If Hilary (the media favorite) had won Iowa, would the heading have been - Women are very exited about a woman winning. Or White People are very exited that a White Man won? Nope.
But,what happens when the "Media Favorite" looses an election??? The media pulls out all the stops -- anything is fair game -- to lure people to the poles to vote against the winner next time -- and therefore hopefully vote for the "favorite". Like running an article on the front page of the newspaper, from a nationwide source - so it probably made it the the front page of many newspapers, in BOLD TYPE that Black People are very happy that Obama won in Iowa. Obviously hoping to draw out every bigot in the United States to vote --- and hopefully vote against him, by race card.
That's what the bold type on the front page of our paper was Saturday morning, and I have no doubt the reason for the wording - nor the front page placement. And I am ashamed to say it still happens in our Country...
Pete
Monday, January 7, 2008
Republican/Democrat Debate 1/5/08
OK - So lets talk about the Debate held last Saturday Night, now that I have had some time to think about it and cool down a bit. Remember, I am a staunch Republican.
First of all, let me say that the Debate was ran in a very amateurish fashion - I have never seen any debate of any kind allowed to turn into mayhem like that. Nobody answering questions, people constantly interrupting each other, name calling, totally obnoxious.....totally out of control. We only get a few minutes to hear the Candidates talk, and maybe out of 2 hours we got 10 minutes of what we came for.
Also, I have never seen anyone get the license towards another debater that Charles Gibson gave to the "medial choice" Hilary Clinton. Oh my goodness, when does the media draw the line at giving her every advantage possible???
Charles Gibson should not be allowed to ever run a debate again. Now, on to the debate itself...
The Republicans - ALL OF THEM - were a bunch of buffoons. I'm embarrassed to be a member of their party. They spent more time taking pot shots at each other than answering questions -- and they answered few questions, even though they talked a lot. When I see this kind of behavior it makes me feel that the people involved are incompetent and are just burning up minutes in an attempt to avoid saying something that will show it. I probably won't be voting for any of them this time.
The Democrats - seemed to be a civilized group of people. Seemed to be. The most notable moments were: 1)When Clinton tried the line that She has 35 years experience making change. Let me see -- She was an attorney in Arkansas where she ultimately got indicted for mis-deads. She was a Governor's wife, then a President's wife, then moved to a state she had never lived in so could no nothing about just to get elected to a position where she has spent a few years making decisions about people and places she doesn't know....so it appears to me that she is taking credit for what Bill did the last 35 years. That opens up a whole new situation for us. If she is going to take credit for what Bill did, then does that mean she takes credit for cutting our military to the point we don't have enough forces to fight a country the size of the Midwest? Not going after Bin Laden the first time he bombed the Twin Towers, resulting in the second successful attempt? Destroying the economy of several states by closing military bases so fast there was no time to absorb the workers? When the economy went south, changing the way the measurements are made to make it look good -- when it wasn't? Does she also take credit for those bad deeds and more??? Hilary has a long lineage of being a mean, self centered, uncaring person..and we don't need that in the drivers seat.
Seems to me Obama may be something. He didn't loose his cool, even when Hilary got the special treat of going after him personally, specifically him. He even gave her a compliment. He seems to be interested in working with everyone to come up with some solution we can all agree to -- maybe not get what we want, but at least get something that will work...and that is who we need in the drivers seat for a change...we haven't had that for a long long time. So - right now he looks pretty good....
Subject to change as events unfold....but that's my take today..
Pete
First of all, let me say that the Debate was ran in a very amateurish fashion - I have never seen any debate of any kind allowed to turn into mayhem like that. Nobody answering questions, people constantly interrupting each other, name calling, totally obnoxious.....totally out of control. We only get a few minutes to hear the Candidates talk, and maybe out of 2 hours we got 10 minutes of what we came for.
Also, I have never seen anyone get the license towards another debater that Charles Gibson gave to the "medial choice" Hilary Clinton. Oh my goodness, when does the media draw the line at giving her every advantage possible???
