How I did with major presidential election prediction — I was probably too cynical
Not long ago, I predicted, cynically, that American voters would be so taken by "cutesy" Sarah Palin and war hero John McCain that McCain-Palin would win the election. Happily, I was wrong.
I say happily, because I voted for Obama-Biden and I think it was the best ticket for the future of America and the world. I thought that was a "no-brainer," simply because I wanted someone at president who was smarter than I, and I think Obama adequately fills that bill.
Okay, so today I see there's some talk about another of my "predictions" or recommendations -- Hillary Clinton is being talked about for Obama's secretary of state. You may have read it here first, folks: I suggested she would make a terrific sec. of state in my June 4, 2008, post.
I stand by that idea and I truly hope to see her in that role in the Obama Administration. We'll see.
Are you ready for the political rat race(s) to end? Make sure you vote!
I don't care what "rats" you're cheering on in the race, you must be as eager as I am to see this electoral rat race to end, aren't you? (Please don't think I'm calling anyone or their candidates "rats." It's just a figure of speech.)
When the candidates all finally step down off their treadmills, then the suspense begins: election night "watch parties," I think they're generally called. That's where all the candidates and their faithful sit by the TVs or try to ignore the TVs and find out whether or not they won.
I was amused over this last weekend watching some of the cable TV "pundits" discussing how the election for president was going to play out. At one point, one of them made a wisecrack that brought his colleagues back to reality. Something like this: "Oh, so now I guess we just wait for the voters to confirm our polls, is that it?"
No, we don't wait. Indeed, I loved that remark because it was a needed reminder that no one is elected by opinion polls, voter surveys, vote projections, etc. Candidates are only elected as WE THE PEOPLE get out and vote.
Make sure you get out there tomorrow and vote. (If you live where early election has been going on and you still haven't voted -- go vote ASAP!)
You think elections are expensive? How about Halloween?
I read a news story in our local paper a few days ago that says all the election races combined this year -- presidential, congressional, senatorial, etc. -- will total about $5.4 BILLION dollars. This is supposed to be the most expensive election in U.S. history by far. My reaction was to be horrified that we spend that much money for elections. It clearly means you can't be elected to a national office, at least, without spending a lot of money.
Then I read the rest of the story and got a really odd perspective on the high costs of elections. The same story says AMERICANS WILL SPEND ABOUT $6 BILLION THIS WEEK ON HALLOWEEN.
In other words: Americans are willing to shell out more for a week's indulgence in parties and candy than we are to elect those who lead us. I guess that's how I understand that, anyway.
All my life I've enjoyed Halloween. I'm not a morbid or "scary" person. (I once tried to write a horror novel, but just really couldn't generate interest in doing it.) When I was a kid I really enjoyed the trick or treat candy, candy apples, popcorn balls, etc., and when my two kids were small we took 'em around the neighborhood -- and we still give out candy each year ourselves.
But somehow it doesn't seem right to me that we have such an imbalance in our national priorities (as if we really HAD any national priorities).
Does that mean we should spend MORE on elections? Or less on Halloween?
How about BOTH. How about we spend more on secure, easily usable voting methods, and more on getting people registered and motivated to vote? And that we also try to show some sense and moderation on our partying and candy buying? (Yeah, I know. Hard times like these probably call for MORE chocolate and not less.)
How do you feel about this odd comparison/contrast on how we spend our money? Leave a comment and let us know.
Hockey mom and kids needed to see the Big City — on Alaska’s ticket
Who would begrudge Gov. Sarah Palin using a little money from the State of Alaska to take her kids on a trip to the Big City? Anyone out there that mean spirited?
Apparently some folks are unhappy that Gov. Palin charged off to the state several thousands of dollars in travel for her daughters which, uh, may have been more family/personal travel than "business" travel. She apparently said the girls "had been invited to attend or participate in events on the governor's schedule," according to that AP News report. The problem was, among other things, according to that report:
"But some organizers of these events said they were surprised when the Palin children showed up uninvited, or said they agreed to a request by the governor to allow the children to attend.
