Friday night, after returning to a friends apartment after a cultural show to find that the Pacers vs. Pistons game was still on. I was ecstatic because I thought that I was going to miss the whole game, but I hadn't. Plus, I've been a Pistons fan since the 87-88 season when they should've won their first NBA title, but lost it in 7 games to the LA Lakers (and yes, I was even a fan during the "teal" years), so I try to catch as many games as possible.
When I turned the game on, there were about 8 minutes left, and the Pistons were down. "The Palace" was loud and rowdy as the Pistons pulled within five in the closing minutes of the game (I later found out they were down by as many as 20 at one point). The Pacers had successfully maintained their 5 point lead, and eventually built on it as the game entered its final minute. The lead was too large for the Pistons to surmount, but they had to play it out anyhow.
That's when it happened!
With 45 seconds left to play in the game, while driving to the hole, Ben Wallace was hard (flagrantly) fouled by the Pacers' Ron Artest. Extremely angry, Wallace violently shoved Artest in the neck, and a standoff between the two teams ensued. It was the typical NBA "fight" scenario...almost.
After being shoved, Artest actually laid down on the Pistons' scoring table all while players from both teams were trying to separate him from Ben Wallace. Tempers flaired, but Artest' disrespectful gesture of laying on the Pistons' scoring table enraged some already upset fans (mad because the Pistons were dominated at home) and made him an easy target. A drink in a cup was thrown at him and hit him in what appeared to be his head (from the camera angle). He then swiftly lept off the scoring table as if he were Spiderman, and violently attacked a fan whom I assume he thought threw the drink.
An all out melee then took place that pitted Pistons fans against Pacers players. And if you're reading this (even if you're not), I'm sure that I don't have to fill you in on what else happened because I know you've seen the footage of the bedlam that took place.
Therein lies my problem.
Everywhere I went Friday night, there were dozens of people crowding around TV's to watch the repeat footage of the carnage at the Palace (I should mention that I happened to be outside of Detroit visiting friends this weekend). With each wildly thrown haymaker, an emphatic "OH!" was uttered, and for every ounce of beer that was thrown at the Pacers' players there was jubilant cheering. After one 12 minute cycle of the footage would complete (just prior to another 12 minute cycle), the TV viewers would yell out with glee as if world peace had been achieved, with the occasional shout of "Yeah, that's Detroit," or "Detroit what!!!"
And that's why I'm frustrated. Over and over again commentators and news personalities have expressed how sad and disgusted they are at such a scene. Well, if it is such a sad sight to see, then why show it repeatedly on an endless loop? Why give so much time to such a negative occurrence? Why bombard our minds with such senseless violence?
So yes, I am ripping the media again. I think that it is completely irresponsible of our media to show such footage. It is my heartfelt conviction that the only people that should have witnessed this sad event are people who were either at the Palace when it went down, or those of us who happened to be watching it as it unfolded on our TV screens. If you weren't one of those people, then you shouldn't have even had the chance to see it.
And I don't buy the argument that this is the USA and the people have a right to know. Fine, you do, but the story could have been reported on without camera footage. Furthermore, if camera footage was going to be used, then it didn't have to be as ubiquitous as Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee's sex tape. Once an hour is more than enough. ESPN, for example, literally showed the footage for like 8 hours straight Friday night into Saturday morning. Why?
And believe it or not, stuff like that affects the psyche. I am more than convinced that all of the violence we witnessed Saturday afternoon during multiple college football games (the most notable and severely nasty being Clemson vs. South Carolina) was as a direct result of the "Pistons/Pacers brawl" being shown on a loop all Friday night and Saturday morning. I'd also be willing to bet some serious money that there were numerous random street brawls over the weekend as a direct result of this footage.
The media is so backward. This reminds me of the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during last years Superbowl Halftime show. I happened to be watching the Halftime show and I knew what I saw in that split second when she bared her breast. But, half of the people that saw it had no clue what had occurred...until after the game when that incident was aired repeatedly on every news station.
What I don't get is if Janet showing off her tit was so immoral and repugnant, why in the world would it get so much press? Everyone who wasn't sure what they saw, and millions of people who didn't even watch the game, all got ample opportunities to behold Janet's supple breast. If it was wrong of her to bare her boob, then why did all press outlets re-air it?
I think that Michael Powell (the head of the FCC and Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell's son) should be ashamed of himself for being so critical of events like Janet's wardrobe malfunction, but then allowing the news stations to repeatedly air the footage without consequence. I think all forms of media, including this blog, should be shut down for 317 days until every media voice vows to use common sense in what they report and how they report it.
Better yet, there should be a law that I get to regulate common sense in the media. Because then the media would actually report on things that actually matter, and incidences such as the "Pacers/Pistons brawl" would be handled wisely, so as to not provoke other negative situations (like the college football fights) to occur.
Now that would be a wise decision!
-Maelstrom
Monday, November 22, 2004
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Can it Stop Now?!!!
Finally! Scott Peterson was found guilty of 1st degree murder in the death of his wife Laci, and 2nd degree murder of his unborn son Connor. Now that he's been convicted, can we please stop talking about this pointless "news story?"
With all due respect to Laci, Connor, and her family, I am so incredibly tired of hearing about this. It never amazes me how much The News can focus on something that has no significant implications to the over 320 million people that live in this country.
Here's my problem: Is Laci the first wife to be beaten, abused or murdered by her spouse? Will this case affect the daily lives of 99% of the people in this country? Is this the only such case currently going on in America? Will this be the last? Is the "Peterson trial" even remotely close to an important nationwide news story?
The answer is a resounding no. And if you disagree, then you are smoking the crack rock!
Do I think Scott Peterson was guilty? Absolutely. He placed himself at the scene of the crime, 80 miles from their home, and his behavior before and during the trial was really not becoming of someone who had "lost" their wife. Plus, she apparently had no enemies to speak of.
Do I think the conviction was shady? For sure. I don't see how a conviction came in less than two days after 2 jury members were kicked off and 2 new jurors were added. It would seem to me that they would need more time to evaluate the case since they were new.
But I'm most mad at the fact that I even know about this case at all. Thousands of women are domestically abused and sometimes killed each and every year. It is a sad reality that needs to be considered, but what makes this case so special?
This trial has made a loser (whether you believe he killed his wife like me, or not, we know he was cheating on her) into a public face that we all recognize. In fact, he has been receiving hundreds of love letters from women across the nation that want to date him. So on top of wasting hundreds of news hours on an insignificant trial, the news has awkwardly made him famous.
And worst of all, it isn't over yet. Now we have to watch hundreds more hours of stupid press coverage of his sentencing. "Will he get the death penalty or life in prison?" will be the question of the day once that phase begins in late November.
Why don't all criminals get this kind of press exposure? Sometimes they actually get off and they could actually date some of those sick women that wrote them love letters during their trial.
Heck, why don't I get this kind of press exposure? I once stole a pack of gum from a grocery store. And, even worse, there have been times when I didn't flush the urinal in a public bathroom after relieving myself. Surely I'm deserving of thousands of hours of press coverage for that!
Clearly we've got our priorities wrong in this country, and if we're ever gonna get them straight, I think we could easily start with demanding more legitimacy of the media.
