We all know that Obama and Clinton are at each others neck's right now. Obama's campaign, however, may be hurt by something more important and disturbing than the criticism he is currently receiving. The effect has been called the Bradley effect. According to Speigel Online International this effect was first experienced when Tom Bradley, the former mayor of Los Angeles, ran for California Governor. Bradley was the front-runner throughout this political race but he eventually lost on election day.
"the term, [The Bradley Effect] has been used to denote a serious shift in voter preferences caused by racial prejudice against a candidate -- prejudice that voters would never admit openly, but then express in all secrecy in the voting booth."
What does this all mean? This to me says that there is still some racism in the U.S., not open racism that shown in public but what I would call, "Hidden Racism." Nobody wants to be called a racist, so people keep their mouths shut and may even claim to support Obama. But, in reality, they would never vote for Obama, not because he has bad political views, not because he is inexperienced or any other reason, but solely because he is black American.
This has got to be one of America's biggest weakness. The fact that we can not overcome racism. There should be no reason a candidate loses simply because he is black or brown or yellow or whatever. I'm not a big fan of Obama but I think it's ridiculous. The persisting issue of race in "the melting pot," that is America, makes this country seem dishonorable and disgraceful. How can a country that prides itself on diversity and calling itself a "melting pot of all cultures" not vote for black man simply because of his skin color?
I believe this is the last step to completely eradicate racism in the U.S. Those who live in the U.S. believing that race is not an issue, are living in their own arrogant world.
Raul Castro became Cuba's new dictator in February of this year, he has lifted some laws which have finally allowed Cuban citizens to own electronic devices such as computer, cell phones and DVD players (you know, things we regularly take for granted).
Anyway, the Cuban government is now facing the same issue which China is currently facing: How to control the flow of different ideas,beliefs and views from entering Cuba via the internet. The internet may contain some information which an oppressive government, like Cuba's, may not want the citizens to know. Cuba is striving to control the internet by monopolizing and controlling the Internet Service Provider and banning many websites. According to an article on Yahoo News, written by the Associated Press, Their ban on websites and the internet is the worst out of any country in the world, even China.
But one young lady hates the fact that Cuba is restricting the flow of information through the Internet. Her name is Yoani Sanchez, and she is a blogger. Yoani, in her blog she criticizes the Cuban Government and tells the outside the world the life of a "typical" Cuban.
Yoani Sanches writes, "Confieso que me ha dado por portarme mal. Me rebelo ante las órdenes, busco limones que no aparecen, exijo disculpas que nunca llegan y, gran majadería la mía, pongo mis opiniones en un Blog -con foto y nombre incluidos-. Como ven, con estos treinta y dos años –tan impertinentes- ya me viene tocando un correctivo.Así que los anónimos censores de nuestro famélico ciberespacio, han querido encerrarme en el cuarto, apagarme la luz y no dejar entrar a los amigos. Eso, convertido al lenguaje de la red, quiere decir bloquearme el sitio, filtrar mi página, en fin, “pinchar” el Blog para que mis compatriotas no puedan leerlo."
Once again, I will translate this article-like I did in my previous post- so don't scold me if it isn't perfect. Yoani says,
"I must confess, I have been behaving bad. I rebel against orders, I look for lemons that don't exist, I demand apologies that never arrive and--my most foolish action-- I write in a blog, with photos and names included. What do you think? With only 32 years of age, of impertinent living, the correctional officer comes knocking at my door. So the anonymous censors of our famished cyberspace want to lock me in a room, turn of the lights and prohibit my friends from seeing me. That, converted into internet language, means that they want to block my site, filter my pages and, simply put, close my blog so that my fellow compatriots can't read it."
Photo taken from her Blog
I applaud her for speaking her mind, I'm sure she realizes that she may even run the risk of being killed for her actions. Yet she continues to write to this day.
Yaoni Sanches' blog is titled Generación Y She has recently won the 2008 Ortega and Gasset Prize for Digital Journalism.
Let me just deviate a moment from American politics and talk about important Mexican politics. For those of you who don't know very much about Mexican Politics, then this will help increase your knowledge and awareness about what is happening politically to the south of us.
