Redistribution of wealth...

Republicans have long been carrying on about the redistribution of wealth that will occur at the hands of President Obama and all the other liberals who are now in charge. It's obvious that socialism is nigh... Right.

I saw this comment to an op-ed piece about the similarities between Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and the new administration. While the article was written by a conservative, claiming that our county will come to ruin shortly, I really liked this response (grammar notwithstanding):

It is said that the money doesn’t go away it just gets redistributed. Under the Bush administration billions of dollars were reallocated to the wealthiest of the population. Mr. Andrews the “Economic makeover” the redistribution process has already taken place. As a result the middle class is slipping into poverty. I say Atlas has already shrugged and we are currently dealing with the consequences.

It's all a matter of perspective, and I agree with the commenter, who is named as "snowbow."

Conservatives without Brains

This is kind of long, because I've reprinted a piece from the Daily Camera...
In last week's paper (from the ever-liberal Boulder), was a piece from a local named Don Lloyd, complaining about the "liberal hate mongers." Here is what he had to say:

It is worrisome to contemplate how the numerous liberal hate mongers will react to the sudden loss of their opportunity to express their unprecedented disrespect and hate of our President. Will it be something like drug withdrawals, or will it be depression? Surely, the Camera cartoonist will be saddened that he can no longer express his narrow-minded hate by regularly casting our president as an ignorant monkey.

No, this will not be replaced by similar but conservative purveyors of disrespect, because they seem to have the ability to communicate criticism more constructively. It’s similar to the treatment of liberal versus conservative guest speakers on the CU campus. We never see liberal guest speakers taunted or blocked from speaking, yet the campus liberals, who loudly declare the merits of freedom of speech and the right to self-expression, are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they’ve been invited for the engagement. And such behavior is vindicated by what great moral justification? Certainly it isn’t freedom of speech, or a balanced political venue. And now someone has even dared to suggest the need for a new seat of conservative thought on our fair campus – horrors!

It isn’t going to be easy for the libs, when they begin to see the bill for the massive promises being made by President Obama and his inability to deliver on many. But they will readily commit their complete support to our new president, exercising the same respect and support so completely denied President Bush.

If you think this concern for liberal withdrawals isn’t well founded, just consider the numerous hate-filled harangues printed over the past few weeks, trying to get in the last bash before President Bush leaves the oval office to his successor.

Noting that Mr. Lloyd is patently wrong on a few points, let me take this opportunity to point out just what the conservative jackass pretends to know, but really knows nothing about.

First, let me acknowledge that he is correct that there has been much Bush-bashing going on, not just in the end of Mr. Monkey's term, but throughout. As an educated person, I think that the bashing was warranted. The man was an idiot and a fraud, and not fit to lead this country.

Next, Mr. Lloyd goes on to mention the negative treatment of conservative guest speakers at CU. Mr. Lloyd says that the campus liberals "are quick to prevent any significant conservative voice from speaking at CU, even when they've been invited for the engagement." Well, Mr. Lloyd, I hate to disappoint, but at the time of your writing there were prolific advertisments of a conservative speaker, coming to the CU campus to speak. On January 26, the conservative author Dinesh D'Souza engaged in a debate entitled "What's so great about God," on campus. So much for that idea. D'Souza is a best-selling author, a former senior policy analyst for the Reagan Administration, and was described by New York Times Magazine as one of the nation's leading conservative thinkers. Seems to me just like the kind of person Mr. Lloyd was describing.

The other major point in Lloyd's column I'd like to address is his statement that we liberals will essentially follow President Obama in blind faith. Even if we do, I'd really like to know how that is at all different from the astonishing blind faith I saw conservatives put in President Bush, even when he couldn't form complete sentences and had to lie his way through the war in Iraq.

Mr. Lloyd accurately illustrates the ignorance espoused by so many conservatives, and it's always nice to see them put their feet in their mouths in public.

Because Global Warming IS Real

"President-elect Barack Obama, in strongly-worded remarks to a gathering of governors and foreign officials on Tuesday, said he had no intention of softening or delaying his aggressive targets for reducing emissions that cause the warming of the planet." (here)

Thank goodness we are actually going to get some change. I know the economy is extraordinarily important now (I'm accepting a job that pays $10/hour, and is only part-time, and I will have a doctorate), but this is also very important. I'm so happy we elected someone who will really act on the climate change problem. That is all.

A New Day Dawns

I am totally speechless, but couldn't resist the urge to put up a quick post. We have elected Obama, and now have OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT, and he Baracks my world. Champagne, anyone?

Vividly remembering the 2000 election in the Santa Rosa dorm, and the CNN gaffe, I waited till I heard two networks proclaim Obama winner before I got all giddy and teared up. This time, though, is for real.

HELL FUCKING YEAH!

Pro-Abortionists

I just gotta show solidarity with that movement that Obama is part of--the pro-abortion movement. John McCain sure does know what he's talking about! In fact, I'm going to go have an abortion even though I'm not pregnant, because I think we should all be having abortions, all the time. Go abortions!

Okay, but seriously? I'm so sick of hearing right wing nonsense. I'm just holding my breath, beaming at the polls that show a good chance of, I'm going to say it, the change we need.

WOO-frickin'-WHOO!

Not to get to excited, but I just saw that Obama has taken a real lead in the polls. Which is SO exciting. I saw this, of course, on the NY Times, which calls it a "significant" lead. That sounds good to me. Now I gotta go celebrate (maybe some champagne will kill this horrid cold?).

Democratic National Convention

Thursday I had the great fortune to attend Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Stadium in Denver. I'll start by saying that yes, I was a Hillary supporter, but I (a while back) conceded the loss and am 100% behind Obama. He is a great politician and really will be an awesome President.

We got to the stadium at about 1:15 to make sure we wouldn't miss anything (though apparently we missed HUGE lines by arriving so early). Our seats were waaaaay up in the nosebleeds, but we were facing the stage and I can't complain. Besides, they had plenty of big screens. Yonder Mountain String Band was playing when we arrived, and played again after a couple-hour lapse in activity. Since I'm kind of a hippie, I love them and it was good entertainment. Then, around three o'clock will.i.am re-created his Obama endorsement video Yes We Can.

We went to get food, and I will complain about this. As someone who is relatively affluent, I can afford stadium food prices ($5 for a soda, and they claimed only to have large sizes). However, for Obama supporters who are not wealthy, a hot dog for $6 is a little steep. We were also told that we had to purchase water (not true, there are water fountains in public places like a stadium). Again, for someone on a low income, that is outrageous. Attendees were not permitted to bring in food or drink, including water. The campaign should have made some accommodation in this respect, because people need to eat over an eight hour period, and we spend a WHOLE LOT of $$$ on food.

Anywho, we got to see Sheryl Crow and Stevie Wonder play, and that was great. We saw Martin Luther King III speak, which was a treat. Lots of other politicians spoke too, but I'm only mentioning the highlights. Mark Udall is a favorite of mine, so it's always nice to see him speak. Al Gore gave a great speech, of course focused on the climate. All of the speakers gave wonderful endorsements of Obama, and the energy was great in the stadium.

Before Obama spoke, the campaign had a number of ordinary people come out and speak. Of note were those who were staunch Republicans, but because of the way the party treats the working man, they had jumped ship and were voting for Obama. All of these speakers were heartfelt, and it was emotional because they illustrated how the American people are suffering under the Bush Administration.

Obama himself was incredible. He really railed against McCain, which was a departure from his typically patient, reserved style. It was totally appropriate, and all the more effective because he had been so reserved--it didn't sound like the whining that Republicans say it is. As he harped on his policies, you couldn't help but nod your head and agree and cheer, because he is so on point. Obama knows what we need--new energy policies, the right to choice, economic fixes, lower taxes for the middle class, more higher education funding, better K-12 services, and so on and so on. When he was finished, and the fireworks started going off, there were tears in my eyes. It was so powerful, and the energy so incredible, that I couldn't help myself. This party is on the right track, and we need him so badly.

DNC!

I am going to the Obama acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver tomorrow. I got my grubby hands on two of those coveted community credentials because I have all the right connections (none of which can get me a job, but that's a different issue). And I am ridiculously excited.

It's not what you know, and I know Katie.

Obama strikes out again

What I didn’t like about Obama was his constant promising that we would have CHANGE!!!! Well, of course we need change in this country. Change I can believe in, even. But I want real change, not empty statements of policy that sounds great but that may not be achievable. In her campaign, Hillary could back up all of her numbers and financial proposals, which I loved. Now, Obama’s promise for health care savings may not be all the “change” he has promised. The NYT says that of the money Obama has said we’ll save ($2,500 for a family of four, per year), most of that savings will be by the employer, not the employee. It breaks down to roughly ¼ of that amount to be saved by the family itself, with the remainder of savings going to the business. Yet Obama routinely promises that a family will save $2,500 a year in premiums. This seems misleading, if you ask me. Furthermore, analysts are now saying that it’s not clear that such savings can even be achieved in the time he has promised, with some saying it’s like waiting for pigs to fly. I am, once again, disappointed in this “change I can believe in.”

Separation of Church and State, anyone?

I am strongly opposed to any shift away from the separation of church and state as it was intended. Which is to say, I think that the separation should remain (nay, be more so) clearly demarcated with no blurring of the lines. Giving federal funds to faith based groups is, to me, an evangelical right-wing conservative action, one that I think other liberals like myself abhorred when Bush proposed more of it. Luckily, he proposed such action but it never really took root--it was one of those things designed to appease his evangelical constituents but lacking any cognizable result. Unfortunately, Obama announced that he supports this program and intends to expand what Bush started. While Mr. Obama assures the American people that there will be checks on the system to ensure that the line between church and state doesn't become too blurred, I think that this is a truly awful stance. I thought that Obama was nominated to be the Democratic nominee. So why is he proposing that our federal government utilize religious groups to perform the work that would otherwise be performed by state run agencies? It is not just the addition of religious programs, it is giving the money that could otherwise go to existing state programs, to religious ones. If we didn't have state run programs, and it would be too onerous to create them, I might understand. But shifting activity from government to churches when we clearly have the programs in which this activity could be improved? That I have a problem with. A BIG problem.

Obama is really earning my support...

Naturally, I would support Obama in the fall either way, but he really is an appealing candidate for a number of reasons. Here is an article that outlines his attitude towards absentee fathers, with a nod to domestic violence problems and poor parenting in general. I agree so completely with this stance, and am SO pleased that our nominee is urging us to take strides to improve some of these social problems. Social problems are huge in this country, and far too often overlooked.

The Democrats need to get smarter

We have blundered, big time. I don't think Obama can beat McCain in the fall, and several months back the Democrats were a sure thing. It's not clear that Hillary would beat McCain either, so we totally effed ourselves. Here's what's scaring me today--blue collar workers support Hillary, not Obama. Which means that they are somewhat likely to defect to the Republican side in the fall. I think that blue collar workers are more likely than other groups (such as educated white women like myself) to switch sides. If you're following me, you'll see the scary risk that lots of Democrats will jump ship, making our case even more sketchy in November than it already is.
Where did we go wrong? We probably shouldn't have focused so much on what we each wanted as Democrats. We should have focused on who could beat McCain, or any Republican (because smart Democrats would have taken this route long before McCain was the presumptive nominee). But, we're not smart Democrats, and we all fought bitterly amongst ourselves to get our favorite candidate with no regard whatsoever for who could win. Effectively, I think we handed the next four years to the Republicans, and we did it with gusto. Bravo, Democrats, bravo. Y'all suck (myself included).

Onion Article

Funny article in the Onion about the tall black man (as Robbie calls him): here.

Obama's "Change"

So you know how Obama's campaign is all about "change we can believe in?" And how those of us who believe in Hillary are critical of it for being empty? I keep waiting for him to say what that change entails, and tonight I got my answer. While speaking to San Antonio, TX, Obama said that Hillary and McCain criticize the promise as empty, but that in fact, it was a change that came from the people. So it's not an empty promise, it's one he didn't even come up with himself. He took it from the people, and then still couldn't even fill in the blanks of what "change" means. I know the time may come (very soon, even) when I have to rally behind him because he is the nominee. So I am trying to like him more. But I'm liking him less, because he is sitting there, on the tv in front of me, proclaiming the same, empty promise of change. Again, Obama, I ask you: how will you pay for your programs? How will you ensure that ALL Americans get insurance, if you don't make it mandatory? How do you plan to withdraw from Iraq? What do you plan to do about the subprime mortgage crisis? And so on. I can answer ALL of these questions definitively for Hillary.

At least he is saying we have to do *something* about climate change. "We hope, we believe, yes we can." That's a direct quote.

Hillary quote

UT Austin endorsed Hillary. This is after Obama said that every major newspaper in Texas had endorsed him. The Daily Texan, the UT Austin student paper, representing 50,000 students, was not too pleased about this, because while it's a student paper, UT is HUGE and the paper has as many or more readers than many papers do. Anywho, they put this gem of a quote in their endorsement:
"Clinton's abrasiveness, while somewhat off-putting, is essential in scrubbing our country clean of the grime the current administration has let build up."
I just like it, because it's not too glowing, but it makes an excellent, and truthful, point. In fact, the whole endorsement is good for the same reasons, and you can read it here if you like.

Clinton v. Obama: Health Insurance

Paul Krugman of the NYT writes about the differences between Obama's and Clinton's health insurance plans, reiterating why Clinton's is better. The fact that it's mandatory, and highlighting the flaw with saying that if it becomes cheap, people will buy it voluntarily [Obama]. They won't, because even those currently eligible for FREE insurance often don't sign up. If you are uninsured or underinsured, you should make sure you know these distinctions, because without our health it doesn't matter who's president--we won't be around for it. Personally, I am very underinsured, and have huge medical bills for small problems that I can't pay as a student. You may not need your insurance today, but what about tomorrow? Your kids? Your parents? Besides, Clinton can tell us how she's going to pay for it [see HillaryClinton.com, she outlines how she will pay for EVERYTHING and is the only candidate to do so], and Obama fails to enunciate how he will pay for his plans/policies if he gets elected.