When Hillary Clinton made the comments about RFK's assassination in June the point she attempted to make was that battles for the Democratic Presidential nomination can go on as late as June, and since it is now May, it is premature to ask her to step down.
I understand that politicians often assume that the general public does not get their clever little tricks, and they are right more than I wish they were. But, the fact is, the nomination process is much different than in the past. That is, because of the vast amounts of "front loading" done by states to move their primary election up, so they may have more of an effect on the selection of the next president. This very process is what led to the Democrats not counting the votes from Michigan and Florida and led the Republicans to only allow the Florida results to count for half of their normal delegate total.
In the example of the RFK's and her husband's win in California, Sen. Clinton states this did not happen until June. That is true, but she fails to remind us that California's primary this year was in February. In 1992, Super Tuesday was March 10, in 2008 it was February 5. By this time in 1992, 10 contests remained, including aforementioned California and Ohio. Now, in 2008, all that remains are Montana, South Dakota, and Puerto Rico. In other words, the primary season is based on when states hold their individual primaries in each particular year, not when they held them in other years.
Bottom Line: I know it must be hard to admit you will not be president when you were basically the final 3 for consideration. Also, I admire Sen. Clinton for allowing the primary contests to continue throughout the process so voters actually have a choice. But the choice has been made, and the voters have chosen Barack Obama to be the Democratic nominee for President. If she wants to continue to campaign through the final 3 primaries, that is fine, but she should do it respectfully.
Rabbit
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Too Much
I don't often use other people's commentaries on current events because I prefer to develop my own opinion. The "ditto head' society we live in, in which so many people have a select few in the media they trust without reservation is dangerous to independent thought. However, I read one article that nails one story, and saw a commentary on tv, that nails another similar story.
Last Friday, Former Arkansas Governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attempted a joke at the expense of Senator Barack Obama. While speaking to the NRA, a loud noise was heard behind the stage and Gov. Huckabee cracked, "that was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he - he dove for the floor." The Minneapolis Star Tribune published a letter that hits Huckabee hard by reversing this situation on him. How would you feel if a group of people who do not like you, led by a staunch opponent of yours, joked about killing you?
Yesterday, Senator Hillary Clinton made a stupid statement about assassination when asked why some people want her to end her candidacy saying, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is." Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC discussed this issue at great length last night, ending with a "special comment" (Watch the Video) from Olbermann.
Why do rival politicians choose to invoke the thought of killing Barack Obama? I do not think they do it on purpose, but it is difficult to trust a politicians true motives sometimes. If I were a betting man, I would bet on Barack Obama being the victorious candidate in November. Therefore, anything to get him out of the picture would benefit Hillary Clinton and the Republicans. Obviously, they are hoping for a scandal (The Republicans have already launched research into Obama hoping to "Swift Boat" him and Hillary Clinton's "Kitchen Sink" strategy has been the life support to her campaign the last 2 months). Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I just think its too convenient to brush aside the comments as similar campaign gaffs. It is simple political science to go negative and attempt to smear your opponent when you are trailing, but no other Presidential contender has had to deal with multiple opponents implying assassination.
This story unveils the dark truth of Barack Obama's campaign. For the last several months and for the next several months, he has needed and will need more security around him and his family, than any other presidential contender in the history of the United States. The overwhelming majority of the country, whether they love or hate him, do not want to see Obama or his family physically harmed. But, it only takes one person. One racist bigot, one moron, one person to take him down. While any politician deals with a various range of threats, any individual in a clear state of mind will understand why the stakes are greater with Barack Obama and for anybody, particularly highly visible politicians to be reckless enough to imply anything like this, is reprehensible and embarrassing to our country and political process.
Bottom Line: I hope Hillary Clinton's and Mike Huckabee's political careers are over.
Rabbit
Last Friday, Former Arkansas Governor and former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attempted a joke at the expense of Senator Barack Obama. While speaking to the NRA, a loud noise was heard behind the stage and Gov. Huckabee cracked, "that was Barack Obama. He just tripped off a chair. He's getting ready to speak and somebody aimed a gun at him and he - he dove for the floor." The Minneapolis Star Tribune published a letter that hits Huckabee hard by reversing this situation on him. How would you feel if a group of people who do not like you, led by a staunch opponent of yours, joked about killing you?
