Anyone who knows me knows that I'm quite a few pegs left of politically moderate. Yet, when Senator McCain chose a female VP, I admit that I wanted to like her. Knowing literally nothing about Governor Palin until the big announcement was made, I'd hoped we would have a few issues in common (like I do with McCain) and that, even if I didn't agree with all of her views, I could still respect her.
I held on to that hope for as long as I could. When America found out her 17-year-old was pregnant, I dismissed it. Lots of good girls with good parents end up pregnant because of one poor choice. That news came out the night of the RNC. The next day, my hopes started to die.
When Alaskans expressed their anger at Governor Palin for saying she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere even though she supported it during her campaign as governor and despite the fact that she accepted millions of dollars in Federal support to build it and did NOT return the money when she cancelled the project, I started to get a better glimpse at this woman. A woman who toys with the idea of banning books, who tests her employees' "loyalty" by making unAmerican requests, who "hunts" wolves and bears from a HELICOPTER, who believes human-caused global warming is not real, who believes humans and dinosaurs walked this earth together a mere 6,000 years ago, who's never been outside of North America and who can't talk intelligently about the Bush Doctrine or the proposed $700 billion bailout in a free-form interview.
See, I respect Senator McCain. He's earned the right to run for President. He's been in politics for 30 years and has done some decent work. Sure, he's done some not-so-good-work as far as I'm concerned, but I can understand why he's the Republican candidate for President of these United States.
But Sarah? She's beyond inexperienced. At best, she's naive. At worst, she's dumb. And either way, having her one heartbeat away from being President of our country is dangerous.
If I were Republican, I'd be thinking two thoughts right now:
1. What the fu*k was McCain and his advisers thinking?!
2. I guess I'm voting Democratic, Independent, Libertarian or not at all because there is no way in hell I'm voting for Sarah.
From the left, I suppose Sarah's appearance on the national political stage was a good thing. Perhaps enough moderate-Republicans will be disgusted enough with her to vote non-Republican and ultimately put a leader, rather than a maverick, in office. But, still, I can't help but feel profoundly sad over who Sarah turned out to be. Will her ignorance, her beauty pageant history, her hockey-mom personality undo all of Senator Clinton's hard work in the Democratic primary? Will too many Americans see Sarah not as an incompetent politician who happens to be female but as an incompetent female? These are the questions that make me nauseous as we head into the one and only VP Debate Thursday.
If I were McCain, I'd be giving some serious thought to this Deep Thoughts quotation right about now: If you ever drop your keys [this campaign] into a river of molten lava [Sarah Palin], let'em go, because, man, they're gone.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Bill
The Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill is scheduled for debate in the Senate. Before our elected officials -- the ones who represent us and our best interests --is yet another chance to help curb climate change before the effects become so severe life as we know it is in jeopardy.
Am I being dramatic? I don't think so. The vast majority of independent, reputable scientists have already stated that the world is and will continue to warm, and that a notable cause of the warming is humans and human activities. In fact, so many scientists agree that it's now considered a consensus by most of the world. The questions that have not been settled are what will the impact of climate change be, how much would it cost us and can we afford to make the changes we need to now to keep the impact from being devastating.
And that brings us to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill, the next in the line of proposed legislation that actually DOES something instead of just LOOKING LIKE we're doing something. This bill could cut US global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. THANK YOU, SENATORS!
Oh, but wait. Before the debate has even begun, Bush has said that he would veto the bill even if it did pass Congress. He claims the cost to the US economy would be $6 trillion dollars. What I have not heard him say is where he got this figure, over what period of time would this money be spent and why money spent protecting the planet for future generations of Americans is not as well-spent as money fighting unwinnable wars against invisible enemies.
To be specific, Bush has been quoted by journalist Deborah Zabarenko as saying, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans. We'll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases isn't the right way to proceed."
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Is "a huge spending bill" coupled with tax CUTS the right way to go; after all that's what he's been doing since he landed in office! Now there's a better approach: let's spend less AND earn less.
I don't understand this man. I don't believe he is a bad guy trying to screw us Americans or the rest of the world. I don't think he is intentionally being maleficent. And that's what scares me the most about Bush. I don't understand his motive. Are those Texas big-business, pro-oil values popping up? Is he trying to keep lobbyists happy? Or is it simply easier to stay the status quo for now instead of embarking down the difficult journey of making change?
