well I don't know who that comment was directed to" format. Try it out.

Barry Obama in West Virginia

My friend sent over this YouTube link this morning and it gives us a peek into the West Virginia voting constituency. Most of those interviewed are Clinton supporters that say they will either not vote or vote Republican if Barack Obama is the Democratic Party nominee. Is that crazy or what? Voting Republican is probably the worst thing they could do for themselves, they are in a sense voting against their own economic interests. Why would someone do that? Apparently they don't like his name Barack and they think he's a Muslim.

It's funny because Barack (Barak) is a fairly common name straight out of the Hebrew Bible. There are a lot of Israelis named Barak. Hussein too, is a common Arabic name meaning "good" or "handsome". Unfortunately, Hussein is the name he was given at birth and unfortunately there was a dictator of Iraq with the same first name. But it goes beyond context of the name, it's the fact that it doesn't sound "American". It's not white bread, it's different, he's not Barry, it sounds foreign, it threatens the status quo. I often forget that while our country has had a lot of progress with racism, it's only been a few decades since that progress had been made. There is still a lot of mistrust of people that are of a different color skin, that attend a different church, that worship from a different book, and it would be a shame if people voted the same way an infant sees the world, in the binary of he looks like me or she doesn't look like me.

Obama is a Christian, but even if he was a Muslim why would it matter? The woman in the video can't bring herself to believe that he is not a Muslim and instead resorts to saying that she thinks that there is some sort of conspiracy going on. "I just don't believe that [that he is not a Muslim]". It's almost easier on her conscience to say that she is distrustful of a Muslim than to just say that she doesn't want a black man as President of the United States. I hope that those in the video represent a minority rather than a majority, but as they exist, it shows that we still have a ways to go in terms of loving thy neighbor.

will Fox News lean left?

At last glance, President Bush had the highest disapproval rating, 69%, of a U.S. president in the 70 history of the gallop poll. At was not always this low, in fact, after 9/11, Bush, was in fact one of the most popular presidents as the nation banded together in light of the terrorist attacks.

One organization that gained a lot of momentum following 9/11 and our run-up to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was Fox News, with its right leaning media coverage. Fox News made a living heralding the Bush administration, demonizing liberal elites, the far-left media conspiracy, painting war protesters as unpatriotic, etc. America ate it up, after all, there were terrorists running amuck and boy were we mad. Fox News is a business triumph any way you look at it, they are the number one rated cable news network and subsequently, the advertising dollars have rolled in, and the administration has been especially conciliatory towards Fox News, gracing them with exclusive interviews with President Bush and other members of the Executive Branch which have largely shut off access when it comes to other networks.

I am curious how Fox News will proceed in the coming years. As I mentioned before, President Bush is the most unpopular President in modern history, presidential candidate John McCain while being a Republican is still distrusted and hated by a significant portion of his own party, and Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) seems well positioned to be our next President of the United States. Come 2009, the Executive Branch will most likely be run by a Democrat, the House and Senate will probably still have a Democratic majority, your average American thinks the Republican party is full of out-of-touch idiots, Republicans can't recognize their own party anymore, the economy is in a tailspin caused in my opinion by the deregulation of the housing and credit markets, and politics for the most part have made a complete 180 in favor of anyone who is not associated with the neo-conservatives.

I think with America growing increasingly disillusioned with the right wing, it is inevitable that viewership moves back towards left leaning/centrist MSNBC and CNN. You just don't make money by pursuing an opinion that few people embrace. Next year are people still going to want to hear from Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace, and Glenn Beck drumming us to increasing anti-immigrant fervor, made up facts, blaming Democrats, screaming at people for not supporting the troops, and boycotting companies for ridiculously tenuous ties? No, I don't think so. I think regular Americans will be able to tell that 8 years of majority Republican rule led to failed foreign policy, failed economic policy, uncompetitive wages, job loss, and soldiers being over stretched and under-provided for. I think it's pretty obvious to most people that 8 years of Bush didn't lead to a better America. McCain still seems like he's part of the Bush club.

Fox News is a business; it is still part of News Corporation. How is Fox News going to change and adapt to a shifting American political sentiment? When Scott McClellan comes out and writes a book basically saying, the Bush administration misled us into Iraq, the media didn't hold him responsible, outlets like Fox News facilitated the move to war, are people really going to believe it when Fox News analyst, Karl Rove, comes out and says "oh he's full of it" and the network and White House try to paint him as a disgruntled employee that wants to sell books? Fox News will have to change; otherwise ratings are going to drop like a rock. I think Rupert Murdoch knows this. I am curious what kind of content changes are going to be made, if punches will be pulled back, if zealous right wingers will be pulled out of prime time slots?