First of all, the Political System of Mexico is very similar to the U.S. with a few exceptions. They have their own constitution called, Constitucion Politica de los Estado Unidos Mexicanos or the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. They, like the U.S., also believe in the separation of power and have three branches in which that power is divided:
They have three viable political parties National Action Party (PAN), Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)
ANYWAY, that is enough about the structure, let's move on to the good stuff...
Mexico, for a while, was an example of how a democratic country can be very authoritarian. Although they do have 3 viable parties all striving to control the government, for over 70 years the Instituional Revolutianry Party or El PRI (as is locally called) ruled Mexico. Anything the party wanted they would do because they controlled government. Imagine living in the U.S. while the Republican or Democratic Party holds the majority of seats in the Senate, House of Reps., Supreme Court and the Presidency. Mexico was a democratic government ruled by a single party since 1920. I would call it a hybrid between Democratic-Authoritarin government.
It wasn't until Vicente Fox became president in 2000. Fox became president as member of the PAN party. El PRI's domination had finally ended.Fox was President of Mexico until 2006.
The current President of Mexico is Felipe Calderón. Calderon is a well educated man that graduated from Harvard University in the U.S.
Some of the values in which Calderon believes in, from one of his Political Ads when he was running for President:
Translation(I did the translation so mind you if it isn't correct word for word): "Freinds, we have at play here the future of our children and on July 2nd you decided if you want them to live in country with employment or debt, economic stability or economic crisis, in government transparency and clean hands or corruption. I will be the president of employment and economic stability. With a firm hand and a strong economy we will take Mexico to the future so we can live better."
The manner in which Calderon became president was so controversial that it almost led to the start of a parallel government. Imagine the 2000 U.S. election between Bush and Gore being even closer. Felipe Calderon beat Andres Obrador by a margin of .58%! That is amazing beating someone with margin so small that it is almost useless. Obrador was infuriated that he lost to Calderon by such a small margin and demanded for a vote recount. The Federal Election Institue of Mexico said they would not do a recount because there was no time (pretty much the same reason Justice Scalia demanded the end of the vote recount int Florida during the 2000 U.S. presidential election). Obrador threatened to start a parallel government. Obrador even swore himself as the legitimate Mexican president a few days after Calderon was sworn in a Mexico's legal president. Click here to read more on Obrador's Parallel Mexican Government
Throughout this crazy controversy and accusations, Felipe Calderon kept his composure and went on with his business as Mexican President. The anger which Obrador had seems to have cooled down, we haven't heard (ar at least the media hasn't written/published/broadcasted about) Andres Obrador lately. The Arizona Republic Newspaper has recently written an article saying that Calderon is Mexico's revolutionary and "courageous leader." The newspaper states that Mexico is facing problems that the U.S. faced when they were progressing socially and economically. The AZ Republic states that Calderon has the personality to lead Mexico through the problems it faces.
In Calderon's term in office, so far, he has attacked the drug cartels and the corruption of the Mexican police. Calderon is taking huge steps to raise the legitimacy of the Mexican government and to make people believe in the laws. Calderon is asking for U.S. aid in helping with drug cartels near the border. The problem, however, is that Calderon knows that the U.S tends to get too involved in the government of other countries and he does not want the U.S. to intervene in Mexican affairs except those dealing with the end of drug trafficking. Calderon has also sent military official to Tijuana and border cities to try and enforce laws and end police corruption.
I honestly like Felipe Calderon, although he may have some very conservative beliefs (such as opposing abortion, euthanasia, contraception and gay marriage) he does, however, have very liberal views when it comes to economy. This is common in members of the PAN party.
I have decided to make Felipe Calderon my favorite conservative, because (as I stated above) he took on Mexico's biggest problems. Hopefully the country will see development during his years in office. His Presidential term ends in 2012.
We all remember Reverend Jeremiah Wright, right? (haha) The man who supposedly was Obama's spiritual counselor but who turned out to be an "unpatriotic" American? Well, if not here is video to refresh some memories...
but anyway, Obama was accused of hanging out with this man and therefore Obama also MAYBE had some "unpatriotic" views (I'm not sure I see the logic in this).
