Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 2

So just like my post from Wednesday, this one comes from the same post over on Mr. Keelers Report... Well, Ben discusses that the city of Washington D.C. Is probably going to get some representation in the House on Congressional Hill. He points out the issues with this in the Constitution, and I am simply going to further his arguments. Enjoy...



Let me start off by saying the CITY of Washington D.C., again, CITY is probably getting a vote. CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY CITY
Keep that term in mind for the rest of this post...

Anyways, for the last few years various entities that are not states have been gaining rights in the House of Representatives. Washington DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Somalia have all had delegates in Congress on their behalf. While these people were never allowed to make a deciding vote, they were allowed in committees and to cast figurehead votes. This, to me, is absurd.

The Constitution is clear that only States are to have any form of voting in Congress... Hey look, here is a quote for you:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.”
see, notice the bolded section? See, there should be no voting, even if it doesn't matter, by any member that is not from a state. Additionally, they should have no position on any, and I mean any, committee. To have the American territories in congress, except as watchers or speaker, is a blatant violation of the Constitution.

What else would you expect from these politicians?

Now, what is to stop the government from giving them votes in the Senate, or in the presidential elections? It is bad enough that they can vote in primaries (that is the right of the party to decide), but having any say anywhere else is wrong... Our government should not be working violate the Constitution, it should be trying to tape it back up after Bush violated it...

As an Ohio resident, I am concerned about the implications this has for my state. Instead of a proper say, we would have less of one then we should. I think that our state should have not voted on this bill as they did, and I am ashamed of Voiny and Brown for voting for it. Those two should be ashamed of themselves, they only harmed their state. Ohio deserves 18/435 reps, not 18/440 or so that they would plan on. Ohio is being screwed over by this, and we need to fix that

Anyways... By allowing this to happen, Congress is violating the rights of every citizen of the actual America. I truly believe that it infringes my 14th Amendment right to due process if they let this happen. I believe that all Americans should be pissed off by this sort of thing, as it violates our individual rights and will violate our most precious document.

Part of me thinks that if this passes, I might challenge the law, or maybe call up the ACLU to get them to help me take it to court

What do you guys think?
Read more ...

Enfranchisement on the Hill: Part 1

Hello all, and welcome to the first real post on this site in the last week or so. Sure, Barga posts fun little stories and history, but they are all shit. RMB.reviews posts reviews, who the hell wants to read those? I know you are all here for me, so let's get started.

Oh, and Barga wanted me to let you all know, there is a poll on the side of the blog, respond to it...



This post is a direct post to one from Ben over at his political report. On THIS POST, Ben mentions, slightly, the fact that Minnesota still does not have a senator, well, a second one. I want to address this fact (go comment on his site, it is cute when he thinks that people care)
--On a side note, have your blog posts in their own pages, that way I can link directly to your post, not to the comments part... jackass--

Currently, Minn. Has 1/99 votes in the senate, instead of the 1/50 that they should constitutionally have. This, to me, is a travesty and something that we should address ASAP. The population of MINN is currently being deprived of due process (via the 14th) and thus are being harmed with such bullshit as the stimulus bill and other things that the left-wing congress is doing. Minn should attempt to filibuster all votes until they have the constitutional amount of say, or demand that congress doesn't convene until they get a new senator. After all, congress only needs to convene once a year

So, what should a citizen in Minn do? Well, logically they should start to protest this sort of system. They should sue congress to get them to stop meeting until they get a representative, or something along those lines. They should also sue the state government for allowing this sort of bullshit to happen and thus costing them their rights. Somehow, they need to get this solved, and get it done soon.

FYI, I might hate liberal commies, but I still want Franken to win... I mean, why not have a real clown in congress, instead of those only pretending to be



Now, as this blog likes to focus on Ohio, only because the glorious Barga seems to want some sort of following, I need to talk about how this is important to the state. So, how the hell does this effect Ohio? On the surface, it looks like it helps Ohio out. We get 2/99 votes, instead of 2/100, see how much better we are? We should work on some system to take out the senators (so the SS out there, I am joking about this part) so that Ohio gets all of the votes...

So how the Hell does it harm Ohio?

Well, it harms Ohio simply because of the precedent that it sets. If we allow Congress to meet without an attempt to ensure equal enfranchisement to all that deserve it, and are granted it via the constitution, then we have a problem. We should not let states not have their rights, and we need to do something about this. What if we had a problem getting Brown or Voiny to the Senate? Well, according to this reasoning, we should just forgo the vote. At this point, all states should be attempting to give Minn's one senator two votes, to keep this from happening...

Part 2 will be here on Friday, see you then Suckas
Read more ...