"Several other organizers said the children merely accompanied their mother and did not participate. The trips enabled Palin, whose main state office is in the capital of Juneau, to spend more time with her children."
Some of that state-funded travel included this very interesting trip to New York City:
"In October 2007, Palin brought daughter Bristol along on a trip to New York for a women's leadership conference. Plane tickets from Anchorage to La Guardia Airport for $1,385.11 were billed to the state, records show, and mother and daughter shared a room for four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House hotel, which overlooks Central Park.
"The event's organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter.
"Alexis Gelber, who organized Newsweek's Third Annual Women & Leadership Conference, said she does not know how Bristol ended up attending. Gelber said invitees usually attend alone, but some ask if they can bring a relative or friend."
Good to know that we have such a financial crusader and her Maverick Friend trying to get in the White House where they can cut all that government corruption, isn't it?
(Sure would be nice if I could afford to take my wife on a nice trip to New York City. Guess I should consider a name change to Joe Six-Pack or Joe the Plumber. You betcha!)
Wow — Powell crosses party lines, endorses Obama for president
I don't know whether he would want me telling you this, but a very close relative of mine -- very close -- who is a conservative Republican once served closely in the Army with Ret. General Colin Powell. I wonder how this close relative feels about today's announcement by Powell that he's voting for Sen. Barack Obama? Will Powell's support help Obama overcome the almost given tradition that military people are conservative supporters of Republican presidential candidates?
What a fascinating presidential campaign this has been! And, of course, it's really not over yet.
But Powell's support for Obama can't be good news for Sen. John McCain, can it?
I did not get to see Powell's appearance today on "Meet the Press," so I'm basing my understanding of all this on newspaper website reports. (I urge you to click on the link in that last phrase and read one of those reports for yourself.)
Powell's endorsement was pretty much a ringing, positive statement: "He has both style and substance ... Obama has displayed a steadiness; showed intellectual vigor. He has a definitive way of doing business that will do us well." In addition to the endorsement, Powell had some pretty frank things to say about McCain's campaign. For anyone not interested or able to read the entire Internet report I referenced above, I quote these two paragraphs from that report by "The International Herald Tribune":
"Powell also questioned McCain's decision to choose Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as the party's vice presidential candidate. Powell said he did not believe Palin was ready to become president.
"In the appearance on "Meet the Press," Powell also said he was disappointed by the McCain campaign's decision to seek to tie Obama to William Ayers, who four decades ago was a domestic terrorist who violently protested the Vietnam War."
Yes, a very interesting presidential campaign so far, and a very impressive Obama endorsement from a very impressive statesman!
Lipstick lady did all right in VP debate, I thought
Despite all the silliness since Gov. Palin was named Sen. McCain's running mate, she and Sen. Biden were able to put much of it behind them and give us a good debate last night. Not a GREAT debate, but adequate.
I just saw on CNN where one of the most fun parts of debate viewing might have been people who were playing "Palin Bingo." Someone put together a grid like a Bingo card, using pet phrases from Palin's stump speeches (lipstick on a pit bull, you betcha, etc.), then each phrase she used was covered as it appeared in the debate. (Remember the red flag thrown up when Sen. Obama referred to "lipstick on a pig" and the former Republican governor of Massachusetts was outraged?)
In some ways, Palin's performance encouraged me a bit. I got the feeling she has more intellectual substance than the media and/or "SLN" give her credit for. I seriously doubt she's truly experienced enough to be president -- but she probably could get up to speed in a hurry, should the McCain-Palin ticket triumph and should she suddenly become president.
Now -- that debate is behind us and we need to focus on getting some "band-aids" or an "economic acne treatment" or something helpful done about the economy. Even as I tap this keyboard, I see a quick television report that the bailout bill appears to be passing in the House. Sadly, the already bad legislation was bloated up with added "earmarks" and tax breaks it should have done without -- but at least it's probably the best we can hope for right now.