Charles Gibson should not be allowed to ever run a debate again. Now, on to the debate itself...
The Republicans - ALL OF THEM - were a bunch of buffoons. I'm embarrassed to be a member of their party. They spent more time taking pot shots at each other than answering questions -- and they answered few questions, even though they talked a lot. When I see this kind of behavior it makes me feel that the people involved are incompetent and are just burning up minutes in an attempt to avoid saying something that will show it. I probably won't be voting for any of them this time.
The Democrats - seemed to be a civilized group of people. Seemed to be. The most notable moments were: 1)When Clinton tried the line that She has 35 years experience making change. Let me see -- She was an attorney in Arkansas where she ultimately got indicted for mis-deads. She was a Governor's wife, then a President's wife, then moved to a state she had never lived in so could no nothing about just to get elected to a position where she has spent a few years making decisions about people and places she doesn't know....so it appears to me that she is taking credit for what Bill did the last 35 years. That opens up a whole new situation for us. If she is going to take credit for what Bill did, then does that mean she takes credit for cutting our military to the point we don't have enough forces to fight a country the size of the Midwest? Not going after Bin Laden the first time he bombed the Twin Towers, resulting in the second successful attempt? Destroying the economy of several states by closing military bases so fast there was no time to absorb the workers? When the economy went south, changing the way the measurements are made to make it look good -- when it wasn't? Does she also take credit for those bad deeds and more??? Hilary has a long lineage of being a mean, self centered, uncaring person..and we don't need that in the drivers seat.
Seems to me Obama may be something. He didn't loose his cool, even when Hilary got the special treat of going after him personally, specifically him. He even gave her a compliment. He seems to be interested in working with everyone to come up with some solution we can all agree to -- maybe not get what we want, but at least get something that will work...and that is who we need in the drivers seat for a change...we haven't had that for a long long time. So - right now he looks pretty good....
Subject to change as events unfold....but that's my take today..
Pete
Friday, May 25, 2007
So, what is Iraq really about??
I've been thinking for a long time about how to make this post short and easy to understand...let's give it a try...
Most people have watched TV, read the news, but never ever studied a map of the Iraq region. So, first a mental image. Iran is 3 times Iraq's size and its western border neighbor. Syria is its eastern boarder neighbor and about 1/2 its size. Jordan shares a small portion of its Western border. Turkey is about twice its size on the north border and Saudi Arabia is huge and shares the south border. Kuwait is on its southwest border and is tiny. Afghanistan and Pakistan are on the east border of Iran - one country away - and about the same size as Iraq. So, Iraq is in the middle. Comparing the geography to the USA, Iraq is the Midwest of the Middle East.
Maybe you know the names of Iraq's neighbors - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are all terrorist nations. The majority of the people who drove those planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia....although for some reason that is rarely spoken of.
All the countries in the above paragraph work as terrorist support and or terrorist nations....Iraq included. And most, if not all of the terrorists who are plaguing the planet right now are coming out of that grouping of countries - including Iraq, or trained there, or supplied from there. Saudi Arabia, huge and to the south, was the main supporter of the religious minority Iraq regime we just defeated - Now Iran, large and to the east, is supporting the overtaking of the county by the majority religious group. So, Iraq is in jeopardy of simply loosing one terrorist regime, and getting a new one. And both countries are Oil Rich enough to buy whatever terrorist weaponry they want.
So, Lets compare the geography to the United States again- from a strategic view point. How could you cripple the USA's ability to work as an organization? Take out the Midwest. Create a new nation in the Midwest that will not allow the east coast, west coast, and southern states to work through it or with it. Now, geographically the USA can't function very well, if at all.
And without Iraq, neither can the Middle East Terrorist machine. If (and that is a tall order, huge gamble) we can remove Iraq from that group -- we can cripple he terrorists of the world -- and that would be really really HUGE for the planet.
It isn't about oil. Its about terrorists.