First of all, we live in a society in which one is not supposed to worry about what they publish, what they say or what they write. We have the freedom to speak our minds. This was put in place to prevent the government from violating our rights. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is the victim of character defamation through sound bites that keep on playing over and over (such as the video that I posted above). This portrays Wright as an unpatriotic black American. Who wants to be an unpatriotic American? That's almost worse than being a terrorist. This discourages Wright from wanting to speak again because who knows what the Media will portray him as next. We don't have to worry about the government degrading citizens anymore instead we have to worry about the Media.
But also, if you look at it from the other side, we can't put restriction on the people that work on the Media, because they also have the freedom to write,say or publish what they want. Its a double edged sword.
Secondly, here is a video of Rev. Wright defending his words on the Bill Moyer Journal.
Honestly, when Wright isn't screaming he seems like he is a very calm person with great social skills. I figure since I put a video that portrays him negatively then I'll also put a video of him explain his actions.
Bottom line, however, is that I would not Judge Barack Obama by the actions of his pastor.
Well according to UK Times Online, Republican Presidential hopeful, John McCain, only has 13.1 years left to live until he dies.
So why is this a big deal?
McCain is only going to be president for 4 years if he wins the election, maybe even 8 years if he gets two terms (God forbid....knock on wood) But the issue at hand is whether or not he healthy enough to take on the responsibilities as president of the United States. The possibility of him suffering some age related illness/problem is very high. What if he gets dementia? What if he develops a case of Alzheimer? It's kind of sad but the it is the truth and we have to face reality. He says that he is OK and that age won't be a problem but there is no definite way to know whether or not he will be healthy enough to be president.
I'm honestly not writing this to degrade McCain or to discourage people from voting for him, I just want people to realize that it is the truth.
If McCain does win the election this coming November and he gets inaugurated the following January then he will be the oldest president to take the office in the history of the United States.
According to an article on McCain's age, published by CBSnews.com, " It isn't [McCain's] health but rather his demeanor that worries some people. The Iraq war, which he strongly supports, has disturbed and dismayed him." The article states that McCain may be physically healthy but it would be unwise to say that he is also 100% mentally healthy. He has been through so much torture as a POW. There is no way any human can recuperate to full mental capabilities when they have gone through that type torture. There's just no way.
When McCain was asked by a high school student whether or not he could die in office because of his age. McCain almost got offended and replied, "Thanks for the question, you little jerk."
All I hope is that, if McCain does win the presidency, he is physically/mentally....even spiritually prepared to be President of the United States of America.
So after bombardment by the media and Obama's "people" telling Hillary to drop out because she had fallen too far behind, Hillary makes a triumphant comeback.
Suprisingly, Obama has lost the Pennsylvania Primary to the Hillary Clinton.
What does Clinton's win symbolize for the Democrats and what does that mean for John McCain?
Clinton's win against Obama symbolizes to America that Hillary is still very much a contender for winning the Democratic Presidential Nominee. This symbolizes that the Democratic Party is more divided between Obama and Hillary than we thought. I personally thought that Hillary was done in Pennsylvania but she ended up winning. If she wins again in either Indiana or N. Carolina then Obama campgain and the rest of the nation have to start viewing Hillary as a contender. I congratulate Hillary for continuing to fight even when the media publishes nothing but negative news. This division within the Democratic Party is only hurting the chances of a Democrats winning the presidency.
Meanwhile, John McCain is sitting in a big comfy chair somewhere, doing Republican things and laughing at the Democrats. He is only benefiting from the quarrel between Obama and Hillary, while his party is united and they support McCain (whether by choice or by default). Someone has to give this next election and one democratic nominee needs to drop out. The Democratic Party has to be united when they go into the general election, hopefully we achieve this unification sooner than later.
So we all know that former president Jimmy Carter has talked to Hamas, the terrorist group from the middle east that has closed the Gaza Strip. Rice told carter to stay away from them because it would make it seem like the U.S. was dealing with terrorist groups. She says that U.S. should never deal with any people like that.
