I know there are those that want Hillary Clinton for President because it would be great to see that glass ceiling broken. Here's why I don't want her to win the Democratic nomination:
Let's start with the electability concerns I have. She's hate by the Right, not just because she's a woman in power but also because she's a Clinton. And then she's got other baggage, boy howdy does she have other baggage. From Bengazi to her private Email servers, the Right certainly doesn't have a lack of things to throw at Clinton. So, we wouldn't have an issue-oriented exchange. Also, she comes off as dishonest, so I'm not convinced it would be an easy victory.... depending upon who she goes up against.
O.k., so, we're not sure she could win.... but that's not all. I'm just not interested in having her as President. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. If Senator Boxer or Senator Warren were running, I'd be all for either of them. Indeed, I'm in favor of our breaking that glass ceiling, but I don't want to throw out the rest of my politics for it. In 2008, she and Obama were moderates. She then started to try to position herself as the liberal candidate at the start of her race this year, but, at least to me, it's only come off as insincere. Not to mention the fact that there's a true liberal in the race and she's definitely not coming close to his stances on anything.
Also, she's a war hawk. She's been pushing Obama to be more aggressive around the world and is in favor of supporting Israel financially, not for peace-keeping, but to assist with military spending.
Again, if Warren or Boxer or another woman candidate that I felt was on the correct side of the issues and could win were running, I'd be supporting her. Clinton is not on the correct side of the issues and feels to me a lot like what Romney must have felt like to the Republicans in 2012. Unfortunately, there aren't any other women running for the Democrats, so I side with the guy that fits my ideals on the political issues: Sanders.
Dark Wind Rising
Monday, September 14, 2015
Thursday, September 10, 2015
2016 Presidential Candidates Review - 10-Sep-2015 Edition
So, I think it's about time for me to start commenting on things within the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Let's start with the Republicans because that's rather simple: holy bijesus! 17 declared candidates! The frontrunner is, not surprisingly, an extremely wealthy white guy. This time, the leader of the pack doesn't have to be caught saying ridiculous things in private, he's saying them out in the open. The interesting thing to me is that we all thought Trump's support would die out after a few weeks, but it's been going strong for a while now (though others seem to be gaining some ground). That's all for now for them, because, well, 17...
On to the Democrats. Really, we've only heard from 3 candidates and 1 potential candidate. There's the up-till-now front runner, Hillary Clinton, the second-place-till-now candidate, Bernie Sanders, the almost-heard-of candidate, Martin O'Malley, and the potential candidate, Joe Biden.
Let's start with O'Malley. I think we can essentially dismiss him because he's burdened with the racial issues in Baltimore and is well behind Sanders, who is the most similar to him of the declared candidates in terms of politics.
Next, let's discuss Clinton. Clinton is being bogged down by her perceived (and I believe actual) shadiness, dishonesty, and being just generally disingenuous. In addition to these items, plus the Republicans hatred for her in general, there's the fact that she's always been a centrist and much more of a war hawk than the liberal base of the Democratic party to be too happy about. Yes, she's a woman, and I shouldn't just shrug that off as older Democrats are likely to be more enthusiastic about her candidacy and Republicans are likely to be more against her based on this fact, but I don't think that's really what's going to drive things as we go through the primaries.
Then there's Sanders. Sanders is a liberal's liberal. I mean, my god is he liberal. And he doesn't shy away from it. It's amazing to me, in this day and age, to see someone who's not a complete loon talk honestly and seriously about liberal issues and stand up for them. There are several in office now doing this but Sanders is the one running, so go him. His honesty, in contrast to Clinton's dis-ingenuousness, is helping him, but so are his long-standing liberal stances. Recent polls have had him gaining ground on Clinton and the most recent one I've heard of has them at a statistical tie!
Finally, there's Biden. Biden had a death in his family earlier this year, so he's not sure whether he wants to run for President. That's a very honest thing for him to say, and he's always seemed very honest. That said, he's also always seemed to not be as presidential as Clinton and Sanders. Biden is always saying things that just aren't as polished as you would expect from a president. My general feeling is that, with Sanders appearing more and more an option, Biden won't run because the main push was to have someone other than Clinton be a contender. That said, he's certainly making his way around the circuit, so it's not as clear as to make it definite.