Blu-ray Review: Election (1999)

What do you get when you cross a high school presidential election with an overachieving teenager and an interfering teacher? Well, besides a guaranteed lawsuit, you get one funny and great movie. Toss in a few superstars and you have a blockbuster, or what should be one, for the teen demographic. Election fits this bill perfectly, and, it has the hilarity that you expect from this sort of set up. Starring Reese Witherspoon as the overachieving, pompous, and arrogant candidate Tracy Flick, Election is a great teen-comedy that takes the genre to new heights. Chris Klein plays her competition, Paul Metzler, who is an all-American quarterback from a rich family but with a heart of gold. The cast is rounded out by Matthew Broderick, who plays Jim McAllister, a beloved teacher who just gets in a little over his head.



Election tells the story of a typical high school presidential election, just with a slight twist. You have the usual prissy girl, running simply for the esteem. Then you have the typical popular dude, who is running simply because everybody likes him. Lastly, you have the stereotypical outcast, who is running just to mess with the system. Election takes these three main characters and simply plays with them, pitting them against each other in odder and odder situation. Using these amusing moments to advance the story line, Election rarely seems to lag or fall behind.

Election also tells the story of Jim McAllister, a teacher who just was not thinking well. From scamming an election to cheating on his wife, Jim simply is not ready for his role in life. The movie follows his digression a from loved and honest teacher, you know, the type that are way too dedicated, to his fall and divorce. Along the way he steals an election, sets up a Manchurian candidate, and has an affair with his best friends ex-wife. Oh, he also wants to have sex with one of his students and loses a fight with a wasp.

While Broderick did a great job of playing McAllister, the star of the movie has to be Witherspoon. Playing the preppy candidate who will do anything (literally) to achieve victory, Witherspoon actually draws us into her character and plays Tracy convincingly. With girl-next-door looks, and a brain to envy, this girl can capture you and then spit you out half the man that you were. Witherspoon plays such a convincing character that you actually are surprised when she starts to cuss (granted, it is in a fantasy), even though you have seen it before. This immersion into a character, and the investment it draws from the audience, is evidence of a great acting job.

While Election is not one of the great movies of all time, it is a great movie on its own. The pacing is good and the script is to die for. There is very little that detracts from the actual movie, and I believe that it will actually make you laugh out loud. I highly recommend renting or buying this movie simply to watch it.

Moving on to the technical aspects, Election is presented in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio which makes it a decent wide screen. The film is decently clear, and the transitions are quick and accurate, but there are a few remaining ghosts from the previous versions of the film that hinders its HD quality. Watching it on my TV, I was able to see some of the problems that were inherent in film at that time. The transfer from SD to HD, in this case, was not done as well as it could have been.

With that in mind, however, the film was of good quality. The colors were vibrant and looked especially good on all of the posters that covered the school during the campaign. All of these signs seemed to jump out at you, they were that bright. The black levels were decent throughout most of the film, but near the end, for some reason, they seemed to become sub-par and not really what I have come to expect from HD. While this transfer was nowhere near as good as I have seen before, it wasn't as bad as it could be. It seemed to be an average transfer, and shouldn't be noticeable to anybody using 720P or less.

As with most bluray movies, sound is presented in Dolby TrueHD. Unlike most blurays, however, the sound is available only in 5.0, not the normal 5.1. While this was abnormal, it was not that noticeable as my PS3 decided that it was going to output in 5.1 anyway. The overall sound quality was average, though the mixing was decent. You rarely lost any dialog or important sounds, which is pretty good. Additionally, you couldb hear background noises from classrooms during the movie (these were actual classes with real teachers and students), which added to the realism. While the sound was slightly front heavy, and seemed as though it would be better in 2.0, it was of decent quality.

While the overall quality of Election is good and the movie is great, it is missing one highly important feature: extras. Election comes with only one extra, and that is a director's commentary. I have always hated these commentaries and believe that they should be removed from all movies in the future. With the exception of the sing-along commentary from Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog, none of them have ever been worth my time. Extras are highly important on DVDs and BDs these days, and lacking them greatly harmed the value of this movie.

Overall, I believe that Election is a good movie to add to your collection if you like teen comedies. The movie is funny and the script is perfect. I truly believe that most teenagers will like this movie and it would be a perfect gift for them. It also is a great gift for college kids, as most of my friends loved it as well. Save for the fact that it is lacking in extras, the bluray is a good buy for its price.

Movie: 4/5 - I enjoyed the movie immensely and think that the script is amazing
Film Quality: 3/5 - Ghosting effects and sub-par black levels harmed this score
Sound Quality: 3.5/5 - Decent mixing and good quality
Extras: 1/5 - It has commentary (whoop-di-doo) and nothing else
Final: 3.5/5 - A good movie for any teen or college student

Election is rated R for strong sexuality, sex-related dialog and language, and a scene of drug abuse.

Read more ...

Will there be change, Part 2

Stephen D. Krasner - the political scientist, the Stanford Professor, the former Director of Policy Planning at US DoS – is apparently the only polysci author who actually has a strong sense of humor. While writing “Are Bureaucracies Important?”, which was a direct response to Graham T. Allison's “Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis”, Krasner decided to add a nifty little subtitle. “Allison Wonderland” is a clever little play on words that goes to show that at least one polysci writer has a sense of humor.

