Wednesday, June 11, 2008
WE WAS ROBBED!!!
Why the current war in Iraq is nothing more than a redistribution of American wealth...
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Case for not counting every vote
In spite of free public libraries, the proliferation of national book store chains, mandatory public education etc., etc. American voters may be the most unsophisticated and misinformed voters to cast ballots in the industrialized world.
My proof of this basic assertion is the fact that there were enough uninformed American voters in 2000 and again in 2004 to give George W. Bush the presidency. Which serves as authentication that Americans
are capable of voting en masse against there own self-interest. All because many of them felt that George W. was the kind of guy that they would'nt mind sharing a beer. This regardless of the fact that George W. could not name the leaders of most of the countries in which he would have to negotiate and deal. Or his abysmal performances during the debates. In spite of the idea that he had no foreign policy experience and that there was some question of his whereabouts during his term in the Air National Guard. George Bush was a man who as an investor (someone else's money) was not allowed to even manage a baseball team. And if none of the above does'nt clinch it for you, here's what did it for me. American corporations raised and held in escrow $100 million dollars for the Bush campaign even before he announced that he was running. Call me a pessimist if you will, but as an American consumer I know as fact that my interest and American corporate interest rarely intersect, period!
But Given the American twin traits of arrogance and ignorance, never a more dangerous couple to meet in a polling booth we find ourselves at this dark place. The Democratic party has made one right move and that is to depend on a delegate count, because the vote for leadership is far too important to leave to the average American voter. Perhaps we could go further and implement a civics test that if a voter exhibited less than a perfunctory grasp of the issues, they would be relegated to handing out pamphlets. This way we could all rest assured that they'd be kept at least 100 feet from the polling station.
And maybe the American assumption that "My ignorance is just as good as your intelligence," will no longer apply.
My proof of this basic assertion is the fact that there were enough uninformed American voters in 2000 and again in 2004 to give George W. Bush the presidency. Which serves as authentication that Americans
are capable of voting en masse against there own self-interest. All because many of them felt that George W. was the kind of guy that they would'nt mind sharing a beer. This regardless of the fact that George W. could not name the leaders of most of the countries in which he would have to negotiate and deal. Or his abysmal performances during the debates. In spite of the idea that he had no foreign policy experience and that there was some question of his whereabouts during his term in the Air National Guard. George Bush was a man who as an investor (someone else's money) was not allowed to even manage a baseball team. And if none of the above does'nt clinch it for you, here's what did it for me. American corporations raised and held in escrow $100 million dollars for the Bush campaign even before he announced that he was running. Call me a pessimist if you will, but as an American consumer I know as fact that my interest and American corporate interest rarely intersect, period!
But Given the American twin traits of arrogance and ignorance, never a more dangerous couple to meet in a polling booth we find ourselves at this dark place. The Democratic party has made one right move and that is to depend on a delegate count, because the vote for leadership is far too important to leave to the average American voter. Perhaps we could go further and implement a civics test that if a voter exhibited less than a perfunctory grasp of the issues, they would be relegated to handing out pamphlets. This way we could all rest assured that they'd be kept at least 100 feet from the polling station.
And maybe the American assumption that "My ignorance is just as good as your intelligence," will no longer apply.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Is there something wrong with Hillary ?
Is it me, or is it something resulting from this very long primary process that is'nt being discussed but is rather obvious to this writer. And it begs the question.
Is there something inherently wrong with Hillary Clinton ?
Now, I'm not talking politics here, or her views, use or even misuse of the American female political position. No, what I'm referring to and giving me cause for concern is her mental stability or what appears to be a lack thereof. I'm going to attempt to be as clinical about this as possible, but make no mistake, I am no clinician and hold no degrees in the sciences or study of the human psyche. I am a professional writer who by the nature of my profession makes it a point to observe and pay close attention. So I advise that you do the same or you just might miss this, if you have'nt already.
