Poor Joe the Plumber. I bet he'd like to buy back his 15 minutes of fame.
His crime? Asking Barack Obama a serious question about his tax plan.
And because he didn't have a teleprompter in front of him with a predetermined answer the Senator from Illinois gave an honest, revealing answer.
For this crime against humanity Joe is now being subjected to the equivalency of a shark feeding frenzy staged by the mainstream media.
Could it be any clearer that the media sits snugly in the pocket of the Democratic party? Ignore the disturbing answer and go after the plumber......NOW! Don't give the public time to think about the answer. They might not like their conclusions.
As a preschool teacher, I'm familiar with this technique. It's called redirecting. Changing the child's focus from one activity to another. The Wizard of Oz tried to use it when he told Dorothy and her friends to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Well, it didn't work for the Wizard and I'd like to think we're at least as smart as Dorothy.
The real focus of that exchange should be on Obama and his answer not Joe and his question.
Hang in there, Joe. You asked a legitimate question. Like it or not, you are now a representative for middle class America. I only hope everyone is paying attention to the way Joe is being treated. Because if Barack Obama wins the election in November, it's how we're all going to be treated.
Dee
P.S. I predict that's the last time you'll see Senator Obama answer any off-the-cuff questions. No doubt they have the muzzle on nice and tight.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
How Fares the Dream?
The sixties were a turbulent time. Bob Dylan told us that "The times, they are a-changin", and while this was true it wasn't easy. The decade was a crucible for violence best exemplified by the assassinations of John and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Standing up for your beliefs could land you squarely in the cross hairs of some madman's gun.
The best change is a gradual change, one that has time to take root and be nurtured carefully. When change is thrust upon one it is more likely to be resisted. The Rev. Dr. King understood this. While realizing the time had come for those of color to stand up and be recognized as co-heirs to the American dream of liberty and justice for all he also realized that if this was to be a lasting accomplishment it must be pursued by peaceful means and actions.
In August of 1963, Martin Luther King gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial. He spoke to a quarter of a million civil rights supporters, black and white, of his dream of a future where brotherhood between all men was the standard. He acknowledged his dream to be deeply rooted in the American dream. He gave voice to his faith that "we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood". He spoke of a time when his children would be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". He was mindful of not creating an atmosphere that fostered the need for revenge against real and perceived wrongdoings. He admonished his followers, "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred".
Dr. King was well aware of the real possibility that his dream could be twisted and exploited by those who sought only to advance themselves by drawing on the natural tendency of people to desire retribution from their adversaries. Sadly, some of those people walked by his side and pretended to espouse the virtues of Dr. King's beliefs while biding their time until they could stir the pot of racial division and bring it to a full boil.
Several months prior to his speech at the Lincoln Memorial Dr. King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama for his role in the Birmingham Campaign, a movement to end the city's segregated policies. While in jail Dr. King wrote a letter to fellow clergymen to address their reservations about the means being used by Dr. King and his supporters. He quoted great biblical and historical figures in his argument for the need to change. He warned of a frightening racial nightmare if his white brothers did not heed his nonviolent efforts. Martin Luther King defined his position as standing between those blacks who had become complacent and insensitive and the black nationalist groups that had repudiated Christianity and were fueled by hatred and despair.
Rev. King dreamed of a day when freedom would ring out all over America for all of her people. His dream was that all of God's children would be able to join hands and sing, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
So, what has become of the dream?
For the first time in our history an African-American stands poised to assume the mantle of the presidency. Is this a fulfillment of Dr. King's dream, the culmination of the many marches for equality that took place in the sixties? How did Barack Obama arrive at this position? Did his experience lead him to the race for the presidency? Sadly, no. He is woefully inexperienced for any position of leadership. His time in the Senate has been limited. Being a community organizer does not qualify one for the highest office in the land. Being able to produce sound bites does not qualify one for the highest office in the land. Simply being African-American does not qualify one for the highest office in the land.
However, this last point is the selling point for the Democratic Party. If you don't support Obama, you must be a (gasp) racist! If Obama doesn't win, there will be riots in the streets! (Never mind that this is fear-mongering at it's worst and insulting to African-Americans nationwide.) Democratic leaders openly accuse their own constituents of racism in anticipation of their lack of support for the Senator from Illinois. Some are poised to throw Israel under the bus to create division and gain support.
The Democratic Party slogan now seems to be, "By hook or by crook". They have never gotten over their double loss to George W. Bush. To listen to them today you would think they are still running against George W. and I suppose in a way they are. They are stuck in the year 2000 still trying to claim a victory that the Supreme Court declared was not theirs. They want to reclaim the presidency (as if they are the sole heirs to it) and undo any policy that has Bush's name on it. If they could strike his name from the records, I'm sure they would do just that.
What does this have to do with the dream?
It shows the mindset of those who promote Obama. His virtue lies not in the fact that he is a qualified black man but that he is a good front man for their agenda. Any objections to his candidacy are immediately met with cries of racism. This is the club that will be used to beat back any challenges to his qualifications to run for president. This is the crutch they extend to those who cannot win by their own merit. It has nothing to do with content of character and everything to do with the color of skin.
Dr. King dreamed of hearing freedom ring out across the land in proclamation of the brotherhood of all men. Instead all we hear from the Democrats is the maniacal laughter of the power hungry as they seek to take our rights away and impose their will on us.
Is the dream dead?
No but it is proper poorly. The dream is not partisan, it is not political, it is not a means to an end. And shame on those who treat it as such. It is either a dream for all to fulfill or it will forever fall short of it's mark.
Please, America, do not let this vision fade. Push off those who would seek to hijack Dr. King's dream for their own limited agenda. Restore the dream to it's rightful place, a place that transcends party politics and encourages humanity to be ever mindful of the fact that we are all God's children.
Dee
The best change is a gradual change, one that has time to take root and be nurtured carefully. When change is thrust upon one it is more likely to be resisted. The Rev. Dr. King understood this. While realizing the time had come for those of color to stand up and be recognized as co-heirs to the American dream of liberty and justice for all he also realized that if this was to be a lasting accomplishment it must be pursued by peaceful means and actions.
In August of 1963, Martin Luther King gave a speech at the Lincoln Memorial. He spoke to a quarter of a million civil rights supporters, black and white, of his dream of a future where brotherhood between all men was the standard. He acknowledged his dream to be deeply rooted in the American dream. He gave voice to his faith that "we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood". He spoke of a time when his children would be judged not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character". He was mindful of not creating an atmosphere that fostered the need for revenge against real and perceived wrongdoings. He admonished his followers, "In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred".
Dr. King was well aware of the real possibility that his dream could be twisted and exploited by those who sought only to advance themselves by drawing on the natural tendency of people to desire retribution from their adversaries. Sadly, some of those people walked by his side and pretended to espouse the virtues of Dr. King's beliefs while biding their time until they could stir the pot of racial division and bring it to a full boil.
Several months prior to his speech at the Lincoln Memorial Dr. King was arrested in Birmingham, Alabama for his role in the Birmingham Campaign, a movement to end the city's segregated policies. While in jail Dr. King wrote a letter to fellow clergymen to address their reservations about the means being used by Dr. King and his supporters. He quoted great biblical and historical figures in his argument for the need to change. He warned of a frightening racial nightmare if his white brothers did not heed his nonviolent efforts. Martin Luther King defined his position as standing between those blacks who had become complacent and insensitive and the black nationalist groups that had repudiated Christianity and were fueled by hatred and despair.
Rev. King dreamed of a day when freedom would ring out all over America for all of her people. His dream was that all of God's children would be able to join hands and sing, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
So, what has become of the dream?
For the first time in our history an African-American stands poised to assume the mantle of the presidency. Is this a fulfillment of Dr. King's dream, the culmination of the many marches for equality that took place in the sixties? How did Barack Obama arrive at this position? Did his experience lead him to the race for the presidency? Sadly, no. He is woefully inexperienced for any position of leadership. His time in the Senate has been limited. Being a community organizer does not qualify one for the highest office in the land. Being able to produce sound bites does not qualify one for the highest office in the land. Simply being African-American does not qualify one for the highest office in the land.