Anyways, moving onto the real topic for today...

In this essay, Krasner asks a very interesting question, one that I will attempt to answer in a very basic and non-complex manner:
“What sense to vote a man out of office when his successor, regardless of his values, will be trapped in the same web of only incrementally mutable standard operating procedures?”



Personally, I find very little stock in this actual idea. We can already see the vast policy differences between Obama and Bush, and they have only switched office for a day or so. We can see that Obama is actively attempting to remove the 'harmful' foreign policy decisions that Bush instated, and we can see that there is already a fight brewing over this. There is a clear and obvious change with every president, not just in staff, but in attitude. Looking at various ones, we can argue that it is more there attitude then position that causes the changes.

But is the Obama/Bush switch really a good candidate to analyze this?
As with all data, there will be outliers. From Lincoln to FDR to Obama, there have been only a few presidents that drastically changed the status quo. I believe that this is not what Krasner was looking at; it seems as though he was actually looking at most of our leaders, the ones who do not attack the standard. With that in mind, we can toss out the above mentioned changes...

So, instead we must focus on the small changes, but mainly on those that switched parties, as that is the best way to analyze what Krasner contended.

Was there a drastic change between Bush and Clinton? No, as Bush himself changed the Reagan policies to be more liberal. The dramatic change did not happen, it was slow and in the middle of one admin.. Yet, somehow we vote Bush out based solely on the idea that Clinton would change things up.

What about between Clinton and Bush take two? Not really, it wasn't until a drastic act changed the world that the real change became clear. As far as I know (based on Wag the Dog) Clinton would have acted roughly the same as Bush. Yet, somehow, we considered the election of Bush to be a mandate and bringer of change. The change that Bush brought to the equation came quite slowly, as it didn't foment until late 2002-early 2003.

As one of the Gaia regulars, PockyBot, would say, the NWO/the Elite actually control the politicians already (see my disclaimer at the bottom of the 9/11 post). As much as I disagree with this statement, I think that it has some bearings of truth. The elite do, in a way, control our leaders as they are the main path to the ears. They are the top brass, they are the top diplomats, they are the top thinkers. They are not in some large conspiracy, nor doing this out of their own interests, but they are controlling it simply to keep the status quo.

The status quo needs to be preserved. It keeps the country running smoothly and makes sure that everything is tested long before it is implemented. This sort of system keeps us alive, and it keeps our country alive. That said, however, how can there be change if the elite, AND THE COUNTRY, want to keep the status quo?

The answer, quite frankly, is that they can't

But what if they have a different philosophy?
This is actually the most important challenge to this position. Philosophies matter, a ton, but are they actually important? We elect based simply on the philosophy part, because we have already seen that the change doesn't happen. Sure, Obama is going in all ready to change how everything is done. So did Congress in 2006, and guess what, nothing changed. The philosophical differences are important, but they do not seem to change how the overall system works.


So, I have to agree with Krasner, it seems as though the overall policy of each politician will in the end be no different then that of the previous one. Too many outside factors impact each and every leader. Sure, Obama is going in with high hopes and plans on changing the World. The question is, will the World let him change it?




What do you guys all think? Read more ...

Has the color barrier really been broken?

I have decided that I am forgoing the old method of numbering my posts, it just doesn’t seem worth it anymore…



Only three days ago America emerged onto the national scene with a new trend, with a new face, with a supposed less racist attitude. The country that 40 years earlier was torn apart with segregation, 140 years earlier had large scale slavery, and 240 years earlier was founded with the idea that a black person was only 3/5 of a person, had at last elected their 44th president, a black man named Barrack Hussein Obama. With only about 20% of the country saying that race was a factor, we had come a long, long way.

But, this then begged the question, are we out of the troubles? Are we finally done with racism in America (as done as you can be, when there is free thought)? Have we finally and fully integrated?




Let’s look at a different color barrier, and see when it was broken… When you start to look at sports and the color barriers, you immediately think of Jackie Robinson. Why nobody thinks of Eddie Kleep, the first player in the negro leagues who was white, I do not know. Anyways, people always think of Jackie Robinson, one of the best players of the game, and the first black man to play on an actual MLB team. That said, did Jackie actually break the color barrier?

With Mr. Robinson, you had the Dodgers picking him up due to an insane amount of skill. A good player, hell, a great player, who was black would never have been picked, only the best player of the times could have been included. This really does not show that the color barrier was broken, just that the loss of standing due to your skin color could be overrode by enough points in other areas. Robinson, however, throws this all off by retiring.

Then you move on to Bill Lucas, the first black General Manager in the MLB. Yes, it is arguable that there was one before him (drawing a blank on the name), but that was for one day and due to four sick managers above him. So, Mr. Lucas is the first black man to manage a team, that is a true color breaker. But, Mr. Lucas died after only a few years managing, of a heart attack.