Early in the campaign when it was apparent that Obama was much more eloquent on the stump and his campaign extolling Hope was hitting its mark, Hillary employed a tactic that basically spoke against the virtues of hope itself. Now that was beyond stupid, there was just something intrinsically spiritually disheartening about her response. It was downright crazy.
Then there was the nearly crying episode, tearing up on cue when polls showed she needed to show more emotion. The last time a candidate teared up on the campaign trail he was ridiculed right out of the race.
She allowed her campaign to be derailed by the astute use of democratic party rules in which she and her husband has practically led for nearly two decades.
When she insisted more than once that she had landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, a story that was patently and verifiably false, you had to wonder, what was she thinking? At that time I began to entertain the idea that perhaps Hillary was simply delusional. It would explain why she would lie(I meant to say misspoke) about something so easily fact-checked.
I couldn't understand for the life of me what she meant when she justified staying in the race, "Because you never know what could happen!" Until of course, she began to explain what could happen when she began to repeatedly refer to the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy
during the primary campaign of '68. Was she infering that Barack Obama could be assasinated before the end of the primary season? Now I have heard about Hillary's penchant for dirty tricks and black-ops but this was beyond the pale.
Hillary's campaign seems to be marked by delusion and desperation.
I keep replaying the Katie Couric interview in my head, it was apparent to me then that Hillary could be heading for trouble. When Couric asked, "What happens if you lose?" " I won't lose," Hillary replied. "But what if you do?" "I won't" said Hillary. This went on for a time. It was obvious that Mrs. Clinton had'nt even entertained the possibility of losing. Which prevented her from having to develope a plan B.
I bet she has a Plan B now?
S. Bradley
Is there something inherently wrong with Hillary Clinton ?
Now, I'm not talking politics here, or her views, use or even misuse of the American female political position. No, what I'm referring to and giving me cause for concern is her mental stability or what appears to be a lack thereof. I'm going to attempt to be as clinical about this as possible, but make no mistake, I am no clinician and hold no degrees in the sciences or study of the human psyche. I am a professional writer who by the nature of my profession makes it a point to observe and pay close attention. So I advise that you do the same or you just might miss this, if you have'nt already.
Early in the campaign when it was apparent that Obama was much more eloquent on the stump and his campaign extolling Hope was hitting its mark, Hillary employed a tactic that basically spoke against the virtues of hope itself. Now that was beyond stupid, there was just something intrinsically spiritually disheartening about her response. It was downright crazy.
Then there was the nearly crying episode, tearing up on cue when polls showed she needed to show more emotion. The last time a candidate teared up on the campaign trail he was ridiculed right out of the race.
She allowed her campaign to be derailed by the astute use of democratic party rules in which she and her husband has practically led for nearly two decades.
When she insisted more than once that she had landed in Bosnia under sniper fire, a story that was patently and verifiably false, you had to wonder, what was she thinking? At that time I began to entertain the idea that perhaps Hillary was simply delusional. It would explain why she would lie(I meant to say misspoke) about something so easily fact-checked.
I couldn't understand for the life of me what she meant when she justified staying in the race, "Because you never know what could happen!" Until of course, she began to explain what could happen when she began to repeatedly refer to the assasination of Robert F. Kennedy
during the primary campaign of '68. Was she infering that Barack Obama could be assasinated before the end of the primary season? Now I have heard about Hillary's penchant for dirty tricks and black-ops but this was beyond the pale.
Hillary's campaign seems to be marked by delusion and desperation.
I keep replaying the Katie Couric interview in my head, it was apparent to me then that Hillary could be heading for trouble. When Couric asked, "What happens if you lose?" " I won't lose," Hillary replied. "But what if you do?" "I won't" said Hillary. This went on for a time. It was obvious that Mrs. Clinton had'nt even entertained the possibility of losing. Which prevented her from having to develope a plan B.
I bet she has a Plan B now?
S. Bradley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)