By Jonathan Bert
The Extreme Moderate
June 24, 2008
Now that it is clear who the presumptive candidates for U.S. President are for the two major parties, moderates and independents have a hard decision to make as they step toward the voting booth. Unless they decide to skip voting altogether.
John McCain had been a favorite of moderates for years, but his recent butt kissing of the right wing base of the Republican Party has ruined his image immensely. He steadfastly supports the Iraq War as a just cause, claims it is succeeding, and has no qualms at the thought of stationing American troops there indefinitely. This position appears to have little support from moderates. He also supports maintaining tax cuts for high-income earners. This is a cornerstone of the “Trickle Down” theory that has not been shown to work even though it has had the support of three of the past four administrations. Give it up already!
Another concern of McCain’s candidacy is whom is he going to be saddled with for Vice-President? There are not a lot of other Republican moderates, and their names do not seem to be appearing on any short lists I have heard of. This is important, not only because Vice-President is increasingly becoming a stronger, more influential position, but also realize McCain is 72 years old, and has already been treated for a particularly deadly form of Cancer.
An issue that hasn’t come up, to my knowledge, is that if someone from the Bush administration were to be indicted for crimes while in office, McCain would likely bow to pressure and issue a pardon.
Barack Obama is relatively unknown. The Great Republican Lie Machine, as usual, has labeled the Democratic candidate the Most Liberal Senator. This is not true. There are many Senators more liberal than Obama, but no rational person is going to call him a moderate. He will get us out of Iraq. But, will he do it carefully? Or, will he leave a dangerous vacuum? Democrats have earned the reputation for handling the economy better. The gap between rich and poor grows slower when a Democrat is in the White House, and prosperity was a reality when a Democrat was in office. We did well when Kennedy and Johnson were in, Carter pulled us out of the funk after Nixon and Ford, and Clinton oversaw a great economy after the disaster of the elder Bush. No “Trickle Down” there! Food for thought.
But, here again, Vice-President is important. I hate to say it, but I fear for Obama’s life. There are people that do not like the idea of a mixed-race President, and some of them are well-armed lunatics. ‘Nuff said. Hillary would be a decent choice, would likely bring us better health care, and might help Obama get out of the Middle East without disaster. I really like Bill Richardson of New Mexico. I wish he was the candidate, but being a rational man of sound mind, he got little support from mainstream Democrats.
The wild card in all of this, from a moderate point of view, is that the country runs better when there is split in power between the two parties. Congress appears likely to remain Democratic. Do we want a Democratic monopoly? Would that be as big of a disaster as when Ultra-Republican Bush had a Republican Congress to rubber-stamp his lunacy? Impossible, but it could be close. Gotta think about that.
The good news is that we will have a better President than the one we have now. George W. Bush will go down as one of the very worst Presidents in our nation’s history. Let us thank our lucky stars it’s almost over.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Get Rid of Chief Wahoo
By Jonathan Bert
The Mad Moderate
June 24, 2008
Sports team names and mascots based on Native American stereotypes are Un-American. I have a hard time believing that they still exist! No other minority is made to suffer this indignation; just imagine a team named the Japs, or the Jews, or any of the many nicknames given Americans of African decent. There would be an outrage from here to hell! What is going on here? Why is this being such a hard issue to resolve?
To me, the worst is Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians professional baseball team. I am sorry, I am sure the players on this team are fine men, talented, and as deserving of a championship as any other players, but, I am happy to see them lose just because the logo on their caps and sleeves turn my stomach. Thank you, Red Socks, for eliminating them last fall.
Not all of the other nicknames and mascots are as bad, but all the same, Indians, Redskins, and even Sioux are all names given natives by European settlers, and not necessarily in a complimentary fashion. How about a team named the Fork-Tongues? With a big, white snake as a mascot? I wouldn’t like that, I don’t think a lot of people would.
Some of my closest friends are of native blood, and not all of them are in agreement as to what is an insult or what isn’t. One of them has no concern at all about an insulting caricature, he is still angry about his people receiving blankets infected with Smallpox. Some things are hard to let go.
I realize that there is a lot of tradition involved, and some very significant expenses would be incurred, changing everything from uniforms to school stationery, but come on people, get with the 21st century! Get rid of these insults.
The Mad Moderate
June 24, 2008
Sports team names and mascots based on Native American stereotypes are Un-American. I have a hard time believing that they still exist! No other minority is made to suffer this indignation; just imagine a team named the Japs, or the Jews, or any of the many nicknames given Americans of African decent. There would be an outrage from here to hell! What is going on here? Why is this being such a hard issue to resolve?
To me, the worst is Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland Indians professional baseball team. I am sorry, I am sure the players on this team are fine men, talented, and as deserving of a championship as any other players, but, I am happy to see them lose just because the logo on their caps and sleeves turn my stomach. Thank you, Red Socks, for eliminating them last fall.
