My ballot has been cast

This is actually the first time I have voted in this district. I've lived here for almost 3 years, but due to my student status I held my residency in New Jersey and that is where I voted. Let me tell you there is a great difference between here and there. My small town in New Jersey actually had two mechanical voting machines, you just pressed your selection and it would light up, hit done and that was it. Here there were about 8 separate voting booths and I was given one of those scantron type forms to fill out.
I knew who I wanted to vote for, Barack Obama, and I've read about the candidates for other offices, but most of them were running unopposed, so it was easy to vote for them and be sure it was their oval I had filled in. Since this is not something I do very often, I take my time filling the ovals, and double check to make sure every thing is marked as it should be. This is not a task that should be taken lightly and rushed through.
Also of note is the fact that their were way more delegates to be selected on the ballot pledged to Obama than Hillary. Don't know if that is because of the fact that the Clinton campaign did not select enough supporters for the ballot, or it is because my county leans more Obama. I'll make sure to get my local results from the paper tomorrow, so I can share them here.
Anyway, some observations on what I've noticed around Chambersburg. I think one can infer popular support for a candidate based on the number of political signs festooning front lawns. My neighborhood only has two signs, one for Obama (mine) and one for Hillary. Around town there seem to be more Obama signs than Hillary, but Hillary has at least two large banners I saw. One on someones front lawn on route 11, another draped across an Exxon/Mobil sign.
Actually, the presidential candidate with the most signs around town is Ron Paul, but I think that is due to a few industrious supporters rather than an indicator of a large number of Ron Paul supporters in this town. Also of note, no McCain signs. This of course may mean nothing, but I would think that supporters might want to show their fervor in the face of a heated Democratic race, unless of course they are more resigned than excited.

Anyway, my prediction for the percentages: Clinton will win by 8.2%. Of course it would be nice if this were not the case, but I'll be a realist and not hope for massive unpolled turnout of Obama supporters.

Because I'm bored and this Amused me

Democratic Morons

I know I have not posted for some time, my low paying job is kicking my ass, but I’m going to try and get back to a weekly schedule, lots to rant about.

A few months ago liberals, both Democratic and independent, were talking about Bush and his childlike, spoiled brat attitude towards the loss of the Republican control of Congress, and this same attitude towards not getting what he wanted. Despite the loathing of this attitude many Obama and Hillary supporters are now themselves acting as spoiled brats who are not going to get the toy they want, declaring they will never support the other candidate and will vote for John McCain, whose platform is essentially a promise of a 3^rd Bush term.

Excuse me, but wtf? And don’t tell me this is a mature response,because it is juvenile. There is no thought behind the position, no reason, just vindictiveness at the loss of ones candidate. Also, it must be said, that Hillary supporters are more guilty of this, more culpable as it were, than Obama supporters.

Why do I say this? Because the core of both candidates support comes from different areas. The vast majority of Clinton supporters are, and have always been registered Democrats. Sure, she gets some independents, but not many. Obama on the other hand, as polls have continually shown, brings in a large number of independents. So it makes more sense that an Obama supporter is more likely to vote for McCain than a Hillary supporter since their loyalty only lies with Obama and not with the Democratic Party.

I was myself an independent until recently, since I live in Pennsylvania and wish to vote in the Democratic Party, I have reregistered as Democratic. Edwards would have been my first choice, but now Obama will get my vote. I feel that both Obama and Clinton have equal experience, but I see Obama as more electable than Hillary, more able to unite the country, solve our problems and I am also tired of political dynasties, which Clinton represents.

However, if Clinton won the nomination fairly, I would vote for her, if mainly to prevent another four years of Republican rule. I will even vote for Hillary if the superdelegates give her the nomination. It is not fair, however those are the rules as they now stand. I will not vote for her if she kneecaps Obama, or gets the Florida and Michigan votes to stand even after they broke party rules.

Now, if Clinton wins the nomination and I’m not going to vote for her because of these stated reasons, I’m not going to vote for McCain. That would be like voting for Bush, and I’m sorry but any lifetime Democrat who understands the damage Bush and the Republicans have done to this country who will vote for McCain just to stop the other Democratic candidate from winning the race is moronic.

Elections are not just two choices, Republican or Democratic. You can also vote third party, or not at all. If you are just going to vote for the other party out of vindictiveness, then I don’t care if you are 18 or 81, you have a lot of growing up to do.

I also realize there are those who are threatening to vote for the other party, but won’t really, only to try to get others to support their candidate over the other in order to maintain party unity. Stop it, it’s just as idiotic, not to mention lazy. If you really want to try an convince others of the superiority of your candidate, then please take the time and use a few brain cells to make an effective argument as to the strengths of you candidate over the other and why they are better.