Yesterday, Senator Hillary Clinton made a stupid statement about assassination when asked why some people want her to end her candidacy saying, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is." Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC discussed this issue at great length last night, ending with a "special comment" (Watch the Video) from Olbermann.
Why do rival politicians choose to invoke the thought of killing Barack Obama? I do not think they do it on purpose, but it is difficult to trust a politicians true motives sometimes. If I were a betting man, I would bet on Barack Obama being the victorious candidate in November. Therefore, anything to get him out of the picture would benefit Hillary Clinton and the Republicans. Obviously, they are hoping for a scandal (The Republicans have already launched research into Obama hoping to "Swift Boat" him and Hillary Clinton's "Kitchen Sink" strategy has been the life support to her campaign the last 2 months). Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I just think its too convenient to brush aside the comments as similar campaign gaffs. It is simple political science to go negative and attempt to smear your opponent when you are trailing, but no other Presidential contender has had to deal with multiple opponents implying assassination.
This story unveils the dark truth of Barack Obama's campaign. For the last several months and for the next several months, he has needed and will need more security around him and his family, than any other presidential contender in the history of the United States. The overwhelming majority of the country, whether they love or hate him, do not want to see Obama or his family physically harmed. But, it only takes one person. One racist bigot, one moron, one person to take him down. While any politician deals with a various range of threats, any individual in a clear state of mind will understand why the stakes are greater with Barack Obama and for anybody, particularly highly visible politicians to be reckless enough to imply anything like this, is reprehensible and embarrassing to our country and political process.
Bottom Line: I hope Hillary Clinton's and Mike Huckabee's political careers are over.
Rabbit
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Support the Troops..More than Just a Yellow Ribbon
The Senate today voted to pass a new GI Bill, that allows veterans to attend college for free. The GI Bill before did not cover the entire cost of college but, now the bill gives money to veterans that pays for the most expensive public school in the state. In other words, a veteran from North Carolina can attend UNC at Chapel Hill for free.
The bill passed 75-22. One would assume that in a state with major military bases and one with senators who often cite "supporting the troops" as reasoning for extending the war in Iraq that North Carolina's two senators, Sen. Dole and Sen. Burr, would be vocally approving this bill. However, they both voted against it.
Sen. Burr along with South Carolina Sen. Graham, cosponsored an amendment supported by Presidential candidate Sen. McCain. This amendment was a tiered increase in benefits for longer service. Basically, the longer you serve, the more money you get. That sounds terrific and would be if not for a few glaring shortfalls. First, the Graham/Burr/McCain Bill does not account for the different prices of education in different states meaning those veterans who live in states with a higher cost for education are forced to go into debt to pay for college. Also, the Graham/Burr/McCain Bill does not account for the service of those in the National Guard or for Reservists. These soldiers have also served in Iraq and Afghanistan, often for multiple tours and they are left out.
The hypocrisy with that amendment. As one term Senators, which I believe that both Burr and Dole should be (Dole is up for election in November, Burr's term is up in 2010), our senators are given the same benefits package as Senators who have served for decades. Also, as residents (term applied loosely to Dole) of North Carolina, I am sure both senators are aware of the Teaching Fellows program, in which eligible students are given a free college education, if they promise to teach in North Carolina for 4 years.
These rogue Senators have the right to their opinion and the right to attempt to amend legislation. But, once their amendment was defeated, they decided to not support our troops. There is no amount of spin that can change that. Earlier in the month, the House passed this bill and after conference the bill will be sent to the president, who has said he will veto the bill. If you are curious how your Congressman voted I am pleased to say that 12 out of the 13 Representatives from North Carolina voted for the bill, with 6th District Congressman Howard Coble being the dissenter.
Bottom Line?
Democrats support the troops. Some Republicans do, but not the President, not the Presidential candidate, and not the Senators from North Carolina among others.
Rabbit
The bill passed 75-22. One would assume that in a state with major military bases and one with senators who often cite "supporting the troops" as reasoning for extending the war in Iraq that North Carolina's two senators, Sen. Dole and Sen. Burr, would be vocally approving this bill. However, they both voted against it.