-Maelstrom
With all due respect to Laci, Connor, and her family, I am so incredibly tired of hearing about this. It never amazes me how much The News can focus on something that has no significant implications to the over 320 million people that live in this country.
Here's my problem: Is Laci the first wife to be beaten, abused or murdered by her spouse? Will this case affect the daily lives of 99% of the people in this country? Is this the only such case currently going on in America? Will this be the last? Is the "Peterson trial" even remotely close to an important nationwide news story?
The answer is a resounding no. And if you disagree, then you are smoking the crack rock!
Do I think Scott Peterson was guilty? Absolutely. He placed himself at the scene of the crime, 80 miles from their home, and his behavior before and during the trial was really not becoming of someone who had "lost" their wife. Plus, she apparently had no enemies to speak of.
Do I think the conviction was shady? For sure. I don't see how a conviction came in less than two days after 2 jury members were kicked off and 2 new jurors were added. It would seem to me that they would need more time to evaluate the case since they were new.
But I'm most mad at the fact that I even know about this case at all. Thousands of women are domestically abused and sometimes killed each and every year. It is a sad reality that needs to be considered, but what makes this case so special?
This trial has made a loser (whether you believe he killed his wife like me, or not, we know he was cheating on her) into a public face that we all recognize. In fact, he has been receiving hundreds of love letters from women across the nation that want to date him. So on top of wasting hundreds of news hours on an insignificant trial, the news has awkwardly made him famous.
And worst of all, it isn't over yet. Now we have to watch hundreds more hours of stupid press coverage of his sentencing. "Will he get the death penalty or life in prison?" will be the question of the day once that phase begins in late November.
Why don't all criminals get this kind of press exposure? Sometimes they actually get off and they could actually date some of those sick women that wrote them love letters during their trial.
Heck, why don't I get this kind of press exposure? I once stole a pack of gum from a grocery store. And, even worse, there have been times when I didn't flush the urinal in a public bathroom after relieving myself. Surely I'm deserving of thousands of hours of press coverage for that!
Clearly we've got our priorities wrong in this country, and if we're ever gonna get them straight, I think we could easily start with demanding more legitimacy of the media.
-Maelstrom
Friday, November 12, 2004
Fear and Foolishness
Shortly after September 11th, a Terror Alert scale was created. The scale is a color-coded schematic that is supposed to be indicative of the kind of alert that the government is on at any particular time with respect to terror. There are 5 colors that range from Red (high alert) to Blue (minimal threat).
Ever since the scale was implemented, the city of New York has been on Orange (just below Red) alert, and remains at that level to this day. Earlier this year, when intelligence suggested that financial institutions were targets for terror, a number of Banks were put on Orange alert all along the East Coast. For much of the last three years, the rest of the nation has been on Yellow (just below Orange) alert.
I have been an ardent critic of this foolish system for a number of reasons. For starters, given the current state of this planet, will there ever be a time when this nation is at the Blue level again? Doesn't this system allow potential terrorists to choose to attack at a time that is most convenient, like when we aren't on Red alert (or even Orange for that matter)? If we aren't on High alert now, what does that say about my safety as a citizen in this country today? Will the next successful terror attack be the only time that we are back on Red alert (because if you ask me, we should be on Red alert always)?
See what I mean? This system is stupid. It doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is toy with the emotions of US citizens.
Two weeks ago, Osama Bin Laden released the first video tape he had made in months. He was clearly defiant and seemed to be as determined as ever. He also seemed very healthy. In times past, when al-Qaeda has released a tape, an attack would follow soon after (Bali, Indonesia and Madrid, Spain for example); not always, but enough to raise suspicions.
It would seem to me that if there were any time to elevate the alert level it would be now. Instead, Thursday morning, the alert level was lowered for financial institutions. In fact, the government boasted that they wouldn't raise the alert level following Bin Laden's tape.
Does that make sense? NO!
So here's my suggestion, either get rid of the pointless and ambiguous system, or keep it to yourself (by yourself, I mean the government. You keep it to yourself). We don't need our emotions toyed with. And when you release security information, we want it to be credible. We need it to be credible.
If you want to have a "code red" alert system, keep that info "in-house." Then you can be honest with yourselves about how dire a terrorist threat is. Because as it stands now, I don't think you're being square with us. All indications seem to be that an attempted attack is just around the corner. We've heard the threats increased in recent days, including Bin Laden's tape. So, for me, you lost credibility the moment you decided not to raise the terror alert-and your integrity further diminished when you lowered the alert on financial institutions the other day.
Get your mind right! Do away with the system!
-Maelstrom
Ever since the scale was implemented, the city of New York has been on Orange (just below Red) alert, and remains at that level to this day. Earlier this year, when intelligence suggested that financial institutions were targets for terror, a number of Banks were put on Orange alert all along the East Coast. For much of the last three years, the rest of the nation has been on Yellow (just below Orange) alert.
I have been an ardent critic of this foolish system for a number of reasons. For starters, given the current state of this planet, will there ever be a time when this nation is at the Blue level again? Doesn't this system allow potential terrorists to choose to attack at a time that is most convenient, like when we aren't on Red alert (or even Orange for that matter)? If we aren't on High alert now, what does that say about my safety as a citizen in this country today? Will the next successful terror attack be the only time that we are back on Red alert (because if you ask me, we should be on Red alert always)?
See what I mean? This system is stupid. It doesn't accomplish anything. All it does is toy with the emotions of US citizens.
Two weeks ago, Osama Bin Laden released the first video tape he had made in months. He was clearly defiant and seemed to be as determined as ever. He also seemed very healthy. In times past, when al-Qaeda has released a tape, an attack would follow soon after (Bali, Indonesia and Madrid, Spain for example); not always, but enough to raise suspicions.
It would seem to me that if there were any time to elevate the alert level it would be now. Instead, Thursday morning, the alert level was lowered for financial institutions. In fact, the government boasted that they wouldn't raise the alert level following Bin Laden's tape.
Does that make sense? NO!
So here's my suggestion, either get rid of the pointless and ambiguous system, or keep it to yourself (by yourself, I mean the government. You keep it to yourself). We don't need our emotions toyed with. And when you release security information, we want it to be credible. We need it to be credible.
If you want to have a "code red" alert system, keep that info "in-house." Then you can be honest with yourselves about how dire a terrorist threat is. Because as it stands now, I don't think you're being square with us. All indications seem to be that an attempted attack is just around the corner. We've heard the threats increased in recent days, including Bin Laden's tape. So, for me, you lost credibility the moment you decided not to raise the terror alert-and your integrity further diminished when you lowered the alert on financial institutions the other day.
Get your mind right! Do away with the system!
-Maelstrom
Thursday, November 11, 2004
The Imminent Fall of the World's Last Superpower (continued)
As I continue this discussion, I think it is important to note that we are in a war with an intangible foe. A foe that has existed for centuries and that will persist for centuries to come. That foe is terrorism. And since terror is intangible, we will NEVER be able to "defeat" it. Even if we were to capture (or kill) terror's biggest icon, Osama Bin Laden, there will be many others just like him ready to take up his cause. He has become a sort of cult symbol for many oppressed Muslims and a hero to all Islamic Extremists. And as big a deal as he is, I've heard it (accurately) stated that Bin Laden is merely a mosquito over a pond.
