03/14/2008
Obama, McCain, and Hillary
Let's get the disclaimer out of the way first: I am a registered Republican.
But I will vote for Obama if he is the Democratic candidate running against McCain. And I'm not the only Republican who feels this way.
There's no point in talking about if someone else should have gotten the Republican nomination, because McCain already has it wrapped up. And McCain isn't far-right on the political scale. He's center-right. Maybe even a little further left than that. And I can live with that.
But I will vote for Obama if he gets the Democratic nomination. I don't care how far left he is. Whether or not he can actually bring about the change he claims to represent, he isn't deeply rooted in the old political machines that dominate the Democrats and the Republicans.
I won't vote for Hillary. I wouldn't vote for her if she were the only candidate on the ballot. As First Lady, she proved to me that she's unbending in her beliefs, and willing to abuse power to advance her own agenda -- see the illegal secret meetings when she was trying to revamp the health care situation. See the comments about a Right-wing comspiracy against her husband, when in fact Bill was dallying with a White House intern.
And as for these dolts in the Democratic party who are making a stink about the Michigan and Florida primary clusterf***s, I wonder why those who are now whining about feeling disenfranchised didn't do everything in their powers to stop those states' Democratic Parties from screwing things up to begin with.
23:45 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
01/20/2007
Hillary's first misstep
In case you are totally ignorant of American politics, you are aware that U.S. Presidents can only run for two terms. George W. Bush is in his second term, so he won't be running again.
Sadly, Hillary Clinton (has she quit using Rodham-Clinton again?) seems unaware of this.
In her announcement today that she is running for President, she is quoted, "As a senator, I will spend two years doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism."
Would someone please inform her that no matter who wins the next Presidential election, they will be a 'new' President?
23:53 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
07/02/2006
WMDs in Iraq and the United States
There’s something here I don’t understand.
It has been reported recently that the hunt for WMDs in Iraq hasn’t turned up any nukes, but it has turned up a number of chemical weapons. However, it has also been reported that these chemical weapons are too weathered to be usable, or something along the lines of the weapons being too harmless to be considered WMDs.
Here in the United States, there is a large cache of chemical weapons not too far away from my home in Lexington, Ky., that have been awaiting destruction for a large number of years. They haven’t been destroyed because every time a method of disposal is proposed, residents of the surrounding communities make a massive stink over the potential threats posed to them by the destruction process.
Why don't we just dispose our our chemical weapons in the same fashion that Iraq's weapons have been deemed useless? Their weapons have been rendered inert without any organized program to get rid of them, or any reported threats to Iraqis, which would save the U.S. taxpayers many millions of dollars, and it would finally get rid of stockpiles of weapons that we have no use for.
16:09 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
12/11/2005
Heathen newspapers vs. Megachurches
I'm reading this journalist-inspired debate over the closing of such megachurches as Southland Christian here in Lexington on Christmas Sunday, and can only shake my head in disbelief.
First, if the preachers in these pulpits were specifically calling out newspapers, editors, writers, or politicians based on the decisions they made, they'd get viciously attacked in the press, with such standard attacks as threatening to take away their tax-exempt status, among other things. So how does the secular media get away with criticizing a church for its decisions surrounding a CHRISTIAN holiday? If you want the church and state kept apart, then you should keep your nose in your own house. Yes, that's right. Many people seem to think that the misinterpreted notion of separation of church and state only means that the church should stay out of the state's buisness, and that it's not a two-way street.
Second, I was raised in a Christian household, and we rarely ever went to Church on Christmas morning, even if it was on a Sunday. Odd? My family was the type that was at church at least three times a week as often as possible. But even we made the decision to attend Christmas Eve services because we traditionally opened presents on Christmas Day.
Thirdly, I hope and pray that those sniveling decision-makers at our local paper are positively affected by the Christmas spirit before it's too late for the well-being of their souls.
08:42 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (6) | Email this
11/12/2005
Sour Grapes at the Herald Leader
The Lexington Herald Leader is so committed to advancing only one side of the issue of Kentucky American Water vs. the local government that wishes to condemn it to take the profits that I can cite two examples of how this bias has leaked out into the news department.
One, go to this address -- http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/13128324....
Carefully read the last two paragraphs. If you need to, read the other blog I have in this category concerning the Kentucky Supreme Court's decision. Does that sound like objective reporting? Or does that sound like a writer with a bad attitude?
Two, http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/local/ is the main page for local news via the newspaper's online website. If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, there is a section titled "Water Dispute Story Archive" As of this post, there are a lot of stories that lead up to the Kentucky Supreme Court decision about the constitutionality of the referendum, but there is no story about the resolution of this portion of the dispute. Why? The story is certainly worthy of being included, especially since all the stories that led to it have been archived. Or is it only being excluded because it flies in the face of the opinions expressed by the editorial staff?
10:14 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this
10/16/2005
Lexington and the '06 elections
Here in Lexington, KY, factions of the local government have been trying to use eminent domain statutes to condemn and purchase Kentucky American Water Company simply because the Company is part of an international conglomerate.
Ever since proponents of condemnation lost their influence in last year's city council elections, they have undertaken efforts to get the issue placed on the ballot as a referendum issue. The correct number of signatures was collected, and these proponents (in lock-step with the mayor) tried to force a city-wide vote on November 8, 2005.
Kentucky law says that referendum votes can only be held in years where general elections take place. The Kentucky election board clearly states that there is no general election for 2005.
Read that last paragraph again. Got it? If no genereal elections, then no referendums.
The referendum proponents tried to go to court to fight that rule. Well, not fight, exactly. They tried to get the Kentucky Supreme Court to overlook the applicable laws and make a ruling in their favor.
I wonder how much money the lawyers made off of these condemnation proponents fighting a 'fight' that had no chance of success. Who convinced these proponents that spending money on lawyers could get a state supreme court to make a ruling without reading the applicable laws?
So the referendum will wait until 2006 when there are general elections in Kentucky.
Our local newspaper, the leftist Herald-Leader has run stories claiming that the local mayoral and city council elections will be heavily influenced by the water fight.
I most strongly disagree.
If a referendum will dictate what the mayor and council must do in regards to condemnation, then who cares what opinion the candidates for office hold? The outcome of the referendum directly affects the behavior of the elected officials, not the other way around.
If voters are stupid enough to believe the newspaper, then why is this referendum going to be on the '06 ballot?
08:53 Posted in Politics, etc. | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this