So, I guess my thinking at the moment is that Sanders has a chance at winning the Democratic nomination, and provided Trump or one of the right wing nuts are nominated, he has a pretty good chance at winning the presidency.
Let's start with the Republicans because that's rather simple: holy bijesus! 17 declared candidates! The frontrunner is, not surprisingly, an extremely wealthy white guy. This time, the leader of the pack doesn't have to be caught saying ridiculous things in private, he's saying them out in the open. The interesting thing to me is that we all thought Trump's support would die out after a few weeks, but it's been going strong for a while now (though others seem to be gaining some ground). That's all for now for them, because, well, 17...
On to the Democrats. Really, we've only heard from 3 candidates and 1 potential candidate. There's the up-till-now front runner, Hillary Clinton, the second-place-till-now candidate, Bernie Sanders, the almost-heard-of candidate, Martin O'Malley, and the potential candidate, Joe Biden.
Let's start with O'Malley. I think we can essentially dismiss him because he's burdened with the racial issues in Baltimore and is well behind Sanders, who is the most similar to him of the declared candidates in terms of politics.
Next, let's discuss Clinton. Clinton is being bogged down by her perceived (and I believe actual) shadiness, dishonesty, and being just generally disingenuous. In addition to these items, plus the Republicans hatred for her in general, there's the fact that she's always been a centrist and much more of a war hawk than the liberal base of the Democratic party to be too happy about. Yes, she's a woman, and I shouldn't just shrug that off as older Democrats are likely to be more enthusiastic about her candidacy and Republicans are likely to be more against her based on this fact, but I don't think that's really what's going to drive things as we go through the primaries.
Then there's Sanders. Sanders is a liberal's liberal. I mean, my god is he liberal. And he doesn't shy away from it. It's amazing to me, in this day and age, to see someone who's not a complete loon talk honestly and seriously about liberal issues and stand up for them. There are several in office now doing this but Sanders is the one running, so go him. His honesty, in contrast to Clinton's dis-ingenuousness, is helping him, but so are his long-standing liberal stances. Recent polls have had him gaining ground on Clinton and the most recent one I've heard of has them at a statistical tie!
Finally, there's Biden. Biden had a death in his family earlier this year, so he's not sure whether he wants to run for President. That's a very honest thing for him to say, and he's always seemed very honest. That said, he's also always seemed to not be as presidential as Clinton and Sanders. Biden is always saying things that just aren't as polished as you would expect from a president. My general feeling is that, with Sanders appearing more and more an option, Biden won't run because the main push was to have someone other than Clinton be a contender. That said, he's certainly making his way around the circuit, so it's not as clear as to make it definite.
So, I guess my thinking at the moment is that Sanders has a chance at winning the Democratic nomination, and provided Trump or one of the right wing nuts are nominated, he has a pretty good chance at winning the presidency.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Freedom of Religion
In the United States, we are free to practice our beliefs as we see fit, a right that is guaranteed by the first amendment in our constitution. This freedom is only up to a point though. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as that belief does not interfere with my rights, for instance.
One example of this restriction is the case of gay marriage. Kim Davis, a country clerk, decided not to provide marriage licenses to anyone rather than providing marriage licenses to gay couples. She claimed her right of religious freedom allowed this. Here's the thing though, part of her job, as country clerk, is to provide marriage licenses, so either she should have stepped aside or she should have allowed her deputies to provide those licenses. She was sued and when she went to court she was put in jail because she wasn't willing to provide marriage licenses nor would she promise not to interfere with her deputies providing them. She was let go yesterday with the understanding that she would not interfere with her deputies' work. The amusing thing is that when she came out of the jail, there was a rally where her supporters (including presidential candidates Huckabee and Cruz) claimed victory. But victory over what is my question. She's being let go under the provision that something would be allowed to take place that she wasn't willing to agree to previously. Had she agreed to it previously, she wouldn't have been in jail in the first place. It's kind of like if I refused to put on shoes when going to a restaurant and they refused to seat me.... and then I put on shoes and claimed victory because they seated me.