One of the very few intelligent statements that I've heard President Bush make is that, with respect to terror, "We (the US) have to be right 100% of the time. They (terrorists) only have to be right once." This admission brings forth the reality that the terrorists are in the driver's seat. They have the advantage of focusing their money/efforts and picking the right time to attack. We, on the other hand, have to spend large sums of money on a continuous basis on "homeland security" in order to avert any POSSIBLE attacks.
So, in order to protect ourselves, we must spend more money that we don't have on any potential attack. And if they do succeed in attacking us, imagine the state of fear and hysteria that will ensue. Hysteria that will undoubtedly result in even more security expenditures.
The sad thing about this is that United States' financial bankruptcy is the goal of these terrorists. Well, actually I don't think most of them are even concerned with bankrupting the United States, but their very intelligent leader is. The very cold, calculating and incredulously insidious Osama Bin Laden recently made it clear that he intends to financially bleed this nation dry. This is a tactic that he claims worked for him in the past. He cited the condition of Russia following ten years of fighting so-called "terrorists" in Afghanistan.
And finally, terrorists are seeking to bankrupt this country, can they succeed? I hope not. Is there any way to avoid this possibility? Yes! It starts with being honest with the American public about the financial crisis that we're in. The process continues with wiser decision making (you know, like not sending your armed services into war unless you have to) and better money management.
My point in writing this is that I believe that we have made a huge mistake by pre-empting a war. If we had found just cause to enter Iraq by actually implementing the scoffed at notion of a "global test," which is simply diplomacy, then we would't be in nearly as much financial peril as we find ourselves in now.
Surely the events of 9/11 were going to cost us. And indeed some industries were already in a financial funk (i.e. transportation), but we have only exacerbated the problem by "going it alone" in Iraq. This has further segregated us from countries that served as our allies in the 1st Gulf War and who also incurred a much larger percentage of the monetary burden of the war. And the saddest part of all of this is that this scenario is what Bin Laden wants. He is smart enough to know that if a nation has no money, it cannot function. I'm also sure he's well aware that all previous world powers fell as a result of economic hardship in one way or another. And that is his ultimate goal-that the US can no longer threaten his agenda.
So I am again reminded of Fievel, and his American Tale. He'd be in his mid-twenties by now, and I'd rather suspect that his idea of America as the land of opportunity would be quite tainted. I'd imagine that he'd still be attempting to leave Russia, but not necessarily for America. Maybe Great Britain, maybe France, or maybe even Cuba.
You see, before, America was the Ultimate immigrant destination. Now, however, people are noting that it might not be the land of "milk and honey" that it was once purported to be. And our monetary mistakes are only helping that idea become the reality.
-Maelstrom
One of the very few intelligent statements that I've heard President Bush make is that, with respect to terror, "We (the US) have to be right 100% of the time. They (terrorists) only have to be right once." This admission brings forth the reality that the terrorists are in the driver's seat. They have the advantage of focusing their money/efforts and picking the right time to attack. We, on the other hand, have to spend large sums of money on a continuous basis on "homeland security" in order to avert any POSSIBLE attacks.
So, in order to protect ourselves, we must spend more money that we don't have on any potential attack. And if they do succeed in attacking us, imagine the state of fear and hysteria that will ensue. Hysteria that will undoubtedly result in even more security expenditures.
The sad thing about this is that United States' financial bankruptcy is the goal of these terrorists. Well, actually I don't think most of them are even concerned with bankrupting the United States, but their very intelligent leader is. The very cold, calculating and incredulously insidious Osama Bin Laden recently made it clear that he intends to financially bleed this nation dry. This is a tactic that he claims worked for him in the past. He cited the condition of Russia following ten years of fighting so-called "terrorists" in Afghanistan.
His most chilling statement being that for every $1 his terrorist organization
has spent on strikes, it has cost the United States $1 million in economic
fallout and military spending, including emergency funding for Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Ironically, the United States' financial mismanagement is playing right into the hands of the terrorists that we are supposed to be fighting. The way that we have overextended ourselves in war, and the way that we have alienated ourselves from a world community that would be willing to help us if we provided just cause, have both played a role in our financial woes. Unfortunately, there seems to be no quick solution, nor any financial solution that would reverse this trend any time in the next 5 years.
We are bearing 90% of the financial costs of the war due to our international arrogance. Who's gonna pay that? We are! When? During this generation of workers, and at least during the next.
And finally, terrorists are seeking to bankrupt this country, can they succeed? I hope not. Is there any way to avoid this possibility? Yes! It starts with being honest with the American public about the financial crisis that we're in. The process continues with wiser decision making (you know, like not sending your armed services into war unless you have to) and better money management.
My point in writing this is that I believe that we have made a huge mistake by pre-empting a war. If we had found just cause to enter Iraq by actually implementing the scoffed at notion of a "global test," which is simply diplomacy, then we would't be in nearly as much financial peril as we find ourselves in now.
Surely the events of 9/11 were going to cost us. And indeed some industries were already in a financial funk (i.e. transportation), but we have only exacerbated the problem by "going it alone" in Iraq. This has further segregated us from countries that served as our allies in the 1st Gulf War and who also incurred a much larger percentage of the monetary burden of the war. And the saddest part of all of this is that this scenario is what Bin Laden wants. He is smart enough to know that if a nation has no money, it cannot function. I'm also sure he's well aware that all previous world powers fell as a result of economic hardship in one way or another. And that is his ultimate goal-that the US can no longer threaten his agenda.
So I am again reminded of Fievel, and his American Tale. He'd be in his mid-twenties by now, and I'd rather suspect that his idea of America as the land of opportunity would be quite tainted. I'd imagine that he'd still be attempting to leave Russia, but not necessarily for America. Maybe Great Britain, maybe France, or maybe even Cuba.
You see, before, America was the Ultimate immigrant destination. Now, however, people are noting that it might not be the land of "milk and honey" that it was once purported to be. And our monetary mistakes are only helping that idea become the reality.
-Maelstrom
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
The Imminent Fall of The World's Last Superpower
In recent days, I have noted that all of my life, no matter how racist, sexist, or unjust this nation (the United States of America) is or has been, I would much rather live here than in any other country in the world. All of my life, everyone around me (and I mean everyone-save one or two) has echoed the same sentiment. Indeed, this nation has been looked at as the land of opportunity for everyone the world over since its formation.
This reality was underscored by the movie "An American Tale" in the eighties, where a cartoon mouse named Fievel sought prosperity in far away America. Fast forward 18 years, and I really wonder if Fievel would still want to travel from Russia to the USA. I wonder if he'd still be under the illusion that there are no "cats" in America. I wonder if he'd realize that oppression and poverty are increasingly becoming a reality in America much as they already are in Russia. I wonder if he'd foresee the doom that, I now propose, is about to befall this "great nation."
In 1997, President Bill Clinton was able to do what no President had done for decades before him; he balanced the budget. There was a budget surplus, and it allowed the government great latitude in funding federal programs in order to benefit the American economy. Much of this money, for example, was allocated to High School Students who were seeking higher education. Beginning in the year 2000, students who scored a certain score on standardized tests in certain states were given a sum of money to further their education in college. In my home state, the value of this gift was $2,500.
When Clinton left office and George W. Bush was appointed President after a serious Electoral dispute, he was handed a significant budget surplus. He was also handed a nation that was in a recession. I'd attribute the cause of the recession to the big "Y2K" scare of '98 and '99, and also the lack of consumer confidence following the disastrous 2000 Presidential Election.