Pete
Most people have watched TV, read the news, but never ever studied a map of the Iraq region. So, first a mental image. Iran is 3 times Iraq's size and its western border neighbor. Syria is its eastern boarder neighbor and about 1/2 its size. Jordan shares a small portion of its Western border. Turkey is about twice its size on the north border and Saudi Arabia is huge and shares the south border. Kuwait is on its southwest border and is tiny. Afghanistan and Pakistan are on the east border of Iran - one country away - and about the same size as Iraq. So, Iraq is in the middle. Comparing the geography to the USA, Iraq is the Midwest of the Middle East.
Maybe you know the names of Iraq's neighbors - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are all terrorist nations. The majority of the people who drove those planes on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia....although for some reason that is rarely spoken of.
All the countries in the above paragraph work as terrorist support and or terrorist nations....Iraq included. And most, if not all of the terrorists who are plaguing the planet right now are coming out of that grouping of countries - including Iraq, or trained there, or supplied from there. Saudi Arabia, huge and to the south, was the main supporter of the religious minority Iraq regime we just defeated - Now Iran, large and to the east, is supporting the overtaking of the county by the majority religious group. So, Iraq is in jeopardy of simply loosing one terrorist regime, and getting a new one. And both countries are Oil Rich enough to buy whatever terrorist weaponry they want.
So, Lets compare the geography to the United States again- from a strategic view point. How could you cripple the USA's ability to work as an organization? Take out the Midwest. Create a new nation in the Midwest that will not allow the east coast, west coast, and southern states to work through it or with it. Now, geographically the USA can't function very well, if at all.
And without Iraq, neither can the Middle East Terrorist machine. If (and that is a tall order, huge gamble) we can remove Iraq from that group -- we can cripple he terrorists of the world -- and that would be really really HUGE for the planet.
It isn't about oil. Its about terrorists.
Pete
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Let's talk about a fence...
Don't mis-read this post -- Mexican Illegal Aliens are a huge problem on many fronts. The War on Terror is the least of those, there are too many ways to get into the US without blaming hungry workers coming from Mexico. There really is a HUGE HUGE HUGE cost to the border states for dealing with the social services we have to provide them, and even thought the US Gov't. mandates that we spend the time, money, and effort -- it won't reimburse the cost. So, take California for example, not only do we only get back about 75 cents of every dollar we send to the Federal Government for Taxes, we also have to pay for the social services of the illegal's -- so we get a huge double whammy cost.
So, President Bush was getting bugged and hassled to do something. To stop the influx. Or reimburse the border state's costs.
The first time I heard about the fence idea, I thought -- Bush has to be funning. Everybody was hassling him about the illegal aliens, so he just said - OK then, I'll build a fence -- so they would all say, that is really stupid. Then sit down and come up with some plausible idea just to make him look bad...and we would get something done. Seems to be, the only time Congress does anything, is if they can make him look bad at the same time. But Congress said GREAT IDEA, LET'S GET ER DONE!!
We signed a Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico - GREAT!!!
Now that we got that done, lets build a fence to keep those Mexicans out --- HOW STUPID!!! Iraq is eaiser to explain than that fence!!....THAT STUPID, RUDE, IDIOTIC FENCE... oh my goodness, how could anybody do that - or even think of it???!!! Those people are supposed to be our Trade Parners, not someone we build a wall to keep out!!!
Uh, did the Berlin Wall work?? Great Wall of China??? Does the fence in your back yard keep the neigbor's kids out when their ball comes over it?? I mean, this ain't rocket sience folks -- THAT FENCE IS THE STUPIDEST IDEA (for several reasons)of the Bush Administration!!! It is stupid beyond stupid, if that's possible!!!
If Bush really wanted a fence, he couldn't even do that right. First of all, it has to have holes in it every so many feet so the Americans can get access to the river -- so it isn't even continuous. Oh, look Jesus - we can't go the US, there is a fence. No problem Chico, just walk down there 100 yards and go through the opening...What were they thinking?? The openings would somehow magically be "one way"??
