Obama won't announce his vice presidential pick till Saturday and Mc Cain won't announce his vice presidential pick till August 29th. Joe Biden has stated twice in the past couple of days that "He's not the one" referring to the pick that Obama has already made his VP pick but is waiting till he lets his text message fans know first. I don't have the service. Biden would be his best choice, but I don't think Obama is that smart to pick him. Mc Cain would be making a horrible mistake if he went for Lieberman. A grevious mistake I'm pretty sure he won't make because he would inalterably alienate his Republican base and the pro life fundamentalists. Were this to happen my reason for NOT voting for Obama would largely be removed. (Selah)
There really isn't much news except that we're already up to the F's in mid August for hurricanes. People are still into following the Olympics and other news has to take a back seat. Of course there are other things to keep in the back of our minds when we vote. One is the lobbyest question. Over the past forty years the ammount of money given to Congressmen and candidates by lobbyiests has skyrocketed. We go from exercising a first amendment right "the right to petetion the government for redress of grievences" to what we have now which is the old fashioned "buying" of politicians. The urgent need for ethics reform is a point in Obama's favor. Also we need to as Thom Hartman says, "Set an example for others to follow and emulate in this country of finding alternate energy sources. History has shown that whatever the United States does now will be emulated by other nations later. I still think leagelizing hemp would be a good idea and apparently in Canada they have legalized the male hemp plant so there is no concern of getting high off the produce. We could use hemp for a host of things, notibly paper, and save a bunch of trees that put back oxygen. I hope T Boone Pickens continues to have success with his wind power in west Texas and other west plains states where the wind blows so much of the time. That way we can use that to generate electricity to save propane, which we can use to drive our cars. Other areas to consider in picking a President would be how they will advance science, such as stem cell research, which will determine how healthy we all are in the future. And there's Thom Hartman's theory about "spreading out the risk" in medical insurance. By his way of thinking if we could get every healthy person to contribute to help out those in dire medical need, nobody would have to face catistrophic financial risk. But it's kind of like trying to put the Golden Rule, "do unto others - - " into practice. I'm not sure the human race is quite ready for that yet. We humans unlike God, have to live in this, the real world which "contains some people who aren't very nice" and also people who "Don't take good care of their health". And so all we healthy people aren't really sure whether we all want to subsidize the chain smokers and those who work in coal mines and who drink themselves into oblivian every night. In theory, ah yes, "in theory" it would seem a good idea to turn over medical insurance to some "non profit" outfit such as the government. And I'm also aware of another Hartman axiom that "what republicans want to do is sabotage government with bad employees getting plum jobs, and that way when it all falls apart these Republicans can say "You see, I told you government doesn't work". These are all just things to weigh in your minds.
Another "background issue" is the fact that George Bush has always have a "negitive voter ballance" in that he really didn't fairly "win" either of his Presidential elections. We have to watch what the media does and what the courts do and what bribable government and election officials do. It is said that Obama needs to have a landslide victory this fall, or else the Republicans will "flip" another election. Another thing to remember is that list of fourteen signs of creeping fascist government. You know them- - keeping some crisis going, keeping the fear and "national security" thing going, and jingoism and prejudice, and turning the military over to some elite and unaccountable private corporation or corporations. In some ways Obama is like Clark Kent on all those Smallville episodes. He alone has to decide "whether or not he wants to use his powers". Obama can have all sorts of "ethical" excuses for NOT using his powers of perswasion and "selling the democratic position to the voters". I guess Obama has to decide whether he'd rather win an election or struggle with "ethical phantoms" in his own mind.
Some of you may wonder about my answer to that Pastor's question about Evil. I guess me and Mc Cain think in one way and Obama thinks in another way. I took the question as a direct choice of a. b. c. and d. answers, and pick one and it's done. Instead Obama chose to give a whole treaties on every aspect of "Evil". Just as there are times when citric acid is good for the stomach as a cure for other types of acid attacks, there are times when in order to handle Evil you need to bring out a different kind of Evil to attack it. In the same say often you fight one insect pest with another insect that hopefully won't also turn into a pest. Sometimes you need Satan to drive out Satan because that which we call "Good" (the Federation) is off in its Ivery Tower somewhere with "ethical problems about getting involved". If you have one Satan you cannot reason or deal with or make headway against, and another Satan who is "willing to deal" you go with the one who is willing to deal and take your chances. Hopefully like as with George Burnes on "Oh God You Devil", you will come out on top. The fact is if the Federation wanted to really come after you, they could mess with your life in ways that would make Stephano Di Mira look like a novice in the area. You know, George Bush talked about "political capital" when he didn't have any, at least based on his votor margins of victory. But I'd be interested in their being some bank where you could cash in on your "moral capital". Remember it was Gene Scott (who like a stopped clock is right twice a day for a moment) who said "Being without sin doesn't make you Good; it just makes you a nothing. I'm not claiming to be without sin, but in an analog world things or people "without sin" are little more than a non existant abstraction. The whole concept of being "Sin-free" is about as bogus as a drink being "Sugar Free" and therefore it must be healthy to drink it by the 32 oz. bottle full. Being "without sin" isn't what qualifies you as Alive. The lamp on your nightstand is sin free, but I would hope to be more "alive" than it is. If nothing else modern fundamentalism is a white bread "bleached out" approach to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment