I think I'm going to start keeping a bucket next to me when I surf political issues on the net. I don't want to beat a dead horse, and I wanted to stay away from politics, but I happened upon a Facebook group supporting McCain/Palin that has forced me to go there once more. Some of the things people come up with are enough to make my head explode. The thing that I just cannot understand are all the blatant contradictions. Here is one of my favorite quotes that I found in the aforementioned group,
"And to top it off...the worst thing her opponents came up with is to criticize her child's personal life choices (referring to her daughter's impending birth)?...hurray. Finally a candidate who is ethical!P.S. the future of America is NOT young people, because in 80 years, those people won't be here...The future is who you put your faith in...and I don't put my faith anywhere but in Christ! In the end it doesn't really matter who is voted in, because God's will WILL be done. I personally vote for those who hold themselves accountable for their actions to my God."
My head is imploding. You're going to dismiss attacks about having an unwed teenage daughter, then turn around and say Palin is ethical and holds herself accountable to god? The fact that you want this whole country to run on your beliefs is bad enough, but you aren't even clear about what your beliefs really are. On top of that, here's a quote from the group's description,
"being contrary is a waste of your time and a waste of the time of the rest of the people on this group."
Fantastic representation of Republican policy, you really are following the great example set by that party. One last political note, there is a book out there entitled What's the Matter with Kansas. It deals with the changing political climate within the Republican party and how a new movement has shifted the focus away from policy and towards ethical concerns. I highly recommend it, especially in light of some of the tactics of Republicans so far in this election.
Speaking of Republican tactics, I've been watching a few McCain interviews, mainly focused on the economy, and I keep hearing one phrase pop up, "Obama wants to raise taxes." Yes, let's all get into a frenzy and make a bumrush for the right, Obama wants to make average Americans pay MORE money in a time of economic instability, or so John McCain would have you believe. His message certainly implies this, but it is far from the truth. In case you didn't already know, we here in America, as in just about every other industrialized capitalist nation, have a progressive tax system. What that means is that the income tax scale is progressive, that it scales up. The more money you make, the more money you pay. Now I know some people reading this might be having an outburst, "but that's not fair, everyone should pay an equal amount!" Good news, there's a political party that agrees with you. They're called Libertarians, many Republicans agree with their philosophies, and they're also a horde of morons. Yes, it sounds nice to have everyone paying an equal tax, but what happens when someone dies and leaves their money to someone? You have the beginnings of an aristocracy, the type of government our forefathers were so dissatisfied with that they rebelled and created a country of their own. People inherit wealth, and with that wealth power. They become politically and socially active in order to safeguard their holdings, and they get richer and richer, then they die and their children start out with that much more of an advantage. Economists as early as the seventeenth century had predicted that a similar system, even though it existed only in theory, would eventually and inevitably become the norm, and why? More important than individual wealth is economic stability. If government exists to safeguard the needs of the elite, then they need something more than a promise of equality to keep the country running in an orderly manner. That's why Libertarians are the lowest of the low when it comes to politics.
Anyways, Obama's proposed tax increases would put a greater burden on the wealthy, who put the least amount of money back into the economy. Economic crisis aside, the wealth gap in this country was growing to extremes. A Republican White House would undoubtedly not only refuse to make any progress in trying to lessen the gap between the wealthy and the poor, but would have fought to repeal reforms made to safeguard the middle and lower classes. Recent Republican strategy has been dedicated to repealing things like the estate tax, which tries to curb inherited wealth, the largest culprit of the economic gap, and New Deal programs meant to safeguard workers. Republicans are even going after social security. In a time when we could be facing the biggest social security crisis ever in the coming years, Republicans want to privatize it. We all know how well that worked out with health care. Bottom line, social security was created to help senior citizens maintain a minimum quality of living they couldn't afford without government help, privatizing it runs against the very core of the institution itself.
I also saw McCain and his party's stance on the bail out issue. Everyone rallying behind McCain because of tax cuts should take a closer look at each candidates' stances. McCain wishes to cut taxes for high-income Americans, while Obama promises to make tax cuts for struggling middle class Americans. Which seems like a better idea to you? Should we give MORE money to the people who are already well off and mostly unaffected by the current crisis, or should we give more money to the people who are hit the hardest by it?
The Bush administration is also OPPOSING demands that CEO bailouts be removed from the $700 billion proposal. It isn't a huge surprise that the same administration with corporate ties to Enron, Haliburton, and the lucrative Bush family oil business is trying to take of CEOs, the question is will we stand for it? It seems that congress is finally in a position to oppose President Bush, and that they're doing just that in taking a hard line against taxpayer money going to help CEOs who pull down salaries unimaginable by any working individual's standards. So will we stand for it as a nation? Will we vote for someone who supports big business, who supports giving the already wealthy tax breaks, or will we vote for someone who has been entrenched in the plight of working individuals for all of his natural born life?