And the fence does NOTHING to solve the real issues.
It takes 20 years to get the paperwork to come here legally from Mexico. 20 years -- so illegal is the only practical option if you are hungry. We say "send us your hungry..." -- I think they would starve before getting the paperwork from Mexico. Has anybody ever gone 20 years + one day without food?? NOT. Rather than spend the money on a fence, why didn't we invest that money in our "Free Trade Partner's" Visa Research Department, so they could get the paperwork time down to a year, or even a few weeks....then, once coming here legally is a real option, they would probably do it.
But they bring Drugs from Mexico. Invest more money into Mexico's drug enforcement. I know, I know - we already spend a lot -- SPEND MORE, WE ARE GOING TO SPEND IT THERE ON INTERCEPTION, OR HERE LOCKING OUR OWN ADDICTED KIDS UP ANYWAY. And while we are at it, lets spend some money iradicating the pot fields in Humbolt, Ca. and Kansas???!!! I mean, lets clean up our own yard too, huh??
Oh yeah - and we already did this illegal alien crap once before. We gave them amnesty and made whomever wanted to come forward legal. What did we learn??? Illegal Aliens make less then Legal Aliens for some reason - imagine that, the people who use "their poor and hungry" also take advantage of them...At any rate, there appears to be a huge market for people who can be taken advantage of, and just as huge a business group to take advantage. So, once the illegal's became legal - they moved up to the better paying jobs, and a whole fresh bunch of illegal's moved in to fill their old positions. So, we also need to do something to make it totally unattractive to hire an illegal alien -- I know, I know we already have those darn I-9's...apparently that is not enough.
How hard is it to figure out anyway -- if you want to accomplish something, and whatever you are doing isn't working, DO SOMETHING ELSE!!!???
Oh yeah -- that's right, we built a fence...
Pete
Did I just say something bad about Republicans?
So, President Bush was getting bugged and hassled to do something. To stop the influx. Or reimburse the border state's costs.
The first time I heard about the fence idea, I thought -- Bush has to be funning. Everybody was hassling him about the illegal aliens, so he just said - OK then, I'll build a fence -- so they would all say, that is really stupid. Then sit down and come up with some plausible idea just to make him look bad...and we would get something done. Seems to be, the only time Congress does anything, is if they can make him look bad at the same time. But Congress said GREAT IDEA, LET'S GET ER DONE!!
We signed a Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico - GREAT!!!
Now that we got that done, lets build a fence to keep those Mexicans out --- HOW STUPID!!! Iraq is eaiser to explain than that fence!!....THAT STUPID, RUDE, IDIOTIC FENCE... oh my goodness, how could anybody do that - or even think of it???!!! Those people are supposed to be our Trade Parners, not someone we build a wall to keep out!!!
Uh, did the Berlin Wall work?? Great Wall of China??? Does the fence in your back yard keep the neigbor's kids out when their ball comes over it?? I mean, this ain't rocket sience folks -- THAT FENCE IS THE STUPIDEST IDEA (for several reasons)of the Bush Administration!!! It is stupid beyond stupid, if that's possible!!!
If Bush really wanted a fence, he couldn't even do that right. First of all, it has to have holes in it every so many feet so the Americans can get access to the river -- so it isn't even continuous. Oh, look Jesus - we can't go the US, there is a fence. No problem Chico, just walk down there 100 yards and go through the opening...What were they thinking?? The openings would somehow magically be "one way"??
And the fence does NOTHING to solve the real issues.
It takes 20 years to get the paperwork to come here legally from Mexico. 20 years -- so illegal is the only practical option if you are hungry. We say "send us your hungry..." -- I think they would starve before getting the paperwork from Mexico. Has anybody ever gone 20 years + one day without food?? NOT. Rather than spend the money on a fence, why didn't we invest that money in our "Free Trade Partner's" Visa Research Department, so they could get the paperwork time down to a year, or even a few weeks....then, once coming here legally is a real option, they would probably do it.
