Every single year since the dawn of time (aka since I was old enough to notice), as soon as halloween passes we are automatically engaged in the American Holiday Season. This includes really great things like shoving your whole extended family in one room over a meal and seeing what happens, and really frustrating things like the whole debate over what we should say to each other during this season. (this ends as soon as Dec 31st gets here, and then its happy new year, and nobody cares anymore.
Here is the solution to the debate over the holidays. But first, a story:
I work in retail. (this story likely is true for all service industry workers). I interact with hundreds of people every day, hundreds of different people with unique lives and stories and families. I usually get one of two versions of the "farewell greeting": "merry christmas" or "happy holidays" or some variation thereof. I don't often get told "happy hanukah" or "happy kwanza" or "happy solstice".
I respond with "you too." Let's say for example that I didn't celebrate christmas, but none of the less I am wished a merry christmas, it can be assumed the person wishing me a merry christmas celebrates christmas, so by saying "you too" I am wishing them a merry christmas. In fact, no matter what they say to me, I am wishing them an enjoyable whatever holiday they celebrate. Sure, I hope Jewish people have a good day on Dec 25th, it would be weird to wish for someone to have a bad day, but it's equally weird to wish someone a merry holiday they don't celebrate.
There is no war on Christmas. There is a push to be more inclusive, if you don't like that then I guess you have a bigger problem than this blog can solve. Most stores do not have generic holiday seasons, nor do they have CHRISTmas seasons. Most stores have Americanized consumeristic holiday seasons marked with green trees and fat men in red suits. No, it's not weird for your local secular store to not carry a nativity scene. In fact, I wouldn't want or trust wal-mart or target to respectfully represent the religious christmas. I would much rather get that from a store that understands the nativity scene. The job of a store, like it or not, is to make money. Not to celebrate one religious holiday.
There is also not a war on other non-christian religions. (um, that sentence reminds me of the Gaza/Israel thing, so when I say no war, I mean in the way we as Americans trivialize the word "war"). Sure people like Bill O'Reilly say ridiculous things, but he is one guy. And one guy does not make a war. There is less product for those holidays around, because they are less common and less commercialized. Again, a stores job is to make money, and they make WAY more money on christmas than hanukkah. I think people who are interested in celebrating CHRISTmas should wish their holiday was less prevalent in stores, it might have more meaning.
We are all fighting to celebrate the holiday season our own way, and we are letting the stores dictate what that means. If your best friend celebrated a different holiday than you, what would you say to them? You would probably tell them Happy Hanukkah, and they would say to you Merry Christmas. Since we don't know personally every person we meet, it makes sense to say "happy holiday(s)" because that implies that we hope for them to enjoy whichever winter celebration they have.
Also, if someone says to you the wrong holiday, who cares? Isn't it nice that they care enough to wish you a happy anything? There is no need at all to correct them. "well, I know you said to enjoy my holiday, but I celebrate christmas so you can say merry christmas," that's rude. It's also annoying. And it makes you look like a jerk. And it makes christmas feel like a holiday which is shoved down everyone's throats, not like the enjoyable thing that it is.
The moral of the story: who cares? This should not be a debate. Common courtesy should explain how to act. Just be glad people are wishing you a happy anything and that you have people in your life to celebrate your holiday with. Stop posting pictures on Facebook of how I should know what holiday to wish someone, and also of people telling me it's american to say merry christmas. It's the holidays, not the month of fighting. The election is over, just say have a good day if it's that serious.
29.11.12
8.11.12
What I'm taking away from the election.
After taking some time to watch the tallies trickle in, I think it's time to talk about what we (or I) learned from this election.
The most obvious post-election revelation is that the republican party needs a facelift, and a new numbers guy. I know people want to point fingers at Christie or Sandy for Mitt's loss, but here are a few more logical places your fingers can point. The first is that the Grand Ol' Party is clearly getting pretty old. This IS your grandfather's political party. Socially conservative views don't hold the same water they did way back when, and while it seems fair to have a party that's right of center, I think the republicans are getting a little right of right. I'm not just talking about being pro-life, because I think a lot of people could and would vote for the republican ticket while they are pro-life. I'm talking about being so "pro-life" that they want to define rape, ban contraceptives and defund planned parenthood. I'm talking about a party that falls so far to the right on marriage equality they feel the need to BAN it, even though it's not allowed in the first place. One pundit said it best last night when he said, "for young people being gay is like being left-handed, it's boring." That's true, and if the GOP wants to win the young vote, they need to come around to the issues and beliefs of the majority of young people.
Which brings me to my second point, the GOP really needs a new numbers guy. Romney was counting on three key demographics to pull him through: white, male, christian. That's fine, the christian white male deserves a party that he agrees with, but he is not the majority anymore. That's the thing, Romney won the white vote. But he didn't win the election because Obama won all the other demographics. Obama's numbers guy realized that if they could get ALL the non-white folks to vote for Obama that's more than all the white folks. It's all a numbers game right? The democrats played the numbers really well, the GOP did not so much.
I wouldn't be surprised if we are witnessing history in the fall of the republican party. Political parties have an ebb and flow to them, and most politcal parties change, adapt, or disppear over time. For example, Lincoln was a republican and while yes current republicans are anti-slavery, the current republican party looks nothing like the republican party that Lincoln witnessed. Neither does the current Democratic party look like the Democratic party of Lincoln's time. This isn't something that will happen overnight, tomorrow the Republican party will look the same. But as top Republican's are beginning to call for a third party, are endorsing Obama, or are leaving the Republican party to be indepentents, it is clear there is a large swath of people who might start a third party.
The new third party will probably still be a conservative one. Fiscally speaking they will for sure be conservative. But I think the general compassion that seems to be missing in the Republican party today will show up in a new third party. They will likely be socially moderate, though right-leaning. This will give a place to land for all the people that might be pro-life, but don't identify at all with people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. People that might have their beliefs about traditional marriage, but see no need to attack gay people and call them names. It's not that I think a conservative viewpoint is so out of date it will go away forever, but the people I know that voted Republican this time around are exponentially more compassionate than the current Republican platform. (do we need a third party, or is everyone just gonna be independent That's another question for another time).
I also learned that what that pundit said about young people is true. The first openly gay senator was elected and....silence. Nobody cares. So what? We have a black president, a gay senator, marriage equality in 3 new states, and the defeat of some extreme senators. This is an incredible step forward. Did this happen because people changed their minds? Maybe a little bit, but young people turned out to vote overwhelmingly. And young people, as I've mentioned before about my generation, are really different from previous generations.
I would say that young vote is to absolutely to blame for those outcomes. If it wasn't why did pot get legalized in two states? It feels like young people thought, "meh, people can do what they want. Shouldn't we fix the economy?" Which is pretty much a solid thought process. I would suspect the generation of voters after me, and even the first time voters this election who are way younger than me, are not going to move the needle in the other direction. If you think it's good or bad, it's 100% true that young people are socially liberal. (back to the rep party...if they want the young vote, they should figure this out)
So yeah, nothing is perfect and after a divisive campaign season we ended up exactly where we started. With gridlock in congress, a "fiscal cliff" upcoming, and two parties that have to figure out how to work together or crash the economy again. But we also saw forward movement, and maybe the Republicans will work with the Democrats and the President after the people voted for them again.
The most obvious post-election revelation is that the republican party needs a facelift, and a new numbers guy. I know people want to point fingers at Christie or Sandy for Mitt's loss, but here are a few more logical places your fingers can point. The first is that the Grand Ol' Party is clearly getting pretty old. This IS your grandfather's political party. Socially conservative views don't hold the same water they did way back when, and while it seems fair to have a party that's right of center, I think the republicans are getting a little right of right. I'm not just talking about being pro-life, because I think a lot of people could and would vote for the republican ticket while they are pro-life. I'm talking about being so "pro-life" that they want to define rape, ban contraceptives and defund planned parenthood. I'm talking about a party that falls so far to the right on marriage equality they feel the need to BAN it, even though it's not allowed in the first place. One pundit said it best last night when he said, "for young people being gay is like being left-handed, it's boring." That's true, and if the GOP wants to win the young vote, they need to come around to the issues and beliefs of the majority of young people.
Which brings me to my second point, the GOP really needs a new numbers guy. Romney was counting on three key demographics to pull him through: white, male, christian. That's fine, the christian white male deserves a party that he agrees with, but he is not the majority anymore. That's the thing, Romney won the white vote. But he didn't win the election because Obama won all the other demographics. Obama's numbers guy realized that if they could get ALL the non-white folks to vote for Obama that's more than all the white folks. It's all a numbers game right? The democrats played the numbers really well, the GOP did not so much.
I wouldn't be surprised if we are witnessing history in the fall of the republican party. Political parties have an ebb and flow to them, and most politcal parties change, adapt, or disppear over time. For example, Lincoln was a republican and while yes current republicans are anti-slavery, the current republican party looks nothing like the republican party that Lincoln witnessed. Neither does the current Democratic party look like the Democratic party of Lincoln's time. This isn't something that will happen overnight, tomorrow the Republican party will look the same. But as top Republican's are beginning to call for a third party, are endorsing Obama, or are leaving the Republican party to be indepentents, it is clear there is a large swath of people who might start a third party.
The new third party will probably still be a conservative one. Fiscally speaking they will for sure be conservative. But I think the general compassion that seems to be missing in the Republican party today will show up in a new third party. They will likely be socially moderate, though right-leaning. This will give a place to land for all the people that might be pro-life, but don't identify at all with people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. People that might have their beliefs about traditional marriage, but see no need to attack gay people and call them names. It's not that I think a conservative viewpoint is so out of date it will go away forever, but the people I know that voted Republican this time around are exponentially more compassionate than the current Republican platform. (do we need a third party, or is everyone just gonna be independent That's another question for another time).
I also learned that what that pundit said about young people is true. The first openly gay senator was elected and....silence. Nobody cares. So what? We have a black president, a gay senator, marriage equality in 3 new states, and the defeat of some extreme senators. This is an incredible step forward. Did this happen because people changed their minds? Maybe a little bit, but young people turned out to vote overwhelmingly. And young people, as I've mentioned before about my generation, are really different from previous generations.
I would say that young vote is to absolutely to blame for those outcomes. If it wasn't why did pot get legalized in two states? It feels like young people thought, "meh, people can do what they want. Shouldn't we fix the economy?" Which is pretty much a solid thought process. I would suspect the generation of voters after me, and even the first time voters this election who are way younger than me, are not going to move the needle in the other direction. If you think it's good or bad, it's 100% true that young people are socially liberal. (back to the rep party...if they want the young vote, they should figure this out)
So yeah, nothing is perfect and after a divisive campaign season we ended up exactly where we started. With gridlock in congress, a "fiscal cliff" upcoming, and two parties that have to figure out how to work together or crash the economy again. But we also saw forward movement, and maybe the Republicans will work with the Democrats and the President after the people voted for them again.
5.11.12
My vote 2012
What better way to cap off this ridiculous election season than with an explanation of why I'm voting the way I am? Probably a party, or a day of no campaign commercials. I was watching regular TV the other day and EVERY commercial but one was a political commercial. They were only for the props, if I lived in Ohio it probably would have been an extended commercial break and included lots more attacking of the president and Mitt Romney. I wish I lived in Ohio so my vote would count, but NOT for the campaigning. Anyways, here is my ballot explanation, skipping the ones like supreme court (because I need to do more research) and trustees because really, nobody cares about that explanation. (Ok, some people care, I don't have the time for it).
President: Barack Obama.
Prop 1: No
Prop 2: Yes
Prop 3: Yes
Prop 4: Yes
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: No
For the President. I said at the beginning that if there was a republican that even had a chance of defeating Obama, it was Romney. I said that because Romney was (before he got a little weird) a republican that I could at least consider as president. And if the democrat wasn't Obama, who knows (well, who knew).
Everyone keeps asking if Obama has earned a second term, and yes he has. He's not perfect, but he's a little better than good enough. Let's start with Obama's bad side:
Issues on "life" (I so hate life being the term we use): My friends always joke that I'm the most conservative because I'm really not pro-choice, or at least I really don't like knowing about people having abortions. I also really really really hate the idea of partial birth abortion, there needs to be a cut off, I mean if you haven't figured out you don't want the baby by the third trimester, you've made it far enough you can do it, and put the baby up for adoption (also we need to make the adoption process easier. And less confusing for teen mothers). I probably could justify voting for Romney on the life issue, except he took Ryan as his running mate and no abortions for rape victims is too much. Plus, in my opinion, the best way to stop abortions is to increase education and contraceptives, not just make it illegal. When is the last time a LAW prevented someone from doing what they needed to do to (in their opinion) live? If we make abortion illegal without education we will only increase back alley abortions and by default kill more teenage girls. Neither Obama nor Romney has the opinion I really feel comfortable voting for, but when it comes down to it, Romney took it too far by putting Ryan on the ticket.
On "women's" issues (which should really be everyone's issues): Barack Obama actually cares about women being equal. He has a proven track record of caring about women. Lilly Ledbetter for example. Making it so women can get preventive care easily and more effectively, making contraceptives free (which by default decreases abortion), making college affordable (not a women's issue, but some women go to college soo...my point exactly all issues are women's issues). Romney will set us back 50 years, he will make it so that women can get paid less and have no legal recourse, he will control women's healthcare. Obama easily gets my vote here, there isn't even a debate.
Equality. My favorite thing people say to me is "I love my black/gay/hispanic/lady friends but...." But what? But you don't care about everyone being equal? What if I said that to my friend? "I love you but, I'm gonna leave you here on the side of the road because you're a minority." During Barack Obama's presidency the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr act was signed, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, Lilly Ledbetter act was signed, the Defense of Marriage act was declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the government, Affordable Healthcare act was passed, oh yeah and our first black president was elected. Romney on the other hand hired a few women to his cabinet after some women's groups told him to, he will probably re-defend defense of marriage, he would repeal DADT if he didn't think it would be impossible to shove all those soldiers back in the closet (he said so himself, in not so harsh words). Romney also favors "self deportation" (whatever that is) while Obama favors path to citizenship and not deporting people who have lived here their whole lives. I love my (insert minority) friends, and I'm going to prove it by voting FOR equality, not against it. It's also worth noting that we don't really know what Romney will do when he's in office since he's sometimes liberal (Romney-care) and sometimes conservative (against marriage equality, even though he's state allows all couples to marry...).
The economy. I've said it before that I don't care the think too much about economics, probably because I'm female and therefore to simple minded to figure it out. OR because I just hate numbers a lot. Either way, an economy that says if the rich get richer so too will the poor get richer doesn't make any sense. An economy that says lets strengthen the core of our country makes sense. An economy that taxes people that can afford it more, and people that can't less is an economy I support. Also, Obama's record shows that he's on top of it, the economy is on the upswing, even Romney says "the slowest RECOVERY of our time". Why would we take out something that's working and put back the stuff that broke it in the first place? That doesn't even make sense. And yes, I will vote for someone who is a democratic socialist (even though Obam isn't) over a capitalist (which Romney is). Capitalism has it's place, but it NEEDS to be balanced out by socialistic policies or the greedy people win and the poor people end up sleeping in gutters. Everyone deserves a fair shot. Just saying.
Those are the biggest issues in my book for voting for Obama. This is long, I can't believe you're still reading. On the the prop's which will be shorter (maybe).
Prop 1: Emergency Manager -no
I've been going back and forth on this one. I mean, obviously there are cities in Michigan that need some kind of financial intervention. We can't just sit back and watch places like Detroit go bankrupt, that's not good for people, business, or the economy. So yeah, the Emergency Manager thing seems ok. But the Emergency Manager thing gives absolute power, and absolute power is never good. It's good to create change in places that need it, and when the people resist change just because change is scary sometimes change has to just happen and people will adapt. But when that change is led by an absolute power that could potentially be looking out for corporate interests rather than the people, that's not ok. There are a hundred ways to fall into the category that mean your city gets a review one of which is "other circumstances at the sole discretion of the state treasurer". This also gives the financial manager the ability to override locally elected officials. I guess my point is I think the idea is good, but it's obviously been taken to far. Essentially, if the state treasurer decides he doesn't like the locally elected officials of a certain town...he can declare it a financial distress. With reform this idea might be ok, but as it is there is too much risk of absolute power.
Prop 2: Collective Bargaining etc. - yes
The only way to really protect collective bargaining is to put it in the constitution. Sure, it's already a law, but as we well know greed does not always follow the law. If it is already a law, what bad could come from putting in the constitution? none. What good? protecting something critical to making sure workers are treated fairly on the job. I'm not in a union, but that's not because it's illegal...it just is. If someone works for a company, they should have the ability to unionize if they are treated unfairly. This is why we have unions, to protect workers. Again, this is something that may need reform, unions have gotten huge...but the idea that some old man is sitting in an office somewhere laughing and rolling around in union dues money is ridiculous. Sure, union bosses have issues, but is that worth taking away the protection somebody has on the job? Is it worth taking away someone's ability to strike for better conditions? No, it's not. I'm not 100% pro-union, but I'm 100% protecting workers ahead of corporations.
Prop 3: Clean energy - yes
I mean, what's cooler than getting to play putt putt with real windmills? (just kidding...but I would totally put a putt putt near a bunch of windmills if I could.) We NEED renewable energy, and for the michigan economy we need to start doing things that are forward thinking not backwards thinking. Clean energy is one of those things. Simple as that, anything that encourages a company like DTE to get it together I support. I also like breathing clean air. I mean...yeah that's it. Oh, and I like to protect the planet.
Prop 4: Home Health Care Workers - yes
I was really really undecided on this one for a long time. At first it seemed redundant to prop 2, which it's not but I had to sort that out, then it seemed sort of useless. But after reading that it will not require a person needing home health care to use a unionized worker, but it will just basically create a union for home health care workers...that was a selling point. Also, the idea of having something established to protect people from having criminals help them. Not everyone has the family support to make sure they get the best care, so having something that people can depend on to to know a background check has been run it worth it. Also, having something the worker can depend on is a good thing also. This means that if you want to be the home care person for your family member with a disability, you can do that without joining a union, but if you need home care and don't have anyone there to help you find someone you have something to trust. Yes and yes.
Prop 5: 2/3 majority to raise taxes. - no
Um, no. Also, no. No really, the only upside to this is that...um actually I don't know. Please feel free to let me know the upside. I don't hate taxes the way I'm supposed to, everyone seems to hate them, but why? Taxes pay for stuff we all need and use: roads, police officers, public school systems, etc. I like to have things around for everyone to use...and that happens with taxes. Now of course I also like to have my money in my pocket, but sometimes you gotta spend money to have stuff. New library? sure I'll help pay for that. I mean, I helped pay for a war, the least I can do is help pay for a library. (off topic about the library sorry). Also this could lead to a minority rule situation. If we are voting to raise taxes it should be 51% not 2/3. But we shouldn't be voting to raise taxes, it just happens. We should be voting in legislators that we trust to riase or not raise taxes.
Prop 6: voting on a bridge: - no
Can you imagine what it would be like if we had to vote for every construction project that was bothersome to a rich person? Every CEO of a company that has construction on his road would want the people to decide, and the people will always say no because the people for some reason don't understand that roads need fixing and bridges need building. Also, this bridge is free, so there's that. If someone offers you a free bridge you take it. This rich guy doesn't deserve for the people to decide anything, we need another bridge, it will create jobs in michigan and be paid for by canada, there is literally no downside. Oh except this rich guy won't have a monopoly anymore, if you think that's a downside. Also, if you DON'T support this particular bridge, remember this will force us to vote on ANY international bridge forever, there is no end date to the voting. So what if they want another bridge in port huron? Or a bridge someplace else to get to Canada? We would have to vote.
The bottom line is this: for my decisions I took the approach of how it would impact people the most, and who it would most negatively impact. And yes, when forced to choose I choose working people over wealthy CEOs. You don't have to vote with me, but at least vote.
President: Barack Obama.
Prop 1: No
Prop 2: Yes
Prop 3: Yes
Prop 4: Yes
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: No
For the President. I said at the beginning that if there was a republican that even had a chance of defeating Obama, it was Romney. I said that because Romney was (before he got a little weird) a republican that I could at least consider as president. And if the democrat wasn't Obama, who knows (well, who knew).
Everyone keeps asking if Obama has earned a second term, and yes he has. He's not perfect, but he's a little better than good enough. Let's start with Obama's bad side:
Issues on "life" (I so hate life being the term we use): My friends always joke that I'm the most conservative because I'm really not pro-choice, or at least I really don't like knowing about people having abortions. I also really really really hate the idea of partial birth abortion, there needs to be a cut off, I mean if you haven't figured out you don't want the baby by the third trimester, you've made it far enough you can do it, and put the baby up for adoption (also we need to make the adoption process easier. And less confusing for teen mothers). I probably could justify voting for Romney on the life issue, except he took Ryan as his running mate and no abortions for rape victims is too much. Plus, in my opinion, the best way to stop abortions is to increase education and contraceptives, not just make it illegal. When is the last time a LAW prevented someone from doing what they needed to do to (in their opinion) live? If we make abortion illegal without education we will only increase back alley abortions and by default kill more teenage girls. Neither Obama nor Romney has the opinion I really feel comfortable voting for, but when it comes down to it, Romney took it too far by putting Ryan on the ticket.
On "women's" issues (which should really be everyone's issues): Barack Obama actually cares about women being equal. He has a proven track record of caring about women. Lilly Ledbetter for example. Making it so women can get preventive care easily and more effectively, making contraceptives free (which by default decreases abortion), making college affordable (not a women's issue, but some women go to college soo...my point exactly all issues are women's issues). Romney will set us back 50 years, he will make it so that women can get paid less and have no legal recourse, he will control women's healthcare. Obama easily gets my vote here, there isn't even a debate.
Equality. My favorite thing people say to me is "I love my black/gay/hispanic/lady friends but...." But what? But you don't care about everyone being equal? What if I said that to my friend? "I love you but, I'm gonna leave you here on the side of the road because you're a minority." During Barack Obama's presidency the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr act was signed, Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed, Lilly Ledbetter act was signed, the Defense of Marriage act was declared unconstitutional and no longer defended in court by the government, Affordable Healthcare act was passed, oh yeah and our first black president was elected. Romney on the other hand hired a few women to his cabinet after some women's groups told him to, he will probably re-defend defense of marriage, he would repeal DADT if he didn't think it would be impossible to shove all those soldiers back in the closet (he said so himself, in not so harsh words). Romney also favors "self deportation" (whatever that is) while Obama favors path to citizenship and not deporting people who have lived here their whole lives. I love my (insert minority) friends, and I'm going to prove it by voting FOR equality, not against it. It's also worth noting that we don't really know what Romney will do when he's in office since he's sometimes liberal (Romney-care) and sometimes conservative (against marriage equality, even though he's state allows all couples to marry...).
The economy. I've said it before that I don't care the think too much about economics, probably because I'm female and therefore to simple minded to figure it out. OR because I just hate numbers a lot. Either way, an economy that says if the rich get richer so too will the poor get richer doesn't make any sense. An economy that says lets strengthen the core of our country makes sense. An economy that taxes people that can afford it more, and people that can't less is an economy I support. Also, Obama's record shows that he's on top of it, the economy is on the upswing, even Romney says "the slowest RECOVERY of our time". Why would we take out something that's working and put back the stuff that broke it in the first place? That doesn't even make sense. And yes, I will vote for someone who is a democratic socialist (even though Obam isn't) over a capitalist (which Romney is). Capitalism has it's place, but it NEEDS to be balanced out by socialistic policies or the greedy people win and the poor people end up sleeping in gutters. Everyone deserves a fair shot. Just saying.
Those are the biggest issues in my book for voting for Obama. This is long, I can't believe you're still reading. On the the prop's which will be shorter (maybe).
Prop 1: Emergency Manager -no
I've been going back and forth on this one. I mean, obviously there are cities in Michigan that need some kind of financial intervention. We can't just sit back and watch places like Detroit go bankrupt, that's not good for people, business, or the economy. So yeah, the Emergency Manager thing seems ok. But the Emergency Manager thing gives absolute power, and absolute power is never good. It's good to create change in places that need it, and when the people resist change just because change is scary sometimes change has to just happen and people will adapt. But when that change is led by an absolute power that could potentially be looking out for corporate interests rather than the people, that's not ok. There are a hundred ways to fall into the category that mean your city gets a review one of which is "other circumstances at the sole discretion of the state treasurer". This also gives the financial manager the ability to override locally elected officials. I guess my point is I think the idea is good, but it's obviously been taken to far. Essentially, if the state treasurer decides he doesn't like the locally elected officials of a certain town...he can declare it a financial distress. With reform this idea might be ok, but as it is there is too much risk of absolute power.
Prop 2: Collective Bargaining etc. - yes
The only way to really protect collective bargaining is to put it in the constitution. Sure, it's already a law, but as we well know greed does not always follow the law. If it is already a law, what bad could come from putting in the constitution? none. What good? protecting something critical to making sure workers are treated fairly on the job. I'm not in a union, but that's not because it's illegal...it just is. If someone works for a company, they should have the ability to unionize if they are treated unfairly. This is why we have unions, to protect workers. Again, this is something that may need reform, unions have gotten huge...but the idea that some old man is sitting in an office somewhere laughing and rolling around in union dues money is ridiculous. Sure, union bosses have issues, but is that worth taking away the protection somebody has on the job? Is it worth taking away someone's ability to strike for better conditions? No, it's not. I'm not 100% pro-union, but I'm 100% protecting workers ahead of corporations.
Prop 3: Clean energy - yes
I mean, what's cooler than getting to play putt putt with real windmills? (just kidding...but I would totally put a putt putt near a bunch of windmills if I could.) We NEED renewable energy, and for the michigan economy we need to start doing things that are forward thinking not backwards thinking. Clean energy is one of those things. Simple as that, anything that encourages a company like DTE to get it together I support. I also like breathing clean air. I mean...yeah that's it. Oh, and I like to protect the planet.
Prop 4: Home Health Care Workers - yes
I was really really undecided on this one for a long time. At first it seemed redundant to prop 2, which it's not but I had to sort that out, then it seemed sort of useless. But after reading that it will not require a person needing home health care to use a unionized worker, but it will just basically create a union for home health care workers...that was a selling point. Also, the idea of having something established to protect people from having criminals help them. Not everyone has the family support to make sure they get the best care, so having something that people can depend on to to know a background check has been run it worth it. Also, having something the worker can depend on is a good thing also. This means that if you want to be the home care person for your family member with a disability, you can do that without joining a union, but if you need home care and don't have anyone there to help you find someone you have something to trust. Yes and yes.
Prop 5: 2/3 majority to raise taxes. - no
Um, no. Also, no. No really, the only upside to this is that...um actually I don't know. Please feel free to let me know the upside. I don't hate taxes the way I'm supposed to, everyone seems to hate them, but why? Taxes pay for stuff we all need and use: roads, police officers, public school systems, etc. I like to have things around for everyone to use...and that happens with taxes. Now of course I also like to have my money in my pocket, but sometimes you gotta spend money to have stuff. New library? sure I'll help pay for that. I mean, I helped pay for a war, the least I can do is help pay for a library. (off topic about the library sorry). Also this could lead to a minority rule situation. If we are voting to raise taxes it should be 51% not 2/3. But we shouldn't be voting to raise taxes, it just happens. We should be voting in legislators that we trust to riase or not raise taxes.
Prop 6: voting on a bridge: - no
Can you imagine what it would be like if we had to vote for every construction project that was bothersome to a rich person? Every CEO of a company that has construction on his road would want the people to decide, and the people will always say no because the people for some reason don't understand that roads need fixing and bridges need building. Also, this bridge is free, so there's that. If someone offers you a free bridge you take it. This rich guy doesn't deserve for the people to decide anything, we need another bridge, it will create jobs in michigan and be paid for by canada, there is literally no downside. Oh except this rich guy won't have a monopoly anymore, if you think that's a downside. Also, if you DON'T support this particular bridge, remember this will force us to vote on ANY international bridge forever, there is no end date to the voting. So what if they want another bridge in port huron? Or a bridge someplace else to get to Canada? We would have to vote.
The bottom line is this: for my decisions I took the approach of how it would impact people the most, and who it would most negatively impact. And yes, when forced to choose I choose working people over wealthy CEOs. You don't have to vote with me, but at least vote.
25.10.12
An open letter to the men of the GOP and those that support them.
Dear GOP,
I feel like we need to get some things straight. Settle a few issues here. So the first thing
that bears mentioning is that women are equally as intelligent as men. This
means then when you talk, both women and men will be able to understand what
you meant by what you said. If you wish to correct something you said that you didn't mean, do like we were taught as children and apologize like you mean it.
OK, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let’s move
on. Can we please stop throwing around the word rape as if it’s just another
thing that happens? Rape is not a
natural occurrence, it is not something women should just have to accept they
will probably have to deal with, is not just another way to conceive a baby,
and it is not a punishment for dressing to promiscuously or for being too
drunk. Rape is a horrible event. The
word should make you cringe. The idea should make you shiver.
We would never imply a person deserved to get murdered. We
would never imply a person deserved to get assaulted or robbed. We would never
imply a person “was asking” for a crime to be committed against them. And we certainly would never imply that a
crime was in any way a gift from God. But we imply these things of rape. Why?
Why do we have, as Tiny Fey puts it “grey -faced [men] with
a two dollar haircut, explaining to [us] what rape is”? When is the last time
one of them was legitimately worried about getting raped? And if any of their
daughters were raped, would they still see it in this backwards way? My guess
is no. But I would also hypothesize that if those men do have daughters, none
of them would want to confide such a tragic event in their father.
1 out of every 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her
lifetime. I can think of 6 women that I care about without even trying and I
would not wish such an event on any of them, though it’s worth noting some of
the women I care about have probably already been sexually assaulted. And by
some I mean most likely MOST of the women I know have probably been sexually
assaulted. Why is this acceptable? Why is rape only being talked about in the
context of abortion?
Listen, I don’t love the idea of someone having an abortion
any more than you do. And we can argue
until the cows come home about the legality of abortion, this is a worthy
intellectual debate. Is a fetus a life or a cluster of cells? BUT when put in
the context rape, I will not be the person telling someone they must carry,
give birth to, and possibly raise the son of their rapist. I will not be the
person to tell someone that yes, they have to watch this baby that they gave
birth to slowly but surely look more and more like their father. When I child
begins to look more and more like one of their parents this should be a happy,
joyous event. For a mother to say to her child, “you look so much like your
father” should be a compliment because the mother loves/loved the father. But
to say to a child, “you are beginning to resemble my rapist”, that is not a
joyous event. I would not wish that on
anyone, nor would I implore them to go through it. If the mother chooses to
keep the baby, we should support her. But we cannot and should not require a
woman to carry for 9 months the reminder of what is likely one of, if not the,
worst event in her life.
More importantly though, your comments force us to realize
we need better sex education. How does a grown person not understand that
pregnancy cannot be prevented by the body?
How is it that a person has gone 50+ years without encountering a woman
who has been raped or assaulted? Surely, once you meet someone who has
experienced this you can begin to feel some compassion for her. You would begin to realize that there is no
distinction between “legitimate rape” and what I can only suppose would be
“illegitimate rape.”
Maybe instead of putting so much effort into proving that
pregnancy from rape is not such a bad thing, you should put all that effort
into preventing rape. Put that effort into raising boys (and girls) to respect
other people. I mean, if rape wasn't so
common maybe your ideas for what it is or what it means wouldn't be so
offensive.
You are telling the 200,000+ women that were sexually
assaulted in the last year that they failed. They messed up, and they deserved
this thing to happen to them. This kind of thinking, this kind of talking, this
will not help women. This will DISCOURAGE women from reporting sexual assaults
and rape to the police (which is already something tough to do). This will not
increase the number of rapists that go to jail; currently 97% of rapists never
spend a single day in jail. All the while their victims are living in fear of
this happening to them again. But now we are double shaming the survivors of
rape, we are telling them not only did they deserve this to happen to them, but
they better not have an abortion. I mean geez, how much harder could we
possibly make it?
Look, if you want to think you can control if someone takes
birth control, or has an abortion for other reasons, I will gladly discuss that
with you. But seriously, rape is a big
deal. It is not something to be thrown around as if it never happens. It is not
something to be talked about in theory. It is not something the woman did
wrong; it is something the RAPIST did wrong. And the woman should not be forced
to live with that forever.
A "not likely voter" voting against you.
18.10.12
Debate #2, the winner....debating.
Ok, so the debate. This one was better. And not just because Obama won, but because it was higher quality. Like when you watch football and the game is a good game because it's close until the hail mary pass during the final seconds of the fourth quarter, and you still remember that pass Eli threw years later. I hate when pundits and newscasters say things like, "well will the American people really like how aggressive the candidates were?" Of course they will, people want to hear their candidate say to the other the things they wish they could say. Duh. And besides, what is more exciting than watching to men get so close to punching each other all the while knowing the really really can't?
Now, the first thing is this. I want to apologize to Mitt. I think I've been to hard on him. First, he says he is a job creator, and I have said he is not. Well, think of all the comedians he created last night? Mitt should be nicknamed Rom-Com. Sometimes I feel like Romney is on the edge of saying something decent, and then he just loses me. Contrary to popular belief, before last night, I wasn't totally sold on Obama. Not that I was voting for Romney, which means I was stuck with voting for Obama, but I was feeling blue (pun intended) about voting for BO. But after last night, after Roms made me feel creeped out and weird and Obama reminded me of why I voted for him in the first place, I kinda feel like yeah, I wanna vote FOR Obama not AGAINST Romney. I call that a win for Obama. Here's why:
Romney:
First, I can't understand why Romney isn't explanatory. This is like beating a dead horse, so I'm really not going to talk about it, but seriously, I'm not dumb. Can you at least PRETEND to treat me like an intelligent person?
Second, we can make all the jokes we want about binders full of women, but really...what is Romney's deal with being stuck in the 90s? (at least he could get a tablet full of women or something). No, but seriously, the number of things that rubbed me the wrong way with what he was saying are infinite. I don't understand. I don't want to be hired out of a binder, on the second round, to fill a quota, but have to leave by 5 to put on an apron and make pot roast for my family. (lest they all go out and buy AK-47s, but thats another issue altogether). The look on the face of the girl who asked the question pretty much says it all, just like "um, ok, whatever". Listen, I work in an environment where the dude/chick ratio is like 90/10 literally. I don't need Romney making it worse and undermining my talents.
Third, single parent households = assault rifles? I mean, I think I can kind of see the point Mitt wanted to make, but he really really failed. Maybe because he doesn't believe it? Or he isn't allowed to say it? I don't know. But the connection between stable households and violence is a lot more complicated than just marrying up all our kids. "Chicago too violent? No probs, just be rich and white, like me!" <--That's literally how I felt. Not that easy.
It's not that easy. You can't just "be rich" or just "get money" or whatever it is Mitt Romney wants me to do to fix my problems. It takes work and effort and time. And sometimes digging yourself out of a hole sucks, but when it sucks, giving up and going back to way you were doing it before isn't really logical.
And lastly, Romney was sort of annoying. I know that's not a solid reason to not vote for someone, but he was condescending and rude and frustrating. Candy Crowley is far from my favorite talking head, but she can stand up for herself, and after watching her struggle against Romney (and Obama, but we'll get to that) I'm a little more understanding of what Jim Lehrer was going through. When the moderator tells you to shut up, shut up. I mean, I watched his little 2 minute clock turn yellow, then red, then go away, and he wasn't even showing signs of wanting to stop talking. Cool it Romney, this is not playground arguing this is grown up arguing, we have rules.
Obama:
So, the economy. Everyone keeps asking me if I'm better off than I was four years ago, and why yes, yes I am. Four years ago I was 21, I had no or expensive health insurance, I had a mediocre job and was told my parents are rich enough to help me pay for school so deal. Today, I have a better, more secure job, it comes with health care (that I can wait to use because I'm not 26) and a good 401(k). Also, those pell grants Obama keeps talking about...used 'em. Couldn't afford college without it. (This "oh just ask your parents for money" thing Romney says...not really plausible. My parents are not wealthy car company executives and politicians, they could not pay for 4 kids to go to college out of their pockets). So economically speaking, it doesn't really make any sense for me to not vote for Obama. And I'm sure there is a 21 year old kid out there that is in the same place I was 4 years ago, that needs Obama to stay.
Libya. Oh Libya. I can't believe Obama, who killed Bin Laden...wait what did Obama do in Libya? Right, Obama did nothing. I mean, for better or worse, what did Obama do? Nothing. Why? Who knows. What's going on? I don't know. This was bothering me. Obama is supposed to be strong on foreign relations, and seemingly he blew it. Well, as I read into the story, and as the debate unfolded, I'm no less frustrated with the fact that our embassy was attacked. But I'm glad Obama was able to answer some questions. Here is what i came away with: 1) who cares if he knew it was (or labeled it) an act of terror or not? Either way, he did call it that, but I don't know why that matters so much. Somebody died. 2) Mitt politicized it, Obama wanted the facts and justice. Honestly, I'll take the facts and justice over politics. Like I said, I don't care if he told us it was terror or not terror. I don't care if he called it the boogey man. Find who did it, and put them to justice without starting a war. Obama already killed Bin Laden, and ended the war in Iraq, so his track record for being able to handle the Libya thing is good. If somebody wants to tell me (because democrats and republicans both seem to care) why it matters if he called it an act of terror (or terrorism, which are the same thing unless you're 12) or not the day it happened, please do, because....really who cares? What matters is justice and not starting more wars.
The real kicker for me though when Obama was talking though was Guns. I hate guns. That is an understatement. There is no word to describe how I feel about guns. If it were up to me, no private citizen would own a gun, ever. Because...why do you need one? That is not realistic, which is why I'm not in charge of your gun collection. After the gazillions (scientific, i know, but that's how it feels isn't it?) of mass killings in this country, it really bothers me that no politician can just forget about his political party and stand up and speak out against guns, or for gun control. And for someone who is so often "accused" of being "leftist" Obama is really quiet about gun control. And so it began, that person asked about the assault rifle ban, and I was literally ready to just give up and not vote and be done with it. Maybe move to Canada. So here are the key things I got from Obama:
~ Don't remind me that you didn't go to Wisconsin to console the victims in the Sikh Temple by saying Aurora was the most recent place you had to console anyone. Bad plan. That being said,
~Obama did say he doesn't think military grade weapons need to be in the hands of private citizens.
~Then he also went on to the part that really sold me. He did not insult my intelligence, but rather reminded me why I voted for him in the first place. He reminded us all that while banning all guns is the quick and dirty "solution", the actual the solution is getting to the root of the problem. Finding out why we have a culture of violence, ensuring every child has access to a good education. (I think education can solve so many problems: decrease abortion rates, decrease hate crimes, decrease discrimination, decrease violence, decrease unemployment, etc). Making sure criminals are getting guns, and making sure people with mental illnesses aren't getting guns. (sidenote, while its important that both of those categories don't have guns, it's important that those with mental illnesses aren't seen as criminals).
~I'll vote for him, but I'll know he won't really follow through with it. At least I'll know he won't give MORE people guns...which is what Romney will do.
So Obama sold me on the gun issue, sort of.
What Obama really did was sell me on his ability to lead. The quick and dirty solutions sound good when things are falling apart but the best thing to do is stop and think and create the best solution, even if it takes a little longer. If it will make things more stable and less likely to fall apart. I would rather spend 8 years building a brick house than 4 years building a straw house. And while Obama was also kind of rude, he actually was way less arrogant than he usually is, maybe because Romney was so so so arrogant. And Obama was smart enough not to stand in front of the time counter thing, I mean that's tiny but still, I couldn't see when he was out of time. So I was less annoyed. Small victories lead to big wins.
"They" are saying the win goes to Obama, but barely. "They" also say that style matters more than substance. Not only did Obama win decisively, he said to Mitt some of the things I wanted to say to Mitt. We saw Mitt get questions asked to him directly and he just completely ignored them, really? Come on, man. Maybe Obama did the same thing, but he didn't avoid the questions we (or at least I) really needed answered, and Mitt DID avoid the questions I needed answered to (though I couldn't vote for him) at least see why voting for him would be an option.
(I'm hitting publish without checking for typos, sorry).
No it's MY turn! Photo credit
Now, the first thing is this. I want to apologize to Mitt. I think I've been to hard on him. First, he says he is a job creator, and I have said he is not. Well, think of all the comedians he created last night? Mitt should be nicknamed Rom-Com. Sometimes I feel like Romney is on the edge of saying something decent, and then he just loses me. Contrary to popular belief, before last night, I wasn't totally sold on Obama. Not that I was voting for Romney, which means I was stuck with voting for Obama, but I was feeling blue (pun intended) about voting for BO. But after last night, after Roms made me feel creeped out and weird and Obama reminded me of why I voted for him in the first place, I kinda feel like yeah, I wanna vote FOR Obama not AGAINST Romney. I call that a win for Obama. Here's why:
Romney:
First, I can't understand why Romney isn't explanatory. This is like beating a dead horse, so I'm really not going to talk about it, but seriously, I'm not dumb. Can you at least PRETEND to treat me like an intelligent person?
Second, we can make all the jokes we want about binders full of women, but really...what is Romney's deal with being stuck in the 90s? (at least he could get a tablet full of women or something). No, but seriously, the number of things that rubbed me the wrong way with what he was saying are infinite. I don't understand. I don't want to be hired out of a binder, on the second round, to fill a quota, but have to leave by 5 to put on an apron and make pot roast for my family. (lest they all go out and buy AK-47s, but thats another issue altogether). The look on the face of the girl who asked the question pretty much says it all, just like "um, ok, whatever". Listen, I work in an environment where the dude/chick ratio is like 90/10 literally. I don't need Romney making it worse and undermining my talents.
Third, single parent households = assault rifles? I mean, I think I can kind of see the point Mitt wanted to make, but he really really failed. Maybe because he doesn't believe it? Or he isn't allowed to say it? I don't know. But the connection between stable households and violence is a lot more complicated than just marrying up all our kids. "Chicago too violent? No probs, just be rich and white, like me!" <--That's literally how I felt. Not that easy.
It's not that easy. You can't just "be rich" or just "get money" or whatever it is Mitt Romney wants me to do to fix my problems. It takes work and effort and time. And sometimes digging yourself out of a hole sucks, but when it sucks, giving up and going back to way you were doing it before isn't really logical.
And lastly, Romney was sort of annoying. I know that's not a solid reason to not vote for someone, but he was condescending and rude and frustrating. Candy Crowley is far from my favorite talking head, but she can stand up for herself, and after watching her struggle against Romney (and Obama, but we'll get to that) I'm a little more understanding of what Jim Lehrer was going through. When the moderator tells you to shut up, shut up. I mean, I watched his little 2 minute clock turn yellow, then red, then go away, and he wasn't even showing signs of wanting to stop talking. Cool it Romney, this is not playground arguing this is grown up arguing, we have rules.
Obama:
So, the economy. Everyone keeps asking me if I'm better off than I was four years ago, and why yes, yes I am. Four years ago I was 21, I had no or expensive health insurance, I had a mediocre job and was told my parents are rich enough to help me pay for school so deal. Today, I have a better, more secure job, it comes with health care (that I can wait to use because I'm not 26) and a good 401(k). Also, those pell grants Obama keeps talking about...used 'em. Couldn't afford college without it. (This "oh just ask your parents for money" thing Romney says...not really plausible. My parents are not wealthy car company executives and politicians, they could not pay for 4 kids to go to college out of their pockets). So economically speaking, it doesn't really make any sense for me to not vote for Obama. And I'm sure there is a 21 year old kid out there that is in the same place I was 4 years ago, that needs Obama to stay.
Libya. Oh Libya. I can't believe Obama, who killed Bin Laden...wait what did Obama do in Libya? Right, Obama did nothing. I mean, for better or worse, what did Obama do? Nothing. Why? Who knows. What's going on? I don't know. This was bothering me. Obama is supposed to be strong on foreign relations, and seemingly he blew it. Well, as I read into the story, and as the debate unfolded, I'm no less frustrated with the fact that our embassy was attacked. But I'm glad Obama was able to answer some questions. Here is what i came away with: 1) who cares if he knew it was (or labeled it) an act of terror or not? Either way, he did call it that, but I don't know why that matters so much. Somebody died. 2) Mitt politicized it, Obama wanted the facts and justice. Honestly, I'll take the facts and justice over politics. Like I said, I don't care if he told us it was terror or not terror. I don't care if he called it the boogey man. Find who did it, and put them to justice without starting a war. Obama already killed Bin Laden, and ended the war in Iraq, so his track record for being able to handle the Libya thing is good. If somebody wants to tell me (because democrats and republicans both seem to care) why it matters if he called it an act of terror (or terrorism, which are the same thing unless you're 12) or not the day it happened, please do, because....really who cares? What matters is justice and not starting more wars.
The real kicker for me though when Obama was talking though was Guns. I hate guns. That is an understatement. There is no word to describe how I feel about guns. If it were up to me, no private citizen would own a gun, ever. Because...why do you need one? That is not realistic, which is why I'm not in charge of your gun collection. After the gazillions (scientific, i know, but that's how it feels isn't it?) of mass killings in this country, it really bothers me that no politician can just forget about his political party and stand up and speak out against guns, or for gun control. And for someone who is so often "accused" of being "leftist" Obama is really quiet about gun control. And so it began, that person asked about the assault rifle ban, and I was literally ready to just give up and not vote and be done with it. Maybe move to Canada. So here are the key things I got from Obama:
~ Don't remind me that you didn't go to Wisconsin to console the victims in the Sikh Temple by saying Aurora was the most recent place you had to console anyone. Bad plan. That being said,
~Obama did say he doesn't think military grade weapons need to be in the hands of private citizens.
~Then he also went on to the part that really sold me. He did not insult my intelligence, but rather reminded me why I voted for him in the first place. He reminded us all that while banning all guns is the quick and dirty "solution", the actual the solution is getting to the root of the problem. Finding out why we have a culture of violence, ensuring every child has access to a good education. (I think education can solve so many problems: decrease abortion rates, decrease hate crimes, decrease discrimination, decrease violence, decrease unemployment, etc). Making sure criminals are getting guns, and making sure people with mental illnesses aren't getting guns. (sidenote, while its important that both of those categories don't have guns, it's important that those with mental illnesses aren't seen as criminals).
~I'll vote for him, but I'll know he won't really follow through with it. At least I'll know he won't give MORE people guns...which is what Romney will do.
So Obama sold me on the gun issue, sort of.
What Obama really did was sell me on his ability to lead. The quick and dirty solutions sound good when things are falling apart but the best thing to do is stop and think and create the best solution, even if it takes a little longer. If it will make things more stable and less likely to fall apart. I would rather spend 8 years building a brick house than 4 years building a straw house. And while Obama was also kind of rude, he actually was way less arrogant than he usually is, maybe because Romney was so so so arrogant. And Obama was smart enough not to stand in front of the time counter thing, I mean that's tiny but still, I couldn't see when he was out of time. So I was less annoyed. Small victories lead to big wins.
"They" are saying the win goes to Obama, but barely. "They" also say that style matters more than substance. Not only did Obama win decisively, he said to Mitt some of the things I wanted to say to Mitt. We saw Mitt get questions asked to him directly and he just completely ignored them, really? Come on, man. Maybe Obama did the same thing, but he didn't avoid the questions we (or at least I) really needed answered, and Mitt DID avoid the questions I needed answered to (though I couldn't vote for him) at least see why voting for him would be an option.
(I'm hitting publish without checking for typos, sorry).
14.10.12
Hate Crimes: Longer than a status, in honor of Matthew Shepard (and James Byrd Jr)
I am glad you've decided to read this. I hope you read the whole thing. Nothing is more frustrating than when someone disagrees with something they refuse to listen to. Have you watched the John Corvino videos on Upworthy? You should. This is because I can only aspire to deliver my arguments as well and calmly as he can. Also, the ends of his videos are funny. I'm having a hard time finding the whole playlist of videos so here is just one: John Corvino: Is homosexuality unnatural?
To the point. There are some debates that everyone knows are going on and that are so emotional we generally don't engage in "at the dinner table". (or at work, or wherever it is you need to maintain a polite conversation). Abortion, capital punishment, the 1%, marriage equality are a few of these topics. Most of America has an opinion on one or more of those topics and that opinion is very very important to them and is an opinion they arrived at with emotion, not just thought. We also tend to surround ourselves with the people that we have things in common with and because of that we spend a lot of time with people that share our opinions on the big issues. (for some reason I feel like, and this is just personal anecdotal evidence, that even surrounding ourselves with people that share our opinions the abortion thing is STILL split pretty 50/50, weird and possibly not true, like I said just based on my personal experience).
That being said, being around people with whom we share so many opinions it's really easy to start to assume "everyone" feels one way, except of course the crazies. It's easy to forget that completely dismissing the counterpoint is pretty desctructive to our mixing-bowl of a society. It's easy to forget that the counter point might not just be some crazy bigot but might actually be a person with thoughts and opinions just like you. This goes for liberals AND conservatives. I feel like a conservative person might be reading this and saying "yeah those liberals need to start seeing things from my perspective" or a liberal person saying the same about a conservative person. Nope, EVERYONE needs to see things from the opposite viewpoint, that's how we make progress. Why did this even come up? Why did I all of a sudden decide to stop and lecture you about walking a mile in a pair of Toms (or fancy black dress shoes, I don't know what shoes conservatives wear stereotypically...ideas welcome)?
Because October 11th was National Coming Out day and while I assume even pro-traditional marriage folks would be for that, I never stopped to ask, maybe they aren't. And because Oct 12th was the anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard and I found out that not everyone is for hate crimes laws, and at first I got mad, it took full day before I stopped and asked how that could be. Because Romney is leading in the polls, which means somebody is actually voting for him, there must be a reason, 50% of the country is not crazy lunatics. (also, 50% of the country is voting for Obama...not crazy lunatics). But I can't write about all of it in one post, so I'm going to focus...this is about hate crimes laws. This is why some people aren't for them (for the hippy kids) and why I think they are really really important (for the conservative people). By the way, remember the movie Cars? And the two cars? The Army car and the Hippy car? This reminds me of that, they were friends.
So hate crimes. I guess we should start by defining what a hate crime is, so we are all on the same page. Here is the definition straight from google, when I say "hate crime" assume this is what I mean: A crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. Matthew Shepard isn't the only victim of a hate crime, and gay people aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Hate crimes aren't only committed by adults in alleys, they aren't only committed by people that have been hateful their whole lives. Much like with rape, hate crimes can and do happen everywhere, all the time, constantly. Bullying, while not a hate crime, is (for lack of better terminology) the gateway drug to a hate crime, which is why bullying is really really bad. The one thing I found we all agree on is that innocent people should not be getting killed, so that's good.
So why be against hate crimes laws? It's a fair question, and one that a lot of people are wondering. So I asked, with great trepidation, because I couldn't imagine a good answer to that question. So the first thing that I heard that really stuck out was the million dollar term "special treatment" I don't mean to take away from the argument by taking it down to two words, there is more to it if you keep reading. But we have all heard the phrase "special treatment" before in regards to a lot of things. In this case the question is, why should blacks/gays/women/other minorities receive special treatment when it comes to murder/abuse/assault? That is a fair question. Killers of straight, white, middle-aged men should also be put to justice, we shouldn't let them run free just because their victim wasn't a minority. The unfortunate truth is that we don't live in a perfect world. White men aren't often killed because they are white, or male.
If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws. There would never have been affirmative action to fight about. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would never have needed to be passed. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where if someone is black, they are probably stealing. If someone is gay (or seems like maybe they might be kinda gay) they are probably going to hit on you or turn you gay. We live in a world where people are afraid that the minorities will "take over" and become the majority and it's scary to think that you might end up being the minority. And in our world, when somebody kills a gay kid, they don't always have to go to prison for it. When somebody kills a black kid, they can cry self defense, because he was probably in a gang anyways. We live in a world where the "gay panic defense" is a real thing. I think the term "special treatment" has negative connotations. But, yes, minority groups need a little bit of extra protection to make sure that 1) they aren't killed because of who they are and 2) if violence is inflicted upon them, justice is done.
The other piece of the argument was that people get killed for all sorts of ridiculous things. There are people out there that are full of hate and will kill people because they are too short, or wear glasses, or drive to slow, or are wearing the wrong jeans. Should we add all those things to the list of hate crimes? No, probably not, but I mean if killing people with glasses becomes something that's happening A LOT then yes, we should. See, the hate crimes laws thing came about because too many people were getting killed for who they were, it didn't come out of thin air. It was not random. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act is named after two people who were killed, Matt was gay and James was black, they were killed for those reasons. It's not called the "we think someone might get killed someday" law. It's not something that used to happen and doesn't happen anymore.
Lawrence King was murdered at age 15 by a classmate because he was gay in 2008 (might have been 2009). And remember the whole shenanigans over Trevon Martin? (that might be a bad example because I didn't follow the case and have no idea how it turned out). But the point is kids and adults are still today getting beaten, abused, bullied, and killed because of who they are. No, they don't deserve more rights to not be murdered than the white man in a suit, but they are more likely to get murdered than him, so they deserve more protection. Hate crimes laws won't stop hate crimes. It will put more people behind bars for doing it, it will build tolerance, and it will hopefully deter hateful people from being violent towards the groups of people they hate. (if you hate someone...just blog about it, don't kill them).
Listen, the point is it's first important that we understand that nobody WANTS people to get murdered. (if you do please seek help). But it's also important to recognize that minority groups do really get killed for being that minority. It is not something people say, it's not something that used to happen in 1998. I saw a picture on facebook of a man wearing a shirt that said "Romney 2012, put the white back in the white house" (vote for Romney if you want, but that shirt is racist and that shouldn't be the reason). Racism, homophobia, sexism these things are still out there. What's really interesting to me is that (again, anecdotally) people seem the least willing to protect gay people with hate crimes laws. If these laws were to protect just women and racial minorities would you be more supportive?
Watch this video.
To the point. There are some debates that everyone knows are going on and that are so emotional we generally don't engage in "at the dinner table". (or at work, or wherever it is you need to maintain a polite conversation). Abortion, capital punishment, the 1%, marriage equality are a few of these topics. Most of America has an opinion on one or more of those topics and that opinion is very very important to them and is an opinion they arrived at with emotion, not just thought. We also tend to surround ourselves with the people that we have things in common with and because of that we spend a lot of time with people that share our opinions on the big issues. (for some reason I feel like, and this is just personal anecdotal evidence, that even surrounding ourselves with people that share our opinions the abortion thing is STILL split pretty 50/50, weird and possibly not true, like I said just based on my personal experience).
That being said, being around people with whom we share so many opinions it's really easy to start to assume "everyone" feels one way, except of course the crazies. It's easy to forget that completely dismissing the counterpoint is pretty desctructive to our mixing-bowl of a society. It's easy to forget that the counter point might not just be some crazy bigot but might actually be a person with thoughts and opinions just like you. This goes for liberals AND conservatives. I feel like a conservative person might be reading this and saying "yeah those liberals need to start seeing things from my perspective" or a liberal person saying the same about a conservative person. Nope, EVERYONE needs to see things from the opposite viewpoint, that's how we make progress. Why did this even come up? Why did I all of a sudden decide to stop and lecture you about walking a mile in a pair of Toms (or fancy black dress shoes, I don't know what shoes conservatives wear stereotypically...ideas welcome)?