You might not be getting what I am going for, so let me spell it out to you. I do not consider the color barrier to break when a person of color gets into the position. I consider it broken when that person is forced out due to bad performance (fired, FOR CAUSE (if anybody can find me this persons name, then I would be happy)), or when it is in the air, without the race a factor. I think that it is clear that a color barrier is really there as long as there is color, regardless of who holds a position.




So, let’s fast-forward this thing back to the 21st century. Obama, the first black man to run as President from a major party, has become the first black President of the United States of America (and from my recollection, the first dual-citizenship, the youngest, the first one from Hawaii, and a long list of other things). SO WHAT. No barrier has been broken, both because 20% still voted on race (with most of that helping Obama) and because it is a big deal. When we write giant essays, commit huge news reports, and blog about the fact that we have a black leader (well, in 70-odd days we will), then the barrier is still there. Until the fact that we do mention, or even care about, their skin color, the barrier will still be there.




(FYI, this still applies to all other ways that we classify humans) Read more ...

11/4 Map Update

Post 70

This map is updated as of 6PM 11/3. The final image will be my prediction map, let it be as it is.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 338 to 200

Virginia - This swing state is still in the Obama camp, with a 4.3 point lead
Florida - Some recent strong polling showed Obama up by 1.6
Ohio - In the buckeye state, Obama is up 2.3 points
Nevada - The sin state has Obama in the lead by 6.2 points
Colorado - The state that housed the Democrat Convention has given Obama a 5.5 point lead


North Carolina - McCain has regained this southern state and is now leading by .6 points
Montana - McCain is keeping his lead here with 3.8 points
Arizona - While I do not think Obama can win this state, McCain has only a 3.5 point lead
Indiana - The state that always vote Republican is back in their camp, 1.4 points
Georgia - While Barr is hurting McCain here, McCain still has 4 points
Missouri - A .5 point lead is all that McCain has here

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.3 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 7.8 points.

Whalertly's Predictions:

This is what Whalertly thinks will happen... Please feel free to make alternate maps on this site and there are poll data on This one . Please explain your reasoning, and I hope that the best map wins...

I believe that Ohio, Virginia, and Florida will all switch due to hidden racism in the polls and the fact that they are not all that accurate.

Read more ...

10/28 Map Update

Post 67

There will be another map update on Tuesday at midnight, before any elections start. This current update is accurate up to 1:30 Monday Afternoon.

State-by-State (swing states)

Over all, Obama is winning 375 to 163

Florida - Obama is still hanging on to a lead in the peninsula state with a 1.9 point margin

Indiana - Surprising me, Indiana has moved into the Obama category. Granted, this is by .3 points

North Carolina - Like last week, Obama is holding this state with a slim 1.5 point lead

Nevada - Obama is keeping his lead in the sin state with a 3.5 point margin

Ohio - With, in my mind, the last entry considering Ohio a SS, Obama has a 6 point le

ad

New Hampshire - Like Ohio, with its last entry as a swing state, Obama has a 5.6 point lead

Missouri - While McCain is making more ground here, Obama has +1.0

Montana - Now considered a swing state, McCain is still leading here by 4.5 points

Georgia -McCain is still holding on to his lead in this state with a 5.6 point margin

Arizona - Holy shit, a runners state is in play, McCain still is winning by 6 points

National

When looking at the national polls between Obama and McCain, you notice that Obama has a healthy 7.4 point lead.

When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead jumps up to 9.3 points.

Map

Read more ...

Map update for the week of 10/19-10/25

State-by-State (swing states)
Overall, Obama is winning 364-174

Nevada, and its 5 EC votes has moved into the Obama column with a +4.2 average
Colorado is staying in the Obama camp with a +6
Pennsylvania is now solidly Obama (I am no longer considering it a swing) with +13
Ohio is staying in the Obama category with a +3.3; however, two recent polls show McCain winning
Missouri, with its 11 EC votes, has moved into Obama. However, it is far too close to call... +3
Virginia, like Penn., has now moved out of the SS column by showing a strong +9 for Obama
North Carolina is now a +1.3 for Obama, still easily in the margin
Florida is +3.2 for Obama
New Mexico is no longer a swing state as well, with a +8.3 for Obama
New Hampshire has moved out of the swing state grouping, +8.3 for Obama

West Virginia is staying strong for McCain, with a +2.4 average
North Dakota is still with McCain, +4


National

Nationally speaking, the overall polls are roughly the same as they were last week: Obama is leading with a 5.3 point average.
When you take Barr and Nader into the equation, Obama's lead RAISES to 9.3 points



Map



Read more ...

An Elitist Leader

Post 54

As I am sitting here typing this at a local coffee house I happened to look up and notice a group of young teen girls. Just wondering, but of the mothers who read this, have you taught your kids how much makeup to wear? If not you should; these girls looked like clowns.