But they bring Drugs from Mexico. Invest more money into Mexico's drug enforcement. I know, I know - we already spend a lot -- SPEND MORE, WE ARE GOING TO SPEND IT THERE ON INTERCEPTION, OR HERE LOCKING OUR OWN ADDICTED KIDS UP ANYWAY. And while we are at it, lets spend some money iradicating the pot fields in Humbolt, Ca. and Kansas???!!! I mean, lets clean up our own yard too, huh??
Oh yeah - and we already did this illegal alien crap once before. We gave them amnesty and made whomever wanted to come forward legal. What did we learn??? Illegal Aliens make less then Legal Aliens for some reason - imagine that, the people who use "their poor and hungry" also take advantage of them...At any rate, there appears to be a huge market for people who can be taken advantage of, and just as huge a business group to take advantage. So, once the illegal's became legal - they moved up to the better paying jobs, and a whole fresh bunch of illegal's moved in to fill their old positions. So, we also need to do something to make it totally unattractive to hire an illegal alien -- I know, I know we already have those darn I-9's...apparently that is not enough.
How hard is it to figure out anyway -- if you want to accomplish something, and whatever you are doing isn't working, DO SOMETHING ELSE!!!???
Oh yeah -- that's right, we built a fence...
Pete
Did I just say something bad about Republicans?
Thursday, May 10, 2007
How do you pick a President?
This campaign seem weird to me - am I the only one?
There is no doubt - Good Morning America wants Hilary so bad they can taste it, because she is a woman. They even had an interview with her last week picking out clothes and talking about how she seems like a girlfriend by the end of the interview --- HEY, SO VOTE FOR SOMEONE FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY MAKE A GOOD GIRLFRIEND!!!
Rush hates Obama because he is black, and others don't like him because he is not black enough, and others because his name doesn't sound Christian -- HEY, DON'T VOTE FOR BLACK PEOPLE -- ESPECIALLY IF THEY AREN'T CHRISTIAN -- UNLESS THEY ARE VERY BLACK!!!
What ever happened to thinking about whether someone would make a good president -and having reasons pertaining to the job requirements only - being considered?? Seemed like that was what we talked about when Jimmy Carter, Regan, Bush 1, Clinton 1, and Bush 2 were running -- I don't remember discussing their personal traits - or having them presented just because of them.
I thought race and sex discrimination were illegal - and frankly tired and out of date... Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that does not hold true for everyone -- but I sure thought it would for the Public Speakers of the nation...
But it sure seems to be what the current deciding factors of this campaign are all about to the people folks listen to.
Hmmm...
Pete
There is no doubt - Good Morning America wants Hilary so bad they can taste it, because she is a woman. They even had an interview with her last week picking out clothes and talking about how she seems like a girlfriend by the end of the interview --- HEY, SO VOTE FOR SOMEONE FOR PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEY MAKE A GOOD GIRLFRIEND!!!
Rush hates Obama because he is black, and others don't like him because he is not black enough, and others because his name doesn't sound Christian -- HEY, DON'T VOTE FOR BLACK PEOPLE -- ESPECIALLY IF THEY AREN'T CHRISTIAN -- UNLESS THEY ARE VERY BLACK!!!
What ever happened to thinking about whether someone would make a good president -and having reasons pertaining to the job requirements only - being considered?? Seemed like that was what we talked about when Jimmy Carter, Regan, Bush 1, Clinton 1, and Bush 2 were running -- I don't remember discussing their personal traits - or having them presented just because of them.
I thought race and sex discrimination were illegal - and frankly tired and out of date... Don't get me wrong, I fully realize that does not hold true for everyone -- but I sure thought it would for the Public Speakers of the nation...
But it sure seems to be what the current deciding factors of this campaign are all about to the people folks listen to.
Hmmm...
Pete
Thursday, April 26, 2007
I'm thinking your not a Democrat, Pete...
Well, your right - I'm not. And I'll admit - I tend not to see things through the filters a Democrat sees them through - whatever that means. I'd like to think that I see things through the filters that a fair person sees things through - and I don't like it when people say one thing and do another -- or hurt the very people they claim to be trying to help - hypocrites and schemers. Lately, its been the new Democrat leaders that are so outlandish I can't stand it -- tomorrow it may be someone else. My mind picks up on lots of stuff, and thinks about why.
I don't understand why automobile smog laws were put into place to clean up our air -which is polluted heavily by older, non-smog-technology-current cars. Then someone decides that smogging the older cars would hurt poor people, because they can't afford a new car and can't afford to repair an old one. So, now we have smog laws that do virtually nothing. And really - who got helped. Its the little guys who build cars on the assembly line - so by keeping old ones on the road, less people have jobs. And its the poor people who can't afford health insurance to pay for the damage to their bodies that smog does....so who really got helped ???
I don't understand why the Air Pollution, Water Pollution and Ground Pollution people never have lunch together. If a gas station pollutes the ground - they dig up the soil and stack it for a period of time until the gas in it evaporates into the air. The air pollution folks have us put MTBE into our gas, which pollutes the water. The water pollution folks have us pump water up a stack, and blow air through it to evaporate the pollutants into the air. I mean, come on -- none of that makes sense...
I don't understand why our "Representatives" sell their votes to lobbies for industries that cause us to use old technology, that does not work, so they can make money. If the air pollution folks want clean air - then why don't they just mandate clean air standards -- and let the engineers figure out how to meet them? Why say - This is the standard AND you have to use a catalytic converter in your design? Why not let the engineers do their job -- oh yeah, someone from the catalytic converter lobby bought lunch last week....so we, the people get stuck with the bill.
I try not to let my personal political party run me or my opinions. If my opinions happen to be in alignment with one party or the other, its because that party is aligned with me at the time, not the other way around.
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger -- "real" Republicans AND "real" Democrats don't.
I think Bush is guilty of the same error in judgement about going to Iraq that 30 other countries, the UN, and a lot of Democrats (including Hilary) were. Can we make lemonade out of lemons? Hard to say, but there seem to be a lot of people who would rather run away and hide, then step up to the plate and deal with what we created -- that's right WE created, the whole darn country, each and every one of us -- because our government is BY the people -- and that means us folks. I think it would be wrong to dismember Iraq's govenment like we did, and then leave it to the wolves. Can we do anything to keep that from happening? Was it going to happen regardless? I don't know yet -- but it would be wrong to just walk away without trying.
There already are a lot of folks trying to say Bush was being evil -- remember, those are the same folks who could make me going out to dinner with my wife look like I was cheating on her. They will take things out of context, leave out facts, cut and paste -- anything they have to in order to get us to believe that what we saw and heard 4 years ago isn't what we saw and heard....well I watched the lips move and heard the words, and I remember them. So, they can blow their smoke some other direction.
I think Jimmy Carter is a truly great man -- truly great -- but he wasn't cut out to be President, and he had lousy people backing him, so they could use him.
I think people tend to blame the way it is too often on someone else, other than themselves -- or just that the way it is, is the way it is:
Like someone who doesn't have a job saying its someone else's fault - when the want ads are full of opportunity -- maybe not doing what they want, but doing something that is an honest living.
Or like people who can't understand why our standard of living is falling -- well, there used to be two separate world economies - Free Market (us) and Communism (them) -- and then communism failed - so, all the people from those countries (roughly 1/2 the population on earth) entered into the same market we are in, Free Market. And they had nothing, and even more importantly - no bills -- no house payment, insurance payment, car payment, NO BILLS -- so they could work cheap. So, any job that doesn't have to be done on local soil is up for grabs -- and the person willing to work the cheapest gets it. So, we gotta find ways to compete, or loose those jobs -- and we can only work so fast at menial tasks (how many lug nuts can someone screw on in one hour for example) -- so if we want those jobs, we gotta take a cut in pay. That's just the way it is...complaining won't change it -- nothing will change it - so get over it...