Btw, for an example of a reasoned discussion between both Democratic camps, go here.

Republicans can't work

I have not posted in the longest time, and likely it will continue as I am now gainfully employed and am usually too tired at the end of a long day, or a week of work to actually sit down and type out any comments I have. This story however is too good to pass up, via Think Progress:

Republican congressmen have so far announced that they will not be running for re-election. One of those lawmakers, Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL), complained “that the Democrats’ new five-day workweek” is part of the reason they’re all retiring:

“I do think the schedule and the flying is a huge pain for people,
particularly those who are from the Midwest or even further West,” he said,
adding that it’s “probably the worst part of the job.”

So, why do people who work five days a week (or more) and barely make ends meet still vote for these guys? They consistently espouse hard work, the sacrifice of our troops in Iraq, and vote against anything that would help out the little guy citing evil when evoking socialism. Yet these people cannot handle the work week of a normal person. They complain about sacrificing time with their families rather than living up to a greater ideal and accepting the sacrifice for their country and the greater good. It seems they have no problem living off of the perks, but god forbid if they actually have to work to earn those perks.

The drivel from these Dodo's should be played in ads along with all their votes against giving our brave soldiers sufficient time at home from the war. Sure, the congress persons may not see their families for a few weeks at a time, but their family can always fly to them and they have the odd weekend to go and visit. Can our soldiers do the same? Can their family fly to them? NO! They must be deployed over there for fifteen months, and there is that ever present threat that they will be wounded or even killed. So these numb nut Republicans should shut up about sacrifice because compared to our troops, whom they insist should remain in harms way to legitimate a failed policy, they know nothing.

Friday-Freak-Out

Okie, I decided to try and add a weekly post of something that I find entertaining, not necessarily having anything to do with any subject I post about here. Of course I am going to fail on that for this first one, but it fits nicely with my previous post about conservative anti-multiculturalism in the US. Enjoy:




Rammstein
'Amerika'

Conservatives Cannot Stand 'Multiculturalism'

(h/t Blue Jersey)

Conservatives seem to have a hissy fit every time our educational system decides to start teaching our students about other cultures at the expense of American history and culture. This is highlighted in Elan Journo's ignorant rant in the article 'Multicultural' means anti-American. He states:

One text acclaims the inhabitants of West Africa in pre-Columbian times for having prosperous economies and for establishing a university in Timbuktu. But it ignores their brutal trade in slaves and the proliferation of far more consequential institutions of learning in Paris, Oxford and elsewhere in Europe.....

What these textbooks reveal is a concerted effort to portray the most backward, impoverished and murderous cultures as advanced, prosperous and life-enhancing. Multiculturalism's goal is not to teach about other cultures, but to promote -- by means of distortions and half-truths -- the notion that non-Western cultures are as good as, if not better than, Western culture.

Like many conservatives, he seems to have the America Uber Alles attitude. He misses the whole point these texts are trying to achieve in showing that these cultures weren't the backwards, barbaric peoples that Western history has always portrayed. They have culture, they have education and learning, they made advancements and contributions to human society. But Journo is automatically dismissive of these peoples because they aren't Western. All of a sudden, because they are not part of the Western civilized world they are inferior and their achievements are not important, only the dark side of their cultures which prove the superiority of Western culture.

He of course forgets slavery was not limited to the peoples of these African cultures, but was a crime also committed by the so called morally superior Western world. It also is important to note that slavery in the Western world was a much more brutal institution than in Africa since in the West the slaves brought from Africa were considered sub-human and had no chance in advancing in our society while slaves in many African societies typically had the ability to rise up in the ranks and even become a full member of the family of their former master. A slave in Africa had many more rights than a slave in the United States.

Also does he forget our slaughter of the indigenous tribes in our country? Or what about the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II? Oh wait, I'm pointing out America's weaknesses and am thus anti-America and striving for the downfall of our country. If conservatives like Journo actually accepted to be educated in other cultures rather than only American history, then maybe they would actually have the ability to understand rather than bemoaning the teaching of the history of an inferior culture over that of the master race.

Suggested Reading:

Things Fall Apart, by Chinua Achebe

African Perspectives on Colonialism, by A. Adu Boahen

The Life of Olaudah Equiano, by Olaudah Equiano

Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam

It seems the administration is backed into a corner, so they are rolling the dice and hoping not to blunder by invoking Vietnam in the Iraq war debate. Problem is they don't seem to realize that for this subject the dice only roll ones. This story is all over the blogosphere, so I'll just focus on CNN's article: Bush invokes 'tragedy of Vietnam' against Iraq pullout.

First off, it take a really arrogant person who avoided service in Vietnam to invoke the lessons Vietnam as a reason not to leave Iraq. This dipshit of a president needs to get a clue and shut up and resign, along with five deferment Cheney. They have no place leading our country especially in a war.

As for support for what Mr. Bush is saying, the right will since they don't have a true sense of the history of Vietnam and only see red when discussing the topic. Make no mistake, this is a play to the base, not to intelligent thinking Americans who make up the majority which oppose a continuation of our presence in Iraq.

Now, to the CNN article where we have this from Bush:

...one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields'...

Of course he forgets the random carpet bombings of the country by our air force which caused the death and suffering of innocent civilians in Vietnam. And what about the strategy of going into a town, wiping out the enemy there and leaving, only to have to return again and again because we kept giving up ground again and again because we did not have the manpower to hold that ground? Same thing is happening in Iraq.

There is also the long history of Vietnam's struggle for independence from the French. For over fifty years they fought a guerrilla war against the French, then the Japanese and then the French again. The Vietnamese, led by Ho Chi Minh, had actually defeated the Japanese but still the Western powers, including the US, refused to give them their freedom and instead rearmed the Japanese soldiers there to control the Vietnamese. Also remember the group Ho Chi Minh led was not strictly communist until the 1960's. It was in fact a coalition of nationalist groups who worked together for the freedom of Vietnam. The communists only came to dominate after it became clear that the West had no intention of allowing the Vietnamese to choose their own destiny: an independent Vietnam established by the Vietnamese people and not by the interests of foreign countries.

In 1954 the Vietnamese crushed the French at the battle of Dien Bien Phu. They controlled more than two thirds of the country and thought this was the moment that they had been waiting for, a united and independent Vietnam. The Western powers, in their arrogance, did not allow this and were more focussed on fighting communism and did not see or ignored the nationalist sentiment of the Vietnamese. Instead they thought they could split Vietnam and make it into another Korea. The problem in this was that South Vietnam was a creation by foreign powers whereas South Korea was only propped up by the Western powers and was, compared to South Vietnam, a country created and with the support of the people. To keep South Vietnam independent from the North, the Western powers poured billions of dollars into their economy in order to prop them up and make them more Western and thus identify with the West, and not with their brothers and sisters in the North.

American policy in Vietnam was doomed to failure because the government of South Vietnam was a Western puppet without the support of the people. Also, our military could not compete with a people who had been fighting for half a century for independence and have a history going back two millennia of fighting for independence from other nations.

We have lost Iraq as Vietnam because we do not understand the people. We have lost in Iraq as Vietnam because in our arrogance we believe we know what is best for these people. We have lost in Iraq as Vietnam because our objective is ethereal with no concrete targets to define victory.

We have not repeated these mistakes. Vietnam was a liberal war, and we learned. We warned against going into Iraq because as Vietnam it was not in our interest nor was it the source of the attacks on our soil.

This administration and the Republican party have repeated these mistakes because they have refused to acknowledge the mistakes and that we were wrong. These arrogant jackasses seem to believe that our country has the omnipotence usually reserved for God and therefore we can do no wrong. Until these dunces see what the mistakes were and understand them rather than defending America at all costs and only being able to proclaim 'victory or death' for every conflict we become involved in, our nation will continue to decline and we will continue to lose.

Now, for those who would be interested in learning about Vietnam rather than just assume they are all a bunch of pinko commies, there are two books you may be interested in:


The Sacred Willow: Four Generations in the Life of a Vietnamese Family, by Duong Van Mai Elliott

The Sorrow of War, by Bao Ninh

Update 2:50 pm:

Josh at TPM makes a great point:

More concretely though, didn't the killing fields happen in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge rather than Vietnam? So doesn't that complicate the analogy a bit? And didn't that genocide actually come to an end when the Communist Vietnamese invaded in 1979 and overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime? The Vietnamese Communists may have been no great shakes. But can we get through one of these boneheaded historical analogies while keeping at least some of the facts intact?

In addition to that I would like to point out that in the conflict between Vietnam and Cambodia, we backed the Khmer Rouge. It would seem it is more important to stick it to a group of people that defeated us in a war than to support them in overthrowing a regime committing a genocide against its own people. BTW, by this point Vietnam was alone against Cambodia since China also supported the Khmer Rouge.
As Josh says, the communists in Vietnam weren't great, but their interests, beyond purging capitalist elements from their society, were on a whole more humanitarian the US government which would back genocide if it served their interests.

Also, if you haven't seen it, get your hands on The Quiet American. Very good commentary on our involvement in Vietnam early on.