I created this blog a while back to vent my frustrations about things that are happening in the world - mostly in politics. The Bush Administration has given me many reasons to be frustrated. But I've found that "venting" doesn't really help me and I'm not sure it helps anyone else either. I get more frustrated writing the article and then it makes me think of more things that bother me that are mostly out of my control. I find myself driving home at night thinking of blog articles I want to write (most of which I forget later) and by the time I get home I'm all stressed out.
Today I was reading my Sister's blog which is a collection of positive, self help type articles. It made me realize that what I need to do is stop complaining and try to create change by positive thinking. This will probably not be easy for me to do at first but I'm going to give it a try.
I would like to continue to comment on things that I find of concern, but there must be a better way to word it so that they are based on positive thinking. I'm excited by the concept - let's see what I can do!
Friday, April 21, 2006
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
How Democrats Can Win
I watch two political comedy shows that I find very funny, entertaining and even informative. They are "Real Time with Bill Mahr" and "The Daily Show" with John Stewart. Both of these shows have political guests that are mostly supportive of the Democratic party.
A central theme has developed on these shows since the last presidential election. They suggest that the Democrats need to get some "balls" and become more like Republicans in their political strategy. This is a bad move in my opinion. Republicans are better at politics true - but politics is a dirty game. Republicans win because they twist the truth, have more money to spend and as our current investigations are proving, are corrupt and fraudulent. That's not what the Democrats are or what we should become.
The Democrats are fine the way they are. We actually are what the Republicans claim to be. We are a kinder, gentler group of people. We have actual faith in God rather than blind religion. We believe in less government and personal privacy and true freedom. We are not Hippocrates and thieves. We believe in equal opportunity for all - not just a certain group of people. We are pro-people, not pro-corporation. We do not need to change these good values.
So what do we need to do to win elections? One thing - get people in our party to vote! For all the positive characteristics I mentioned above we have one mighty flaw. So many in our party expect someone else to get things done. But the job is up to each of us. We must ALL get out and vote.
I believe that the number of people who support the Democratic theology far outnumber the conservative Republicans. John Kerry, while not my first choice, would have made a fine president and I think a lot of people supported him. The problem was not a weak candidate. The problem was weak voters.
That is where we need to put our effort and money - to get people in the Democratic party to get out and vote. Of course we also need a good strong person to vote for - but not one who acts like a Republican.
A central theme has developed on these shows since the last presidential election. They suggest that the Democrats need to get some "balls" and become more like Republicans in their political strategy. This is a bad move in my opinion. Republicans are better at politics true - but politics is a dirty game. Republicans win because they twist the truth, have more money to spend and as our current investigations are proving, are corrupt and fraudulent. That's not what the Democrats are or what we should become.
The Democrats are fine the way they are. We actually are what the Republicans claim to be. We are a kinder, gentler group of people. We have actual faith in God rather than blind religion. We believe in less government and personal privacy and true freedom. We are not Hippocrates and thieves. We believe in equal opportunity for all - not just a certain group of people. We are pro-people, not pro-corporation. We do not need to change these good values.
So what do we need to do to win elections? One thing - get people in our party to vote! For all the positive characteristics I mentioned above we have one mighty flaw. So many in our party expect someone else to get things done. But the job is up to each of us. We must ALL get out and vote.
I believe that the number of people who support the Democratic theology far outnumber the conservative Republicans. John Kerry, while not my first choice, would have made a fine president and I think a lot of people supported him. The problem was not a weak candidate. The problem was weak voters.
That is where we need to put our effort and money - to get people in the Democratic party to get out and vote. Of course we also need a good strong person to vote for - but not one who acts like a Republican.
An Army of None
President Bush has said that to question the progress and/or motivation for the war in Iraq sends the wrong signal to the troops who are over there fighting the war. I have another question. What kind of signal are you sending to potential recruits when people that should be fired are not? Several retired top military officials are calling for Rumsfeld to resign and President Bush ignores those suggestions saying he believes he is doing a good job. Rumsfeld is clearly a failure in his position and should have been fired years ago. He continues to lead in the wrong direction and apparently that is just fine with "W".
If I were a young man / woman considering a future with the military, I'd have a big problem with that.
Imagine if Enron were still around with the same management, doing the same wrong things with the same bad results. How many executives would be lining up to join that company? How many stockholders would support that? Of course that can't happen in business because once people know - they won't buy that stock. If that were true in politics Bush would have never been re-elected.
If I were a young man / woman considering a future with the military, I'd have a big problem with that.
Imagine if Enron were still around with the same management, doing the same wrong things with the same bad results. How many executives would be lining up to join that company? How many stockholders would support that? Of course that can't happen in business because once people know - they won't buy that stock. If that were true in politics Bush would have never been re-elected.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Port Hole
Any word yet on which American company is taking over the Port management we didn't allow the United Arab Emirates to buy? Anyone?
Why isn't the media asking this question? Are we better off now? Are we safer? Who is it? I want to know.
Why isn't the media asking this question? Are we better off now? Are we safer? Who is it? I want to know.
"Gay" By Any Other Name
I had an interesting e-mail conversation with my good friend Toine tonight regarding the term "Same Gender Loving". It's a phrase that is being accepted in the black community rather than the word "Gay". I first commented on this in my article called "The Other List". Toine, being black and at least partially Same Gender Loving is a good person to have this conversation with because he sees the other perspective. Here are some excerpts from our conversation:
D - I’m reading the newsletter from the Bishop . (a local e-mail list) I’m irritated that the blk gay folk now want to use the term “Same Gender Loving” as if “gay” only refers to wht folk. I also found that term being used in Clique magazine. I hate all these labels and acronyms.
T - I read the newsletter. I don’t know why/when blk gay folk started using that term. I don’t think Same Gender Loving people think "gay" refers to wht folk. I think they may be trying to make the point that when the term is used, is mainly associated with wht folk.
D - I thought it was associated with gay folk.
T - Not according to some Same Gender Loving folk.
D - Well homosexual is homosexual no matter what word(s) you use. It’s difficult to be politically correct when the terms keep changing. And the terms keep changing because people don’t want to be who they are. But you can only change the term – you can’t change who you are.
T - The point is that it probably has more to do with race and being accepted into the larger "gay" society than it has to do with sexual orientation.
D - If a dude got more than one dik in him – he gay. LOL
T - LOL I think you’re still missing the point. It’s not about being just gay. It's about being colored and being accepted into the larger gay, i.e. white, society. There is a distinction.
D - I don’t think there should be a distinction (even though I agree there is one). But if there is a distinction – it rests totally on the side of the blk folk in my opinion. No wht person would say you can’t be gay because you are not wht. Why can’t everyone use the same words? It doesn’t really make sense to me. Further – if gay blk folk are Same Gender Loving – then so am I and all those other gays. Will the blk gays get offended if we also use that term?
T - Everyone says that they don’t think that there should be a distinction but yet there still is. Go figure. I don’t think its accurate to say that the perception lies solely with blk folk. Something perpetuates the distinction. If you don’t think so, consider this as an example. Why is it that a wht guy can be "ok" with having sex with a blk guy, as long as his friends don’t know, but not be comfortable dating a blk guy? I know the opposite is also true but the root cause of that is based on race and what the larger society thinks.
D - Well all that I can agree with 100%. So do you think using “Same Gender Loving” instead of “Gay” breaks down that distinction or perpetuates it?
T - I don’t think its meant to do either. I think one of the points was to come up with something that allows Same Gender Loving folk to not have to look to the larger gay society to define themselves. However, I wasn't at the Same Gender Loving People meeting so that's only my best guess.
D - I’m reading the newsletter from the Bishop . (a local e-mail list) I’m irritated that the blk gay folk now want to use the term “Same Gender Loving” as if “gay” only refers to wht folk. I also found that term being used in Clique magazine. I hate all these labels and acronyms.
T - I read the newsletter. I don’t know why/when blk gay folk started using that term. I don’t think Same Gender Loving people think "gay" refers to wht folk. I think they may be trying to make the point that when the term is used, is mainly associated with wht folk.
D - I thought it was associated with gay folk.
T - Not according to some Same Gender Loving folk.
D - Well homosexual is homosexual no matter what word(s) you use. It’s difficult to be politically correct when the terms keep changing. And the terms keep changing because people don’t want to be who they are. But you can only change the term – you can’t change who you are.
T - The point is that it probably has more to do with race and being accepted into the larger "gay" society than it has to do with sexual orientation.
D - If a dude got more than one dik in him – he gay. LOL
T - LOL I think you’re still missing the point. It’s not about being just gay. It's about being colored and being accepted into the larger gay, i.e. white, society. There is a distinction.
D - I don’t think there should be a distinction (even though I agree there is one). But if there is a distinction – it rests totally on the side of the blk folk in my opinion. No wht person would say you can’t be gay because you are not wht. Why can’t everyone use the same words? It doesn’t really make sense to me. Further – if gay blk folk are Same Gender Loving – then so am I and all those other gays. Will the blk gays get offended if we also use that term?
T - Everyone says that they don’t think that there should be a distinction but yet there still is. Go figure. I don’t think its accurate to say that the perception lies solely with blk folk. Something perpetuates the distinction. If you don’t think so, consider this as an example. Why is it that a wht guy can be "ok" with having sex with a blk guy, as long as his friends don’t know, but not be comfortable dating a blk guy? I know the opposite is also true but the root cause of that is based on race and what the larger society thinks.
D - Well all that I can agree with 100%. So do you think using “Same Gender Loving” instead of “Gay” breaks down that distinction or perpetuates it?
T - I don’t think its meant to do either. I think one of the points was to come up with something that allows Same Gender Loving folk to not have to look to the larger gay society to define themselves. However, I wasn't at the Same Gender Loving People meeting so that's only my best guess.
Monday, April 03, 2006
No Hero
As I've said before, I am against Capital Punishment, but there is a better reason not to execute Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person being charged in this country in connection with 9/11.
Right now he can be viewed as a failure because he did not complete his mission of terror. If we were to execute him for his crimes he could then be viewed as a martyr by those who support his cause. Being alive is worse than death for this type of terrorist. We shouldn't help him complete his mission.
Right now he can be viewed as a failure because he did not complete his mission of terror. If we were to execute him for his crimes he could then be viewed as a martyr by those who support his cause. Being alive is worse than death for this type of terrorist. We shouldn't help him complete his mission.
Sunday, April 02, 2006
The Straw
You're slightly past over weight, you appear to be trans-gendered, and you chose to wear a thong bikini to the beach. I can almost forgive all of that. But did you have to wear it inside out?! My OCD won't let me past that little tag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
