Thank God for baseball and NASCAR.
If it weren't for those two sports, I would be forced to spend the day hearing about horse racing. The ultimate rich person sport has been in the news the last few weeks as a result of the death of Eight Belles at the Kentucky Derby.
I call horse racing the ultimate rich person sport because you can buy used golf clubs for under a hundred bucks and greens fees for public courses can be quite affordable. Auto racing, while expensive to compete in, can be enjoyed by anybody who drinks beer and can pick a number.
Horse racing enthusiasts have paid as much as $13 million for a thoroughbred. In case you didn't know, thoroughbred means horse. That is correct, somebody paid $13 million for a horse, and it didn't even fly.
Horse racing can only truly be enjoyed by those with money to burn. Betting is the only thing that keeps it alive, that and funny hats and terrible drinks. Do you know whats in a mint julep? Bourbon and mint. The only reason to put mint into a drink with alcohol is to leave your breath fresh after puking it out.
PETA has been in full throttle mode since the death of Eight Belles, which truly shows PETA for who they are. Publicity whores. Hundreds of thoroughbreds are killed each year, but opportunistic PETA only comes to bat for them in this high profile situation. In a couple of weeks, they will be back to fashion shows, spraying painting models wearing fur, and of course, doing so in front of hundreds of cameras.
Now while I do believe in the humane treatment of animals, and do believe that it is a serious issue, one must keep it in perspective. Myanmar, China, and Darfur among others should be sobering signs to anybody who devotes their life's work to saving an animal.
Bottom Line: Go Mark Martin!
Rabbit
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Carolina Red?
Apparently there are more campaigns going on beyond the one for president. Also, as it turns out, they are also somewhat important to the country. Senator Elizabeth Dole is up for re-election and faces a challenge from State Senator Kay Hagan. Also, Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory faces Lt. Governor Bev Perdue in the gubernatorial election.
North Carolina, often classified as a solid "red state", is really anything but. We regularly elect Democratic governors and a majority Democratic General Assembly. Our Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is slightly Democratic, 7 to 6. However, the last time we voted for a Democratic candidate for President was in 1976 for Jimmy Carter. That means we do vote Republican in Presidential races, but Republicans have won 6 of the last 9 Presidential elections. So while we may vote for Republican Presidents, many others do as well.
To me, the writing on the wall says that North Carolina is becoming more blue with each passing day. A clear sign of this was the 2004 Senate race between Richard Burr and Erskine Bowles. Burr won a hotly contested race by five percentage points, in a year in which Republicans retained the Presidency and increased their majority in Congress. Burr beat Bowles who ran against Dole in 2002. Dole won by almost 10 percent.
So why the change? The most glaring thing to me is the population growth in North Carolina. The 2000 Census put the North Carolina population at 8,049,313. Estimates for 2007 had the population at 9,061,032. This growth is concentrated in the cities, which are the more liberal areas of the state. Calling Cary the Containment Area for Relocated Yankees is more fact than many may think.
Another possible reason for the move towards the blue for North Carolina is the worn off results of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is difficult to argue against the theory that the move of the southern states to the Republican Party over the past 40 years was not directly correlated to the signing of the Civil Rights Act. While it may not be the only reason, it does factor into the equation. The percentage of the electorate who are bitter (dangerous word choice I know) over this decision is declining. Thus, the Democratic Party has a shot at more voters than it did before.
Bottom Line: North Carolina is in play.
Rabbit
North Carolina, often classified as a solid "red state", is really anything but. We regularly elect Democratic governors and a majority Democratic General Assembly. Our Representatives to the U.S. House of Representatives is slightly Democratic, 7 to 6. However, the last time we voted for a Democratic candidate for President was in 1976 for Jimmy Carter. That means we do vote Republican in Presidential races, but Republicans have won 6 of the last 9 Presidential elections. So while we may vote for Republican Presidents, many others do as well.
To me, the writing on the wall says that North Carolina is becoming more blue with each passing day. A clear sign of this was the 2004 Senate race between Richard Burr and Erskine Bowles. Burr won a hotly contested race by five percentage points, in a year in which Republicans retained the Presidency and increased their majority in Congress. Burr beat Bowles who ran against Dole in 2002. Dole won by almost 10 percent.
So why the change? The most glaring thing to me is the population growth in North Carolina. The 2000 Census put the North Carolina population at 8,049,313. Estimates for 2007 had the population at 9,061,032. This growth is concentrated in the cities, which are the more liberal areas of the state. Calling Cary the Containment Area for Relocated Yankees is more fact than many may think.
Another possible reason for the move towards the blue for North Carolina is the worn off results of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is difficult to argue against the theory that the move of the southern states to the Republican Party over the past 40 years was not directly correlated to the signing of the Civil Rights Act. While it may not be the only reason, it does factor into the equation. The percentage of the electorate who are bitter (dangerous word choice I know) over this decision is declining. Thus, the Democratic Party has a shot at more voters than it did before.
Bottom Line: North Carolina is in play.
Rabbit
Thursday, May 15, 2008
It Must Be an Election Year
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/same.sex.marriage/index.html
I will be against this ruling as soon as somebody tells me who it hurts...
When it comes to any question of one's individual rights, my question is always, who can it hurt? This is why I believe in regulation regarding gun ownership.
The "sanctity of marriage" is in extreme disarray in the United States and has been in the world for quite some time. But, the threat to marriage is not homosexual matrimony, but a lack of understanding of the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate in this country is roughly fifty percent, many people are unfaithful, many mistreat their spouse. Of course, my opinion is that, with the exception of abuse, these are things that one should not be illegal. But, if you are going to protest something about marriage, these are more important issues.
I understand religious beliefs play strongly into one's opinion on this issue. I think the Bible is somewhat hazy on the issue of marriage and homosexuality, but I do understand why others feel a stronger conviction on this issue. That is why I believe there should be a strict separation of church and state for this issue. If your church chooses to not allow gay marriage to occur at or in your church, that is perfectly acceptable to me. Of course, I will be unlikely to attend your church, but as long as you do not ostracize and persecute any homosexuals, I have no major problem.
However, the legal benefits of being married cannot be overlooked. Gay couples who are not allowed to participate in marriage or civil unions are not allowed to reap the benefits of legal family life. This means inclusion on health care plans and visitation rights among others. This brings up the constitutional debate for gay marriage/civil unions. As a heterosexual, my immediate family, including my wife (if I had one) would be able to benefit from my family health care plan if I worked for the state, would be allowed to see me, and would legally be allowed to execute my living will. Homosexual partners do not have this same legal right, therefore, the constitutional law argument goes, they are not guaranteed "equal protection of the law."
Bottom line: Marriage in our society is in trouble, and we should applaud anybody willing to fight to make it work, even if their definition of marriage is slightly different than our own.
Rabbit
I will be against this ruling as soon as somebody tells me who it hurts...
When it comes to any question of one's individual rights, my question is always, who can it hurt? This is why I believe in regulation regarding gun ownership.
The "sanctity of marriage" is in extreme disarray in the United States and has been in the world for quite some time. But, the threat to marriage is not homosexual matrimony, but a lack of understanding of the meaning of marriage. The divorce rate in this country is roughly fifty percent, many people are unfaithful, many mistreat their spouse. Of course, my opinion is that, with the exception of abuse, these are things that one should not be illegal. But, if you are going to protest something about marriage, these are more important issues.
I understand religious beliefs play strongly into one's opinion on this issue. I think the Bible is somewhat hazy on the issue of marriage and homosexuality, but I do understand why others feel a stronger conviction on this issue. That is why I believe there should be a strict separation of church and state for this issue. If your church chooses to not allow gay marriage to occur at or in your church, that is perfectly acceptable to me. Of course, I will be unlikely to attend your church, but as long as you do not ostracize and persecute any homosexuals, I have no major problem.
However, the legal benefits of being married cannot be overlooked. Gay couples who are not allowed to participate in marriage or civil unions are not allowed to reap the benefits of legal family life. This means inclusion on health care plans and visitation rights among others. This brings up the constitutional debate for gay marriage/civil unions. As a heterosexual, my immediate family, including my wife (if I had one) would be able to benefit from my family health care plan if I worked for the state, would be allowed to see me, and would legally be allowed to execute my living will. Homosexual partners do not have this same legal right, therefore, the constitutional law argument goes, they are not guaranteed "equal protection of the law."
Bottom line: Marriage in our society is in trouble, and we should applaud anybody willing to fight to make it work, even if their definition of marriage is slightly different than our own.
Rabbit
"This is bulls**t..."
"This is bulls**t. This is malarkey. This is outrageous. Outrageous for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, sit in the Knesset ... and make this kind of ridiculous statement...He's the guy who's weakened us. He's the guy that's increased the number of terrorists in the world. His policies have produced this vulnerability the United States has." -- Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del)
Earlier today, President Bush while speaking in Israel, claimed that the United States talking to Iran is "foolish delusion." He also compared such an act to appeasement of the Nazis, which is an extremely misleading plea for emotion to any group in Israel. Also, negotiating with countries we deem as "enemies" is something we already do. We negotiate with North Korea, we have been trying to work for peace between Israel and Palestine for years.