However, this last point is the selling point for the Democratic Party. If you don't support Obama, you must be a (gasp) racist! If Obama doesn't win, there will be riots in the streets! (Never mind that this is fear-mongering at it's worst and insulting to African-Americans nationwide.) Democratic leaders openly accuse their own constituents of racism in anticipation of their lack of support for the Senator from Illinois. Some are poised to throw Israel under the bus to create division and gain support.
The Democratic Party slogan now seems to be, "By hook or by crook". They have never gotten over their double loss to George W. Bush. To listen to them today you would think they are still running against George W. and I suppose in a way they are. They are stuck in the year 2000 still trying to claim a victory that the Supreme Court declared was not theirs. They want to reclaim the presidency (as if they are the sole heirs to it) and undo any policy that has Bush's name on it. If they could strike his name from the records, I'm sure they would do just that.
What does this have to do with the dream?
It shows the mindset of those who promote Obama. His virtue lies not in the fact that he is a qualified black man but that he is a good front man for their agenda. Any objections to his candidacy are immediately met with cries of racism. This is the club that will be used to beat back any challenges to his qualifications to run for president. This is the crutch they extend to those who cannot win by their own merit. It has nothing to do with content of character and everything to do with the color of skin.
Dr. King dreamed of hearing freedom ring out across the land in proclamation of the brotherhood of all men. Instead all we hear from the Democrats is the maniacal laughter of the power hungry as they seek to take our rights away and impose their will on us.
Is the dream dead?
No but it is proper poorly. The dream is not partisan, it is not political, it is not a means to an end. And shame on those who treat it as such. It is either a dream for all to fulfill or it will forever fall short of it's mark.
Please, America, do not let this vision fade. Push off those who would seek to hijack Dr. King's dream for their own limited agenda. Restore the dream to it's rightful place, a place that transcends party politics and encourages humanity to be ever mindful of the fact that we are all God's children.
Dee
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Same old, same old
Yet another "talking head" from CNN weighs in with the opinion that racism is a major factor in this race. Jack Cafferty opines that the fact that Barck Obama is a black man is the only reason he is not leaps and bound ahead of John McCain.
Well, Jack, you're half right. Racism does play a role in the presidential campaign but I assert that the only reason Obama is a player is because he's African-American and the Dems have decided that the time is ripe for a president of color. Not someone with experience, God forbid, or someone who could stand up to the machine. No, someone woefully inexperienced but with enough of an ego to think he's the person for the job. Someone who will willingly parrot the standard party line but isn't really capable of thinking for himself.
"Tag, Senator Obama, you're it!"
Of course, I'm not the first person to arrive at this conclusion. Former Democratic VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro voiced a similar opinion and was duly chastised by her party for daring to break ranks and voice an opinion that didn't show "nothin' but love" for the Senator from Illinois.
Today's Democratic Party is yesterday's Republican Party. Remember Richard Nixon and his Dirty-Tricks Gang? Where do you think the fill-in-the-blank gate phrase came from? Tricky Dick and the Watergate escapade. People were so desperate for change after this fiasco of a presidency that we ended up with 4 years of Jimmy Carter. 'Nuff said.
Now Senator Obama is urging his supporters to argue with McCain supporters and "get in their face". Truly, Senator, I don't recommend this strategy. As a preschool teacher, I assure you I can more than take out anyone who thinks they can intimidate me into changing my vote. I've studied with the masters. However, the Senator assures us he's been schooled by Chicago politics so I guess the arm-twisting and intimidation practices are deeply ingrained in him. I'm just surprised he admits to it so freely.
Unlike MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Senator Obama does not send a tingle up my leg but rather a cold chill down my spine.
Dee
Well, Jack, you're half right. Racism does play a role in the presidential campaign but I assert that the only reason Obama is a player is because he's African-American and the Dems have decided that the time is ripe for a president of color. Not someone with experience, God forbid, or someone who could stand up to the machine. No, someone woefully inexperienced but with enough of an ego to think he's the person for the job. Someone who will willingly parrot the standard party line but isn't really capable of thinking for himself.