Because October 11th was National Coming Out day and while I assume even pro-traditional marriage folks would be for that, I never stopped to ask, maybe they aren't. And because Oct 12th was the anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard and I found out that not everyone is for hate crimes laws, and at first I got mad, it took full day before I stopped and asked how that could be. Because Romney is leading in the polls, which means somebody is actually voting for him, there must be a reason, 50% of the country is not crazy lunatics. (also, 50% of the country is voting for Obama...not crazy lunatics). But I can't write about all of it in one post, so I'm going to focus...this is about hate crimes laws. This is why some people aren't for them (for the hippy kids) and why I think they are really really important (for the conservative people). By the way, remember the movie Cars? And the two cars? The Army car and the Hippy car? This reminds me of that, they were friends.
So hate crimes. I guess we should start by defining what a hate crime is, so we are all on the same page. Here is the definition straight from google, when I say "hate crime" assume this is what I mean: A crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. Matthew Shepard isn't the only victim of a hate crime, and gay people aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Hate crimes aren't only committed by adults in alleys, they aren't only committed by people that have been hateful their whole lives. Much like with rape, hate crimes can and do happen everywhere, all the time, constantly. Bullying, while not a hate crime, is (for lack of better terminology) the gateway drug to a hate crime, which is why bullying is really really bad. The one thing I found we all agree on is that innocent people should not be getting killed, so that's good.
So why be against hate crimes laws? It's a fair question, and one that a lot of people are wondering. So I asked, with great trepidation, because I couldn't imagine a good answer to that question. So the first thing that I heard that really stuck out was the million dollar term "special treatment" I don't mean to take away from the argument by taking it down to two words, there is more to it if you keep reading. But we have all heard the phrase "special treatment" before in regards to a lot of things. In this case the question is, why should blacks/gays/women/other minorities receive special treatment when it comes to murder/abuse/assault? That is a fair question. Killers of straight, white, middle-aged men should also be put to justice, we shouldn't let them run free just because their victim wasn't a minority. The unfortunate truth is that we don't live in a perfect world. White men aren't often killed because they are white, or male.
If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws. There would never have been affirmative action to fight about. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would never have needed to be passed. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where if someone is black, they are probably stealing. If someone is gay (or seems like maybe they might be kinda gay) they are probably going to hit on you or turn you gay. We live in a world where people are afraid that the minorities will "take over" and become the majority and it's scary to think that you might end up being the minority. And in our world, when somebody kills a gay kid, they don't always have to go to prison for it. When somebody kills a black kid, they can cry self defense, because he was probably in a gang anyways. We live in a world where the "gay panic defense" is a real thing. I think the term "special treatment" has negative connotations. But, yes, minority groups need a little bit of extra protection to make sure that 1) they aren't killed because of who they are and 2) if violence is inflicted upon them, justice is done.
The other piece of the argument was that people get killed for all sorts of ridiculous things. There are people out there that are full of hate and will kill people because they are too short, or wear glasses, or drive to slow, or are wearing the wrong jeans. Should we add all those things to the list of hate crimes? No, probably not, but I mean if killing people with glasses becomes something that's happening A LOT then yes, we should. See, the hate crimes laws thing came about because too many people were getting killed for who they were, it didn't come out of thin air. It was not random. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act is named after two people who were killed, Matt was gay and James was black, they were killed for those reasons. It's not called the "we think someone might get killed someday" law. It's not something that used to happen and doesn't happen anymore.
Lawrence King was murdered at age 15 by a classmate because he was gay in 2008 (might have been 2009). And remember the whole shenanigans over Trevon Martin? (that might be a bad example because I didn't follow the case and have no idea how it turned out). But the point is kids and adults are still today getting beaten, abused, bullied, and killed because of who they are. No, they don't deserve more rights to not be murdered than the white man in a suit, but they are more likely to get murdered than him, so they deserve more protection. Hate crimes laws won't stop hate crimes. It will put more people behind bars for doing it, it will build tolerance, and it will hopefully deter hateful people from being violent towards the groups of people they hate. (if you hate someone...just blog about it, don't kill them).
Listen, the point is it's first important that we understand that nobody WANTS people to get murdered. (if you do please seek help). But it's also important to recognize that minority groups do really get killed for being that minority. It is not something people say, it's not something that used to happen in 1998. I saw a picture on facebook of a man wearing a shirt that said "Romney 2012, put the white back in the white house" (vote for Romney if you want, but that shirt is racist and that shouldn't be the reason). Racism, homophobia, sexism these things are still out there. What's really interesting to me is that (again, anecdotally) people seem the least willing to protect gay people with hate crimes laws. If these laws were to protect just women and racial minorities would you be more supportive?
Watch this video.
5.10.12
The Rudest of all Americans: A Debate Analysis.
I heard this real snippet on NPR today.
Anchor: it (I missed the beginning so idk what 'it' is) shows that most people liked what Obama was saying when he was talking. But Romney won the debate. How is it that Romney won if most people like what Obama had to say?
Guest (whose credentials I don't know): Well, in a debate you have to also factor in stylistic points. And that is where Romney won. Obama was looking down at his podium more, while Romney was looking at his opponent and the moderator.
Really? Is that what this has come to? Romney won because he looked down the podium less? Here is a real (because obviously my thoughts are the most important :-) analysis of the debate:
First of all, neither guy really succeeded. I'm sorry, but in a debate, you should respect the moderator and not force him to let you have the last word or keep talking. Do not go over your time, do not be ridiculous. Do not get into a childish "yes you do" "no I don't" banter. Seriously, you are supposed to be the next (and/or) current president of the united states of america. You can't have a more intelligent debate than I had with my brother when I was 5 and he was 7 about whose fault it was that we were in trouble? That is ridiculous. Advantage: Nobody. Epic fail.
Second of all, obviously Mitt Romney was flailing. He was making stuff up, agreeing and simultaneously disagreeing with everything the president said. He was trying to court voters who are going with Obama, but still keep his opinions the same, while having opinions that people like. What? That sentence makes about as much sense as Romney did last night.
I'm going to cut taxes for everyone, but leave everyone's taxes the same and not increase revenue. And this will make the deficit go away. Look, usually I leave the economics to the experts. I'm not fond of economics, it's complicated and nuanced and I'd rather stick to issues that impact our everyday lives. But even I know basic math. Here is a hypothetical explanation of what Romney is saying.
Romney says, we have a deficit and to solve it we have to decrease income from section A (taxes) but NOT increase revenue from anywhere else. Negative number minus other number does NOT equal a positive number. -5 - 10 = -15 NOT +1500. He has said his plan is revenue neutral, which since he won't give details I have to assume means no extra or less revenue. I mean, I have a bank account. I can decrease spending and yes that helps, but I also HAVE to increase my revenue in order to quickly solve any problems. ESPECIALLY if I'm in the hole. If I'm at -$15 and I stop spending money I will remain at -$15 forever, unless I find someway to bring in money.
But Romney also wants to cut taxes across the board for everyone. Ok, so if I'm at -$15 and then I take less hours at work, how is that going to help? Answer: It's not. In order to decrease a debt you have to both decrease spending and increase revenue. As with any budget, you have to decide what is worth spending money on and what is not.
We all have some experience with budgets. Whether it be accidental or planned. We all have to figure out how to at least break even if not make money. And when we make our budgets we start with the basics. You HAVE to pay for the roof over your head, whether it's rent or mortgage. You have to pay for the food that you eat, whatever that may be. You have to pay for your utilities and your transportation to and from work. You have to pay your medical bills. After you've taken care of the essentials, you look at what else you want that you have money for. And make priorities: cable/internet, going out for entertainment, your hobby, your fun purchases etc. I feel like Romney doesn't get that, and maybe it's because he has never had a budget of his own before. Maybe he is worried about his own special interests more than getting rid of the debt. Who knows, but he doesn't seem to understand that to balance a budget you have to take ALL those things into consideration. Not just cut PBS, cut taxes, cut cut cut cut cut. Some things are worth spending money on. But you also have to figure out how to bring IN revenue to pay for the things worth paying for. This really bothers me. If Romney's economic plan is so non-sensical that 1) I understand how it won't work and 2) care than there is a serious problem.
This is not to say Obama's plan is perfect, but if these are my only two choices I will go with the guy that understands how a budget works. Advantage: by a hair...Obama.
Third, the most frustrating thing uttered all night was said by Mitt Romney. He quoted the declaration of independence and said that everyone is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Ah, something Mitt and I agree on. Oh, nope wrong. He means that we are all endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to pursue the happiness that the GOP decides is acceptable. We are not to pursue happiness if it conflicts with the morals of the GOP. (they like to call these "christian" morals, but I beg to differ, I think christianity is better than the GOP). I mean, I'm not pro-choice. But I mean, Mitt set himself up for the "what about women that want to pursue happiness via not going through with pregnancy?" argument. But a good point is, abortion aside, what about women that want to pursue happiness via quality health care, I mean there is more to women's health than abortions, and the GOP wants to effectively put women's health as a side issue. What about people that want to pursue happiness via getting married, or having a surogate mother for the their child, or want a child but have to do it via AI? What about all the minorities that want to pursue happiness by being allowed to actually do things, and not being purged from voter lists or forced to prove their citizenship every few weeks? Mitt is preventing happiness galore. Ah, but the 1% will be happy having more money than they had before. While the rest of us get poorer and poorer and pay more and more taxes. Will the 1% even notice an extra $40 in their bank accounts? A regular person would, a lot. I'm just saying, if Mitt really wanted to protect a persons right to pursue happiness I would vote for him in a second. But again, Obama is more likely to make sure the poor have food and shelter, and to protect minority groups. Advantage: Obama.