Off politics and on to some lighter issues. Football season is here and you know what that means: commercials. I can find almost nothing worth watching on broadcast television, so I typically have the unusual fortune of not being bombarded by corporate advertising every 10 minutes or so. That all ends this week, as I'll being seeing ads for crap I either would never buy or can't afford at every timeout, end of quarter, touchdown, field goal, injury, and then some. So far I haven't seen too much out of the ordinary, but there have been a couple ads I just don't understand. One is a series of ads with random crap going on that is apparently trying to get people to travel to Vegas. You may think I'm kidding, but I'm not. Random crap, go to Vegas, cut. I have no idea why that would give anyone the sudden urge to travel. If anything, it seems like it would make people want to stay home. The second is an ad featuring Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Gates. I have seen it a few times trying to figure it out, and I'm still not sure if they're trying to sell shoes or operating systems. No product placement whatsoever.
Whatever, what really matters is the football. First off, I still hate Brett Favre. He is unquestionably the most overrated athlete alive today. I almost hope Aaron Thomas takes the Pack to the NFC Championship just to further hammer home this point to Favre's brainwashed masses. Favre won his season opener against the Jets, but had a very average game. He completed two touchdown passes, one of which was a lob he threw while on the way to the ground. Most people look at this and say, "who else could have completed a pass like this?" I'll tell you who, any quarterback with a good arm and a good receiver that didn't care about throwing an interception that could come back and cost him the game. That ball could have easily been picked off by a defender, only the receiver saved it from turning into a possible Dolphins rally. In fact, Miami QB Chad Pennington had a much more consistent day than Favre. He was much more accurate and, had it not been for the game ending interception, would have had an unquestionably superior day to Favre's. Favre is heralded as the best quarterback of his time, he's not. He's a decent QB who has broken some records mostly due to the fact that he has remained healthy throughout his career, and due to the fact that he has had some truly talented receivers that have been able to minimize his mistakes. Favre is nowhere near the level of Troy Aikman or Joe Montana.
Well, this blog has sat in my drafts for longer than I intended. It's now week 3, and I still hate Favre. The Jets lost two games straight, and Favre got hammered in the loss to the Chargers. All is right in the universe, well, except for the Bears. What happened? After coming out strong against the Colts, we gave up two should-win games in the fourth quarter against possible NFC playoff contenders. The Panthers was just a tough loss, but the Bucs game was heartbreaking. After seeing the whole team perform well in the first three quarters, dropped passes, an interception, and poor pass coverage let the Bucs even the score. Worse yet, in overtime, with the Bucs pinned down inside their own 10 on third down, we draw a 15 yard unnecessary roughness call which, frankly, was bullshit. Tampa's tackle, Jeremy Trueblood, pinned Bears' end Adawale Ogunleye down and began throwing punches at him after the play was blown dead. Charles Tillman joined the scuffle, trying to help his teammate, and was whistled for roughness. Had it not been for the call, Tampa would have had to punt at their own 10 and the Bears almost certainly would have scored in sudden death. Instead, they get a first and five past their own 20. It's just a crappy end to what was otherwise a close and exciting game. I think Bears defensive tackle Tommie Harris had the best comment on the situation when he said, "[Trueblood] is dirty. He wants you to know that. Since he’s not that talented and not that good, he wants you to know that ‘I’m the dirtiest player."
Indeed, you woudn't expect behavior like that from most players in the NFL. You also wouldn't expect the Tampa sideline to be so animated after seeing such dirty tactics, but that apparently doesn't concern Jon Gruden, who ran screaming onto the field after the win as if his team had just clinched a playoff berth. Congratulations, jackass, you just told your entire team that playing dirty is fine as long as you get a win. I at least hope he also told NFL refs that his team plays dirty and they have to watch him more carefully.
Lastly, back to week one news, Tom Brady is out for the season. It's a shame, too, because he really is the definition of an elite QB. I keep saying that if he can stay healthy he could be the greatest QB in the NFL in a long time, and I especially want to see him stay healthy so he can shatter all those Favre records. This isn't irrational dislike, I just know Favre's not as good as everybody else thinks and I want everyone else to see that.
Alright, I'm done for now. I'm building towards a subject that I'm pretty passionate about, and when I get the chance I will unleash my righteous fury on those who dare challenge me. Until then, peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment