The latest from the balanced world of network news is that women are supposed to enter into the world of politics as men, not women. Palin is being roasted over her wardrobe, her makeup artist, her "desertion" of her family, her bad mothering... If this were reversed, if Hillary had been nominated by the Dems and Fox News were talking about her clothes and makeup, the MSM would cry "Anti-Feminist". But, since Palin is conservative everything is fair game.
The claim is that Palin can't be a "typical hockey mom" since she now has an expensive wardrobe and personal stylist. However, the argument is self referentially absurd. The fact that a wardrobe had to be purchased on her behalf after she got the VP nod, and the fact that a stylist is required to make her look good actually prove the point. She didn't have these things before, she needs help!
But, if this is the best they have to throw at her it just makes them look desperate. I just wish someone would take note of the hypocrisy.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Divide and Protect
The speech given by Barack in Berlin has apparently caused ripples that are turning into waves. Unfortunately most Americans won't read or listen to the speech. Those who are planning to vote for him will take pride in the 200,000+ who came to listen. Those who are not will only hear soundbites.
I'm not really writing about the speech itself here, but rather to respond to Steve Clemons comments. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/25/steve_clemons_obamas_wall_speech_should
Part of Barack's speech was about the importance of the Berlin wall being torn down. "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
Clemons says that Barack should have given this speech in Israel and that this would have been really something. "Had he given those remarks in Israel, at any of the checkpoints that have been added since the Annapolis process began, or at the large dividing wall Israel has constructed, or just about anywhere frankly in Israel or Palestine—it would have been a ‘game-changing speech.’"
I agree. It would have been game changing. It also would have shown a failure to know the difference between a good fence and a bad fence. There are fences that protect, and there are those that divide. I agree we ought to fight to have dividing walls torn down when their only purpose is to divide or to protect the power of despots. But I would not want the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo to bring down the dividing wall between the Grizzly Bear exhibit and the spectators. I do not want my neighbor to bring down the fence that divides his dogs from my children. And I would not expect Israel to tear down walls and fences that protect it's citizens from those who want to destroy them.
My hope is that Barack does not share in Clemons' ignorance. He lives in a dreamworld thinking that wishes can create reality and that good intentions can sway evildoers from causing harm. As presidential hopeful I hope Barack knows the difference between fences that divide for evil purpose and those that protect.
I'm not really writing about the speech itself here, but rather to respond to Steve Clemons comments. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/25/steve_clemons_obamas_wall_speech_should
Part of Barack's speech was about the importance of the Berlin wall being torn down. "That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews, cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
Clemons says that Barack should have given this speech in Israel and that this would have been really something. "Had he given those remarks in Israel, at any of the checkpoints that have been added since the Annapolis process began, or at the large dividing wall Israel has constructed, or just about anywhere frankly in Israel or Palestine—it would have been a ‘game-changing speech.’"
I agree. It would have been game changing. It also would have shown a failure to know the difference between a good fence and a bad fence. There are fences that protect, and there are those that divide. I agree we ought to fight to have dividing walls torn down when their only purpose is to divide or to protect the power of despots. But I would not want the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo to bring down the dividing wall between the Grizzly Bear exhibit and the spectators. I do not want my neighbor to bring down the fence that divides his dogs from my children. And I would not expect Israel to tear down walls and fences that protect it's citizens from those who want to destroy them.
My hope is that Barack does not share in Clemons' ignorance. He lives in a dreamworld thinking that wishes can create reality and that good intentions can sway evildoers from causing harm. As presidential hopeful I hope Barack knows the difference between fences that divide for evil purpose and those that protect.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Here - Have a Sucker!
Bush calls for $145 billion stimulus package
President sees tax rebates as a way to give economy a 'shot in the arm'
I may not be the brightest bulb in the box but it seems to me that this is not a "shot in the arm". Rather it's like offering a lollipop to a cancer patient. Perhaps it makes the patient feel nice, cared for, even happy for a moment. But then, when the sucker is gone she realizes that she still has cancer.
I don't think our economy is fundamentally flawed to the extent that I'm no longer a capitalist. And I don't think the solution is to raise taxes. But this little infusion of dollars won't change the fundamental problem that people are spending more than they make. In a way you could call it enabling.
More and more the solutions posited by either side of the political aisle are all about throwing some money at the problem. If the government spends more on education, the problems will melt away. If the government had control over health care then we would all live in a utopia of health care for free. If the government gives away some free money then all our individual economic woes will be gone. It's just crazy. And when these things don't work we find our nation with less freedom, higher taxes and more problems. Plus, once we've given government the control over that issue, we don't even get to offer our input without the whole messy political process getting in the way.
Now don't get me wrong. If there is free money being sent out I won't turn mine down. But maybe instead of running to Target in order to "infuse" dollars into the economy, we should pay down a credit card, invest in our retirements or buy our own dang health insurance. Oh who am I kidding, I've got my eye on a new...
President sees tax rebates as a way to give economy a 'shot in the arm'
I may not be the brightest bulb in the box but it seems to me that this is not a "shot in the arm". Rather it's like offering a lollipop to a cancer patient. Perhaps it makes the patient feel nice, cared for, even happy for a moment. But then, when the sucker is gone she realizes that she still has cancer.
I don't think our economy is fundamentally flawed to the extent that I'm no longer a capitalist. And I don't think the solution is to raise taxes. But this little infusion of dollars won't change the fundamental problem that people are spending more than they make. In a way you could call it enabling.
More and more the solutions posited by either side of the political aisle are all about throwing some money at the problem. If the government spends more on education, the problems will melt away. If the government had control over health care then we would all live in a utopia of health care for free. If the government gives away some free money then all our individual economic woes will be gone. It's just crazy. And when these things don't work we find our nation with less freedom, higher taxes and more problems. Plus, once we've given government the control over that issue, we don't even get to offer our input without the whole messy political process getting in the way.
Now don't get me wrong. If there is free money being sent out I won't turn mine down. But maybe instead of running to Target in order to "infuse" dollars into the economy, we should pay down a credit card, invest in our retirements or buy our own dang health insurance. Oh who am I kidding, I've got my eye on a new...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)