The upside is that the Senate isn't expected to pass this bill before the Nov elections, so whoever our President is after Bush will be able to make a reasonable decision not based on facts supported by experts. Even if McCain is elected, I'm hopeful about this bill -- or a variation -- getting passed. After all, he was co-author of a previously shut-down climate change bill: the McCain-Lieberman bill.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the details of this climate change bill, nor do I understand yet the possible economic impacts. But I do know three things: 1. The long term economic impacts -- not to mention the health impacts -- of continuing to do nothing will outweigh the impacts of acting now; 2. Bush's short-sidedness and horrible track record with the environment AND the economy makes him the last source I would turn to for an analysis of either; and 3. what is easiest isn't always right.
And now for a Deep Thought by Jack Handy: It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
Am I being dramatic? I don't think so. The vast majority of independent, reputable scientists have already stated that the world is and will continue to warm, and that a notable cause of the warming is humans and human activities. In fact, so many scientists agree that it's now considered a consensus by most of the world. The questions that have not been settled are what will the impact of climate change be, how much would it cost us and can we afford to make the changes we need to now to keep the impact from being devastating.
And that brings us to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change bill, the next in the line of proposed legislation that actually DOES something instead of just LOOKING LIKE we're doing something. This bill could cut US global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. THANK YOU, SENATORS!
Oh, but wait. Before the debate has even begun, Bush has said that he would veto the bill even if it did pass Congress. He claims the cost to the US economy would be $6 trillion dollars. What I have not heard him say is where he got this figure, over what period of time would this money be spent and why money spent protecting the planet for future generations of Americans is not as well-spent as money fighting unwinnable wars against invisible enemies.
To be specific, Bush has been quoted by journalist Deborah Zabarenko as saying, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans. We'll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases isn't the right way to proceed."
I'm sorry, but WHAT? Is "a huge spending bill" coupled with tax CUTS the right way to go; after all that's what he's been doing since he landed in office! Now there's a better approach: let's spend less AND earn less.
I don't understand this man. I don't believe he is a bad guy trying to screw us Americans or the rest of the world. I don't think he is intentionally being maleficent. And that's what scares me the most about Bush. I don't understand his motive. Are those Texas big-business, pro-oil values popping up? Is he trying to keep lobbyists happy? Or is it simply easier to stay the status quo for now instead of embarking down the difficult journey of making change?
The upside is that the Senate isn't expected to pass this bill before the Nov elections, so whoever our President is after Bush will be able to make a reasonable decision not based on facts supported by experts. Even if McCain is elected, I'm hopeful about this bill -- or a variation -- getting passed. After all, he was co-author of a previously shut-down climate change bill: the McCain-Lieberman bill.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I don't know all the details of this climate change bill, nor do I understand yet the possible economic impacts. But I do know three things: 1. The long term economic impacts -- not to mention the health impacts -- of continuing to do nothing will outweigh the impacts of acting now; 2. Bush's short-sidedness and horrible track record with the environment AND the economy makes him the last source I would turn to for an analysis of either; and 3. what is easiest isn't always right.
And now for a Deep Thought by Jack Handy: It's easy to sit there and say you'd like to have more money. And I guess that's what I like about it. It's easy. Just sitting there, rocking back and forth, wanting that money.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
What's in a blog?
So, I always thought creating and maintaining a blog was a little presumptuous. I mean, what makes ME think that anyone -- friends, family or strangers -- would want to read MY thoughts about ANYTHING? Who am I? Why is my perspective so important? But then I realized three important things:
1. Everyone's perspective is important.
2. This will get me in the habit of writing regularly.
3. This is a good way for me to engage in substantive "conversations" with friends who are all over the country.
And so, as I sit here in Naperville, Illinois, quite literally in the dark, pounding on keys illuminated only by the light of my laptop screen, I am creating my first blog in the hopes that I can contribute some nugget of wisdom to someone somewhere about something.
I am calling this blog "Deep Thoughts" after the SNL skit with Jack Handy. Perhaps some of his witty and outlandish humor will rub off on me. I leave you with this Deep Thought for the night, courtesy of Handy himself: "Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."
1. Everyone's perspective is important.
2. This will get me in the habit of writing regularly.
3. This is a good way for me to engage in substantive "conversations" with friends who are all over the country.
And so, as I sit here in Naperville, Illinois, quite literally in the dark, pounding on keys illuminated only by the light of my laptop screen, I am creating my first blog in the hopes that I can contribute some nugget of wisdom to someone somewhere about something.
I am calling this blog "Deep Thoughts" after the SNL skit with Jack Handy. Perhaps some of his witty and outlandish humor will rub off on me. I leave you with this Deep Thought for the night, courtesy of Handy himself: "Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words "mank" and "ind." What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