When did it become a political attack to call somebody smart? When did it become acceptable to vote against somebody because they have more experience than you, because they are smarter than you, because they know how to handle money better than yourself? Why is it suicide, politically speaking, to admit that you are superior in mental abilities, in financial logic, or even in governing than the rest of America (especially because at the same time you are trying to argue that you are above the opponent)? Why is it such a crime to be an elitist in American politics? Isn't it more logical that we take these people and place them far above us?

I have never understood why we want somebody who would be a good golf buddy as our president. As Hamel on Trial put it: "..You see a guy from a bar emerging and think, hell, he'll be fuck of a surgeon..." The logic is inescapable, we place a person in charge of us based on the fact that we can be good friends with them, but not because they would be a CEO; this is an illogical move on our parts, but one that we seem doomed to repeat over and over.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think that our leaders should be willing to not know everything. They should know what they are experts in and what they are not. If they get proper advisors, then that is all they need. Yet, any person of average intelligence will not know based on their own experiences what to do in every situation. Our leader should be smart enough to know what to do without advisors, well, to at least know kinda what to do. Do keep in mind, that I mean elitist as a form of intelligence or true superiority (including like Michael Jordan in Basketball), not as favoring the elite. Our president and congressional members should be our leaders, not members of the pack.

So, when you hear Obama going on about McCain owning 7 houses (keep in mind that Cindy owns all 7, 4 of which are used be other members of the family) or McCain explaining that Obama talks down to the US citizens (he should, half of them think we are doing okay right now) take it with a grain of salt. Realize that they are both above the masses (both in social hierarchy positions, their financial independence, and their intelligence). While they might not be above you, they are above the masses. That is where they should be, that is where we want our leaders to be. It is high time that we start electing real leaders, not our beer bringers (this is not an attack on John McCain.)

*MAP UPDATE*

This previous week seemed to be the week of Polls That Barga Had Never Heard Of. Seriously, like 20 new polling groups showed up, released a poll, and died. One thing I have never understood is why they poll places like California and Alaska; seriously people, these polls are useless and a waste of money as they are already known.

So, for the new polls from last week up until 6pm Sunday Night: Nothing, absolutely nothing. There was no change what-so-ever and yet here I was spending about 15 minutes to sort through the polls. That said, Obama is still winning the GE by 2.2 points and the EC race 273 to 265. Interestingly, one of the closer polls happens to be in Minnesota, which is a tipping state.

*END OF MAP UPDATE*

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.

Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.

Thanks,

Robert M. Barga,

Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/

barga.24@osu.edu

Stumble It!

Read more ...

McCain, Part 2

Post 28:


*MAP UPDATE*
Due to not being here for an update in the map on Monday I will be posting it today.

As sad as this is, it appears as though there have been no changes in the map. Obama still has an easy win in November.
*END OF MAP UPDATE*



This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1,McCain, Part 1, and the newest entry, Obama, Part 2. This time I am going after some of McCains smaller issues that I take offense to. I think that McCain is dropping the ball in these three areas: The Gas Tax, Protecting Marriage, Lets Chat About Stem Cells. Mr. McCain, if you wish to keep my vote (and, being in Ohio, I am rather important) please take a better stand on these issues.

The Gas Tax:
A few months ago McCain joined Clinton in calling for a gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day (a bit late for this now). Obama, rightly, rejected the idea and called it stupid. While this is no longer important, this shows me how far McCain is willing to pander to get some votes. The gas tax would never have worked; it would have saved the average American roughly 75$ for the time it was extended. To me, that seems wasteful when it would push our federal government even further into debt. However, McCain was busy pandering to not-so-intelligent Americans who would fall for this sort of thing. Straight-Talk Express my ass.

Protecting Marriage:
Let me set one thing straight, I do not support marriage. I believe that marriage should be a contract between parties that consent, nothing more, nothing less. That said, because nobody is going to be getting rid of marriage anytime soon, I find it is most pertinent that we preserve this right for ALL Americans. Why should we only allow certain people to get married. Studies have shown time and time again that homosexual persons are born that way, not that it is a choice (though why anybody would chose to be hated by a large patch of humanity always gets lost on me). If your loved one was in the hospital, or died and wanted to leave you something, or even wanted you on their health care plan, your wishes are only granted if you happen to have the opposite genitalia. THAT IS BULLSHIT. All Americans should be viewed as equal in the eyes of the law (we are not all equal though) and thus all Americans should have the same basic rights.

Lets Chat About Stem Cells:
Stem cells are a major issue in American politics these days. While the source (abortion) of embryonic stem cells is an issue, most parties agree that Adult stem cells are okay. Well, adult stem cells are not as effective, and they do not do the needed things. I do not understand why people are against embryonic stem cells. If the fetus is going to be aborted, why not use it for a common good? If Nancy Regan comes out in support of these stem cells, then how can any self-respecting Republican not support their use?