Recently, Rupert Murdoch had this to say about Obama and McCain:

[speaking about Obama]. "He's become a rock star. It's fantastic... he may not carry Florida because the Jewish people are suspicious of him and so are the Hispanics... but he'll probably win in Ohio and who knows... he'll probably win [the election]"... Personally I want to meet Obama, I want to know , is he going to walk the walk. If you read his education policy, it's just great, he's got a revolution there, the education system in this country is a total disgrace... He wants a break with the past, I do know that he is a highly intelligent man with a great record at Harvard, at the Law Review, and I just hope he's as good as he promises."

[Speaking about McCain]. " He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises... So what's he really stand for?... He's a patriot, he's a friend of mine, he's a decent guy but he's unpredictable. He doesn't know much about the economy, and I say this sympathetically, I think he has a lot of problems."

Murdoch seems to be jumping on to the Obama band wagon, We'll have to wait and see if he directs Fox News to follow in step.

John McCain on Political Expedience

John McCain opposes Senator Jim Webb's updated GI bill citing that his opposition to the bill was the principled and right view and not the politically expedient viewpoint. For your reference the bill is officially titled: WEBB-HAGEL-LAUTENBERG-WARNER G.I. BILL “POST-9/11 VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE ACT” (S.22). McCain supports another bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention and Readjustment Through Education Act (S.2938), which I will compare later (at least to some degree).

First some background. Both the S.22 bill and it's Republican alternative S.2938, serve as an updated GI bill in the same scope as the GI Bill that was introduced to our armed forces post WWII. This is especially important at the present time as the military is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit and retain members during a war that has entered its 5th year.

McCain argues that he knows the military better than supporters like presidential candidate, Barack Obama, and that support for Senator Webb's bill is political and not based on sound reason. He argues that passage of the GI bill will hurt retention by encouraging service members to leave the military to go back to school. This is not a subject I'm going to tackle today, but I do think that McCain's train of thought is short sighted and mistaken. The original Montgomery GI Bill was not created for purposes of retention, the spirit of the bill was to reward our men and women in the military for their service to their country, to avoid a post-war abundance of job seekers, and to stave off a post-WWII depression. Until I write something with more depth, I would refer you to Jim Webb's fact sheet on the subject for now. http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/factsheetgi52208.pdf

Now what is curious about McCain calling this support politically expedient is two-fold.

First, the Senate passed this bill 75-22. 75!! This is in a Senate that has a hard time passing any kind of legislation together. Tell me more. The bill had 58 co-sponsors including:

Daniel Akaka (D)- Chairman of the Committee on Veteran's Affairs & WWII Army veteran
(actually all of the WWII vets in the Senate are co-sponsors, Akaka, Inouye, Lautenberg, and Warner)
Chuck Hagel (R)- Vietnam Veteran
Jim Inhofe (R)- "Mr. Global Warming is a Hoax!" and Army veteran withdrew sponsorship
Richard Lugar(R)- Navy veteran
Arlen Specter(R)- Airforce veteran
John Warner(R)- Navy and Marine Corps veteran, WWII veteran, and former Secretary of the Navy
and of course...
Jim Webb(D)- Vietnam War veteran, Marine Corps veteran, former Assistant Secretary of Defense, and former Secretary of the Navy

Oh I guess I should add that this bill is "endorsed by all major military and veterans’ associations but is opposed by the Pentagon and VA"- Army Times. (The Pentagon and McCain think the bill will hurt retention in the military and the VA thinks it will create too much work for them)

In fact, almost every single Senate member with military experience is a co-sponsor (interesting note, I had no idea such a large number of Senators had military experience). So what McCain is trying to tell me is that all of these Senators that decided to co-sponsor the bill were doing so because of political expedience? All of them. I am supposed to believe that John McCain is one of the few members of the US Senate with military experience that is being principled and not doing it to look good, and not doing it because it's in the best interests of our troops and veterans? I have a hard time believing that McCain has a monopoly on straight talk and truthiness.

The second aspect to McCain's opposition is the fact that he supports a gas tax holiday. Let's talk about political expedience. Not one economist in the country thinks a gas tax holiday is a good idea. The experts, unanimously think it's a bad idea and McCain thinks it's the right thing to do, am I now supposed to believe that the straight talk express is supporting the right move and not the politically expedient one? McCain, politically willing to say anything, showing his age, or secretly right?

do you hate capitalism?