And lastly was the rock-star quote from Obama that somehow got over-looked. "Do you think he won't tell us because they [his policies] are too good? They will help the middle class too much?" Exactly. At least Bill and Obama kinda broke down their ideas. Mitt won't explain how without obamacare I will still be protected. No matter how you slice it, I will be negatively effected by a repeal of Obamacare. Pre-existing condition: check. Female: check. floating in some limbo between poor enough to get assistance and rich enough to be able to afford stuff: check. With Obamacare: my migraines are "cured" and I was able to acquire a $1000 medication for $25. Without Obamacare: I have to get insurance within 3 months of my 26th birthday or who knows what will happen. (disclaimer: because of my job, having insurance post 26 won't be difficult, but not every 20-something works for a company that can afford great benefits and before I was let back onto my dad's insurance, I had crappy insurance because I didn't have this job yet). I will not vote for someone who wants to repeal Obamacare unless they give a good reason why and an explanation of how to replace it so people don't lose everything. Advantage: Obama (except it's kinda arrogant how much he likes the term Obamacare, but who wouldn't like to have such a historic health care reform named after them?)
Romney won't explain his tax plan, will my taxes go up or stay the same? If the rich don't have a tax increase and poor don't have a tax increase where is your revenue coming from? Which loopholes are you closing? It is the home ownership tax deduction? Is the the educational tax deduction? Is the the child credit? It is something that Mitt doesn't want us to know.
Here is the list of things Mitt Romney doesn't want us to know:
That he got a tax return probably. And got it by donating to his OWN charitable organization.
How he is going to solve the debt problem.
His tax plan for the country. And his budget.
What he will put in to replace obamacare.
I say again, is it because those things are TOO good? Advantage: Obama
So yeah, style goes to Romney. And the ability to yell and be annoying until the other guy doesn't even wanna debate you goes to Romney. But actual presidential policies and worthiness of being the leader of America....Obama is the better choice. Winner...maybe if he hadn't been so rude to the moderator. But definitely the better choice.
Anchor: it (I missed the beginning so idk what 'it' is) shows that most people liked what Obama was saying when he was talking. But Romney won the debate. How is it that Romney won if most people like what Obama had to say?
Guest (whose credentials I don't know): Well, in a debate you have to also factor in stylistic points. And that is where Romney won. Obama was looking down at his podium more, while Romney was looking at his opponent and the moderator.
Really? Is that what this has come to? Romney won because he looked down the podium less? Here is a real (because obviously my thoughts are the most important :-) analysis of the debate:
First of all, neither guy really succeeded. I'm sorry, but in a debate, you should respect the moderator and not force him to let you have the last word or keep talking. Do not go over your time, do not be ridiculous. Do not get into a childish "yes you do" "no I don't" banter. Seriously, you are supposed to be the next (and/or) current president of the united states of america. You can't have a more intelligent debate than I had with my brother when I was 5 and he was 7 about whose fault it was that we were in trouble? That is ridiculous. Advantage: Nobody. Epic fail.
Second of all, obviously Mitt Romney was flailing. He was making stuff up, agreeing and simultaneously disagreeing with everything the president said. He was trying to court voters who are going with Obama, but still keep his opinions the same, while having opinions that people like. What? That sentence makes about as much sense as Romney did last night.
I'm going to cut taxes for everyone, but leave everyone's taxes the same and not increase revenue. And this will make the deficit go away. Look, usually I leave the economics to the experts. I'm not fond of economics, it's complicated and nuanced and I'd rather stick to issues that impact our everyday lives. But even I know basic math. Here is a hypothetical explanation of what Romney is saying.
Romney says, we have a deficit and to solve it we have to decrease income from section A (taxes) but NOT increase revenue from anywhere else. Negative number minus other number does NOT equal a positive number. -5 - 10 = -15 NOT +1500. He has said his plan is revenue neutral, which since he won't give details I have to assume means no extra or less revenue. I mean, I have a bank account. I can decrease spending and yes that helps, but I also HAVE to increase my revenue in order to quickly solve any problems. ESPECIALLY if I'm in the hole. If I'm at -$15 and I stop spending money I will remain at -$15 forever, unless I find someway to bring in money.
But Romney also wants to cut taxes across the board for everyone. Ok, so if I'm at -$15 and then I take less hours at work, how is that going to help? Answer: It's not. In order to decrease a debt you have to both decrease spending and increase revenue. As with any budget, you have to decide what is worth spending money on and what is not.
We all have some experience with budgets. Whether it be accidental or planned. We all have to figure out how to at least break even if not make money. And when we make our budgets we start with the basics. You HAVE to pay for the roof over your head, whether it's rent or mortgage. You have to pay for the food that you eat, whatever that may be. You have to pay for your utilities and your transportation to and from work. You have to pay your medical bills. After you've taken care of the essentials, you look at what else you want that you have money for. And make priorities: cable/internet, going out for entertainment, your hobby, your fun purchases etc. I feel like Romney doesn't get that, and maybe it's because he has never had a budget of his own before. Maybe he is worried about his own special interests more than getting rid of the debt. Who knows, but he doesn't seem to understand that to balance a budget you have to take ALL those things into consideration. Not just cut PBS, cut taxes, cut cut cut cut cut. Some things are worth spending money on. But you also have to figure out how to bring IN revenue to pay for the things worth paying for. This really bothers me. If Romney's economic plan is so non-sensical that 1) I understand how it won't work and 2) care than there is a serious problem.
This is not to say Obama's plan is perfect, but if these are my only two choices I will go with the guy that understands how a budget works. Advantage: by a hair...Obama.
Third, the most frustrating thing uttered all night was said by Mitt Romney. He quoted the declaration of independence and said that everyone is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Ah, something Mitt and I agree on. Oh, nope wrong. He means that we are all endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to pursue the happiness that the GOP decides is acceptable. We are not to pursue happiness if it conflicts with the morals of the GOP. (they like to call these "christian" morals, but I beg to differ, I think christianity is better than the GOP). I mean, I'm not pro-choice. But I mean, Mitt set himself up for the "what about women that want to pursue happiness via not going through with pregnancy?" argument. But a good point is, abortion aside, what about women that want to pursue happiness via quality health care, I mean there is more to women's health than abortions, and the GOP wants to effectively put women's health as a side issue. What about people that want to pursue happiness via getting married, or having a surogate mother for the their child, or want a child but have to do it via AI? What about all the minorities that want to pursue happiness by being allowed to actually do things, and not being purged from voter lists or forced to prove their citizenship every few weeks? Mitt is preventing happiness galore. Ah, but the 1% will be happy having more money than they had before. While the rest of us get poorer and poorer and pay more and more taxes. Will the 1% even notice an extra $40 in their bank accounts? A regular person would, a lot. I'm just saying, if Mitt really wanted to protect a persons right to pursue happiness I would vote for him in a second. But again, Obama is more likely to make sure the poor have food and shelter, and to protect minority groups. Advantage: Obama.
And lastly was the rock-star quote from Obama that somehow got over-looked. "Do you think he won't tell us because they [his policies] are too good? They will help the middle class too much?" Exactly. At least Bill and Obama kinda broke down their ideas. Mitt won't explain how without obamacare I will still be protected. No matter how you slice it, I will be negatively effected by a repeal of Obamacare. Pre-existing condition: check. Female: check. floating in some limbo between poor enough to get assistance and rich enough to be able to afford stuff: check. With Obamacare: my migraines are "cured" and I was able to acquire a $1000 medication for $25. Without Obamacare: I have to get insurance within 3 months of my 26th birthday or who knows what will happen. (disclaimer: because of my job, having insurance post 26 won't be difficult, but not every 20-something works for a company that can afford great benefits and before I was let back onto my dad's insurance, I had crappy insurance because I didn't have this job yet). I will not vote for someone who wants to repeal Obamacare unless they give a good reason why and an explanation of how to replace it so people don't lose everything. Advantage: Obama (except it's kinda arrogant how much he likes the term Obamacare, but who wouldn't like to have such a historic health care reform named after them?)
Romney won't explain his tax plan, will my taxes go up or stay the same? If the rich don't have a tax increase and poor don't have a tax increase where is your revenue coming from? Which loopholes are you closing? It is the home ownership tax deduction? Is the the educational tax deduction? Is the the child credit? It is something that Mitt doesn't want us to know.
Here is the list of things Mitt Romney doesn't want us to know:
That he got a tax return probably. And got it by donating to his OWN charitable organization.
How he is going to solve the debt problem.
His tax plan for the country. And his budget.
What he will put in to replace obamacare.
I say again, is it because those things are TOO good? Advantage: Obama
So yeah, style goes to Romney. And the ability to yell and be annoying until the other guy doesn't even wanna debate you goes to Romney. But actual presidential policies and worthiness of being the leader of America....Obama is the better choice. Winner...maybe if he hadn't been so rude to the moderator. But definitely the better choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)