Sen. Burr along with South Carolina Sen. Graham, cosponsored an amendment supported by Presidential candidate Sen. McCain. This amendment was a tiered increase in benefits for longer service. Basically, the longer you serve, the more money you get. That sounds terrific and would be if not for a few glaring shortfalls. First, the Graham/Burr/McCain Bill does not account for the different prices of education in different states meaning those veterans who live in states with a higher cost for education are forced to go into debt to pay for college. Also, the Graham/Burr/McCain Bill does not account for the service of those in the National Guard or for Reservists. These soldiers have also served in Iraq and Afghanistan, often for multiple tours and they are left out.
The hypocrisy with that amendment. As one term Senators, which I believe that both Burr and Dole should be (Dole is up for election in November, Burr's term is up in 2010), our senators are given the same benefits package as Senators who have served for decades. Also, as residents (term applied loosely to Dole) of North Carolina, I am sure both senators are aware of the Teaching Fellows program, in which eligible students are given a free college education, if they promise to teach in North Carolina for 4 years.
These rogue Senators have the right to their opinion and the right to attempt to amend legislation. But, once their amendment was defeated, they decided to not support our troops. There is no amount of spin that can change that. Earlier in the month, the House passed this bill and after conference the bill will be sent to the president, who has said he will veto the bill. If you are curious how your Congressman voted I am pleased to say that 12 out of the 13 Representatives from North Carolina voted for the bill, with 6th District Congressman Howard Coble being the dissenter.
Bottom Line?
Democrats support the troops. Some Republicans do, but not the President, not the Presidential candidate, and not the Senators from North Carolina among others.
Rabbit
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Gas!
Anybody interested?
Today, in the Senate, several oil executives testified regarding high oil and gas prices. The easy knee jerk reaction to this issue is to blame the oil companies. However, lately many conservative pundits have come to the rescue for these poor oil companies, and began blaming the government for these high prices, citing the ban on drilling in many areas, as a key argument.
I do not quite see it that way.
High gas prices are the result of 6 different issues, oil companies, American government shortcomings, OPEC policy, a lack of infinite oil, automobile manufacturers, and the general public.
Oil companies are partially to blame for high oil prices because they are gouging prices, and this is reflected by their record profits. While there should be no law punishing companies for high profits, those companies should carry their fair share of the burden. Also, oil companies are not filled with completely evil greedy executives. But, they are not perfect angels who only want the best for their consumer.
The American government is partially to blame for high oil prices. The most glaring case would be occupying a country that had been a major oil exporter, effectively grinding the oil exportation to next to nothing. Also, failing to have the foresight to encourage alternative energy sources and more efficient uses of energy does not help.
The Majority of the OPEC nations flat out do not like us. So given the chance to hurt us economically, they most certainly are likely to take it. Many OPEC countries do have diverse economies, but oil is vital to their economy, so $130 a barrel oil helps them more than $20 a barrel.
Most experts are not certain how much oil is left in the country. It could run out in 20, 200 or 2000 years. But, at some point, it is likely to run out. Farts will be around forever no matter what, hence why they are free, but if there is something that we do not have an infinite amount of, it will be worth more. (Special note: It is obvious that I am not a professional economist, I am just trying to give an opinion)
Car manufacturers have sold a ton of SUVs (Complete Disclosure: I own a Jeep Wrangler). You cannot blame the car companies for selling people buy, but they did not spend much time working on improving the efficiency of these vehicles. It is my pure not based on any research opinion that cars could average 50-60 miles to a gallon of gas without it even being a hybrid. Also, GM scratched a possible monopoly on the electric car market to invest in the Hummer (See the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"). While oil companies have experienced record profits, American Automakers are in the red, so they have hurt themselves more than they have hurt the consumer.
At the end of the day, the general public is to blame for high gas prices. It may not sound good or be popular, but if the general public were to cut back on consumption, demand would be lowered and oil prices would come down. Most Americans only sacrifice when they absolutely have too. I know many people who need to have trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. However, families of four can get around in a Honda Accord, they don't need a Suburban. People could also carpool, use public transportation, buy homes closer to work, and cut down on unnecessary trips. Of course, one cannot and should not be forced to do any of these things. But, each individual should recognize and take blame for rising gas prices.
Bottom line? There is rarely a problem with only one cause. It is easy to point blame, and blame should be pointed. But, you and I should also be blamed.