Friday afternoon I was at the Barack Obama rally in the Bank Atlantic Center in Sunrise, FL. To my right hand side, I had some friends from work, a libertarian, a conservative, and a democrat. My friend next to me, the libertarian, repeated something I've heard a lot over the years. When he heard Obama tear into the oil companies over skyrocketing profits and rising prices at the pump, he chuckled, "can't a company make a dollar these days? people just hate capitalism".

I can almost guarantee you wouldn't hear that kind of thing from someone poorer than us, but it's the kind of principled economic stance that you hear from a lot of people that stray further to the right of the political spectrum. I hear it a lot, how can you be mad at a company that is successful? How can you admonish them for doing well? It's not that surprising to hear that though, we're as single person households, in I would estimate the 90th percentile of income in the United States, if not higher. We are successful, we work hard, and nobody should penalize us for making a dollar. That's why, at least I think, I hear a lot of complaints about taxes and tirades of "liberals being against capitalism". Full disclosure, I own ExxonMobil stock and I have since I was 14 (it's not like I don't like to make money).

Unfortunately, cases like Exxon Mobil are different. Their profit is huge. It's not the fact that they make money that bothers me, it's that the way they take care of their business partners, whether they are the land owners, station owners, surrounding community, etc. Taking care of anyone that is not Exxon Mobil is something to be desired.

During Obama's speech, Obama spoke of how Americans need to band together, especially in difficult times; a new age of nationalism and community. During a time when rising gas prices are on the forefront of the American consciousness, what are companies like ExxonMobil doing? Joining forces with the consumer to get through a rough patch? More like diving into a Scrooge McDuck style money pool. Investment into alternative energy? Not really. Directing their millions of lobbying dollars towards something consumer friendly? You're dreaming. Do people like me hate capitalism? No, but it's a little infuriating when normal people can't even make a living selling Exxon Mobil's gas at the gas station. I can tell you where Exxon's 2007 $40 billion profit didn't go.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/24/AR2008052401961.html

Are you bitter?

If you've been following the news this past week, you may have noticed that it's been a very sloooooow news week; the biggest news story is Hilary Clinton and John McCain knocking on Barack Obama for calling voters in small Pennsylvania towns, bitter. This is a serious story? Are people bitter? I would think so, there is a reason that entire region is known as the "Rust Belt". I don't even live in a small town where the entire economic foundation collapsed and I would say that I'm bitter. Groceries have gone up in price (dramatically), gas has gone up, the Dow is down about 1500 pts from its late 2007 high, my investment portfolio & 401k and most people's investments are tanking, my raise doesn't match inflation, I can't afford a house, I mean let's be honest, who isn't bitter? Saying we aren't in a recession doesn't make it so, and saying that disgruntled people aren't doesn't make it so either. So what's wrong with Obama saying people are bitter. Fox News went on the streets of Allentown PA to ask; the best reaction is the anchor getting frustrated and asking the optician why he doesn't just move. OR

Fox News Anchor: Do you think that people are bitter because of the situation at hand?
John@Diner: I know they are.
LOLZ.

Joe Lieberman. Far Right in Disguise

I published this online May 2006; due to technical issues with Blogger 2 years ago, the post itself did not receive a permanent link, and was instead bundled into a monthly archive. I was and still am in strong agreement with everything I wrote in the aforementioned post and the essay I wrote (linked below) for my 'ethics in medicine' class that I took with Dr. Jeffrey Blustein of the Montefiore Bioethics Center, Professor of Bioethics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and adjunct Associate Professor of Philosophy, Barnard College. I am re-posting it for posterity and because I was reminded of Joe Lieberman the other day. In 2006 during the Senate race between Lieberman and Ned Lamont, the Lieberman website crashed and the campaign pointed fingers at the Lamont campaign and even went so far as to file a complaint with the US Attorney's Office. A Freedom of Information Act request revealed that the FBI found that the cause of the crash was due to the use of a crappy $15/month hosting site and a misconfigured server. Onwards!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few months ago Joe Lieberman spoke out in defense of Catholic hospitals' right to turn away rape, sexual assault, and incest victims who were seeking emergency contraception. "hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for 'principled reasons' shouldn't be forced to do so… In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital”. In a way he's right, in another way he's callous and very much not right. Look around at the hospitals in New York City, in your town, in your suburb, how many hospitals are Catholic; how many have merged with the Catholic Church and you don't even know about it?