I think some people truly need and deserve help --- and those people usually get it regardless of what our government does. A local community is very good at knowing its own people, and which ones are deserving of help, and which ones are lazy. I think that when our government gets involved -- people tend to find ways to make the rules work for them, rather than try to use the help to get back on their feet -- and so the government just becomes an enabler, rather than a helper.
It doesn't really matter to me WHO is doing us wrong. The intent is what I look for. I can be very forgiving of someone who has really good intentions, studies a situation and thinks they are doing the best for us -- but totally messes up. But, I have no patience for someone who is out to do us wrong, and goes way out of their way to do it. Or who tells us they are doing something to help us, when in fact they could care less about us, and are just using us to line their pockets.
And that is what this BLOG is about for me - pointing out the folks who I think are really out to do us wrong, scheming against us. And mentioning when I see someone trying to do us right - or someone who makes a good point (see my previous Feinstein post).
I have lots more to say - please read my posts -- please do use what works for you, and ignore the rest....its free. And its good to hear another point of view...at least I think so...
Pete
I don't understand why automobile smog laws were put into place to clean up our air -which is polluted heavily by older, non-smog-technology-current cars. Then someone decides that smogging the older cars would hurt poor people, because they can't afford a new car and can't afford to repair an old one. So, now we have smog laws that do virtually nothing. And really - who got helped. Its the little guys who build cars on the assembly line - so by keeping old ones on the road, less people have jobs. And its the poor people who can't afford health insurance to pay for the damage to their bodies that smog does....so who really got helped ???
I don't understand why the Air Pollution, Water Pollution and Ground Pollution people never have lunch together. If a gas station pollutes the ground - they dig up the soil and stack it for a period of time until the gas in it evaporates into the air. The air pollution folks have us put MTBE into our gas, which pollutes the water. The water pollution folks have us pump water up a stack, and blow air through it to evaporate the pollutants into the air. I mean, come on -- none of that makes sense...
I don't understand why our "Representatives" sell their votes to lobbies for industries that cause us to use old technology, that does not work, so they can make money. If the air pollution folks want clean air - then why don't they just mandate clean air standards -- and let the engineers figure out how to meet them? Why say - This is the standard AND you have to use a catalytic converter in your design? Why not let the engineers do their job -- oh yeah, someone from the catalytic converter lobby bought lunch last week....so we, the people get stuck with the bill.
I try not to let my personal political party run me or my opinions. If my opinions happen to be in alignment with one party or the other, its because that party is aligned with me at the time, not the other way around.
I like Arnold Schwarzenegger -- "real" Republicans AND "real" Democrats don't.
I think Bush is guilty of the same error in judgement about going to Iraq that 30 other countries, the UN, and a lot of Democrats (including Hilary) were. Can we make lemonade out of lemons? Hard to say, but there seem to be a lot of people who would rather run away and hide, then step up to the plate and deal with what we created -- that's right WE created, the whole darn country, each and every one of us -- because our government is BY the people -- and that means us folks. I think it would be wrong to dismember Iraq's govenment like we did, and then leave it to the wolves. Can we do anything to keep that from happening? Was it going to happen regardless? I don't know yet -- but it would be wrong to just walk away without trying.
There already are a lot of folks trying to say Bush was being evil -- remember, those are the same folks who could make me going out to dinner with my wife look like I was cheating on her. They will take things out of context, leave out facts, cut and paste -- anything they have to in order to get us to believe that what we saw and heard 4 years ago isn't what we saw and heard....well I watched the lips move and heard the words, and I remember them. So, they can blow their smoke some other direction.
I think Jimmy Carter is a truly great man -- truly great -- but he wasn't cut out to be President, and he had lousy people backing him, so they could use him.