It's interesting to see how the Republican presidential candidates are each responding to this matter. While Huckabee and Cruz back Davis up, moderates such as Christie have said that Davis should have been moved to a position where her religious beliefs would not interfere with her duties and that we have to obey laws.
Friday, June 5, 2015
Government creation of jobs
"Government can't create jobs." Republicans are both right and wrong with this statement. It's an interesting situation in which, the only way that it might be right is if the Republicans are the ones thinking things through.... but only to a point.
"Government can't create jobs." Let's walk through the logic that gets us there. Government creates jobs ALL THE TIME... all you have to do is walk into any state legislature, any city hall, any school, go to any street repair, any public bus or train... the list goes on. Government jobs are all around us an impact us in so many ways that the statement seems ridiculous at first.... it always has to me. I think many of those that use it don't understand it and just think of it as the base statement against using government jobs to help the economy because they don't like big government.
O.k., where's the truth in the statement then, if government creates jobs all the time? Well, it comes from going back to where the money for those jobs comes from: taxes. To a conservative, this means a lot. It means we can't count those jobs because ... well.... it's hard for me to articulate because I don't believe it. Essentially.... imagine what would happen if government jobs were all there were... we'd all be getting paid from the same pool of money that we were all paying into.... or something.
Let's go a step beyond that. What makes a job a job? There are a few reasons why I strongly believe that government jobs are jobs.... for one thing, people are working and getting paid... that, to me, is a job. But that's the simplistic view that we started with. Let's go further. When the economy isn't going so well, government has a responsibility to keep things going and to spend more than it's taking in through taxes. A lot of hay has been made in the last 8 years about how when families lose their income they have to reduce their spending and therefore government should be the same way. What those who proclaim this don't understand is that government is a different type of entity from a family or a corporation. A government has the ability to be in debt perpetually because the rate is so low. It has the spending power to keep cash flowing, even in bad times. Government can give people jobs when corporations are forced to downsize because it's nowhere near a corporations responsibility to ensure the proper running of a country's economy (corporate responsibilities are to their shareholders and making a profit). So, what does a forward thinking government do when times are bad? Keep the flow of cash going into the economy so that people employed by the government keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which means those other people can keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which... you get the idea. Keep the economy from exponentially shutting down and you stand a chance. Shut down on government jobs and the reversal of a downward spiral is difficult and the improvement of an economy, once the downward spiral is stopped, is equally difficult. Once the economy is on good standing, you start paying off government debt and setting aside some money to offset small downturns.
So how does all this work into the idea that jobs coming from taxes aren't really economically benefitting jobs? Well, let's consider that all jobs are created from people giving an entity money for services and/or products and that entity creating a job to provide those services and/or products. Where does a corporation get the money to pay their employees? Where does the government get the money to pay theirs? In both cases, it's from people. Government does create jobs. Government, in fact, has a responsibility to create and maintain jobs when other entities are cutting them. Sure, a government can't maintain jobs for a prolonged period of time in the absence of other entities providing jobs, but that's the case for any single entity. Imagine, if you will, that Ford Motors was the only company left, would they be able to maintain jobs? Of course not. So we need a mix of many industries, whether they be corporate or government.... and each industry can create jobs.
Government does create jobs. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise... and if they do, ask them what people do with all that free time in China and North Korea. Sure these countries have a lot to improve upon, but they definitively have jobs....
Government does create jobs.
"Government can't create jobs." Let's walk through the logic that gets us there. Government creates jobs ALL THE TIME... all you have to do is walk into any state legislature, any city hall, any school, go to any street repair, any public bus or train... the list goes on. Government jobs are all around us an impact us in so many ways that the statement seems ridiculous at first.... it always has to me. I think many of those that use it don't understand it and just think of it as the base statement against using government jobs to help the economy because they don't like big government.
O.k., where's the truth in the statement then, if government creates jobs all the time? Well, it comes from going back to where the money for those jobs comes from: taxes. To a conservative, this means a lot. It means we can't count those jobs because ... well.... it's hard for me to articulate because I don't believe it. Essentially.... imagine what would happen if government jobs were all there were... we'd all be getting paid from the same pool of money that we were all paying into.... or something.