No big problem. The nation easily survived a recession under Clinton and numerous President's before Bush (including a 500+ stock market plummet under Reagan in 1987). With the right moves and decisions, the nation was bound for recovery. In fact, the stock market was reaching towards an all-time high above the 12,000 mark (with the actual all-time high being reached in January of 2000 at 11,750).
During the early days of Bush's administration, twelve European countries were preparing to switch their currency over to the "Euro." At that time, the only currency in the world that was better than the US Dollar was the British Pound.
On January 1, 2002 the Euro became the official currency of those twelve countries in Europe, with other European countries continuing to sign on gradually. The value of the Euro had already begun to pick up steam months before it was in circulation. It quickly matched the US dollar in value soon after its release and has maintained a value greater than that of the dollar for most of its existence.
The events of September 11th, 2001 obviously caused much economic turmoil in this country. The stock market plummeted, and it took months before any significant recovery surmounted. Despite the severity of the effects of this tragedy, there was room for a complete recovery within a few years.
But then it happened!
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made the mistake that will eventually take this nation down. He pre-empted a war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and he did it without the backing of the world community.
Now this was a huge mistake not because it seriously alienated this country from most of the world, nor because it polarized and divided this nation like never before, but rather because it is financially costing this nation every dollar that we have, and even Billions of dollars that we don't have.
Since we approached this war virtually unilaterally, we are incurring the lion's share of the financial expenses. And that isn't a good thing considering the already struggling economic situation this nation is currently in.
As the 'baby boomers" continue to retire, Social Security is causing serious financial problems for the current working generation and generations to come. The ever increasing price of Health Care is leaving more and more of the nations lower income citizens powerless to protect themselves against disease and illness. Prescription Drug costs are sky high, causing people to cross the border into Canada just to get medicine at affordable prices.
Our nations public schools (including institutions of higher learning) are poorer than ever from state to state. The rate at which government funded loans and grants has increased is far behind the rate at which tuition costs are rising. Furthermore, out-of-country college students who once brought their tuition money with them (which is often a very sizable sum) to pursue an education in "the States" are now preferring to go to other countries (like France and England) for college due to our foreign policies and international image.
The train and airplane industries are both so far in debt (and have been for years now-even prior to 9/11) that each has cut significant jobs, and are trying desperately to avoid bankruptcy- but to no avail.
To stay afloat, hundreds of US businesses are outsourcing jobs overseas because they can pay cheaper wages and, strangely enough, get a financial break from the government to do so.
We still have to pay the $200 Billion it's costing us to wage the War on Terror as well as the War in Iraq. A debt that we will be paying back for years and years to come.
And most ominous of all financial stats to note: The value of the US dollar ($) has been plunging against world currency.
The USA, less than 7 years after we had a budget surplus, is now in more debt than we have ever experienced, and the situation is not getting better. The spending hasn't stopped, and though we thought we felt a financial crunch in the last 3 years, I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything yet.
The scary thing is that considering our critical debt as a nation (something like 7 TRILLION dollars), our homemade money problems aren't the only ones that severely threaten us. Can YOU guess from whence further economic distress might come?
Stay tuned...
-Maelstrom
This reality was underscored by the movie "An American Tale" in the eighties, where a cartoon mouse named Fievel sought prosperity in far away America. Fast forward 18 years, and I really wonder if Fievel would still want to travel from Russia to the USA. I wonder if he'd still be under the illusion that there are no "cats" in America. I wonder if he'd realize that oppression and poverty are increasingly becoming a reality in America much as they already are in Russia. I wonder if he'd foresee the doom that, I now propose, is about to befall this "great nation."
In 1997, President Bill Clinton was able to do what no President had done for decades before him; he balanced the budget. There was a budget surplus, and it allowed the government great latitude in funding federal programs in order to benefit the American economy. Much of this money, for example, was allocated to High School Students who were seeking higher education. Beginning in the year 2000, students who scored a certain score on standardized tests in certain states were given a sum of money to further their education in college. In my home state, the value of this gift was $2,500.
When Clinton left office and George W. Bush was appointed President after a serious Electoral dispute, he was handed a significant budget surplus. He was also handed a nation that was in a recession. I'd attribute the cause of the recession to the big "Y2K" scare of '98 and '99, and also the lack of consumer confidence following the disastrous 2000 Presidential Election.
No big problem. The nation easily survived a recession under Clinton and numerous President's before Bush (including a 500+ stock market plummet under Reagan in 1987). With the right moves and decisions, the nation was bound for recovery. In fact, the stock market was reaching towards an all-time high above the 12,000 mark (with the actual all-time high being reached in January of 2000 at 11,750).
During the early days of Bush's administration, twelve European countries were preparing to switch their currency over to the "Euro." At that time, the only currency in the world that was better than the US Dollar was the British Pound.
On January 1, 2002 the Euro became the official currency of those twelve countries in Europe, with other European countries continuing to sign on gradually. The value of the Euro had already begun to pick up steam months before it was in circulation. It quickly matched the US dollar in value soon after its release and has maintained a value greater than that of the dollar for most of its existence.
The events of September 11th, 2001 obviously caused much economic turmoil in this country. The stock market plummeted, and it took months before any significant recovery surmounted. Despite the severity of the effects of this tragedy, there was room for a complete recovery within a few years.
But then it happened!
The President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, made the mistake that will eventually take this nation down. He pre-empted a war with a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, and he did it without the backing of the world community.
Now this was a huge mistake not because it seriously alienated this country from most of the world, nor because it polarized and divided this nation like never before, but rather because it is financially costing this nation every dollar that we have, and even Billions of dollars that we don't have.
Since we approached this war virtually unilaterally, we are incurring the lion's share of the financial expenses. And that isn't a good thing considering the already struggling economic situation this nation is currently in.
As the 'baby boomers" continue to retire, Social Security is causing serious financial problems for the current working generation and generations to come. The ever increasing price of Health Care is leaving more and more of the nations lower income citizens powerless to protect themselves against disease and illness. Prescription Drug costs are sky high, causing people to cross the border into Canada just to get medicine at affordable prices.
Our nations public schools (including institutions of higher learning) are poorer than ever from state to state. The rate at which government funded loans and grants has increased is far behind the rate at which tuition costs are rising. Furthermore, out-of-country college students who once brought their tuition money with them (which is often a very sizable sum) to pursue an education in "the States" are now preferring to go to other countries (like France and England) for college due to our foreign policies and international image.
The train and airplane industries are both so far in debt (and have been for years now-even prior to 9/11) that each has cut significant jobs, and are trying desperately to avoid bankruptcy- but to no avail.
To stay afloat, hundreds of US businesses are outsourcing jobs overseas because they can pay cheaper wages and, strangely enough, get a financial break from the government to do so.
We still have to pay the $200 Billion it's costing us to wage the War on Terror as well as the War in Iraq. A debt that we will be paying back for years and years to come.
And most ominous of all financial stats to note: The value of the US dollar ($) has been plunging against world currency.
The USA, less than 7 years after we had a budget surplus, is now in more debt than we have ever experienced, and the situation is not getting better. The spending hasn't stopped, and though we thought we felt a financial crunch in the last 3 years, I'm afraid that we haven't seen anything yet.