The Catholic Church is a huge financial power that controls more than a few hospitals across our nation. As the largest non-profit provider of healthcare, they have the financial resources to keep hospitals afloat that other organizations could not. More and more hospitals are either selling to the Catholic Church or affiliating themselves with them. Does your hospital provide EC? It's hard to know these days.

Lieberman justifies the Catholic position saying that there are plenty of other hospitals in Connecticut you could go to. That's fine for Connecticut, that's not fine for the many counties and cities where the Catholic hospital is the sole provider of healthcare and residents have no alternative.

Furthermore, what an insensitive comment. If you are a rape victim, I'm sure the last thing you need is to drive to the hospital in a state if duress only to be turned away. What are Americans to do when there is no procreative freedom, our morals are being governed by an organization that represents about 25% of our population and less than 10% in many of the states where the Catholic hospital has been deemed a "sole-provider". America was founded by those seeking to escape religious oppression, look around though, here we are again.

Follow the link: CLICK ME! essay I wrote for "Ethics and Medicine" examining the ethics of the Catholic healthcare system.

I've said it once, I've said it a million times...

worth the read.
http://www.columbiaspectator.com/webfeatures/elhaj.pdf

What's Wrong With Kids These Days?

Uhhhh...

Apparently getting a concussion, hearing loss, and vision loss is what you get these days for talking trash on the internet, on MySpace.

Mercades Nichols' Mother's comments: "don't waste your time on myspace going back and forth talking, saying all these nasty things about people. I don't see why she would do that if she didn't have the nerve to back up what she was saying."

Some comments from the accused when asked if they felt any remorse: “None at all,... Guess we’re not going to go to the beach on this spring break"
"Am I going to be released in time to go to cheerleading practice tomorrow?”

Exhibit 1:

Teen Beating, Victoria Lindsay, Video
Uploaded by guanabee



Exhibit 2:

One the girls' Myspace pages. Look at it and feel your brain hurt. Expand the image to see some what she's all about.

Update 4/11/08: The screenshots below which was allegedly Mercades Nichols' myspace page, is not necessarily her page. See blog and comments @ Republican Ranting. That blog that I linked to is interesting in that the permanent link is titled "myspace-of-mercades-nichols-the-girl-who-kidnapped-and-beat-victoria-lindsay-reveals-that-she-is-anything-but-sorry/" and the title of the article that appears on the post is "Fake Myspace of Mercades Nichols (the Girl Who Kidnapped and Beat Victoria Lindsay) Shows that People Have No Decency". Sounds like someone else on the internet had a change of heart, I admit that I did not give her the benefit of the doubt.. Anyways, the point of this update is that the myspace address of the "real" page is rodeo_chick_0413 and the "fake" one is rodeo_chick_413 (has been removed). Are they both her pages? Was the offensive page faked? They were both last updated on 4/8/08. Is the removed page a fake and what instigated the whole event in the first place? Either way, the page I took the screenshots from made Mercades seem to be a pretty awful person, rubbing salt into a wound that was already pretty bad. Due to its unbelievably racist content on all levels, I'm inclined to agree that it's a fake. Whoever created the page... is pretty awful regardless of the circumstances surrounding this whole thing. Again the pages below, probably fake.

Getting Desperate?

Hilary Clinton responding to a question regarding a "do-over" in the Florida and Michigan primaries:

I would not accept a caucus. I think that would be a great disservice to the 2 million people who turned out and voted. I think that they want their votes counted. And you know a lot of people would be disenfranchised because of the timing and whatever the particular rules were. This is really going to be a serious challenge for the Democratic Party because the voters in Michigan and Florida are the ones being hurt, and certainly with respect to Florida the Democrats were dragged into doing what they did by a Republican governor and a Republican Legislature. They didn't have any choice whatsoever. And I don't think that there should be any do-over or any kind of a second run in Florida. I think Florida should be seated.

You know, NOT having a do-over is a great disservice to the voters of Florida. I did not go to the polls because I knew my vote wouldn't yield any delegates. Just a guess, but I think a lot of people felt that way. What's Clinton scared of? If Florida believes in her, it will give her the votes. Her trying to declare herself the victor in a state that knew its votes didn't count and to declare victory and delegates in Michigan where she was the only person on the ballot is absolutely ridiculous. Someone is getting desperate for delegates...