Well, I've been thinking about this for a while, and received just enough encouragement to convince myself this is a good idea. Who knows? Maybe someone will stumble upon this, looking for the blog of the same name that is in German, and hasn't had a post since 2005... Hopefully, they'll be fooled long enough to read something that keeps their interest.
The title of this blog comes from a quote by Samuel Adams. I came across it while reading Thom Hartmann's "Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class - and What We Can Do About It"(www.thomhartmann.com). It stuck with me, and made me realize that perhaps I might be able to share the ideas - and ideals - that used to be held dear by so many Americans. Not Democrats, not Republicans, but AMERICANS. Remember those? Your neighbors, co-workers, teachers, the faces you see every day. I am constantly struck by the deep divisions in our country, the seeming impassable chasm between left and right. Now, I realize that those of us who frequent the political blogs come loaded with opinions, and ready to do battle with our adversaries. What saddens me is the inability to have a reasoned debate without resorting to insults, namecalling, and ad hominen attacks. (Case in point, until I ventured into the blogosphere, I'd never heard the phrase 'ad hominen attack'.) It is my hope that this blog will provide an opportunity for courteous discussion - passionate, courteous discussion.
That said - PLEASE, feel free to disagree with me. If I'm lucky enough to get anyone to read this, and comment on what I've written, I'd like it to not only be my friends or people who feel asI do. I like to think I am still able to learn things, and how can I be sure of my principles if I'm never challenged to defend them. However, don't just disagree, but tell me why.
First topic: Obama vs. McCain - who do you support and why? Now, let's stick to three main points, and they MUST be in support of your candidate, not against the other. (My blog, my rules!) Let the games begin!
I support Obama because he is a Democrat, I believe that he will appoint pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court, and because I fear that our Republic is in desperate straits and we need someone who will rein in the power of the corporations and return it to We The People.
A place for Polite, Passionate discussion about Politics in America. Sharing opinions, elightening our fellows and saving the Republic - one post at a time!
Rules of Engagement:
Unsigned posts will be deleted! You don't have to sign up for anything, but you do need to sign your posts. If you are going to write something, have the courage to stand by your words. (I'm not talking names, here. Just some consistent screen name.) I don't care how wonderful you think I am, I will still delete your unsigned posts. Cowards are NO LONGER WELCOME!
We don't need JFK, we need FDR!!!
"Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales.
Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."
From Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech accepting his party's nomination for President - Democratic National Convention, Philadelphia, PA, June 27, 1936.
Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."
From Franklin D. Roosevelt's speech accepting his party's nomination for President - Democratic National Convention, Philadelphia, PA, June 27, 1936.
Blog Archive
About Me
- J.M. Ferretti
- A bleeding heart liberal, who knows deep down inside that Right and Left are closer than we think. I believe that Progressives are under-represented in the Democratic Party and that it's not too late for true Republicans to reclaim the GOP. Power to We The People!!!
Some of my favorite things
- www.thomhartmann.com
- "Meet John Doe" starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck
- "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" starring Jimmy Stewart & Jean Arthur
- "Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater"
- "Screwed: the undeclared war against the middle class - and what we can do about it" by Thom Hartmann
63 comments:
Great blog FH. Brushfires of Freedom is a blaze set by Miss Liberty's torch. Arsonists unite!
As for the question of the day, without insults, why will I vote for Obama? Let's see, Obama isn't a complete dunderhead, he isn't a foul mouthed, abusive curmudgeon, he isn't sickly and cynical. Hmmm, this is harder than it seems.
Great job Jean! I'm really excited for you and this blog...let the fires begin.
Just yesterday I looked up both canidates to see where they stood on the issues and I really love what Obama stands for. He wants to pull the troops out within 16 months, put $2 billion towards humanitarian aid in Iraq, invest $150 billion in 10 years to biofuels and renewables, improve energy efficiency 50% by 2030, start a Global Energy Forum with nations consuming the most energy, ensure China plays by international rules, give scholarships to college students who are are willing to teach 4 years after graduating, give job training to the unemployed around clean energy, ensure all children have health care, strengthen the middle class, and set labor and human rights standards for all trade. It sounds like he knows what he's doing...that's the kind of president I want.
Obama is my choice. He's pro-choice, opposed to the occupation of Iraq, and he's conscious that we don't just live in the environment, but are part of it. That's three... but I can't go without adding that the biggest threats to the American Way are internal-- fear of reason, xenophobia and racism, and unbridled greed. Obama is not a religious zealot, his background gives him a full understanding of the hatred many experience in this country for no other reason than where they come from or the color of their skin, and he will promote the values of giving back amidst prosperity, rather than endless accumulation and consumption, regardless of ethical cost.
~
Looking forward to more, ferret(i)!
Hi to my favorite ferret!
I support Obama. Sure he is every inch a Politician, but his heart is in the right place, and the power of his I.Q. is beyond question. Compare that to McCain. Never mind, that's kind of against the rules FH laid down.
The sad thing to me is that even if Obama is elected, he won't be able to do many of the things he has outlined...due to the usual stonewalling. His plan to scrap NASA to refund Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program doesn't seem very sound to me either. But I will be happy and proud to vote for him.
Keep em coming, FH! May your blog stay troll-free...you've been Bookmarked!
hey, FH! I'm going to try to use my blogger name on here, but if I can't remember the password, this is suzagoob.
I like Obama because (same as you) I think he will appoint justices to the US Supreme court who aren't supremely scary. I also like him because even though he has distanced himself now, he knew and aligned himself with a man like Jeremiah Wright, who says the truth about black people in white America (even if he is sort of sexist about it, which bothers me, but I understand that it is a limitation of many people with deeply held beliefs and it doesn't make his other ideas untrue). Thirdly, I like Obama because he is a possibility for real change - in a way that even Hillary was not.
"In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."
I hope that I'm not violating any terms of service here-- 'cause I'm passionate about politics and have a tendency to do that-- but I don't care much for either candidate. I'm also a rule breaker just for the heck of it...it's kinda fun.
Anyway, back to politics, I'm writing in Hilary...she's the most qualified person for the job.
GinaG, there are only two viable candidates so you are in effect, splitting your vote between them. Perhaps you should dig a little deeper and see if maybe one or the other holds positions that are closer to your own. BTW if you do decide to squander your vote on a write-in candidate, you should at least spell it correctly.
postBTW my word verification, ylgjzdbh, is the name of the guy who works at my local 7-11.
Yogi...I think you're violating the tos on being nice.
Ferret...he's being mean to me...
Wasn't Hillary named after Sir?
gina - I don't think that Yogi was being mean so much as a tad bit snarky. I don't mind that you're a bit of a contrarian, but if you're going to stretch the rules, wouldn't it make more sense to go with a candidate from a 'third' party that is actually running? How about Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, or Cynthia McKinney? (I can't believe I got that out with a straight face!)
.
Honestly, if you really are a Hillary supporter, what three reasons do you have for feeling that way? And, if you would be willing to go a step further, how do Obama and McCain measure up on those issues?
.
Can I just say I HATE the word verification?!?!?!
Yogi hurt my feelings--he made fun of my poor spelling skills, which weren't really poor spelling skills, just a little dig on Hillary...but Yogi obviously didn't pick up on it...too busy snarkin'.
I like Hillary 'cause she means business.
I like Hillary 'cause she's very passionate about politics.
I like Hillary 'cause things weren't so bad under the Clinton watch.
I don't think an Empty Suit or a McNUT can own those traits.
Can't you make word verification just go away? It's trollesque.
I will gladly vote for Obama. The country is in terrible shape and so much that has occurred during the last 8 years needs undoing.
I suppose today our leaders always will care less about the people they "serve" than they care about petroleum pipelines that straddle the border between Turkey and Georgia. But an Obama administration I believe will offer at least some help to those who really need it. I agree with comments stated already about the Supreme Court (and other federal courts). Obama appointees would put some balance back in that branch of the government. And does anyone doubt that an Obama admininstration would take environmental regulation more seriously than would a McCain? And these are only the first few issues that come to mind.
So, Obama. Easy decision, for me.
ginagonzalloni said...
Wasn't Hillary named after Sir?
August 19, 2008 1:28 PM
>
Yes I believe she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, which begs the question, why won't the Clintonistas everest?
Yogi: you're really cute...will you marry me? I'm sure my boyfriend won't mind......
Sorry about that last off-topic post, ferret. I can never resist a smart alec. Must be the Italian in me.
Here's something for you Yogi:http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=4696575
ginagonzalloni said...
Yogi: you're really cute...will you marry me? I'm sure my boyfriend won't mind......
I can never resist a smart alec. Must be the Italian in me.
>
So your boyfriend is an Italian named Alec?
No, a Greek named Sir Hilary....
A Greek, hmmm, I don't know. If you marry me wouldn't that make Sir Hilary your back door man?
brushfires of teendom. great.
Back door? Oh, no, not him...he's most definitely a front-door man.
What type of man are you?
I suppose that I should have found that out before I asked you to marry me. I apologize...profusely.
And to you, ferret, for having the bad manners to turn this into a political love-fest.
Me? I'm a cunning linguist.
Another reason to vote for Obama. He's probably the only candidate who has seen THE WIRE. I just got around to watching the final season, and I'm both exhilarated and depressed. It's like saying goodbye to an old friend. People shouldn't even be allowed to vote until they've seen it.
asyrym-- I swear to god that is the word verification that is on my screen right now. Come on FH, I thought this was supposed to be a political blog.
Yogi & Gina - you're scaring me. It only took three days for this to turn really - weird?!? Am I going to have to turn a hose on you both?
.
Yogi - LOVE "The Wire"! My friend is just starting the third season - it's hard not to say things, trying to remember what happened when. What an incredible experience.
.
Gina - I'm pretty sure you're a silly-billy from Mick LaSalle's blog,since the name gonzalloni showed up there again after a long absence. It's okay to have fun, though...
HA! I figure out my password! Yea!
Who me?
I take the Fifth.
I just wanted to add a little color and get you started off with some humor. Humor is definitely missing in politics these days. I mean look at Yogi. First thing he does is snark on my spelling, which was a brilliant jab, only he didn't catch it 'cause he was busy being so mean and petty. Did I get all huffy and snark back? Nooooooo...I changed the tone and asked the guy to marry me. Look how easy it was...he's probably laughing instead of snarkin' now, huh?
Now that is some fine, civilized politikking in my book.If there was more humor and less rancor, talking politics might actually become fun and productive...and isn't that what you're trying to do?
And the name Gonzalloni? Coincidentally,My Calabrese grandmother's maiden name.
Okay, this went off the rails pretty darned quickly! I refuse to be deterred from my mission: However, I have lots of topics for Post #2 swirling around my brain...other than Brushfires of Teendom which will be appearing on my new MyFaceBookSpace soon, I was hoping you might have some suggestions of ideas you'd like to discuss, but are too lazy to create your own blog.
I'm both fascinated and terrified of the role racism will play in the final weeks of the campaign. Who votes and why? Will that change this year?
I've seen reports saying that 64% of voting-age citizens voted in the 2004 Pres. election and that perhaps as many as 85% of the registered voters voted.
64%.
Will any such numbers be different this year because Obama's running?
Maybe there's a topic buried in what I've just written.
Oh Miss Ferrethead, you are rather young, aren't you?
You laid an advertisement on that Tool LaSalle's blog, which is seen by eleventy billion people--what did you expect?
Almost everyone on here is a character from that blog. You know how they are and what tone that blog takes...don't be so coy.
Personally, I'd rather give my business to you than that nasty Hearse Corp. that lays-off its worker's at the drop of a hat. I sincerely would love to see you succeed at this...since for some unexplained reason Mick no longer talks politics--rather boring in my book.
Sometimes, you gotta just let things flow. If I make you uncomfortable, just say so...I'll go away.
p.s. I'm politically conservative--but have an open mind. I know some one like me is cannon fodder for guys like YOGI on a blog like this....who like clockwork always attack for unfair reasons. Do you want to preach to the choir, or are you interested in honest discussion with people of different political views?
gina - I definitely want conservatives here. The title of this post "Preaching to..?" was alluding to the fact that I wasn't sure if I would just be talking to myself, other liberals (preaching to the choir), or if I would be lucky enough to attract differing viewpoints. I didn't just advertise my blog in LaSalle's blog, but also the SFGate politics blog - and you know that there are all sorts that post there.
My hope is that if we start from a place of wanting what is best for this country, and respecting the various viewpoints of what that means, we might find some starting point for moving the country forward together. (Arrggghhh!!! How do you work these stupid HTML tags? I'm trying to make italics, and it said I didn't 'close' the tag. Help!)
Thank you, I appreciate your honesty.
A small suggestion would be to not allow unfair attacks for things like spelling. People make errors, some of us are not professional editors, but that doesn't mean we don't have a valid point of view. If a person feels like they will get nothing but attacked by a pack of like-minded wolves, with no fair rules of engagement, they won't touch your blog.It would be in your best interest to disallow snark from contributors like Yogi. It's tiresome to people like me and is counter-productive to the common good.
FH,
How about a post on the new poll? Nothing in SF gate about it, but it seems that the media likes to emphasize the horse race aspect of the process. Now McCain is ahead (my dad called me to gloat). Maybe after the convention it will be Obama. In fact, I suspect strongly that after the convention Obama will be leading.
...nothing of real significance. What a surprise.
gina - huh?
It appears that we are appearing in duplicate...probably that tool LaSalle thinking he's really funny.
Okay - I don't want to have to play 'blog police' and delete comments, and the like. However, while I welcome a bit of levity, I cannot condone trollery. Let's be grown-ups here, because otherwise I will have to start censoring the blog - and that is the last thing I want to have to do.
Bravo, J.M.! I'm voting for Obama because, while I think both parties are deeply flawed at this time, they're the only game in town and the Dems are somewhat less sucky. I am somewhat hopeful that we will be able to take advantage of a government that is more apt to listen to our ideas to press for changes.
I'm sorry...I had to prove a point. Some jerk used my name on that last Gina post...it wasn't me.
Always a fun spoiler, huh?
Is there a way to prevent people from posting under the same name?
J.M., how about religion and politics? That's a discussion I could sink my teeth into (with apologies to winkingtiger and tigereyes). Also, are there any real conservatives left?
I'm pro-life...doesn't that make me one?
Signed, The real GinaGonzalloni.
Is this thing on? Did it work?
I just wanna stop
and tell you how I feel
about you babe...
dsgonzale6, what would you describe as a real conservative?
Barry Goldwater
Ginovanelli...you sound so cute and I know Italian men smell good...will you marry me?
I'm sure my fiance and boyfriend won't mind.
Sorry ferret...I couldn't resist.
On another note, how much do you suppose the pro-life issue factor into this election?
Barry Goldwater, eh? Interesting choice because I'm sure McCain considers himself a Goldwater Republican
There's something I don't understand, and I admit, it's my ignorance, but I read or hear it all the time (including on this infant blog) and that's about voting for someone based on who they are going to appoint to the Supreme Court. Often that is the *main* reason people choose one candidate over the other.
But it's always phrased in a manner that there is a certainty that the opportunity will arise.
Or are people really saying it as to the *possibility* of a Supreme Court opening?
I assume that's it but it always seems to be phrased as a certainty.
Just curious
TedSpe...
do you know what bothers me about the notion that one should vote over an issue like a court nomination?
I thought justice was blind...isn't the point supposed to be that one arrives at the truth, not driven by a politcal agenda?
Ted, the Supreme Court has several liberal justices who are, well, shall we say, expecting promotion soon. Check their ages. Bush carefully chose to appoint relatively young conservatives. As soon as democrat is elected, Stevens and Ginsburg and possibly Souter will start making the retirement plans. Kennedy and Breyer seem to be enjoying themselves too much to bit that bullet. But the others? Step aside and fill the seat with a mind likely to last a few decades. That's the way they play that ghoulish game of chess, I think.
ginagonzalloni, that's a valid opinion but I wasn't passing judgement on people who choose a President based on that, I was just curious that most people who do, do so because, at least the way it's usually worded, there's an assumption that it's going to happen within the 4 year term.
Like it's a gimme.
I'm not saying they're wrong, I just don't understand the certainty. I mean, and I haven't done any research, but hasn't there been a President or two who did *not* appoint a Supreme Court Justice?
Or has every sitting President had a pick?
I apologize for the typos.
anonymous, so it's just sort of hedging one's bets on mortality?
(and if this is suzagoob, I apologize for calling you anonymous)
Oh, and my apologies as well to jmferretti-ferrethead-FH-Jean as I never really posted to the topic of this thread.
I'm voting for Obama.
But not for any deep or well thought out reasons. I'm probably one of those people that a lot of you wish never voted because I just have this natural urge to distrust anyone that actually reached the political clout to (gasp) have the ability to have, hell, even *half* a chance to actually be President of the United States of America. I like some local politicians but they never escalate to the nationwide scale cuz they obviously have *way* too many skeletons in the closet to move upwards or, like all politicians in the nationwide arena,, they owe too many favors to too many folks.
But I vote nevertheless, because...I can.
So...my lame reason for voting for Obama is...I just can't get myself to vote for a Republican after the really weird, embarassing 8 years I and every other American has just gone through. I'm just...embarassed right now. I'm not sure I have anything extremely against McCain, although at times he does come off as something of an...oops. Sorry. That was against the rules.
So, it's just that...I can't see myself voting for a Republican right now what with their cowering to the bullying of strange creatures that call themselves Christians and a sort of...lack of respect for international human...not rights..but...quality of life.
I know. Shallow. Maybe Obama *is* just another jerk. But at this point, after these last 8 years, I just *can't* vote for a Republican.
Someday, maybe even in 2012, I will.
Just not right now.
tedspe - not me, I'm mindful life...
:)
Well, I think it's court-packing to support a long-term agenda. google "court packing roosevelt" and you'll see how extreme the practice can get. (With apologies to Ms. Ferreti; Roosevelt certainly was not shy; good thing.)
For example, the so-called Warren Court decided Brown v. Board because of Roosevelt's appointments, not because Warren, the lawyer from the East Bay (Alameda County DA for a while), pushed Ike's agenda.
anonymous, I realize when the opportunity comes, the sitting President takes advantage, and perhaps I'm just not being very clear. And i guess I should be reaaaaallly specific.
A lot of people say they vote for a specific presidential nominee based on their appointments of the court that will be a majority that would overrule (sic) Roe V. Wade.
Now, I realize the damage done by the current Supreme Court on the "hanging chads-Florida" debacle, but, and perhaps I'm being a pollyana, I really don't think, no matter what any sitting president in this day and age says, primarily to get the false Christian vote, will say about their opinion on abortion is...I really don't think Roe V. Wade will be, what's the legal term? Overturned? I just don't see that happening in the 21st Century.
Again, I admit. I'm not the smartest guy in the room but I think pro-choice is not only legally valid but the Constitution holds it up well enough and *that* is the role of the Supreme Court. To uphold the Constitution.
Otherwise, they'd repeal a couple of amendments. Don't remember the actual numbers of the amendments but, theoretically, with this point of view, the Supreme Court could take the vote away from women and make them all slaves.
(thank you Dean Martin from OCEAN'S ELEVEN-(the original))
ted, it's not just Roe that's important (although it is). And a lot of legal scholars say that decision is vulnerable (WTF? a right to privacy stated WHERE in the Constitution? Where's the due process clause say "privacy"?) But I'm no legal scholar.
legal scholar? Obviously, neither am I, anonymous, neither am I.
anonymous - part of the reason you don't see the word 'privacy' in the Constitution, is that back then, it was a euphemism for using the privy, or going to the toilet. A 'right to privacy' would be literally, a right to excrete! I found out that fun fact from Thom Hartmann's "What Would Jefferson Do".
Tedspe...Arguing the pro-life/pro-choice can and often leads to bloodshed--literally and figuratively. I'd rather not go there, because it solves nothing, and also out of respect for Ferret and her blog--which is noble in its efforts--thanks, ferret, by the way.
Anyway, Check out the Bill of Rights, articles 5 and 14. Somewhere in there supposedly guarantees our right to life.
Which brings me to the point of wondering if I'm a conservative because I'm pro-life. I'm a big believer in social justice and upholding the constitution, which in a lot of ways places me in the Dem bracket. Old style dem, anyway.
But because I'm pro-life, and there is no room for my kind in your party, where do I go? What choice do I have but to vote GOP if I base my vote on my principles?
gina - I couldn't disagree more. Being pro-life IS a choice, and one that is very much respected by the pro-choice Dems. Again, it depends on what issues are most important to you, and then weighing how each party supports your viewpoint. If in every other category, you lean Democratic, perhaps you can compromise on that one. If a pro-life platform is a deal breaker, than yes, you probably do feel as if you have to vote GOP. What I appreciate about your point of view, is that you THINK about these things. The ability to discuss our ideas respectfully will be the key to the 'success' of the blog. Thanks so much for participating!
This gets into the semantics of 'pro-life' vs. 'anti-abortion' and 'pro-chocie' vs. 'pro-abortion'. I do believe that if one believes that abortion is murder, then compromise on that issue is asking more than one of conscience can (I would say should) muster. However, the Republican party consistently threatens to overturn Roe, and consistently doesn't-- that's not to say that it couldn't happen. In modern society, we think that cultural/racial/religious/etc. genocide couldn't happen, and yet it does as I write this, not in "backwards" places, but in developed, modern societies. Just look at the Georgia situation. Anyway, the threat of overturning Roe is everpresent, and that's both a repellant and a selling point for the Republican party, depending on perspective. Additionally, one always hopes for two good terms from a good president, so the SC justice question is very important considering the ages of the current justices. Like gina, I think an argument over whether abortion is murder is pretty futile in this arena, but the other types of murder (again, depending on perspective)-- death penalty, war, neglect in prosperity-- provide opportunity for debate if only because we all agree that the victims are indeed alive at the time of the event. Oddly (or possibly not, since Roe still stands), Republicans have not launched campaigns to put an end to these needless deaths.
I know. There's a version of that Hartmann argument on commondreams.org. Makes sense. I was just reductively parodying the scalia, thomas, scalito position.
I was thinking about Obama and if he were to win the election. Wouldn't it be something wonderful in our history...if we could judge a man, not by the color of his skin, or the name he was born with, or the genes he was endowed with, but judge him by what he said he was inside.
It would be something, if we as a country could take that leap of faith and act upon our very words that we believe in as a country.
I think we could be proud again to call ourselves American.
Post a Comment