Not all of the other nicknames and mascots are as bad, but all the same, Indians, Redskins, and even Sioux are all names given natives by European settlers, and not necessarily in a complimentary fashion. How about a team named the Fork-Tongues? With a big, white snake as a mascot? I wouldn’t like that, I don’t think a lot of people would.
Some of my closest friends are of native blood, and not all of them are in agreement as to what is an insult or what isn’t. One of them has no concern at all about an insulting caricature, he is still angry about his people receiving blankets infected with Smallpox. Some things are hard to let go.
I realize that there is a lot of tradition involved, and some very significant expenses would be incurred, changing everything from uniforms to school stationery, but come on people, get with the 21st century! Get rid of these insults.
Criminal Control, not Gun Control
By Jonathan Bert
The Extreme Moderate
June 24,2008
The congressional delegation from the planet Neptune is trying to sell us on the idea of controlling guns. I am not much into slogans, but the bumper stickers tell it all: “If Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns!” I cannot believe how naive these characters are. For one thing, there is no way we’re going to get all of the guns rounded up, it would be like getting pee out of a swimming pool! Guns are all over, and anyone that’s ever been within walking distance of a lathe or a milling machine knows that guns are very easy to make. Any decent high school machine shop has everything needed to make a pistol that would work at close range.
Gun training is what we need. Anybody with a legal right to carry a gun should be trained. It’s a fact that a gun in the house is more likely to kill an innocent member of the household than it is to kill an intruder. This is because too many guns are issued to idiots! A simple lesson in gun safety would reduce these sad statistics an appreciable amount.
A lot of the problem is from gang-bangers that are just bozos that can’t hit a barn, just spraying bullets in miscellaneous directions. They are better at hitting bystanders than their actual targets. Would this happen as much if these clowns knew that someone that knows what they’re doing might shoot back? I don’t think so. There is a misperception that criminals are anything but cowards. A well-armed and knowledgeable society will be safer in the long run.
The plan, put forward by left-wingers, of all people, is that the government and it’s agencies are the only ones that can be trusted with guns. These aren’t the left-wingers I knew in the 70’s. Remember Kent State? The National Guard shooting students armed with a couple of beer bottles? And killing nothing but bystanders? These are the guys you want to have all the guns? There is too much crack being smoked in Washington.
This country is never going to be taken over, not by a foreign power, or a despotic government (after the seven years we’ve just been through, you don’t think that can happen?), because we are too well armed. Let’s keep it that way. Keep guns away from felons, but anyone else that wants a gun should have the right to get one, and carry it for their protection. But they must be trained. I don’t care who they are, anyone with a gun or rifle, even Vice-Presidents, have to know what they are doing. And have respect for what their weapon can do.
The Extreme Moderate
June 24,2008
The congressional delegation from the planet Neptune is trying to sell us on the idea of controlling guns. I am not much into slogans, but the bumper stickers tell it all: “If Guns are Outlawed, only Outlaws will have Guns!” I cannot believe how naive these characters are. For one thing, there is no way we’re going to get all of the guns rounded up, it would be like getting pee out of a swimming pool! Guns are all over, and anyone that’s ever been within walking distance of a lathe or a milling machine knows that guns are very easy to make. Any decent high school machine shop has everything needed to make a pistol that would work at close range.
Gun training is what we need. Anybody with a legal right to carry a gun should be trained. It’s a fact that a gun in the house is more likely to kill an innocent member of the household than it is to kill an intruder. This is because too many guns are issued to idiots! A simple lesson in gun safety would reduce these sad statistics an appreciable amount.
A lot of the problem is from gang-bangers that are just bozos that can’t hit a barn, just spraying bullets in miscellaneous directions. They are better at hitting bystanders than their actual targets. Would this happen as much if these clowns knew that someone that knows what they’re doing might shoot back? I don’t think so. There is a misperception that criminals are anything but cowards. A well-armed and knowledgeable society will be safer in the long run.
The plan, put forward by left-wingers, of all people, is that the government and it’s agencies are the only ones that can be trusted with guns. These aren’t the left-wingers I knew in the 70’s. Remember Kent State? The National Guard shooting students armed with a couple of beer bottles? And killing nothing but bystanders? These are the guys you want to have all the guns? There is too much crack being smoked in Washington.
This country is never going to be taken over, not by a foreign power, or a despotic government (after the seven years we’ve just been through, you don’t think that can happen?), because we are too well armed. Let’s keep it that way. Keep guns away from felons, but anyone else that wants a gun should have the right to get one, and carry it for their protection. But they must be trained. I don’t care who they are, anyone with a gun or rifle, even Vice-Presidents, have to know what they are doing. And have respect for what their weapon can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