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Feel free to e-mail me if you so wish too instead.
Thanks,
Robert M. Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

Obama, Part 2

Post 27:


*NOTE*
I am currently in Sandusky, Ohio. If this is updated at 12 AM (midnight) on Monday then it is all good. If this is not and posted later (by myself when I get home) then I apologize for the problem.
*END OF NOTE*

This is a continuation of my problems entries: Obama, Part 1 and http://whalertly.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-part-1.html. This time I am addressing some of Obama's newer issues and one of his older issues (that is also current). I have several problems with Obama, among them these three pop to the top of my mind: His Flip flopping - His liberal voting record (the older issue) - The Fist Bump. While these may seem petty and pointless, this is a blog about my opinion; these issues actually are issues to me. Obama: what really grinds my gigantic notched wheels.

His Flip Flopping:
In 2004 one issue hurt John Kerry more than anything else could, the fact that he was labeled a 'flip flopper'. Granted, Kerry made it easy on himself when he said “I supported the war before I didn't”. Come on now, have some subtlety. While it is typical for nominees to pledge far out ideas to the party base prior to sealing the nod and then move to the center for the actual election, they normally do it with some style and hide their move; McCain has started to flip on some positions and move to the center, but he is mostly doing it under radar. Obama, on the other hand, holds press conferences announcing he is migrating his position. From NAFTA to public funding to Iraq (still not nearly as far as he will move in the end) to Wright, he makes it well known. This annoys me to no end. While I am all for changing your mind when new evidence is presented, changing it for sole political gain really turns me off. Obama, I thought you were not politics as usual, turns out that you are the same.

His Liberal Voting Record:
Time and Time again the records come out and show that Obama votes constantly with his voting block. He is rated as the most liberal senator in most polls, and in almost all polls he is at least in the top 5 of most liberal. Now, as I attacked McCain as moving to far to the right, I am attack Obama as being to far to the left. When I vote for a president I am picking a person who I think would be good at leading the country, not just 40% of it or so. I want a person who will work with both sides, a person who crosses the border, a person who actually is an American, not a Republican or Democrat. Obama just does not seem to have that record. If Mr. Obama were to move more towards the center than I think that he would be a much much better candidate.

The Fist Bump
This is just a personal pet peeve of mine. After sealing up the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama and his wife celebrated by bumping fists with one-another. To me this just reeks of immaturity and a pompous attitude. I want a president who shakes hands, a president who acts his age, a president who doesn't act like a deal just went down. I bump hands during a good play DURING FRISBEE, I would never bump hands with my boss after he win a big case. To me this just seems way to immature and out of place. Please, Mr. Obama, act like you are running for the president, not like you are running for Homecoming King.





As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu



Stumble It! Read more ...

McCain; Part 1

Post 19:


I was originally planning on having a three part series with entries on Clinton, Obama, and McCain but Clinton dropping out of the race brought that to a stand still. So, I am going to have a two part series with McCain and Obama; well, the series is two part for now (hence why I have 'part 1' in the title). I do expect to have more to complain about with this two people in the near future and closer to the November deadline of the campaign.

It is hard for me to say that I am thinking of voting primarily Republican in November. I am used to being a true-blue democrat (against my own party-liners policy) and have some issues voting for a overall ticket of more than 25% republican. But, you know, that is how it is looking to be this year. That is, unless McCain keeps his downward run that he is on (I think it is to take in some conservatives). McCain has started to wallow in a few areas, most notably: Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next - You want to drill where - Stop flirting with the base. There are several other reasons that I could consider ditching McCain over in the next few months, but, I will save those for future posts. John McCain: What Really Grinds my Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Is it Alito or Roberts that you would appoint next:
Recently McCain is on the record as saying Sam Alito and John Roberts are the type of judges that he would appoint to SCOTUS. I have a slight issue with this, as they are vastly different judges. While both are geniuses and great Constitutional Scholars (there is little doubt in either party about this), they are vastly different in their thought processes and decisions. Alito is right wing, believes that moderating from the bench is bad (yet he does it) and works the Constitution to what he want. Roberts, on the other hand, is more moderate (yet still right), believe that moderating from the bench is okay when needed (does not do it) and works his desire to what the Constitution says. Clearly, Roberts and Alito are vastly different, and I only want judges similar to one of them (Roberts) on the bench. So Johnny Boy, what is it, Roberts or Alito?

You Want To Drill Where:
Today (yes, today, I am up to date) John McCain said that he would plan on removing the ban on drilling off the coast of America. This is loosely related to my gas problem entry and the Glass City Jungle entry about China Drilling. McCain argues that we can help end our dependency on foreign oil simply by drilling in our pristine waters off the coast of this country. I, as do 33% of Americans, strongly disagree with this view. We should not risk our natural beauty and the ecosystems any more simply because we want to save some cash. I think that we should invest in alternative energies or go without a car before we destroy our oceans further.

Stop Flirting With Your Base:
McCain, we moderates and independents support you because you are bipartisan, break from you party, and are a good guy. STOP FLIRTING WITH THE BASE. You are destroying all of your bipartisan work by doing this. You Finance Bill, your Immigration bill, and your breaking from the party is why we love you. We are sick of partisan politics in Washington and want somebody who will not be partisan to be in the White House. So, what do you do? You take your gang of 14 credentials and toss them down the toilet to try and get the base. NEWS FLASH, the base is not going to vote Obama, court us moderates.