"Tag, Senator Obama, you're it!"
Of course, I'm not the first person to arrive at this conclusion. Former Democratic VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro voiced a similar opinion and was duly chastised by her party for daring to break ranks and voice an opinion that didn't show "nothin' but love" for the Senator from Illinois.
Today's Democratic Party is yesterday's Republican Party. Remember Richard Nixon and his Dirty-Tricks Gang? Where do you think the fill-in-the-blank gate phrase came from? Tricky Dick and the Watergate escapade. People were so desperate for change after this fiasco of a presidency that we ended up with 4 years of Jimmy Carter. 'Nuff said.
Now Senator Obama is urging his supporters to argue with McCain supporters and "get in their face". Truly, Senator, I don't recommend this strategy. As a preschool teacher, I assure you I can more than take out anyone who thinks they can intimidate me into changing my vote. I've studied with the masters. However, the Senator assures us he's been schooled by Chicago politics so I guess the arm-twisting and intimidation practices are deeply ingrained in him. I'm just surprised he admits to it so freely.
Unlike MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Senator Obama does not send a tingle up my leg but rather a cold chill down my spine.
Dee
Friday, July 18, 2008
A Tiny Glimmer
This Presidential election season drones on and on dragging us along into a dark and dreary future. Having no one that I can support with my heart and mind leaves this voter cold. At least I am cold when I am not offended, angrered or brought to despair by the crop of candidates that 2008 has produced.
But just when I am deciding whether it would be better to slam my head against the wall, or lay across the nearest train tracks to end this unbearable pain (I rate it right up there with passing a kidney stone, childbirth and a triple root canal.), the creative fraternal forces of JIB JAB rescue me from the morass.
Time for Some Campaigin' set to the tune of Dylan's The Times They Are a Changin' is an animated production which encapsulates the Presidential election season -nominees, the other major political players, the respective political parties, the whole campaign process, and the voters themselves.
No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, you are a boor, if you cannot enjoy good satire, even if it is directed at you personally. So to all of you who were only offended by having your guy, or gal, party, or position made the target of their rapier wit, get over it and learn to laugh.
For those who think the whole thing is appalling unAmerican and unpatriotic, you haven't got a clue! Political satire is a part of our American political heritage that can be traced to out colonial roots.
We need good satire. It provides me a glimmer of hope that from time to time, we can actually look at the political "realities"without shutting our eye our eyes and clenching our teeth and denying they even exist.
"D"
But just when I am deciding whether it would be better to slam my head against the wall, or lay across the nearest train tracks to end this unbearable pain (I rate it right up there with passing a kidney stone, childbirth and a triple root canal.), the creative fraternal forces of JIB JAB rescue me from the morass.
Time for Some Campaigin' set to the tune of Dylan's The Times They Are a Changin' is an animated production which encapsulates the Presidential election season -nominees, the other major political players, the respective political parties, the whole campaign process, and the voters themselves.
No matter which side of the aisle you sit on, you are a boor, if you cannot enjoy good satire, even if it is directed at you personally. So to all of you who were only offended by having your guy, or gal, party, or position made the target of their rapier wit, get over it and learn to laugh.
For those who think the whole thing is appalling unAmerican and unpatriotic, you haven't got a clue! Political satire is a part of our American political heritage that can be traced to out colonial roots.
We need good satire. It provides me a glimmer of hope that from time to time, we can actually look at the political "realities"without shutting our eye our eyes and clenching our teeth and denying they even exist.
"D"
Friday, March 7, 2008
Autism and Vaccines
The debate concerning vaccines and the explosive increase in autism and autism spectrum disorders has flared up recently due to a court decision that vaccines aggravated a child's medical condition and resulted in autism.
Both sides are passionate about their views. One side because they believe the vaccines are directly responsible for a degeneration in their child's brain development. The opposing side because it will mean big bucks by means of multiple lawsuits if they are found to be covering up for incompetent medical decisions.
As a teacher and the grandmother of a child currently being evaluated for an autism spectrum disorder I side with those who believe these vaccines have played a significant role in compromising a whole generation of children. It's not just the thimerosol, the mercury based preservative used in the vaccines until recently; it's injecting multiple live vaccines into the bodies of infants and young children.
There are guidelines about the proper timing of introducing certain foods into a child's system. No honey before a child is 1 year old, no peanut products before the child is 2 years old. To give them these foods before the above stated ages increases their risk of an allergic reaction. Yet, the medical profession blithely pumps toxins into a newborn baby's body without batting an eye. How much sense does this make? (The oh-so-obvious answer is none.)
A recent article posted on ABC News stated:
"Major health authorities, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization, have all studied and rejected possible links between autism and vaccines."
So, to summarize, government funded studies show no link between autism and government mandated vaccines. To quote Gomer Pyle, "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!"
The powers that be would also have us believe that they removed the thimerosol from vaccines in 2002 out of the goodness of their hearts. More likely it was to cover the wideness of their butts.
The truth about autism is a mystery. Much of the working of the brain is an unknown. But I think we're about to see some of the questions answered. Thanks to the persistence of family members who recognized the correlation between the administration of vaccines and the presentation of autistic behavior in their child. Thanks to doctors and child development experts who are willing to swim upstream and lend their voices to opposing a flawed system that is supposed to protect our children not leave them vulnerable.
No one suggests that our children should not be protected against diseases that could be life-threatening. But to treat them with vaccines that could potentially cause damage to their brains is not an acceptable trade off.
Dee
Both sides are passionate about their views. One side because they believe the vaccines are directly responsible for a degeneration in their child's brain development. The opposing side because it will mean big bucks by means of multiple lawsuits if they are found to be covering up for incompetent medical decisions.
As a teacher and the grandmother of a child currently being evaluated for an autism spectrum disorder I side with those who believe these vaccines have played a significant role in compromising a whole generation of children. It's not just the thimerosol, the mercury based preservative used in the vaccines until recently; it's injecting multiple live vaccines into the bodies of infants and young children.
There are guidelines about the proper timing of introducing certain foods into a child's system. No honey before a child is 1 year old, no peanut products before the child is 2 years old. To give them these foods before the above stated ages increases their risk of an allergic reaction. Yet, the medical profession blithely pumps toxins into a newborn baby's body without batting an eye. How much sense does this make? (The oh-so-obvious answer is none.)
A recent article posted on ABC News stated:
"Major health authorities, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization, have all studied and rejected possible links between autism and vaccines."
So, to summarize, government funded studies show no link between autism and government mandated vaccines. To quote Gomer Pyle, "Sur-prise, sur-prise, sur-prise!"
The powers that be would also have us believe that they removed the thimerosol from vaccines in 2002 out of the goodness of their hearts. More likely it was to cover the wideness of their butts.
The truth about autism is a mystery. Much of the working of the brain is an unknown. But I think we're about to see some of the questions answered. Thanks to the persistence of family members who recognized the correlation between the administration of vaccines and the presentation of autistic behavior in their child. Thanks to doctors and child development experts who are willing to swim upstream and lend their voices to opposing a flawed system that is supposed to protect our children not leave them vulnerable.
No one suggests that our children should not be protected against diseases that could be life-threatening. But to treat them with vaccines that could potentially cause damage to their brains is not an acceptable trade off.
Dee
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Change, change, change....change of fools
Everywhere you look, or listen in the mainstream media you encounter it. Pounding and incessant, the drumbeat for change spreads across the face of the nation. It grows louder and more irritating by the minute
Obama Barak cries out for us to "Believe". What should we believe?...That it's time for a change and he will bring it.
Hillary Clinton disagrees. She is the true choice, because only she has the experience, leverage, courage, decisiveness, etc. to be a true agent of change.
I saw a reporter ask a voter who she had voted for in the Texas primary. She gave him a wide smile and said, "Obama." The reporter followed up by asking her why she had made this choice. The smile faded and a look of confusion passed over her face before she replied very rotely, "For change." Of course, the interviewer never posed the proper follow up question: What kind of change do you want?"
Significant political change must be considered carefully, intelligently, measure for measure, tested for the purity of its content, and weighed for its worth Most of the time, you discover that what's being offered as change is recycled junk dressed up with new paint.
In my heart, I believe that a large part of America can be duped into thinking that change is a good thing - very modern, very stylish. After all, we are in the habit of change. We upgrade everything. We change jobs. We move. We change spouses and partners. We change cars, cell phones, computers and electronic paraphernalia with ease. Well...you get the picture.
We are no longer comfortable with hard choices, staying the course, or plans that don't show results in nintey days.
A point in case is the election of former Baltimore Mayor O'Malley to the governorship of Maryland in our last gubenatorial race. Maryland is an extremely Democratic controlled state, and ordinarily, everyone would have expected this candidate to win. Folks here voted to send a message to President Bush that they wanted a change in his Iraq policy. All the while the mayor promised changes for Maryland. Full funding of educational programs, health care solutions, higher taxes, etc.
They are living to regret their choice. O'Malley's current popularity hovers around the 3
Obama Barak cries out for us to "Believe". What should we believe?...That it's time for a change and he will bring it.
Hillary Clinton disagrees. She is the true choice, because only she has the experience, leverage, courage, decisiveness, etc. to be a true agent of change.
I saw a reporter ask a voter who she had voted for in the Texas primary. She gave him a wide smile and said, "Obama." The reporter followed up by asking her why she had made this choice. The smile faded and a look of confusion passed over her face before she replied very rotely, "For change." Of course, the interviewer never posed the proper follow up question: What kind of change do you want?"
Significant political change must be considered carefully, intelligently, measure for measure, tested for the purity of its content, and weighed for its worth Most of the time, you discover that what's being offered as change is recycled junk dressed up with new paint.
In my heart, I believe that a large part of America can be duped into thinking that change is a good thing - very modern, very stylish. After all, we are in the habit of change. We upgrade everything. We change jobs. We move. We change spouses and partners. We change cars, cell phones, computers and electronic paraphernalia with ease. Well...you get the picture.
We are no longer comfortable with hard choices, staying the course, or plans that don't show results in nintey days.
A point in case is the election of former Baltimore Mayor O'Malley to the governorship of Maryland in our last gubenatorial race. Maryland is an extremely Democratic controlled state, and ordinarily, everyone would have expected this candidate to win. Folks here voted to send a message to President Bush that they wanted a change in his Iraq policy. All the while the mayor promised changes for Maryland. Full funding of educational programs, health care solutions, higher taxes, etc.
They are living to regret their choice. O'Malley's current popularity hovers around the 3
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Blah, blah, blah
I'm listening to Obama's victory speech - actually it sounds more like an acceptance speech. He is promising a Utopia when he is elected to the office of President. I assume he will accomplish this in the first 6 days of his Presidency. After all, even God rested on the seventh day!
He has quoted every popular Democratic President and maligned the current Republican one. He's plugged his own book. I assume both he and his supporters think this is one bang-up, inspirational speech. But as an over-50 year old whose father was very involved in politics on a local level and watched all the primaries and conventions, I can assure you, I've heard it all before.
"Trust me...I have a new vision...I'm going to usher in a new age (apparently single-handedly),...BLAH, BLAH,BLAH, BLAH, BLAH".
These politicians are starting to sound like the adults in the Charlie Brown movies...wha wha wha wha wha.
He has quoted every popular Democratic President and maligned the current Republican one. He's plugged his own book. I assume both he and his supporters think this is one bang-up, inspirational speech. But as an over-50 year old whose father was very involved in politics on a local level and watched all the primaries and conventions, I can assure you, I've heard it all before.
"Trust me...I have a new vision...I'm going to usher in a new age (apparently single-handedly),...BLAH, BLAH,BLAH, BLAH, BLAH".
These politicians are starting to sound like the adults in the Charlie Brown movies...wha wha wha wha wha.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)