Let's go a step beyond that. What makes a job a job? There are a few reasons why I strongly believe that government jobs are jobs.... for one thing, people are working and getting paid... that, to me, is a job. But that's the simplistic view that we started with. Let's go further. When the economy isn't going so well, government has a responsibility to keep things going and to spend more than it's taking in through taxes. A lot of hay has been made in the last 8 years about how when families lose their income they have to reduce their spending and therefore government should be the same way. What those who proclaim this don't understand is that government is a different type of entity from a family or a corporation. A government has the ability to be in debt perpetually because the rate is so low. It has the spending power to keep cash flowing, even in bad times. Government can give people jobs when corporations are forced to downsize because it's nowhere near a corporations responsibility to ensure the proper running of a country's economy (corporate responsibilities are to their shareholders and making a profit). So, what does a forward thinking government do when times are bad? Keep the flow of cash going into the economy so that people employed by the government keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which means those other people can keep spending money, which keeps other people employed, which... you get the idea. Keep the economy from exponentially shutting down and you stand a chance. Shut down on government jobs and the reversal of a downward spiral is difficult and the improvement of an economy, once the downward spiral is stopped, is equally difficult. Once the economy is on good standing, you start paying off government debt and setting aside some money to offset small downturns.
So how does all this work into the idea that jobs coming from taxes aren't really economically benefitting jobs? Well, let's consider that all jobs are created from people giving an entity money for services and/or products and that entity creating a job to provide those services and/or products. Where does a corporation get the money to pay their employees? Where does the government get the money to pay theirs? In both cases, it's from people. Government does create jobs. Government, in fact, has a responsibility to create and maintain jobs when other entities are cutting them. Sure, a government can't maintain jobs for a prolonged period of time in the absence of other entities providing jobs, but that's the case for any single entity. Imagine, if you will, that Ford Motors was the only company left, would they be able to maintain jobs? Of course not. So we need a mix of many industries, whether they be corporate or government.... and each industry can create jobs.
Government does create jobs. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise... and if they do, ask them what people do with all that free time in China and North Korea. Sure these countries have a lot to improve upon, but they definitively have jobs....
Government does create jobs.
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Women and Men in Movies
Alright, let's start with the fact that I know I'm probably going to make a lot of people upset by something in this post, for different people it will be something different, but I'm sure I'll make you upset by the end by something. Let's also point out that this is going to be somewhat stream of conscience and not an argument over one thing, such as whether there should be women-only cast spinoffs of movies.... though I'm relatively confident that will come up given that I just watched a youtube show with a group of people arguing about it. I also recognize that this isn't going to be some of my best writing, in part because it's just a rant, and probably not a very good one at that.
First aspect of women and men in movies, though, is going to be "I'm going to see that movie because so-and-so is hot". For the love of movies, if you're going to see a movie to see a guy or a girl, you should just stay home and rent a porn with a lookalike or get a video with them in it and watch that over and over again instead of spending the $8-12 on a one-off viewing. To me, movies are exercises in story-telling, first and foremost. They are not opportunities to watch hot people be hot, they're opportunities to watch hot people perform in a story... I mean... they're opportunities to watch people perform in a story... ok, it helps when you cook with better ingredients and certainly part of visual story-telling is the scenery and, though it sounds shallow, beautiful people make for better scenery most of the time. That said, I don't go see any movie because of a hot chick (or hot dude for that matter)... I go see it because I think it'll be fun or I think it'll have a good story. I'm happy that women are going to see Marvel movies, but it saddens me whenever I hear that they're going because the men are hotties. I know that men do the same thing and that creates 2 problems for me: 1) I'm ashamed for my gender and 2) it takes a lot out of my being annoyed by women who see Thor because Chris Hemsworth is hot topless.