I think people tend to blame the way it is too often on someone else, other than themselves -- or just that the way it is, is the way it is:
Like someone who doesn't have a job saying its someone else's fault - when the want ads are full of opportunity -- maybe not doing what they want, but doing something that is an honest living.
Or like people who can't understand why our standard of living is falling -- well, there used to be two separate world economies - Free Market (us) and Communism (them) -- and then communism failed - so, all the people from those countries (roughly 1/2 the population on earth) entered into the same market we are in, Free Market. And they had nothing, and even more importantly - no bills -- no house payment, insurance payment, car payment, NO BILLS -- so they could work cheap. So, any job that doesn't have to be done on local soil is up for grabs -- and the person willing to work the cheapest gets it. So, we gotta find ways to compete, or loose those jobs -- and we can only work so fast at menial tasks (how many lug nuts can someone screw on in one hour for example) -- so if we want those jobs, we gotta take a cut in pay. That's just the way it is...complaining won't change it -- nothing will change it - so get over it...
I think some people truly need and deserve help --- and those people usually get it regardless of what our government does. A local community is very good at knowing its own people, and which ones are deserving of help, and which ones are lazy. I think that when our government gets involved -- people tend to find ways to make the rules work for them, rather than try to use the help to get back on their feet -- and so the government just becomes an enabler, rather than a helper.
It doesn't really matter to me WHO is doing us wrong. The intent is what I look for. I can be very forgiving of someone who has really good intentions, studies a situation and thinks they are doing the best for us -- but totally messes up. But, I have no patience for someone who is out to do us wrong, and goes way out of their way to do it. Or who tells us they are doing something to help us, when in fact they could care less about us, and are just using us to line their pockets.
And that is what this BLOG is about for me - pointing out the folks who I think are really out to do us wrong, scheming against us. And mentioning when I see someone trying to do us right - or someone who makes a good point (see my previous Feinstein post).
I have lots more to say - please read my posts -- please do use what works for you, and ignore the rest....its free. And its good to hear another point of view...at least I think so...
Pete
Who should be a representative?
It would seem to me to be important to be one of the people represented. In other words - I am a California Native. I have traveled a lot, but pretty much always lived in California. So - I feel that if I wanted to run for an office representing California - or the area I live in California - that I am qualified to say that I know what the people here want or need -- because I am one of them.
But, if I move to Missourri -- it would take years for me to really get to know what is really going on there, and what the locals need or want. YEARS...
Same goes for City Council, County Supervisor, District of a State. It just seems to me that there should be a minimum time of at least 5 years - or maybe more - of residency before you could serve as a representative.....because you can't represent what you don't know about..
Even in California - I live in Northern California -- which seems to be a target for Southern California to steal from to support its growth - they take our water, highway and school funds -- and the list goes on and on -- I would hate to have someone move up here from down there - and then become our representative -- because they probably would sell us out to their home turf...at least that is what I would worry about...
Think about the people running to be your representative next election -- have they lived in your area long enough to really know what you need or want? Are they really just coming to your area to run for an alterior motive -- and could care less about you? Also, is your area just going to be used as a step towards something else - rather than a real earnest want to serve you?
Pete
But, if I move to Missourri -- it would take years for me to really get to know what is really going on there, and what the locals need or want. YEARS...
Same goes for City Council, County Supervisor, District of a State. It just seems to me that there should be a minimum time of at least 5 years - or maybe more - of residency before you could serve as a representative.....because you can't represent what you don't know about..
Even in California - I live in Northern California -- which seems to be a target for Southern California to steal from to support its growth - they take our water, highway and school funds -- and the list goes on and on -- I would hate to have someone move up here from down there - and then become our representative -- because they probably would sell us out to their home turf...at least that is what I would worry about...
Think about the people running to be your representative next election -- have they lived in your area long enough to really know what you need or want? Are they really just coming to your area to run for an alterior motive -- and could care less about you? Also, is your area just going to be used as a step towards something else - rather than a real earnest want to serve you?
Pete
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)