Rabbit
Today, in the Senate, several oil executives testified regarding high oil and gas prices. The easy knee jerk reaction to this issue is to blame the oil companies. However, lately many conservative pundits have come to the rescue for these poor oil companies, and began blaming the government for these high prices, citing the ban on drilling in many areas, as a key argument.
I do not quite see it that way.
High gas prices are the result of 6 different issues, oil companies, American government shortcomings, OPEC policy, a lack of infinite oil, automobile manufacturers, and the general public.
Oil companies are partially to blame for high oil prices because they are gouging prices, and this is reflected by their record profits. While there should be no law punishing companies for high profits, those companies should carry their fair share of the burden. Also, oil companies are not filled with completely evil greedy executives. But, they are not perfect angels who only want the best for their consumer.
The American government is partially to blame for high oil prices. The most glaring case would be occupying a country that had been a major oil exporter, effectively grinding the oil exportation to next to nothing. Also, failing to have the foresight to encourage alternative energy sources and more efficient uses of energy does not help.
The Majority of the OPEC nations flat out do not like us. So given the chance to hurt us economically, they most certainly are likely to take it. Many OPEC countries do have diverse economies, but oil is vital to their economy, so $130 a barrel oil helps them more than $20 a barrel.
Most experts are not certain how much oil is left in the country. It could run out in 20, 200 or 2000 years. But, at some point, it is likely to run out. Farts will be around forever no matter what, hence why they are free, but if there is something that we do not have an infinite amount of, it will be worth more. (Special note: It is obvious that I am not a professional economist, I am just trying to give an opinion)
Car manufacturers have sold a ton of SUVs (Complete Disclosure: I own a Jeep Wrangler). You cannot blame the car companies for selling people buy, but they did not spend much time working on improving the efficiency of these vehicles. It is my pure not based on any research opinion that cars could average 50-60 miles to a gallon of gas without it even being a hybrid. Also, GM scratched a possible monopoly on the electric car market to invest in the Hummer (See the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"). While oil companies have experienced record profits, American Automakers are in the red, so they have hurt themselves more than they have hurt the consumer.
At the end of the day, the general public is to blame for high gas prices. It may not sound good or be popular, but if the general public were to cut back on consumption, demand would be lowered and oil prices would come down. Most Americans only sacrifice when they absolutely have too. I know many people who need to have trucks and SUVs for their livelihood. However, families of four can get around in a Honda Accord, they don't need a Suburban. People could also carpool, use public transportation, buy homes closer to work, and cut down on unnecessary trips. Of course, one cannot and should not be forced to do any of these things. But, each individual should recognize and take blame for rising gas prices.
Bottom line? There is rarely a problem with only one cause. It is easy to point blame, and blame should be pointed. But, you and I should also be blamed.
Rabbit
Just a Quick Thought on Sen. McCain
I wanted Sen. McCain to be the Republican nominee for president in 2000, and if I were eligible, I would have voted for him. I really wanted him to be the Republican President up for re-election in 2004. Now, while I am happy he is the Republican nominee, it is because he is the best of a poor field, at least from my political perspective.
Lately, John McCain has attempted to align himself with the far right. Whether it was receiving an honorary degree from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (rants about Liberty and the late Falwell most certainly are coming) or becoming a supporter of the Bush tax cuts, the very ones he was morally opposed too six years ago, McCain has kissed the butt of the people who have tried to bring him down. He is not the conservative choice for president, and it does makes sense that they criticize him.
But in 2000, the Bush machine swiftboated McCain before swiftboating was cool. Surrogates for the Bush Campaign used "push polling" in South Carolina to destroy McCain's record as a POW. They planted stories that claimed that McCain's time as a POW left him mentally unstable. They claimed he committed treason to become freed. They claimed he fathered an illegitimate black child. In reality, he had been in Congress for almost 20 years (if he were unstable, I imagine it would have came up), he spent over 5 years as a POW refusing preferential treatment offered to him based on his father's status in the American military, and his "black child" is a Bangladeshi from an orphanage run by Mother Teresa that McCain and his wife decided to adopt.
I disagree with McCain on several issues, particularly on national security issues. But, I have loads more respect for him for his service, than I can ever have for most right-wing pundits and operatives. To further annoy right-winged war supporters, he actually had a son who served in Iraq. The Bush twins were unable to comment, they were on their honeymoon/hungover.
Rabbit
Lately, John McCain has attempted to align himself with the far right. Whether it was receiving an honorary degree from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University (rants about Liberty and the late Falwell most certainly are coming) or becoming a supporter of the Bush tax cuts, the very ones he was morally opposed too six years ago, McCain has kissed the butt of the people who have tried to bring him down. He is not the conservative choice for president, and it does makes sense that they criticize him.
But in 2000, the Bush machine swiftboated McCain before swiftboating was cool. Surrogates for the Bush Campaign used "push polling" in South Carolina to destroy McCain's record as a POW. They planted stories that claimed that McCain's time as a POW left him mentally unstable. They claimed he committed treason to become freed. They claimed he fathered an illegitimate black child. In reality, he had been in Congress for almost 20 years (if he were unstable, I imagine it would have came up), he spent over 5 years as a POW refusing preferential treatment offered to him based on his father's status in the American military, and his "black child" is a Bangladeshi from an orphanage run by Mother Teresa that McCain and his wife decided to adopt.
I disagree with McCain on several issues, particularly on national security issues. But, I have loads more respect for him for his service, than I can ever have for most right-wing pundits and operatives. To further annoy right-winged war supporters, he actually had a son who served in Iraq. The Bush twins were unable to comment, they were on their honeymoon/hungover.
Rabbit
Monday, May 19, 2008
Its a Great Day
No, I'm not having a day like this, but it still hits the nail on the head.
Its a Great Day to Whoop Somebody's Ass
Rabbit
Its a Great Day to Whoop Somebody's Ass
Rabbit
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Myrtle Beach and Motorcycles
Could I have a more American title?
Every May 200,000 people on motorcycles descend on the Grand Strand for bike week. At the end of the week, a few do not go home. This year's festival ended today and once again, a few of the bikers wrecked their motorcycle and died from head trauma. This pattern is directly correlated to one of the biggest attractions to having a major bike rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, their relatively relaxed helmet laws. A motorcycle rider over the age of 21, is not required to wear a helmet.
Now many may see the recurrence of deaths related to riders without helmets as reason to enact and enforce tougher helmet laws, but I am not one of those people. While it is idiotic to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle, it is each person's own decision.
I have always thought that any person has a right to do whatever they choose, as long as their acts do not harm others. This is why it should be illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol and other drugs and also against the law to drive recklessly. Not coincidentally, those two factors also play a major role in many of these fatal accidents.
Now, I do admit that often people do not realize the effects of what they do without a reminder. This is why I am fine with warning labels, public service announcements, and education on the dangers of certain behavior whether its helmets, seat belts, drugs, or even a poor diet. But, enacting laws banning people from behaving in ways that only hurt that particular individual, is a step too far.
Bottom line is at the end of the day, you are the only person who is in charge of your actions, and in a free country, you have the right to act how you please, as long as you don't hurt anybody else.
Rabbit
Every May 200,000 people on motorcycles descend on the Grand Strand for bike week. At the end of the week, a few do not go home. This year's festival ended today and once again, a few of the bikers wrecked their motorcycle and died from head trauma. This pattern is directly correlated to one of the biggest attractions to having a major bike rally in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, their relatively relaxed helmet laws. A motorcycle rider over the age of 21, is not required to wear a helmet.
Now many may see the recurrence of deaths related to riders without helmets as reason to enact and enforce tougher helmet laws, but I am not one of those people. While it is idiotic to not wear a helmet on a motorcycle, it is each person's own decision.
I have always thought that any person has a right to do whatever they choose, as long as their acts do not harm others. This is why it should be illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol and other drugs and also against the law to drive recklessly. Not coincidentally, those two factors also play a major role in many of these fatal accidents.
Now, I do admit that often people do not realize the effects of what they do without a reminder. This is why I am fine with warning labels, public service announcements, and education on the dangers of certain behavior whether its helmets, seat belts, drugs, or even a poor diet. But, enacting laws banning people from behaving in ways that only hurt that particular individual, is a step too far.
Bottom line is at the end of the day, you are the only person who is in charge of your actions, and in a free country, you have the right to act how you please, as long as you don't hurt anybody else.
Rabbit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)