All-women-lead casts. Alright, the discussion online centered around what franchise should have an all-women-lead spinoff (other than Ghostbusters). One person picked Mission Impossible, another picked Bridesmaids. The person that picked Bridesmaids made the argument that she didn't want to see women playing male roles but instead wanted to see women being women and talking about things women talk about. I'm sorry, there are already movies geared toward women, just as there are movies geared toward men. There's nothing ground breaking about movies geared toward women with leading women, and it doesn't further the discussion, or the fact that there shouldn't need to be a discussion, of women playing different roles in movies. There's also no way you can suggest that men in Mission Impossible are playing me, they're playing spies and heroes. Men in Mission Impossible don't talk about normal man things. Sure, a comedy movie about women would further the goal a little, but it has to be a movie for men or for both men and women.... not a movie that women bring their husbands/boyfriends to because their husbands/boyfriends brought them to X-Men and it's payback time. Women in, let's say action movies, can also play different roles within those movies. They can play stereotypical women roles, they can play stereotypical guy roles, they can play ... whatever.... point is, women and men have a wider range of characters than have historically been portrayed. We're just starting to see geeky characters in action movies not be insanely wimpish and also not being super-awesome... expand it all and you're breaking barriers and proving that we don't need one-dimensional characters (Ethan Hunt), we need multi-dimensional characters (Loki, Magneto) and we need more of them to be women so that we can get past the whole discussion, then we can let it flow naturally to the point where we don't see the token woman or the token man but instead see true ensemble casts.
In conclusion, we should go to movies for the stories, not how sexy the people in them are and while we shouldn't need to think about whether we should cast strong women characters or whether we have enough women characters, we do for the time being until it becomes natural that there are strong women characters as often as there are strong men characters and the same with supporting roles.
First aspect of women and men in movies, though, is going to be "I'm going to see that movie because so-and-so is hot". For the love of movies, if you're going to see a movie to see a guy or a girl, you should just stay home and rent a porn with a lookalike or get a video with them in it and watch that over and over again instead of spending the $8-12 on a one-off viewing. To me, movies are exercises in story-telling, first and foremost. They are not opportunities to watch hot people be hot, they're opportunities to watch hot people perform in a story... I mean... they're opportunities to watch people perform in a story... ok, it helps when you cook with better ingredients and certainly part of visual story-telling is the scenery and, though it sounds shallow, beautiful people make for better scenery most of the time. That said, I don't go see any movie because of a hot chick (or hot dude for that matter)... I go see it because I think it'll be fun or I think it'll have a good story. I'm happy that women are going to see Marvel movies, but it saddens me whenever I hear that they're going because the men are hotties. I know that men do the same thing and that creates 2 problems for me: 1) I'm ashamed for my gender and 2) it takes a lot out of my being annoyed by women who see Thor because Chris Hemsworth is hot topless.
All-women-lead casts. Alright, the discussion online centered around what franchise should have an all-women-lead spinoff (other than Ghostbusters). One person picked Mission Impossible, another picked Bridesmaids. The person that picked Bridesmaids made the argument that she didn't want to see women playing male roles but instead wanted to see women being women and talking about things women talk about. I'm sorry, there are already movies geared toward women, just as there are movies geared toward men. There's nothing ground breaking about movies geared toward women with leading women, and it doesn't further the discussion, or the fact that there shouldn't need to be a discussion, of women playing different roles in movies. There's also no way you can suggest that men in Mission Impossible are playing me, they're playing spies and heroes. Men in Mission Impossible don't talk about normal man things. Sure, a comedy movie about women would further the goal a little, but it has to be a movie for men or for both men and women.... not a movie that women bring their husbands/boyfriends to because their husbands/boyfriends brought them to X-Men and it's payback time. Women in, let's say action movies, can also play different roles within those movies. They can play stereotypical women roles, they can play stereotypical guy roles, they can play ... whatever.... point is, women and men have a wider range of characters than have historically been portrayed. We're just starting to see geeky characters in action movies not be insanely wimpish and also not being super-awesome... expand it all and you're breaking barriers and proving that we don't need one-dimensional characters (Ethan Hunt), we need multi-dimensional characters (Loki, Magneto) and we need more of them to be women so that we can get past the whole discussion, then we can let it flow naturally to the point where we don't see the token woman or the token man but instead see true ensemble casts.
In conclusion, we should go to movies for the stories, not how sexy the people in them are and while we shouldn't need to think about whether we should cast strong women characters or whether we have enough women characters, we do for the time being until it becomes natural that there are strong women characters as often as there are strong men characters and the same with supporting roles.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Wako Comparisons
I've seen several posts comparing Wako's gang shootout to riots in Baltimore.... I'm not so sure that a gang shootout is really something you can compare to a riot so easily.
Not everything is equivalent.
Not everything is a prime example of the difference in how police treat blacks vs whites.
Here's one more comparison: The location of the gun fight has been closed down as a franchise and will not re-open. CVS re-opened one of the sites of the riot in Baltimore and has pledged to support the community. Please tell me which community is being treated as dangerous and problematic to invite into a business.
I'm not saying there isn't white privilege, there absolutely is. I'm not saying police behavior isn't part of that white privilege, it absolutely is. I'm not saying that the riots weren't poorly reported, they absolutely were. But just because gang members are being called gang members instead of thugs doesn't mean that the reporting isn't appropriate.
I leave you with one last comment: with all these comparisons, none of them are pointing out that 9 people are dead and 18 injured.
- One comparison suggested that there weren't mass arrests in Wako, but 170 gang members were arrested.
- One comparison suggested that since tear gas wasn't used, the police weren't as intense..... police were firing their guns at the gang members, that's not as intense as tear gas?
- One comparison suggested that since the National Guard wasn't called in, it wasn't being taken as seriously.... this comparison was made 1 day after the shoot out, the National Guard has been typically pulled into scenes much later than the first riot in the area... And by the time the comparison was made, the ATF and FBI were on the scene, the area was cordoned off, not really sure what the National Guard would have done
- I've seen a photo and the suggestion that the police were being super-relaxed in their handling of the gang members... Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I certainly can't tell from one photo and I most definitely don't know enough about the scene to know if they really could have behaved any differently (when you're entirely overwhelmed numerically you often react differently than if you have a ton of cops in riot gear)
- And now I've seen something asking why the media is calling it a gang shootout instead of a riot.... that's because IT WAS A GANG SHOOTOUT... if the riots in Baltimore were gangs shooting each other rather than gangs and others tearing apart some businesses, the story there would have been a gang shoot out as well.
Not everything is equivalent.
Not everything is a prime example of the difference in how police treat blacks vs whites.
Here's one more comparison: The location of the gun fight has been closed down as a franchise and will not re-open. CVS re-opened one of the sites of the riot in Baltimore and has pledged to support the community. Please tell me which community is being treated as dangerous and problematic to invite into a business.
I'm not saying there isn't white privilege, there absolutely is. I'm not saying police behavior isn't part of that white privilege, it absolutely is. I'm not saying that the riots weren't poorly reported, they absolutely were. But just because gang members are being called gang members instead of thugs doesn't mean that the reporting isn't appropriate.
I leave you with one last comment: with all these comparisons, none of them are pointing out that 9 people are dead and 18 injured.
Monday, January 19, 2015
It's o.k. to be Selfish
Something has had me thinking lately. Is it o.k. to be selfish? I would say it has to be. When you get a scholarship instead of someone else, you're selfish for accepting it because it could help someone else. Know what though? Nobody blames you for accepting that scholarship. When you have a job and get yourself a new one, you guessed it, that's being selfish too. You're leaving one job, where your coworkers will now be impacted negatively because they have to pick up the slack. Even if the company hires someone else, there's ramp up time and there are always projects and/or tasks that someone has to pick up in the meantime. Does that mean you should never try to get a job while you have one? Of course not. So clearly, it's o.k. to be selfish.... even if it has a negative connotation.
That's not to say it's always right to be selfish. Stealing someone's car certainly shouldn't be held up as a good thing to do. Leaving the scene of an accident when nobody is around and not leaving a note providing contact details is less selfish but is still a bit more selfish than I'd say is o.k.
So, as with many things, selfish is o.k., even preferred, in moderation. So, next time someone tells you you're being selfish, don't be quite as offended. If you feel you should be offended, consider looking at what you're being told you're being selfish about and decide for yourself if you're being selfish and if so, if it's reasonable to be selfish in that way. If it's not reasonable, consider changing your ways. If it is reasonable, recognize that the comment should not be offensive... after all, we're all selfish a lot of the time, and it's only healthy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)