As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole.
Thanks,
Barga,
Editor of http://whalertly.blogspot.com/
barga.24@osu.edu


Read more ...

Obama's Advisers

Post 6:


*NOTE*
I know that I have been running around one topic and was trying to circle it, eventually coming to it, but I have sense realized that there is something more pressing. This is a temporary retrieve from that circle, this is not about the topic I was going for. The similar entries will shortly resume (I.e. Monday).
*ENDING OF THE NOTE*

Many people have been hit by manufactured controversies in politics recently. From Governors having affairs to Hillary running from sniper fire. The idea of controversies being manufactured seems to keep getting passed around. Sure, it is understandable when you are trying to sell something, in this case, the news, but it is not understandable that we always need these things in politics. Recently, Obama has been under fire from several different manufacture controversies. The most recent, and most discussed, being: The Reverend Wright - The Flag Pin - His elitist comments (along with Michelle's). All of these controversies are absurd yet all will be a big issue in November. Really, the main thing is, all of them could have been avoided. Obama's Advisers; What Really Grinds My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

The Reverend Wright
Now, I know that most people (democrats that is) do not think that a spiritual advisor should matter when looking at a person. Look at their positions, look at what they say, look at how they vote; do not look at where a person sits in a pulpit. I agree with you, for the most part, provided one can prove that any radical ideas held by the priest/rabbi/father/what-have-you are not held by the candidate. I do not think that Obama is racist, anti-semitic, anti-American, or anything like that. However, when looked at alongside several other things (including the other two big 'issues') a fair amount of voters will see that in Obama. My issue with this whole Wright thing is that Obama dug himself a grave. He said “I can not disown Wright any more than I can disown blacks”. Then, after nothing new happens (Wright talks publicly, I consider that the same as YOUTUBE), he switches. Obama dug himself a whole, because either he lied before or he doesn't pay attention to the news. I hope it is the previous, because I would rather have a liar than an uneducated person. The thing is, Obama's advisers should have seen this coming (we all knew Wright would go talk) and handled this in the first speech (back in March), not a month later. They really dropped the ball there.

The Flag Pin
Now, I in no way think that a symbol is our country. I do not think that burning the flag is wrong and I do not think that Obama should be required to wear a flag pin. That said, why is he? Earlier this election cycle when asked about why he no longer wore the pin Obama made it a big deal by making a whole 1st Amendment speech. Good, case over, don't wear the thing. Suddenly, here comes Obama with the pin on, about the same time that the GOP starts attacking his patriotism. Seems a little coincidental there, but we can ignore that for this blog (will show up in another, trust me). So, after making a big deal about why he should not have one, Obama suddenly does have one. This is a huge issue; we saw in 2004 that a simple flip flop on a seemingly nothing thing has dire consequences in the election. A flip flop on patriotism (as the GOP would spin it) will harm Obama greatly in the coming campaign, especially in states like Ohio and Penn., where this sort of stuff resonates with the working stiffs (who Obama needs to gain ground with). This seems to be another area where Obama's advisers have dropped the ball.

Obama's elitist comments, and Michelle
Calling a female reporter “sweetie”, calling citizens of a large voting state “bitter and clingy”, saying that “this is the first time I am proud of this country”, and saying that “WV is only voting Clinton because they are racist”. Come on now people, this is a clear problem that the Obama camp is having. Before I get to the meat of this, I must say, SHUT THE HELL UP MICHELLE. Seriously, she is harming Obama's campaign greatly, almost as much as Wright did, by saying the most stupid things at the worst times. Moving on, I think that Obama is an elitist, as I think any person who wishes to run this country is; however, only Obama comes off that way. His comments imply that he looks down on people, doesn't think much of working stiffs, and has an issue with this country. That is not going to help him get elected. Sure, he makes slip ups, and I am fine with things like that (I actually think that the sweetie comment was a slip up), however he (and Michelle) also make gigantic mistakes. They both say things that will only harm them, thinking that all they need to win are the elite college educated. NEWS FLASH, you need the entire spectrum of people to win, and if you keep isolating the lower end, you can not win. This is one area where Obama's advisers are most present, these are his speeches for gosh sake. If anything, this is where they should catch his problems. Alas, low and behold, yet again, Obama's advisers have screwed the campaign. What, is this like the tenth, twentieth time? It simply comes down to one question; What should Obama do? This Democrat thinks that Obama should fire his staff, duct tape his wifes mouth, and higher people who have run campaigns before (or, you know, just go hang with the Clinton Camp).


As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks

Read more ...

Ron Paulites

Post 4:

So, you might notice that there is a theme in these last few posts; that same theme continues in this post and will for the next few, until a culmination in one post in the not so distant future. Can you guess what the theme is?

I am a regular on gaiaonline under the screenname Agrab0ekim. On there I regular the politics forums (among many other I am often on) and run into many people who claim to be well versed in politics, taxes, the IRS, the Constitution, and the like. They will start by talking about the Founding Fathers, about the degeneration of America, and about the robbing of the rich to give to the poor. They will talk about how America is now facist, how the IRS is illegal and Unconstitutional (the previous link has this same info), how the big companies are running the world (yet at the same time saying that companies should have more rights), and how the World will soon be under a New Order. Some will even say that 9/11 was an inside job. While some political supporters really annoy me and make little to no sense, there are no stopping - RON PAULITES: What Really Grind My Gigantic Notched Wheels.

Let's start by looking at who Ron Paul is: He is the other Republican running for President in 2008 (against the clear nominee McCain). His claims to fame are serving for a long time in congress, being a gynecologist, and running in 1988 as a Libertarian for President. He has several controversial positions, all of which are very, um, interesting. He supports the abolishment of income tax, all federal tax, abortions, raises in congressional pay, gun control, drug laws, and the Iraq war. He supports the extension of states rights, supports banning gay marriage, and supports unregulated businesses. In short, he supports going back to ACPU. While his positions are all fine and dandy (he can think Hitler is God for all I care), his supporters take them too far. What bugs me the most boils down to a few main things: One, they think he stands for what he doesn't - Two, they believe his lies about the IRS - Three, they are contradictory in their beliefs. Please note that not all Paulites are like this, and I have met several intelligent and properly-thinking ones in my searches on these internets.

They think he stands for what he doesn't

I have yet to meet a Ron Paul supporter who gets what he stands for right. While a few Paul supporters know next to nothing about what Ron Paul supports, most know most, if not all, of his positions. Their problems, however, is the fact that they do not take the logic as far as it should go. If my position is states rights, the abolishment of the 14^th Amendment, and banning the courts from hearing any case on Marriage it sounds dandy to most Americans, and most of his supporters. But let us follow the logic. So, courts can not hear marriage cases, okay, no interracial, inter religion marriages. You still have no problem? Good, I figured you would. Lets move to the 14^th Amendment, hmmm, rights and privileges no longer protected, Hello Plessy V. Ferguson and goodbye Brown V. Board. Starting to have doubts? Good. Lets move onto state rights, hmmm, I seem to remember a Civil War about this. Not even getting into slavery, religious states, and the like, let us look at something quite simple: money. If each state were allowed to mint their own money (state rights) then we would have a problem. Always remember people, we got rid of ACPU for a reason.

They believe his lies about the IRS

Do not get me wrong, I think that there are many things wrong with the way we do taxes in this country. I think that we tax the poor to highly and the rich not enough, that we have too many loopholes, and that college kids should be exempt (more specifically, any person with my SS number). I think that we need a full overhaul. However, I do not for one second think that taxes are a bad idea, nor do I think that they are Unconstitutional. Ron Paul and other libertarians will have you believe that taxes are immoral (whole different argument), illegal, and unconstitutional. They will even go out of their way to create a movie to show it. However, they are wrong, and the Courts have shown that again and again. One of my main problems with Paulites is that they will refuse to see reason in this area. They think that court decision say one thing when two sentences later they say another. They think that the movies are 100% correct and when you show them TAX LAW they say it is not real. In short, they feel that they know the truth and we are all lying to them. I find this to be a bad sign for any politician, having an idiotic base.

Three, they are contradictory in their beliefs

Everybody is contradictory in their beliefs. I feel that we should have universal health care (or at least a plan to pay companies to provide it) but at the same time think that it is Unconstitutional. I think that we should not have quotas on businesses or schools but think that we should have regulations on them. I am hypocritical and contradictory, and so are you. That said, however, I think that Paulites take it further than most of us; they take it so far that they are in a realm all to their own. There are some who say that the corporations are running the world, some that say that corporations are the only thing that should be taxed, and some that say that corporations should not exist. They then all defend the deregulation of these companies. Do you see the problems there in. More you ask? A fair bit claim that there should be equal rights for all, a fair bit support state rights, and a fair bit support the idea of free people (seems to be their motto). They then go and support the banning of gay marriage, fight quotas and affirmative action and welfare, and argue that certain persons shouldn't be allowed to do certain things. The kicker is that they all (majority) support the ending of the 'war on drugs' with the argument “what goes into our body is our call because it is OUR BODY” and yet attack the concept of abortion. I mean, come on, what is more contradictory than that. The question comes down to this, is it worth having hundreds of thousands (I think he just passed the million mark) of crazy hard-core supporters who are wrong and don't actually support what/who you are or is it better to have millions of luke-warm supporters who actually know your positions and are mainstream? This Democrat say the latter.

As always, please leave any comments, no matter how large or how small about the contents of this blog post. Also, please leave any comments/suggestions about this site/post as a whole. Thanks

Read more ...