I'm All Worked Up!!!

[Mike Sofka]

I'm all worked up and it's only 8:39am...it isn't shaping up to be a pleasant day!

So as I was driving into the office today, I was listening to my morning talk show that I listen to daily, and the DJ had Vanessa Kerry (John Kerry's daughter) on the phone talking to her. Well it just got me so stirred up because they were just talking in circles. Politics frustrate me to no end!! It doesn't matter whether you're a Democrat or whether you're a Republican, there will be definite "talking in circles" afoot!

I realize that Vanessa wants to defend her father, and she probably knows (obviously) much more fact about Mr. Kerry than we, the general public, would know; but she, along with every other politician in the world, couldn't even admit in the slightest fraction that her father might be wrong about some topics. The whole conversation was about the war on terror, the economy and education. She was bashing President Bush about the war and his motives. Well, like I mentioned in Ms. Nicole Maries section of this bulletin board, "everyone should read the 9/11 Commission Report", it clears up so many misconceptions and I believe it would help Ms. Vanessa Kerry to form her own opinion rather than taking on her father's opinion. The war on Saddam Hussein was not President Bush being a war monger, he went to war based on intelligence that was given to him. Now I do know that Mr. Bush is not completly blameless, I'll be the first to admit, he needed to use his own intelligence to decide whether it was the right time and whether we had enough funding and support to go to war rather than just rush in. And Ms. Vanessa was all over the economy say it was the worst economy since Herbert Hoover blah blah blah. (One thing I'm really tired of in politics, no matter what side, some one starts a little catch phrase, for example "our economy is at its worst since Herbert Hoover." and then everyone in that particular part completly runs it into the ground!) Ms. Vanessa could not admit that our economy was going into a recession in President Clinton's second term, ad that the attacks on 9/11 surely didn't help our economy. Our economy after 9/11 nearly came to a standstill, no one wanted to leave their home, no one wanted to buy anything. So to say that President Bush is to blame for the fall of our economy is entirely inaccurate. While again, I will be the first to admit, President Bush has tried to help the economy, he hasn't done everything in his power to make the economy one of the most important issues, along with the war on terror and security. All we've heard about our economy from Mr. Bush is like I was talking about earlier in this post, a bunch of "catch-phrases"...lots of talk, not much action.

Okay, I will now step down off of my soap box. Thank for listening to my rant, it feels good to vent at times.

[Marye]

To be fair, it is his daughter.... I would expect the Bush daughters to do the same. Hell, I used to defend my father publicly.

I did read something in The Guardian that was a bit eye popping. I am paraphrasing: The amount of money the U.S. spends to import far exceeds what they export. And not just small sums but enough to cause troubles during the next Administration, no matter who it is. But I am no economist...

What I do know is that I have investments in the U.S. and since the Iraqi War (not since 9/11), the value of my portfolio has significantly lost its value. I am a small time investor and I am thinking of selling my U.S. holdings.

"Catch-phrases" are "Talking points" are they not?

Hope it is a better morning for you

[Mike Sofka]

Very true Mary...most of my post was in haste just to get it off of my chest. I do very much agree that if my father was in the public spotlight, I would defend him until I was blue in the face.

And the economy has been all over the charts. First 9/11 and then, like you said, the Iraq war.

I wisht that the world would help America out like we help out the world. Who comes to our aid when we're in trouble? When some third world country is in trouble, we're the first ones there giving them millions and millions of dollars and food.

I look forward to his election in November. I will be very honest, I am a registered Republican, but I am giving a fair shake to Mr. Kerry. I'm trying to look through the political smog to see who he really is, how sincere he is. Because I'm just like every other American, I want change in this country. In 2000, I was so excited that Mr. Bush was going to be our president, (I very much do not like Mr. Gore), but over the past four years, my liking towards Mr. Bush has grown lower and lower.

I kind of wish that we could have 2 new candidates to choose from. I'm not happy with either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. IMHO, I don't want either of them leading this great country of ours.

As far as "catch-phrases" being "talking points", I would agree with that to a certain extent. For most people they are talking points, for other people, catch-phrases are the popular thing to say..."Hey look at me...I said this...blah blah blah"...Kind of like the unpopular kid in school who tries to fit in....and whenever I think of the unpopular kid who tries to fit in in school, I immediately think of Howard Dean!

You see, this is what makes this country so wonderful...we can have a debate...we disagree...and I love that about this country, we can think for ourselves and agree or disagree if we choose. Oh boy, I better stop now, other wise before you know it, I'll have two soap boxes stacked on top of each other!!

All of the above is IMHO of course.

[RC]

post haste?

[OperaTenor]

RC, LMREO!

[barfle]

Mike, I don't know how long you've been following politics, but the first election I voted in, I voted for Richard Nixon. He won. Damn.

So I've been disenchanted with politics for quite a while. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions. See if you can find the thread where we had a rousing debate on socialized medicine, or the one discussing the invasion of Iraq.

Yes, these two candidates strike me as Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber. Either one of them is absolutely abhorrent to me, and I feel powerless to stop either one of them. Voting for one to stop the other is an exercise in futility.

About the only thing that gives me any sense of optimism is that I feel our country has demonstrated its resilience by surviving Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon in rapid succession. Perhaps we will be more fortunate in 2008.

[RC]

dang barfle, I'm with the Libertarian's...lets get you into politics.

[Mike Sofka]

barfle...I've been following politics for awhile. I'm becoming very disenchanted with these two cadidates...bush/kerry. I think instead of having Nader as the 3rd choice on the ballot, there should be a choice to get 2 new candidates to chose from...I know I'd chose that option!

[RC]

Hey!! How about you vote by placing candidates on a ballot in order of first to last choice instead of only choice.

The candidate with the most first choice places wins.

If your choices don't even place, you get to vote again from the top three that DID place!

I heard this on NPR the other day and I couldn't find the story. Apparently they're trying it in California at county level (I think) and I believe I heard them say they do it this way in New Zealand - is that right dai bread?

I thought it sounded a heck of a lot better than the electoral college and what has become a two party system.

One big bonus is that it discourages negative campaigning and ends up focusing on issues.

<small>[ 08-26-2004, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[Mike Sofka]

That sounds like an interesting idea (rubbing chin)...it just might work. I like it much better than our current system. I often feel as though my one little measley vote doesn't count anyway...the powers that be will put whomever they want in office anyway...we're run by "the man".

[RC]

There are down sides too. I was driving so I was not fully attentive to the program. I'll see if I can find it and post a link.

[barfle]

Originally posted by RC:
dang barfle, I'm with the Libertarian's...lets get you into politics.

One big problem with that idea is that very few people in the US actually want less government. They've grown accustomed to paying half of their salaries out for programs that they don't support, and even the ones that they do are only running at 25% efficiency.

Of course, to someone who feels that the best way to make a mess of a good idea is to turn it into a government program, 25% efficient government is only half as bad as 50% efficient government.

[RC]

Of course, to someone who feels that the best way to make a mess of a good idea is to turn it into a government program, 25% efficient government is only half as bad as 50% efficient government.

:D

I see a conundrum for people like myself and OT: To have liberty AND equality (or equal opportunity).
The two ideas are NOT the same and frequently divergent.

For instance, liberty would mean that you can hire anyone for any wages...what about child labor laws...

[barfle]

Originally posted by RC:
I see a conundrum for people like myself and OT: To have liberty AND equality (or equal opportunity).
The two ideas are NOT the same and frequently divergent.

For instance, liberty would mean that you can hire anyone for any wages...what about child labor laws...

I see no conundrum at all. Liberty means that you could sell your services to the highest bidder. As long as you had a skill with value, you would not be forced to work for unfairly low wages. But if all you are worth is $1.00 an hour, you could find someone to pay you that much. There would be no laws saying you had to be paid $4.00 per hour, so you could at least get a job.

Children should be protected, of course, but since wages would match the worker's value to the employer (see above), several children wouldn't be worth as much to an employer as one adult. I recall working as a 13 year-old for 50¢ an hour. I was probably worth about that much at the time. I can certainly see instances where children should be allowed to help out the family in cases of emergency, but it should be temporary.

If you're looking for "equality," then you don't want liberty. You want someone else defining your worth. I would certainly prefer to make my own value known than to have to submit to a quota or a "set-aside." Face it, we're not equal. There's no way I would tell anyone that I am equal to Nicole Marie as a double bassist, and I would be surprised if she felt that she were my equal as an electronic engineer.

<small>[ 08-26-2004, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: barfle ]</small>

[Nicole Marie]

Nope not your equal in electronic engineering. I'd blow up something with no problem!

[RC]

That is why it is a conundrum to me but not to you.

If there were no child labor laws, children would be working instead of going to school thereby taking away their chance for equal opportunity to achieve life, liberty and yadda yadda yadda.

We wouldn't have to export labor anymore or worry about Mexican immigration because poor folk could have their children working to help support the family. After all, we're talking no welfare anymore.
At $.50 per hour, they're going to have to have ALL the kids working ALL the time.
We KNOW it is not above US Corporate ethics to allow this to happen.

Heck, thats just one example.

I'm still solidly in the Libertarian arena but believe we will always search for the balance between our liberty and our equality.

[RC]

dang it!
That was lame. Give me a minute and I'll come up with a better one.

[RC]

Mike, found it - the alternative voting story on NPR.
They don't post the transcript so you have to go listen to it:
San Fransisco Adopts Instant Runoff Elections

Check it out. It's an interesting alternative.

[rwcrooks]

RC,

I heard that story and think that the method is very confusing.

When I was living in Illinois in th 70's we had something called Cumulative Voting. You could vote for up to 3 people in the same race for the State legislature. The top 3 vote-getters were elected.

The cool part is that if you did, in fact vote for three people, each got one vote. But if you really, really had to have a particular candidate in office you could vote only for him and he would get 3 votes. Voting for 2 candidates would give each of them 1.5 votes.

[RC]

It did sound a bit confusing but try explaining the electoral college to someone unfamiliar!

Then again, I do live in the state noted for its brilliant voters (hanging chads, butterfly ballots, etc... )