![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
capri0mniSo -- the election is coming up November 7 (Congressional and Senatorial elections, for those on my F'list who don't follow 'Merkin politics), so I'm going to get my State ID renewed on Thursday (I hope), so I can vote. Only problem? I don't have anyone to vote for for Congress -- Randy Forbes, a Repub., is running unopposed. We also have new electronic voting machines with no paper trails, now (I don't know if they're made by DeBoldt [sp?] or not, though). *Pout* I want my punch cards back!
Interesting note: Two years ago, Thelma Drake, the Congresswoman from a neighboring district, ran as a staunch Bush loyalist. In her political ads this time 'round, she's calling herself "independent." I find this to be mildly amusing, especially since, as far as I can tell, none of her policy stands have actually changed.
On the Senate side of things, I don't know if you've heard, but the Republican candidate, George Allen, saw a volunteer for his opponant's campaign (Webb) in the crowd, saw his darker skin, pointed him out to the rest of the audience, and called him a "Macacca," welcoming him to this country. Well, it turns out that "macacca" is based on a Hindustani word for monkey, and is a racial slur. It also turns out that the volunteer was born in Virginia. um... oops.
Allen's defense, such as it is? He didn't know "macacca" was a racial slur. He just didn't know the person's name...
Okay. So here's a tip for you, from me, for free. If you ever want to point out someone to a crowd, but you don't know their name -- avoid all nicknames, especially the ones that you think are clever. Refer to the person as "this (fine) man" or "this (fine) woman" or "this (fine) person," if you have equal doubts about their gender.
--
I also despair that politics will ever get us anywhere in this country again,* as long as we're polarized in which news sources we believe. The fact is, that those who get their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh are convinced that those who get their news from PBS and NPR are flat out lying -- and vice-versa. How can we work through compromises in our policy decisions if we can't even agree on the facts that motivating those decisions?
The politicallycorrect polite thing to say is that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are only seeing part of a single truth -- like the blind men and the elephant. But I'm sick and tired of being polite!
Every day, I listen to the news out of Iraq (and Afghanistan -- remember, violence is on the rise there, too). And I think: "I was predicting this back in 2002! I knew Bush was lying about the evidence of WMD's, because of those reports, every day, on All Things Considered, and I predicted that there'd probably be a religious civil war in Irag if we got rid of Hussein, because like him or not, he at least kept a seperation between Mosque and State, because of that Frontline show I saw on PBS."
NPR and PBS probably do have a Liberal bias, politically. But they also have been right about the facts, and the consequences. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have been wrong -- they haven't just reached a different conclusion based on the facts -- they've been wrong about the facts.
And meanwhile, during the Monica Lewiski scandal, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were accusing Clinton of "Wagging the Dog" whenever he tried to warn us about this obscure dude, from some backwater country, named "SomethingorOther" Bin Laden.
Remember that? Huh?
I do.
And meanwhile, my aide, who is an otherwise extremely intelligent woman, doesn't trust "The Liberal Media," but still reads the Drudge Report blog every morning...
{sigh}
I just needed to get that off my chest.
*(political campaigns have never been civil, even going back to Jefferson and Adams -- but once the campaigns were over, there was, at the very least, a facade of civility with a loyal opposition -- that's gone, now)
Interesting note: Two years ago, Thelma Drake, the Congresswoman from a neighboring district, ran as a staunch Bush loyalist. In her political ads this time 'round, she's calling herself "independent." I find this to be mildly amusing, especially since, as far as I can tell, none of her policy stands have actually changed.
On the Senate side of things, I don't know if you've heard, but the Republican candidate, George Allen, saw a volunteer for his opponant's campaign (Webb) in the crowd, saw his darker skin, pointed him out to the rest of the audience, and called him a "Macacca," welcoming him to this country. Well, it turns out that "macacca" is based on a Hindustani word for monkey, and is a racial slur. It also turns out that the volunteer was born in Virginia. um... oops.
Allen's defense, such as it is? He didn't know "macacca" was a racial slur. He just didn't know the person's name...
Okay. So here's a tip for you, from me, for free. If you ever want to point out someone to a crowd, but you don't know their name -- avoid all nicknames, especially the ones that you think are clever. Refer to the person as "this (fine) man" or "this (fine) woman" or "this (fine) person," if you have equal doubts about their gender.
--
I also despair that politics will ever get us anywhere in this country again,* as long as we're polarized in which news sources we believe. The fact is, that those who get their news from Fox and Rush Limbaugh are convinced that those who get their news from PBS and NPR are flat out lying -- and vice-versa. How can we work through compromises in our policy decisions if we can't even agree on the facts that motivating those decisions?
The politically
Every day, I listen to the news out of Iraq (and Afghanistan -- remember, violence is on the rise there, too). And I think: "I was predicting this back in 2002! I knew Bush was lying about the evidence of WMD's, because of those reports, every day, on All Things Considered, and I predicted that there'd probably be a religious civil war in Irag if we got rid of Hussein, because like him or not, he at least kept a seperation between Mosque and State, because of that Frontline show I saw on PBS."
NPR and PBS probably do have a Liberal bias, politically. But they also have been right about the facts, and the consequences. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have been wrong -- they haven't just reached a different conclusion based on the facts -- they've been wrong about the facts.
And meanwhile, during the Monica Lewiski scandal, Rush Limbaugh and his ilk were accusing Clinton of "Wagging the Dog" whenever he tried to warn us about this obscure dude, from some backwater country, named "SomethingorOther" Bin Laden.
Remember that? Huh?
I do.
And meanwhile, my aide, who is an otherwise extremely intelligent woman, doesn't trust "The Liberal Media," but still reads the Drudge Report blog every morning...
{sigh}
I just needed to get that off my chest.
*(political campaigns have never been civil, even going back to Jefferson and Adams -- but once the campaigns were over, there was, at the very least, a facade of civility with a loyal opposition -- that's gone, now)