We'll pay for it, true. But better to pony up this flawed bill than watch the economy drop another couple of TRILLION in investment losses, job losses, credit freezes, etc., like we got on the first House bailout vote.
I think.
Certainly interesting to hear responses to failure of ‘bailout’ bill
I must say, watching a lot of CNN reports yesterday and today, that it's certainly interesting to hear the many responses to the failure of that economic "bailout" bill.
Many "average people" posting on CNN blogs and sending webcam comments echo a common theme: "Hey, when I was in financial trouble, none of these big banks or financial institutions came to my aid -- why should I help them?"
Admittedly, it's hard for today's average citizen to hold a coherent thought in mind for long (sorry, I've seen to much stupidity in print, on the air, and on the streets of my own little city here). And, also admittedly, given the track record for the last eight years of the Bush Administration and the do-nothing performance of the Democratically controlled Congress the last couple of years -- nobody really trusts the government anymore.
Given all that, it's really time for people to "get it" that we aren't talking here about bailing out fat-cat corporations or government crooks at the taxpayers' expense. We're talking about keeping the whole blooming economy afloat so YOU and I have jobs, retirement income, home mortgages, student loans, car loans, and all the rest. America is NOT economically broke (yet), but our credit/financial system fluidity really is just about frozen.
So clear those mental memory cards of all those nasty images, John Q. Public, and realize it's not a case of bailing out big business or CEOs -- it's about bailing out the system that will either help or hurt every one of us, from the poorest to the richest.
We really must come to our senses regarding oil drilling
We really must come to our senses regarding oil drilling.
Am I the only person in the world who understands that opening restricted U.S. areas to oil exploration and drilling will only accomplish ONE SURE THING?? And here's what that is. Ready? Here goes:
Multi-national multi-trillion dollar oil companies will make even more obscene amounts of money.
That's really the "bottom" line on all this silliness about ripping up the environment, risking more offshore drilling, etc. Am I the only one who "gets" this?? Okay, let me explain exactly why my statement above is true: We have not and will not pass any laws or government regulation which requires the oil companies to 1) sell the increased oil from new drilling at any set price that might affect us little old consumers in a good way, and, 2) even guarantee that the oil reaches American markets.
Do you get it now? The oil companies are perfectly free, should they find umpteen-billion barrels of new oil, to pump that stuff out of the ground and sell it to Europeans, South Americans, Asians -- any markets where they can get the most money.
I don't really care about all the bickering about when or how new oil finds and new oil drilling would take to get to the marketplace. That's irrelevant. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. Sorry for shouting, but folks are passionately convinced that we must open the ANWAR region in Alaska, or do more offshore drilling near Florida, California, whatever, because "we must make ourselves less dependent on foreign oil."
But that won't be the result of such new drilling, any new refining, etc. The result will be more product for oil companies to put on the open market and sell to the highest bidders.
After all, never forget, the poor old oil companies only make a tiny percentage of profit, right? That $16-$20 BILLION and more in profits the oil companies make in any given year, well, really, that's irrelevant. Or, to paraphrase the line from the wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain."
Bear with me before I end my "rant." This also must be said: Oil is a finite resource which will run out. It may not run out in the next five years, or 10, or 20 -- but it WILL run out. If we don't focus more on developing serious, practical forms of alternate energy, then our children and grandchildren will pay for our stupidity.
Guess I just need to pull myself into line and become a "cut taxes and spend and put the results on the backs of ten generations to come" Republican and get over it!
If we elect McCain-Palin, the joke’s on US!
If Americans, through apathy or idiocy, elect the McCain-Palin ticket in November, the jokes on all of us. Presidential campaigns and political campaigns in general are usually built upon various layers of lunacy. But this McCain-Palin Republican presidential ticket is the mother of all multi-layer political cakes.
In the first place, you've got a guy, Sen. John McCain, heading the ticket who's been a "Washington insider," i.e., since 1982 he has served first as a congressman and now a senator, portraying himself as some sort of "maverick" who'd work not for the party first but for America First. He decries Washington politics (which he has been a major player in shaping since 1982) -- and, by God, he insists he means it!
The next thing this maverick warrior of the people does is find someone highly qualified to lead the nation, should anything happen to him as president: Gov. Sarah Palen of Alaska. The good (?) governor has been shaped in the forge of high-level Alaskan policy, having earlier served as mayor of a town there of about 9,000 people -- oh, and, uh, she's under investigation within the state of Alaska for possible ethics questions related to possibly using her influence to get an ex-brother-in-law fired from the State Patrol (or whatever Alaska's name for it is). Never mind that the good senator has spent several MONTHS insisting that Sen. Barack Obama is very lightweight on the experience score, and really, pretty young to be taking on something as important as president. (For the record, Obama is actually OLDER than Palen.)
Finally, Sen. McCain, Gov. Palen, and all the delegates at the GOP Convention gave each other standing ovations and congrats all around for their astute grasp of our nation's needs. Palen was applauded as though she were the Second Coming of Christ -- despite MONTHS of patter from McCain and the GOP that a major fault against Obama is that he's a "rock star" or "celebrity" -- AND THE ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY SEES NO INCONSISTENCIES, NO HYPOCRISY IN ANY OF THIS????????
Sorry. Got carried away there. I'm 61 years old. I began voting the first election I was old enough to do so -- 21 at that time, in 1968 -- and I've never missed voting in a presidential election. For many years, I was a dutiful nod-my-head-slack-jawed-and-vote-Republican/Christian-conservative. Then I did the unforgivable for the GOP/Christian/Conservative camp: I started paying attention and THINKING about what's going on in this country.
I have concluded that, 1) ALL politicians of ANY political party will ALWAYS say just what they think you want them to say to get your vote, and, 2) of the major parties in this country (both) that are, so to speak "full of it," the GOP -- especially under this dual ticket from circus world -- is MORE full of it generally speaking. And they are several layers of B.S. beyond believable this year.
My apologies for getting so carried away. It's the absolute, bold and blatant hypocrisy of this year's Republican ticket that just leaves me speechless and makes me rant so.
Ah, well, what do I know? I'm just a guy who reads the papers.
Storm named Fay really dumped on Florida, didn’t she?
I suppose it's been a pretty good year for Orlando vacations, despite tropical storms and hurricane threats. I guess if you live in Florida or visit their much, you get accustomed to those things. (I live in southwest Missouri, and I guarantee you I've never gotten accustomed to tornadoes, but who knows?)
But looking around the Internet about damages to Orlando, Disney World, Universal Studios, and all those other resorts in the area -- I was surprised that nothing much happened to the area that made prominent news, as a result of Tropical Storm/Hurricane Fay. There was a news brief from one of the Orlando area television station websites that said a 20 feet wide and 30 feet deep sinkhole had opened up in Apopka, Florida, due to rain from Fay. (Don't know where Apopka is.) At the time Fay and her deluge were approaching all the resorts and entertainment parks were issuing warnings and getting prepared, but so far as I know nothing much happened.
So why am I writing this? Well, why not? I know I have readers in Florida and readers elsewhere who are interested in Florida. I've taken a couple of trips to the Orlando area some years ago, liked the area, but probably would never live there or anywhere else in Florida.
But I certainly understand the risks and tragedies associated with serious rainfall and flooding. My thoughts are with all you good people in Florida -- Orlando and elsewhere! -- who were hurt by all of Fay's slow moving water.
Keep Up To Date!
Bid on Classic Newspapers on eBay!
MORRISTOWN NJ Revolutionary War 1780 Enemy Newspaper
See Full Details
REVOLUTIONARY WAR ERA Original 1777 Enemy Newspaper SEE
See Full Details
Newspaper 1816 Connecticut Journal New Haven as found
See Full Details
1812 newspaper PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE described
See Full Details
War of 1812 newspaper Perry NAVAL BATTLE of LAKE ERIE
See Full Details
War of 1812 newspaper USS Constitution winsNaval Battle
See Full Details-