It is widely believed that these statements from President Bush were a direct shot at Presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama has taken heat for stating his intention to engage in negotiations with various countries ranging from Iran to Venezeula. However, Senator Biden speaking out against President Bush and for Senator Obama showcases the American people and important overlooked fact. For almost four years now, Senator Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the past two years, he has served on that committee, while facing claims that he has no foreign policy experience. But, now Senator Biden is proving that Obama has plenty of experience and judgment, much more than the current president.
Senator Obama's experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his willingness to talk with countries we currently have major problems with is a major reason why I want him to be President. Senator Mccain's and Senator Clinton's foreign policy experience is much more connected to their service on the Senate Armed Services Committee and of course, Senator Mccain's service in Vietnam. While this service, particularly Mccain's, cannot be dismissed, I feel it is important to have experience in diplomacy, which has been lacking for quite some time (a lack of diplomacy did not start with the Bush Administration).
My bottom line opinion is that Senator Biden was completely correct in his assessment of George Bush.
Rabbit
Earlier today, President Bush while speaking in Israel, claimed that the United States talking to Iran is "foolish delusion." He also compared such an act to appeasement of the Nazis, which is an extremely misleading plea for emotion to any group in Israel. Also, negotiating with countries we deem as "enemies" is something we already do. We negotiate with North Korea, we have been trying to work for peace between Israel and Palestine for years.
It is widely believed that these statements from President Bush were a direct shot at Presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama. Senator Obama has taken heat for stating his intention to engage in negotiations with various countries ranging from Iran to Venezeula. However, Senator Biden speaking out against President Bush and for Senator Obama showcases the American people and important overlooked fact. For almost four years now, Senator Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. For the past two years, he has served on that committee, while facing claims that he has no foreign policy experience. But, now Senator Biden is proving that Obama has plenty of experience and judgment, much more than the current president.
Senator Obama's experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and his willingness to talk with countries we currently have major problems with is a major reason why I want him to be President. Senator Mccain's and Senator Clinton's foreign policy experience is much more connected to their service on the Senate Armed Services Committee and of course, Senator Mccain's service in Vietnam. While this service, particularly Mccain's, cannot be dismissed, I feel it is important to have experience in diplomacy, which has been lacking for quite some time (a lack of diplomacy did not start with the Bush Administration).
My bottom line opinion is that Senator Biden was completely correct in his assessment of George Bush.
Rabbit
The Return of the RANT...
I have been considering starting a blog for some time now, so I figured I may as well actually do it. Sooner or later, I hope I can start my own site with a variety of sections devoted to current events ranging from politics, to sports, to even a little business maybe. But for now, I am starting with this because it is simple and free.
What I hope to accomplish is to help display the power of the moderate independent minded thinker. Moderates are often misunderstood. That is, we do not simply hold a centrist view on every situation because we cannot pick a side, but we realize that the world is much more than black and white. Sometimes we may take a particular side of an issue, but hopefully we never lose sight of why one with an opposing viewpoint thinks the way they do. At the moment, I tend to lean to the left with my political thought, but I have leaned to the right in the past. Both sides have strong points and both sides have weak points. Both sides have powerful evidence. Both sides have opinions built on lies and misinformation. In the future, I will write my opinions on issues that will make you feel I am a strong advocate for a particular side, which sometimes I am. But, I think I am more complicated than a simple label, hence the long "moderate independent minded thinker" label. As an example of this conflict and for the sake of full disclosure I will admit to voting for George W. Bush in 2004, an act that I regret, and I voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary last week and plan on voting for Senator Obama in the general election. However, I would be unlikely to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election.
I will stop my post here, so my first blog is short enough for all of you to actually read.
Rabbit
What I hope to accomplish is to help display the power of the moderate independent minded thinker. Moderates are often misunderstood. That is, we do not simply hold a centrist view on every situation because we cannot pick a side, but we realize that the world is much more than black and white. Sometimes we may take a particular side of an issue, but hopefully we never lose sight of why one with an opposing viewpoint thinks the way they do. At the moment, I tend to lean to the left with my political thought, but I have leaned to the right in the past. Both sides have strong points and both sides have weak points. Both sides have powerful evidence. Both sides have opinions built on lies and misinformation. In the future, I will write my opinions on issues that will make you feel I am a strong advocate for a particular side, which sometimes I am. But, I think I am more complicated than a simple label, hence the long "moderate independent minded thinker" label. As an example of this conflict and for the sake of full disclosure I will admit to voting for George W. Bush in 2004, an act that I regret, and I voted for Barack Obama in the Democratic Primary last week and plan on voting for Senator Obama in the general election. However, I would be unlikely to vote for Hillary Clinton in a general election.
I will stop my post here, so my first blog is short enough for all of you to actually read.
Rabbit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)