The problem, however, is that Carter received very important information regarding the fighting going on against Israel. Hamas told Carter that they would accept to end the fighting with Israel and would conform to live next to Israel BUT they would never view Israel as its own country. This is very important information, but Rice seems like she is ignoring this info because it came out of the terrosit leader's mouth.
What the hell is she on? She says that she will only accept information from the elected president not any terrorist leaders. She has decided to recieve information from a third party (in this case the president) than take inormation directly from the people doing the fighting. It's unbeliavble to think that she would allow this and why? Why won't she take the info. from the Hamas leader or Carter? Because she thinks it will make the U.S. look bad, dealing with terrosits....who knows it may even taint the U.S.'s reputation.
First of all, the U.S.'s reputation has been out of the door since Britain left the War on terror. The United States's persistence(if that's what people want to call it) by staying in Iraq hasn't made the world view the U.S. as a determined and confident country. Rather, it has made us look more like stupid and arrogant people. So Rice has no worries that the U.S. rep. will be tainted because it has already been tainted. Secondly, she is probably just following orders from Bush to not deal with terrorist under any circumstances. She is listening to Bush...enough said.
Why can't she just deal with these people and perhaps we can achieve peace faster and in the easy manner rather than take the long route?
So with the Pennsylvania Primary just around the corner...well tomorrow! I been asking some of my friends who they think is the worst candidate and what are their weaknesses.
Luckily for me, Gallup Poll did a study on what the reasons are that Democrats choose one candidate over another or why they won't vote for McCain.
The battle between Obama and Clinton seems more personal (Obama's arrogance and "bitter" comments against Hillary's lies and deceit) than the battle between McCain and the Democratic rivals. But what else is expected? McCain is the Republican nominee and there is no need to get into personal arguments when there is a ton of partisan-related arguments. I'm sure that when the Democratic party decides who their nominee will be then the personal arguments will calm down for a little until they are revisited once the partisan-related arguments have exhausted. Then we'll see what dirt each candidate will throw at each other.
As for right now, we are still waiting to see who our Democratic nominee will be.....Hillary, Obama, Hillary, Obama, Hillary ,Obama
So Obama has just received another big endorsement for his run for the presidency. This time it hits Clinton (Both Bill and Hillary) personally. The candidate that supports Obama is Robert Reich who was a former cabinet member under Bill Clinton's presidency. Their long freindship they once had now seem like it has been tainted not only by whom Reich endorses but by his harsh words against the Clintons.
"Bill Clinton's ill-tempered and ill-founded attacks on Barack Obama are doing no credit to the former president, his legacy, or his wife's campaign nor are they helping the Democratic Party."
"If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's [Hillary Rodham Clinton's] campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything"
Well, I'm glad to see that there are still people in the World that realize that China has committed some atrocities against Tibet. From across the world people came together to stop the Olympic Torch. Doesn't China get it? People world wide want the torch to stop....I support the cancellation of the Olympics this year if it means that China will learn a lesson.
It's kind of ironic really, that the person we elected into office is considered a failure by 98% of Professional Historians that were surveyed. A total of 109 historians were surveyed and after their own research and analysis most of them concluded that Bush is a complete failure. The Associated Press poll has recently stated that Bush's approval rating is 28%. 28%?! That is even lower than Nixon's rating before he left office (according to A Divider, Not a Uniter by Gary Jacobson). It is really kind of sad... Bush is just a lame duck president and the American Public is ready for change (sounding like Barack Obama).
Meanwhile, our would-be-president Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize. Man! is that kick in that ass or what? We definitely choose the WRONG president. With his video, "An Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore clearly enunciated what is happening to the world, how we--as humans--have contributed and how we can stop.
hmmm, makes me wonder...Can Americans really choose a president for themselves or do we need an indirect democracy?
BUT, there was no way to tell this would have happened so you can't blame people for voting for Bush.
So McCain may be screwed. Why? Well He may have violated a contract that he got himself into when he accepted matching funds.
For those of you who don't know what matching funds are, they are like a type of loan. A presidential candidate accepts matching funds when he/she can't raise enough money to run their campaign. It is usually never good for presidential candidates to make matching funds because it shows that they are incompetent to in running a self-sustaining campaign, much less a country. Anyway, a candidate is given money from the government to run their campaign but they are bound by certain rules that limits how much money they can spend on their campaign.
According to CNNpolitics.com McCain took $6,000,000.00 from a loan and was therefore obliged to spend no more than $54 million on his campaign. According to McCain however, he didn't take the funds because he knew he was limited. He says that he was not bound by the contract of mathing funds. He did, however, receive other benefits that come from matching funds--such as automatic ballot acces, according to Howard Dean.
So, the Democratin National Committe has filed a lawsuit against the FEC to investigate to see if McCain violated any contract.
If McCain did violate a contract of matching funds: all his campaigning would be ordered to stop and it may jeopardize his chances at the presidency
If McCain didn't violate a contract of matching funds: Then he continous with his spending and campaigning.
Hopefully, the courts rule that he did take the matching funds. Like i said in my previous post, McCain would ruin the U.S. because he is a mentally unfit warmonger...enough said.
So Obama finally fucked up, and at the wrong time. In a time when Hillary is struggling to keep her campaign alive.
But what exactly happened?
In a conference in the great city of San Francisco, Obama said this about Pennsylvanian-Republicans,
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
So whats wrong with that? It seems as though it is a perfectly liberal thing to say. But, that is exactly the problem it is too liberal. In a time when the median-voter theory rules who gets a majority, this may alienate Obama from potential Obama-voters. Hillary is squeezing the life out of this event, she calls it "elitist." But, aside from the fact that Obama said this, can we make any further points from this? Maybe, What if he is arrogant like this in the White Houes? (Now I'm just playing the devil's advocate because these remarks don't bother me...hehe)
Anyway, who knows, maybe Hillary has a chance to make a comeback?
Who is going to stay in war for 100 years. I'm not and I really hate this guy. He is just a warmonger whose life has been shaped by everything and anything having to do with war. I honestly don't care for McCain, all I know is that if he elected president than the US would definitely be heading the wrong direction. I don't get good vibes from this guy at all, makes me think of the type of people that support him.
He grew up in a military environment and spent his years as a child following his father's military career. There are also reports of him being violent when he was a child.
He is also a liar. He flip flops on many issues such as gay marriage.
Plus he is really old. I mean, not to be discriminating or generalizing old people but they are usually less attentive that people that are not so old.
So the Olympic Torch has just arrived in San Francisco.
I wish I could be there to 1.) see it and 2.) Battle it. Now, I'm not as crazy as some people (as in, I won't climb the Golden Gate Bridge to put up a sign to free Tibet) but I would probably attend the rally. Anyway, the rally which brought out 1500 people in San Francisco was amazing (according to some freinds I have in the City and the newspaper as well :p).
I know enough about Tibet and China to realize that Tibet should be a free country. China has fucked up with Tibet and people around the world are correct in their views to ban the Olympic Games in Beijing this year. I mean, you can't kill people because they don't agree with your views.... especially if they are monks. Monks don't hurt anybody.
The People's Republic of China is fucked up.... someone tell them that equality is good but communism is far too extreme. It works in theory but it doesn't work in reality. The U.N. should seriously speak about this and bring it up. This is a serious manner and if it was me, I would stop the Torch completely (even though, I do understand that it is a very cool tradition--and even I expressed interest in seeing it) because it would send a message to China.
So I'm going to be honest. I supported Clinton 100% when the Presidential race began. I believe that she has a lot of experience (and I still don't doubt that she is more experienced the Barack) but the truth is the her campaign is going down the drain and I'm not going to be complaining if Obama wins the presidency.
From the get-go I believed that Clinton was a brilliant person and speaker that would correctly represent the country. Lately, however, it seems to me like Obama is the better nominee. Am I a turncoat? Maybe, but that isn't the issue at hand. There are many issues that--to me-- hint at the possibility of Clinton losing the Presidency. Before I get into more details, we have to realize that Clinton has been in the political world longer than Obama so it is only normal if there is more dirt on Clinton than Obama. But Anyway, onto the reasons which I think Clinton will lose.
1.) Lying. Clinton was caught lying about ther trip to Bosnia in 1996. She exagerated about the danger. She said she was being shot at from all angles, in reality she calmly walked out of the airplane she was on. Recently, she was also caught lying telling a story of a pregnant woman who died, along with the unborn child, due to the her uninsured status and because she couldn't pay for the healthcare. The truth was, however, that the woman did, in fact, have insurance and the hospital did take care of her but she died of further complications. 2.) Negative Publicity. Lately Clinton has been the victim of a political witchhunt in the presidential race. Everywhere you look there are negative ads about HIllary, nothing positive. I believe these ads will be repeated alot before elections causing people to vote for Obama.
Why does it seem that all the crappy nominees and presidents come from the Republican Party these days? What happened to greats like Abraham Lincoln?
Today, we have Republican presidential nominees that want war for 100 years--referring to Mr. McCain-- and a lame duck Republican President....we all know who that is. *cough* *BUSH* *cough*
It seems to me that the Republicans have to have the dumbest, most selfish ideals when it comes to governing. I understand that they pride themselves on American patriotism and that being an American is a "privilege." Let's not forget the strong conservative values they believe in. The truth it, however, that none of these values work in the United States, or in the world, for that matter.
We live in a world movement and diversity. We all have the ability to go to a different country or place. Republican values don't seem to comprehend this. The United States is changing and will continue to change. The U.S. Census Bureau states that by the year 2050, African-Americans will constitute nearly 15% of the U.S. population as opposed to the 12.7% they constituted in 2000. Asian will more than double to 8% by the year 2050. Asian constituted 3.8% in 2000. And finally--this one is my favorite-- Hispanics will constitute nearly 1/4 of the total U.S. population by 2050. That's right, nearly 25%!! In 2000 Hispanics constituted only12.6% of the U.S. population. (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf)
To say the least, minorities aren't going anywhere and the white race need to move over because in the future they will not hold a majority. Republicans need to realize that they must also change with the changing demographics of the U.S. population. They must abandon their strong held ideals and make way for a variety of different views that will come with the different types of people entering the U.S. They need to adjust to the different types of Americans. How are you going to run a modern country with values of the 19th or 20th century? They just can't seem to understand that.
Immigration, is a great example of Republican ideals ruining America. How cool would it be if anybody could come to the U.S. for help and a better life. People in Mexico cross the border illegally because they have no money or hope and they believe that the U.S. is there only hope to advance in their lives. (i know that from first hand experience because I crossed the border illegally, myself). Some people come here homeless, and poor. Imagine if the U.S. could just take them into its arms and give them a better life with "unalienable rights." Instead, we find people trying to get into the U.S. and we kick them back to were they came from.
Does this sound familiar:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.
If it doesn't then go read what the Statue of Liberty says. If a Republican wrote that then it would say at the bottom, "I lift my lamp beside the golden exit door, which leads you back to your country."
Republicans just don't want learn to accept other values and people. Instead they try keep straight to their values and they don't allow immigrants in.
Now, I'm not saying that we should have a free open border. We should just regulate the people that come to the U.S. with bad intentions . If the rest want to come to better their lives then let them come. They are received by big open arms by me!
To say the least Republicans have some fucked up ideals that need to get set straight. Maybe their values worked when the U.S. pop. was almost completely white and of one color. But it doesn't work today and it won't work in the future.
I have just begun to scratch the surface of Republican stupidity.
Feel free to leave a comment, leave your name or it can be anonymous.
You Don’t Have To Lose With Booze
-
[image: sexual-assault]Daniel Reardon’s whole life lay ahead of him. The
University of Maryland freshman had no history of alcohol abuse. But at his
frat...
hashtag letters twenty-fifteen
-
hashtag letters: Black lives matter yellow all caps against a background of
Black clarion call to a people under attack rousing all nations to stand
up, fi...
My tweets
-
- *Tue, 23:47*: @chimneycoffee seriously, your Vietnamese Iced Coffee is
fantastic. perfect balance of sweet with the correct amount of coffee.
Foreclosure on Voter Rights
-
The Republican party chairman in Macomb County, Michigan, probably should
have considered his wording when he admitted in an interview that his
organizatio...
