New Blog Site

I've moved. Check out the new site: http://blog.findhistory.net/

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