The scary thing is that considering our critical debt as a nation (something like 7 TRILLION dollars), our homemade money problems aren't the only ones that severely threaten us. Can YOU guess from whence further economic distress might come?
Stay tuned...
-Maelstrom
Friday, November 05, 2004
MC 2
Three days after the election and two days after the final results were confirmed, I am still frustrated with this notion of morality electing our President. So, I will briefly point out why that is the stupidest reason ever. And then hopefully I can move on to from there.
For starters, as I pointed out yesterday, just because Bush doesn't believe in Gay Marriage or abortion that doesn't make him a moral person. There are multitudes of actions that Bush has taken that aren't consistent with someone of high morals (pre-empting a war, deception, the Patriot Act). So, you can't have it both ways. If someone is to be considered moralistic, then they should, in my opinion, be moralistic in more than just two or three ways.
But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Bush is the most moral person the planet has ever seen. Let's also keep in mind that this is a Democracy, and that Bush has already served four years as United States President. Now, let's consider what voting for Bush based on morals will do for you.
Bush is against Gay Marriage, so I'll vote for him. As a result, the nation is still in the worst debt ever, and he still hasn't recovered all the jobs that he lost for us.
Bush is against abortion, so I'll vote for him. Now that we've re-elected him, Health Care costs still are up by over 30% and over 5 million people who lost their Health Care during the last 4 years don't have it today.
Bush prays regularly, so he gets my vote. Now, Osama Bin Laden, 3 years after September 11th, is still at large and openly mocking and threatening the United States.
Bush attends church consistently, so I'm glad he got re-elected. The world community still disdains the US for its pre-emptive strike against Iraq and for how it continues on in imperialistic arrogance.
My point is that Bush's morals have nothing to do with how he governs the nation. They're not the same topic. They don't affect one another. Bush can be the greatest moralist ever, and still be a horrible President. I think he's proved as much. If you think Bush is moral (which I don't think he's any more or less moral than the next man), he's proven to you that someone can be both moral and a pathetic President.
Furthermore, no matter if Bush is for or against Gay Marriage or abortion, these issues are not going to go away. You might have voted for Bush based on his stance on Gay Marriage, but that didn't eliminate Gays from the face of the planet. They're still here, and this is still an issue whether you are for it or against it. If Gays never gain the right to get married, is that going to stop terrorism? NO!
And what is Bush going to do if he makes a law against abortion, jail the doctor and the mother for having it performed? If someone has an abortion, is that going to affect my job status? NO!
Morals are not necessarily related to governing this country!
Finally, you can be 100% opposed to abortion or Gay Marriage, and still vote on reason and not morals. The idea that if you are devoutly religious and vote for someone who is for abortion and gay rights, then you aren't sincere (or you're a sinner) is completely baseless. It might carry some weight if this country were, again, a Theocracy, but it's not. This is a Democracy, which means that the governing powers should tend to the issues that affect the daily lives of its constituents-not the opinion or moral convictions of half of them.
For example, abortion and gay rights might be a problem for Jane Doe, but not for her next door neighbor. Jane Doe may be moralistically upright and her neighbor not so much. However, how the President feels about Jane Doe's and her neighbors convictions doesn't change the fact that both of them will have to suffer because of an ailing economy which is now entering into uncharted territories with respect to debt.
Bush is an example that good morals does not mean good President. Good morals and good politics are not one in the same. And though in good government morals and politics should have a relationship, they are certainly not married!
There, I got it out! :o)
-Maelstrom
For starters, as I pointed out yesterday, just because Bush doesn't believe in Gay Marriage or abortion that doesn't make him a moral person. There are multitudes of actions that Bush has taken that aren't consistent with someone of high morals (pre-empting a war, deception, the Patriot Act). So, you can't have it both ways. If someone is to be considered moralistic, then they should, in my opinion, be moralistic in more than just two or three ways.
But let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Bush is the most moral person the planet has ever seen. Let's also keep in mind that this is a Democracy, and that Bush has already served four years as United States President. Now, let's consider what voting for Bush based on morals will do for you.
Bush is against Gay Marriage, so I'll vote for him. As a result, the nation is still in the worst debt ever, and he still hasn't recovered all the jobs that he lost for us.
Bush is against abortion, so I'll vote for him. Now that we've re-elected him, Health Care costs still are up by over 30% and over 5 million people who lost their Health Care during the last 4 years don't have it today.
Bush prays regularly, so he gets my vote. Now, Osama Bin Laden, 3 years after September 11th, is still at large and openly mocking and threatening the United States.
Bush attends church consistently, so I'm glad he got re-elected. The world community still disdains the US for its pre-emptive strike against Iraq and for how it continues on in imperialistic arrogance.
My point is that Bush's morals have nothing to do with how he governs the nation. They're not the same topic. They don't affect one another. Bush can be the greatest moralist ever, and still be a horrible President. I think he's proved as much. If you think Bush is moral (which I don't think he's any more or less moral than the next man), he's proven to you that someone can be both moral and a pathetic President.
Furthermore, no matter if Bush is for or against Gay Marriage or abortion, these issues are not going to go away. You might have voted for Bush based on his stance on Gay Marriage, but that didn't eliminate Gays from the face of the planet. They're still here, and this is still an issue whether you are for it or against it. If Gays never gain the right to get married, is that going to stop terrorism? NO!
And what is Bush going to do if he makes a law against abortion, jail the doctor and the mother for having it performed? If someone has an abortion, is that going to affect my job status? NO!
Morals are not necessarily related to governing this country!
Finally, you can be 100% opposed to abortion or Gay Marriage, and still vote on reason and not morals. The idea that if you are devoutly religious and vote for someone who is for abortion and gay rights, then you aren't sincere (or you're a sinner) is completely baseless. It might carry some weight if this country were, again, a Theocracy, but it's not. This is a Democracy, which means that the governing powers should tend to the issues that affect the daily lives of its constituents-not the opinion or moral convictions of half of them.
For example, abortion and gay rights might be a problem for Jane Doe, but not for her next door neighbor. Jane Doe may be moralistically upright and her neighbor not so much. However, how the President feels about Jane Doe's and her neighbors convictions doesn't change the fact that both of them will have to suffer because of an ailing economy which is now entering into uncharted territories with respect to debt.
Bush is an example that good morals does not mean good President. Good morals and good politics are not one in the same. And though in good government morals and politics should have a relationship, they are certainly not married!
There, I got it out! :o)
-Maelstrom
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Morality Check
Why is everyone so shocked that G-Dub won re-election based on the "morality vote"? I have been telling people for months that the people who are voting for Bush are people who have embraced Bush's perceived good morality. If the Kerry people are shocked, then that's just another major oversight that his horrendous campaign had. But I think I'm through ripping on Kerry's sad campaign. Now it's on to Bush's amazing manipulations.
Again, congrats to a campaign well run. Karl Rove, you are a beast, and Mr. President, the only smart thing you have done is listen to Mr. Rove.
Bush ran on morality. Morality, for the record, isn't going to protect us from terror or create new jobs, but that's what won him re-election. I must say that I am incredibly saddened that people are so stupid as to elect someone as our President in this country based on an issue that has virtually nothing to do with the way he governs. But let me clear a few things up before I expand on this stupidity.
People weren't voting their morals when they voted for Bush. Moral values doesn't mean moral values, it means religious values. Religious values doesn't mean religious values, it means Conservative (Christian) religious values. And Conservative religious values doesn't mean conservative religious values, it means no gay marriage and no abortion. That's what people were voting on.
So the President has adamantly opposed abortion and gay marriage and for some reason that has won him the title of "moralist of the year." He not only won over the Conservative Christians, but Conservatives from many other religions as well (including Amish, Mormans, Muslims and others). Now, I would just like to know, what is so great about these TWO moral stances that they trump multitudes of other moral issues that Bush clearly violated.
Now, I can't speak with as much authority about other religions (though I know some of them well enough to know they agree with Christianity on numerous points), but I know what the Bible teaches. Certainly, gay marriage and abortion are frowned upon across the board with respect to religion, but since when did these TWO values trump all of the others. What ever happened to honesty, taking care of the working man, providing for the poor, not shedding innocent blood? Are these not also moralistic virtues?
As I understand the definition of a lie, it is the intent to deceive and to presumptuously do so. Well even if you argue that Bush didn't lie about his reasons for the Iraq War (which is an argument you'd certainly lose with me), you'd only have to look at his political campaign to see his deception. He deliberately took comments made by Senator Kerry out of context, in order to deceive the people he was addressing, repeatedly. To outright deceive people is not a moralistic virtue that I'm aware of.
Bush never seems to want to admit fault or wrong doing, even when it is clear that he is wrong. He shows no sign of humility; you know, another moralistic virtue that people seem to have forgotten about. It takes a lot of integrity and humility to admit when you're wrong. Bush doesn't seem to possess alot of either.
And then there's the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible never says that we are to create wars. In fact, the Bible says "Blessed is the peacemaker." And to enter into a War of one's own volition is certainly not a value that the Bible teaches. But that is what Bush has done. As a result, over 20,000 Iraqis have been killed (and we all know that they weren't all insurgents-thousands were innocent bystanders). And this is beside the fact that Bush was Governor over a state (Texas) that leads the nation in executions (though the people are guilty, the executions aren't necessary and some of the people are actually innocent). So if G-Dub is so moralistic, why is there so much blood on his hands.
I could go on and on. My point is this, if you're going to give someone a passing grade on your moralistic meter, they better at least be moral on a majority (if not all) of the issues. This country came down incredibly hard on Clinton for his marital indiscretion, but that didn't affect how he ran the country. Clinton's immorality caused only him and his family grief. People aren't suffering today because Clinton had fellatio performed on him by someone that wasn't his wife. Bush's immorality has cost thousands their lives, and his dishonesty (it could be argued) has cost many their jobs.
Bush is no more moral than any other Presidential candidate, and I realize that "gay marriage" and abortion stances aren't going to affect my everyday life. Those economically disenfranchised moralists and conservatives that voted for Bush based on morals will still be poor tomorrow because of Bush's policies.
People fail to realize that this is not a "moral-ocracy," it certainly isn't a theocracy, but it is a democracy. We should vote with conscious and moral in mind, but recognize that you can maintain strict morality and still vote for a guy who might not have your level of moral magnanimousness.
Since when did we become so moral in this country anyway. We have become increasingly more decadent in every aspect of daily life in this country each year. I think it is hypocrisy for these pious people to go to the polls and vote on morals when most people in this country live a moralistically shabby life.
Who do we think we are???
However, it is worth noting, that in this calendar year-2004- we have raised morality in a number of areas of life. It all began with the Superbowl halftime show where we severely over-reacted to seeing a split second of Janet Jackson's right breast. It then moved to Howard Stern and numerous other media outlets. I think it is interesting that these media outlets are mostly run by Bush supporters, and that the Federal Communications Commission (which governs the media) is headed by Bush's Secretary of State's son, Michael Powell. If you wanna talk conspiracy, maybe this was an ongoing plot to make morality a major issue during this election year. It certainly played right into his hands.
The same idiots that were drinking beer and partying in front of their kids during the Superbowl, but were upset about the Justin and Janet incident, are probably the same hypocritical losers that voted for Bush's perceived morality. I'd love to see a poll on that indictment!
Just some food for thought!
-Maelstrom
Again, congrats to a campaign well run. Karl Rove, you are a beast, and Mr. President, the only smart thing you have done is listen to Mr. Rove.
Bush ran on morality. Morality, for the record, isn't going to protect us from terror or create new jobs, but that's what won him re-election. I must say that I am incredibly saddened that people are so stupid as to elect someone as our President in this country based on an issue that has virtually nothing to do with the way he governs. But let me clear a few things up before I expand on this stupidity.
People weren't voting their morals when they voted for Bush. Moral values doesn't mean moral values, it means religious values. Religious values doesn't mean religious values, it means Conservative (Christian) religious values. And Conservative religious values doesn't mean conservative religious values, it means no gay marriage and no abortion. That's what people were voting on.
So the President has adamantly opposed abortion and gay marriage and for some reason that has won him the title of "moralist of the year." He not only won over the Conservative Christians, but Conservatives from many other religions as well (including Amish, Mormans, Muslims and others). Now, I would just like to know, what is so great about these TWO moral stances that they trump multitudes of other moral issues that Bush clearly violated.
Now, I can't speak with as much authority about other religions (though I know some of them well enough to know they agree with Christianity on numerous points), but I know what the Bible teaches. Certainly, gay marriage and abortion are frowned upon across the board with respect to religion, but since when did these TWO values trump all of the others. What ever happened to honesty, taking care of the working man, providing for the poor, not shedding innocent blood? Are these not also moralistic virtues?
As I understand the definition of a lie, it is the intent to deceive and to presumptuously do so. Well even if you argue that Bush didn't lie about his reasons for the Iraq War (which is an argument you'd certainly lose with me), you'd only have to look at his political campaign to see his deception. He deliberately took comments made by Senator Kerry out of context, in order to deceive the people he was addressing, repeatedly. To outright deceive people is not a moralistic virtue that I'm aware of.
Bush never seems to want to admit fault or wrong doing, even when it is clear that he is wrong. He shows no sign of humility; you know, another moralistic virtue that people seem to have forgotten about. It takes a lot of integrity and humility to admit when you're wrong. Bush doesn't seem to possess alot of either.
And then there's the shedding of innocent blood. The Bible never says that we are to create wars. In fact, the Bible says "Blessed is the peacemaker." And to enter into a War of one's own volition is certainly not a value that the Bible teaches. But that is what Bush has done. As a result, over 20,000 Iraqis have been killed (and we all know that they weren't all insurgents-thousands were innocent bystanders). And this is beside the fact that Bush was Governor over a state (Texas) that leads the nation in executions (though the people are guilty, the executions aren't necessary and some of the people are actually innocent). So if G-Dub is so moralistic, why is there so much blood on his hands.
I could go on and on. My point is this, if you're going to give someone a passing grade on your moralistic meter, they better at least be moral on a majority (if not all) of the issues. This country came down incredibly hard on Clinton for his marital indiscretion, but that didn't affect how he ran the country. Clinton's immorality caused only him and his family grief. People aren't suffering today because Clinton had fellatio performed on him by someone that wasn't his wife. Bush's immorality has cost thousands their lives, and his dishonesty (it could be argued) has cost many their jobs.
Bush is no more moral than any other Presidential candidate, and I realize that "gay marriage" and abortion stances aren't going to affect my everyday life. Those economically disenfranchised moralists and conservatives that voted for Bush based on morals will still be poor tomorrow because of Bush's policies.
People fail to realize that this is not a "moral-ocracy," it certainly isn't a theocracy, but it is a democracy. We should vote with conscious and moral in mind, but recognize that you can maintain strict morality and still vote for a guy who might not have your level of moral magnanimousness.
Since when did we become so moral in this country anyway. We have become increasingly more decadent in every aspect of daily life in this country each year. I think it is hypocrisy for these pious people to go to the polls and vote on morals when most people in this country live a moralistically shabby life.
Who do we think we are???
However, it is worth noting, that in this calendar year-2004- we have raised morality in a number of areas of life. It all began with the Superbowl halftime show where we severely over-reacted to seeing a split second of Janet Jackson's right breast. It then moved to Howard Stern and numerous other media outlets. I think it is interesting that these media outlets are mostly run by Bush supporters, and that the Federal Communications Commission (which governs the media) is headed by Bush's Secretary of State's son, Michael Powell. If you wanna talk conspiracy, maybe this was an ongoing plot to make morality a major issue during this election year. It certainly played right into his hands.
The same idiots that were drinking beer and partying in front of their kids during the Superbowl, but were upset about the Justin and Janet incident, are probably the same hypocritical losers that voted for Bush's perceived morality. I'd love to see a poll on that indictment!
Just some food for thought!
-Maelstrom
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
It's Over!
Finally, this horrendous political season has come to a close. Sadly, it has come to an end that I had certainly hoped it would not, but be that as it may, President Bush is now the 14th (or 15th, I can't remember) President to win re-election. And I do believe, no matter which side you are on, it is a huge relief just to have this election season behind us. This particular election has so engulfed our every day lives that I have honestly forgotten what it's like without a "Swiftboat" or "Flip-flop" ad. Seriously, who can actually remember what life was like without these hateful ads, from both major parties?
As for Senator John Kerry, I fully expected him to lose this election and have expected him to lose for months now. Anyone that has been a faithful reader of "The Vortex" knows that I hold a high level of disdain for him and his campaign managers. So his loss, no matter how close, comes as no surprise to me. He flat out sucked!
My mind keeps going back to the Primary's and the Caucuses-one of which I voted in- and hearing that so many people were going to vote for John Kerry. I asked many of my friends why they were voting for him. The most of them couldn't respond with a politically based answer. Each of them only noted that they had heard that "he can beat Bush."
Well, I was all for beating Bush, but since we had an array of viable candidates to choose from at the time, I questioned why we didn't back someone that actually had clear-cut views and would promote the change that my friends and I desired. To me, Kerry was not that guy then, and we find that what many of my friends heard was wrong now.
One of the biggest flaws with Kerry's campaign (and there were many) was that he came off as a guy that would say anything for political gain. This is the same reason why I was turned off by Al Gore in the 2000 election, in light of the Elian Gonzalez situation. Neither candidate came across as men with strong conviction. Bush, on the other hand, comes off as someone with unrivaled resolve, so much so that people even back him when he is unmistakeably wrong. People are enchanted by someone who is steadfast. This is certainly one of the reasons that both Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, have come off as weak candidates.
Then there's Kerry's sorry campaign effort. This man didn't become a legitimate Presidential candidate until after the 1st debate. Before that he had no direction and his public image was that of a man who had no goals and couldn't make up his mind. I was appauled at the things he wasn't saying and couldn't believe that Bush was getting away with saying nothing. I honestly feel like Kerry's campaign strategists didn't want him to win this election (he changed managers just prior to the debates). I feel like they wanted him to lose so that another Democrat, probably Hilary Clinton, can run in 2008.
All of the left-leaning news anchors and talk show hosts could tell Kerry what he needed to say, I could rationalize what was wrong with this nation and Bush, and my 12-year-old cousin could give a run down of everything that anyone ever needed to know in order to beat Bush. Still, you mean to tell me that his campaign strategists, who get paid to do this as their career, couldn't direct Kerry as to how to beat Bush??? PLEASE!!!
I was so angry that I often found myself yelling and balling my fist at the tv in disgust as I watched Kerry get bashed by Bush, and as he missed opportunity after opportunity to address Bush's multitudinous flaws. For real, Kerry sucked from day one, and he only continued to suck as the season progressed. He finally became the candidate that Democrats thought they were nominating in the Spring after the debates, when he could have raised the same issues he raised in the debates months and months before.
I can only hope that in the future, the Democrats produce a candidate that has the credibility and the conviction that is necessary to win. Gore didn't have it, and Kerry was far worse than Gore. Maybe a Howard Dean (who was adamantly opposed to the War) or a Dick Gephardt (who had a strong Senate record with a lowly upbringing) should be the prototype for the kind of candidate we nominate next time. And next time, I hope we can have a good reason for nominating the candidate that we nominate and not some silly hear-say basis.
But hats off to the Bush Campaign. I have never seen a better campaign put together in my life, and I don't think I will ever again see such a great show put on by someone who had so little to work with. Consider this:
As for Senator John Kerry, I fully expected him to lose this election and have expected him to lose for months now. Anyone that has been a faithful reader of "The Vortex" knows that I hold a high level of disdain for him and his campaign managers. So his loss, no matter how close, comes as no surprise to me. He flat out sucked!
My mind keeps going back to the Primary's and the Caucuses-one of which I voted in- and hearing that so many people were going to vote for John Kerry. I asked many of my friends why they were voting for him. The most of them couldn't respond with a politically based answer. Each of them only noted that they had heard that "he can beat Bush."
Well, I was all for beating Bush, but since we had an array of viable candidates to choose from at the time, I questioned why we didn't back someone that actually had clear-cut views and would promote the change that my friends and I desired. To me, Kerry was not that guy then, and we find that what many of my friends heard was wrong now.
One of the biggest flaws with Kerry's campaign (and there were many) was that he came off as a guy that would say anything for political gain. This is the same reason why I was turned off by Al Gore in the 2000 election, in light of the Elian Gonzalez situation. Neither candidate came across as men with strong conviction. Bush, on the other hand, comes off as someone with unrivaled resolve, so much so that people even back him when he is unmistakeably wrong. People are enchanted by someone who is steadfast. This is certainly one of the reasons that both Gore in 2000, and Kerry in 2004, have come off as weak candidates.
Then there's Kerry's sorry campaign effort. This man didn't become a legitimate Presidential candidate until after the 1st debate. Before that he had no direction and his public image was that of a man who had no goals and couldn't make up his mind. I was appauled at the things he wasn't saying and couldn't believe that Bush was getting away with saying nothing. I honestly feel like Kerry's campaign strategists didn't want him to win this election (he changed managers just prior to the debates). I feel like they wanted him to lose so that another Democrat, probably Hilary Clinton, can run in 2008.
All of the left-leaning news anchors and talk show hosts could tell Kerry what he needed to say, I could rationalize what was wrong with this nation and Bush, and my 12-year-old cousin could give a run down of everything that anyone ever needed to know in order to beat Bush. Still, you mean to tell me that his campaign strategists, who get paid to do this as their career, couldn't direct Kerry as to how to beat Bush??? PLEASE!!!
I was so angry that I often found myself yelling and balling my fist at the tv in disgust as I watched Kerry get bashed by Bush, and as he missed opportunity after opportunity to address Bush's multitudinous flaws. For real, Kerry sucked from day one, and he only continued to suck as the season progressed. He finally became the candidate that Democrats thought they were nominating in the Spring after the debates, when he could have raised the same issues he raised in the debates months and months before.
I can only hope that in the future, the Democrats produce a candidate that has the credibility and the conviction that is necessary to win. Gore didn't have it, and Kerry was far worse than Gore. Maybe a Howard Dean (who was adamantly opposed to the War) or a Dick Gephardt (who had a strong Senate record with a lowly upbringing) should be the prototype for the kind of candidate we nominate next time. And next time, I hope we can have a good reason for nominating the candidate that we nominate and not some silly hear-say basis.
But hats off to the Bush Campaign. I have never seen a better campaign put together in my life, and I don't think I will ever again see such a great show put on by someone who had so little to work with. Consider this:
- Health Care cost are up more than 30% and 5 Million have lost Health Care under Bush's watch
- He is the 1st President in 75 years to lose jobs under his watch
- Numerous civil right's, such as abortion and affirmative action, have been challenged at his request
- We have far less friends and many more enemies abroad because of his policies
- The national debt is at an all-time high and climbing fast
- The Public Schools systems are underfunded and struggling to meet the demands of his NCLB bill at the expense of many after school and liberal arts programs
- Over 1,100 US service men have been killed in a war that we didn't have to wage, all while there is no end in sight to the quagmire of conflict in Iraq
- The number 1 terror suspect, whom Bush vowed to hunt down, is still at large and was largely overlooked by his administration because of the unnecessary Iraq War
And still, he was re-elected! Now he was certainly aided by Kerry's pathetic run, but that's a Beast. Bush couldn't make a legitimate political case for anything, in my opinion, here or overseas.
So he didn't!
Bush's platform was basically "let's pray," "no gays," "no Roe v. Wade," "I say what I'm gonna do and I do it (no matter if I'm right)," and "a vote against me is a vote against God." And to aid him in his lack of a message, Kerry's sad showing gave Bush the opportunity to go around the nation repeating the same three sound bytes: "my opponent is a flip-flopper," "you may not agree with me but you know where I stand," and "you can't lead if you keep sending mixed messages."
Great platform, huh?
Well like it or not, it won him re-election. His victory is due not only to Kerry's slackness, but also to the silly Christian Convervative Right, that seems to believe that Bush is some sort of Messiah and that we live in a Theocratic Government. As a Christian myself, I'd really like to know what it is that people think is so "Christ-like" about Bush that he should be the leader of the Free World when he clearly has some un-Christ-like views and certainly a pathetic Presidential record. This is a Democracy people, not a Theocracy. Therefore we need a President that can Democratically lead this country, not someone who isn't capable of even listening to any form of opposition. And if you want a Christian to be President, I can list a litany of Christians that hold political office who are certainly more qualified politically, socially and economically than Bush.
In closing, I must admit, I am petrified for this nation. We have virtually no friends in this world, and the ones that we do have are diminishing and becoming weak (trust me, Tony Blair won't be joining Bush in the re-elected column in the UK when his term's up). We are so far in debt here that the future is bleak, either for us later in life, or our children; someone's gonna have to pay this money back at some time. We need some serious help on the social front. We have never been so hateful towards one another or divided in recent years as a country.
Plainly put, for the United States of America in these coming years, I am scared!
-Maelstrom
Monday, November 01, 2004
I Endorse...
Before I begin this particular post, I must whole-heartedly apologize for my inability to bring all the issues to the forefront during the home stretch of this election season. I ran into significant road blocks that didn't afford me the time to post any additional "Issues Blogs," though I began a few and was in the process of gathering information to complete them. However, the election is now upon us, and I'm sure everyone wants to know exactly whom it is that I endorse for President of the United States of America.
I proudly endorse (drumroll) David Cobb of the Green Party (with Independent Candidate Ralph Nader running a close 2nd) for President. I had the grand opportunity of listening to him debate with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik, and certainly enjoyed his views which encompassed everything from the War in Iraq to issues that affect me in my own back yard. It was a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually talk about something that mattered. This is in direct contrast to Bush and Kerry. It seems like the more they talk, the less they say; and the only way they could say less is to talk more. So David Cobb, you have my endorsement.
However, I live in a nation full of mindless little trolls that march to the drum of either an elephant or a donkey. As a result, if I want to help the United States save face with respect to the international community, I'll have to put my eggs in a basket that doesn't have any holes in it. It would be nice to truly endorse Cobb (or Nader) and then go out and vote for him. But this year, more than ever, this nation needs change. Both in Foreign Affairs and Domestically. As a result, I am encouraging every soul with a voter's registration card to vote for John Kerry. He is a pathetic candidate, but at least there's potential with him.
We've seen what Bush can do... absolutely nothing. And he's already had four years to do something significantly positive, and he hasn't. He has failed miserably. 5 Million people have lost Health care and costs are up some 30+ percent, he's the 1st President in 75 years to lose jobs, tuition is increasing at a rate that far exceeds Federal funding-making College less attainable to many, and the rest of the world absolutely HATES us. We need not see anymore. We can't see anymore. WE NEED CHANGE.
So friends, family, acquaintances and enemies too, please do join me in record numbers at the polls tomorrow, November 2nd, 2004, and vote that filth out of office. We can no longer stand to beat around the Bush!
And May God Bless America!
-Maelstrom
I proudly endorse (drumroll) David Cobb of the Green Party (with Independent Candidate Ralph Nader running a close 2nd) for President. I had the grand opportunity of listening to him debate with Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik, and certainly enjoyed his views which encompassed everything from the War in Iraq to issues that affect me in my own back yard. It was a breath of fresh air to hear someone actually talk about something that mattered. This is in direct contrast to Bush and Kerry. It seems like the more they talk, the less they say; and the only way they could say less is to talk more. So David Cobb, you have my endorsement.
However, I live in a nation full of mindless little trolls that march to the drum of either an elephant or a donkey. As a result, if I want to help the United States save face with respect to the international community, I'll have to put my eggs in a basket that doesn't have any holes in it. It would be nice to truly endorse Cobb (or Nader) and then go out and vote for him. But this year, more than ever, this nation needs change. Both in Foreign Affairs and Domestically. As a result, I am encouraging every soul with a voter's registration card to vote for John Kerry. He is a pathetic candidate, but at least there's potential with him.
We've seen what Bush can do... absolutely nothing. And he's already had four years to do something significantly positive, and he hasn't. He has failed miserably. 5 Million people have lost Health care and costs are up some 30+ percent, he's the 1st President in 75 years to lose jobs, tuition is increasing at a rate that far exceeds Federal funding-making College less attainable to many, and the rest of the world absolutely HATES us. We need not see anymore. We can't see anymore. WE NEED CHANGE.
So friends, family, acquaintances and enemies too, please do join me in record numbers at the polls tomorrow, November 2nd, 2004, and vote that filth out of office. We can no longer stand to beat around the Bush!
And May God Bless America!
-Maelstrom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)