Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Will Hillary Clinton Quit This Friday?
Will Hillary Clinton give up her campaign for the White House this Friday? Supposedly, she will--according to someone's dinner conversation with someone else.
Let's face it, this has been a weird presidential campaign. With the media serving primarily as a Barack Obama cheerleading squad, the Democratic campaign and seemingly endless debates have seemed like street theater, a high-priced busking for electoral votes.
In the Obama-Clinton Punch and Judy show, many are already counting Clinton out on a TKO. Apparently, the only cubic zirconia jewel left in the not-even-triple crown is the right to be the first to declare Obama king.
The "Hillary will bow out" story is posted here by blogger Jay Severin. Here at the Peanut Patch, we figure that the Drudge Report will slap down chips by tomorrow morning.
We don't know what Hillary Clinton is thinking. We haven't had dinner with anyone who's had dinner with someone who's highly-placed or "in the know".
But, looking up from our at-home, in-front-of-the-TV dinner, we do know this: she hasn't been given a fair shake before she's baked. The media and self-ordained pundits have been too busy tsk tsking Sen. Clinton as nothing more than Hillary Housewife Clinton.
Bottom line: regardless of our party affiliation, we Americans showed up for a presidential campaign, with issues in the forefront. What the Democrats, aided and abetted by leftists and the media (or is that redundant?), have given us is rhetoric, political cant, and the desperate search for a Kennedy-esque, Elvis-quality rock star (cue Obama)
The Republicans scrapped it out with substance and style. The Democrats, on the edge of the great Kennedy divide, have yearningly stampeded toward a Liberace-style road show.
We'll be honest here: Hillary Clinton isn't our candidate. But she's smart, serious, and has significant expertise--not that you'd know it by now. She's been fair game for the old power ploys meant to whittle down the little woman who thought she could.
And that, folks, just isn't right. If Hillary Clinton bows out early, it will be everyone's loss, and a triumph of spectacle over substance.
Our advice? Run, Hillary, run. Don't let yourself be forced out by media, bloggers, rumors, or anything else. Fight back.
Because frankly, we'd like to see a match-up between you and Republican John McCain. We figure that contest would get down to reality's core, instead of the current Democratic search for "Miss Congeniality."
And yes, we do want world peace (thank you, Sandra Bullock). But what we need to maintain our security at home, fight global terrorism, and be a world leader is more guts and less glitz.
And running for president as a woman, with Bill Clinton as baggage, took guts. Especially when no one assessed extra freight charges on Obama for his long-term support for indicted slumlord and political fixer Antoin "Tony" Rezko.
FEMA Trailers: New Orleans Mayor Wants to Keep Them for Katrina Victims; Cigarette Smoke Also a Source of Formaldehyde
Some background on the FEMA trailers moved in for Katrina victims: the same units have been used to house U.S. troops for some time now. Although many are demanding that FEMA provide better housing than the trailers, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin argues for keeping them rather than displace people again.
At issue: the potential toxicity of formaldehyde, used in the manufacture of trailer particleboard components. Ironically, trailers and recreational vehicles (RVs) made of the same components are still for sale to paying customers on lots around the U.S.
Many Katrina victims have joined in lawsuits demanding payment because they were exposed to formaldehyde in FEMA-provided trailers. One of the major ways that people are exposed to formaldehyde: cigarette smoking.
In settings that are not smoke-free, the air can have three times the normal levels of this poison. Formaldehyde is one of the substances in tobacco smoke most likely to cause diseases in the lungs and airways.
The chemical is suspected of causing cancer in humans, and it also is known to produce allergic reactions and asthma-like conditions, lightheadedness, dizziness, diminished coordination, itching eyes, dry and sore throats, disturbed sleep, unusual thirst and harmful disease in humans. Formaldehyde exposure can also occur from glue, paper products, cosmetics, deodorants, shampoos, fabric dyes and permanent-press fabrics, inks, disinfectants, air deodorizers and carpet deodorizers.
FEMA bought most of the trailers off the same lots that trailer and RV shoppers use. Recently, a legal expert said that dealers who sold the trailers to FEMA probably will be safe from legal claims.
It's unknown whether or not smokers, or those who live with them, could prove that any potential damages from formaldehyde occurred only from FEMA-provided trailers.
At issue: the potential toxicity of formaldehyde, used in the manufacture of trailer particleboard components. Ironically, trailers and recreational vehicles (RVs) made of the same components are still for sale to paying customers on lots around the U.S.
Many Katrina victims have joined in lawsuits demanding payment because they were exposed to formaldehyde in FEMA-provided trailers. One of the major ways that people are exposed to formaldehyde: cigarette smoking.
In settings that are not smoke-free, the air can have three times the normal levels of this poison. Formaldehyde is one of the substances in tobacco smoke most likely to cause diseases in the lungs and airways.
The chemical is suspected of causing cancer in humans, and it also is known to produce allergic reactions and asthma-like conditions, lightheadedness, dizziness, diminished coordination, itching eyes, dry and sore throats, disturbed sleep, unusual thirst and harmful disease in humans. Formaldehyde exposure can also occur from glue, paper products, cosmetics, deodorants, shampoos, fabric dyes and permanent-press fabrics, inks, disinfectants, air deodorizers and carpet deodorizers.
FEMA bought most of the trailers off the same lots that trailer and RV shoppers use. Recently, a legal expert said that dealers who sold the trailers to FEMA probably will be safe from legal claims.
It's unknown whether or not smokers, or those who live with them, could prove that any potential damages from formaldehyde occurred only from FEMA-provided trailers.
Labels:
environment,
FEMA,
FEMA trailers,
formaldehyde in trailers,
Katrina,
New Orleans,
RV,
trailers,
U.S. troops
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Eyewitness Video: Florida Power Blackout; Affects Millions
Estimates of those affected have ranged up to four million. As if the shutdown of nuclear reactor power stations for "safety" reasons weren't enough, many regions of Florida are also under a tornado watch.
Labels:
blackout,
Central Florida,
florida,
FPL,
miami,
turkey point nuclear power station
Crisis at Kahnawá:ke: Bomb Threat Against Indian Children
Bomb threats against schools on the Kahnawá:ke Nation reserve near Montreal, Canada, locked down normal community operations today. Mohawk Peacekeepers swiftly moved to protect their community in responding to the threats against the indigenous community. An unidentified male called in the threat, which also included the Mohawk hospital.
As a precaution, schools and many community gathering places were closed down, with students either being sent home or to the Youth Center. Normal medical transportation was canceled, and those in need of urgent medications were told that medicines would be delivered.
Kahnawá:ke has a long and honorable history. Many people first identify Mohawks with the fabled ironworkers who built so many Canadian and American structures.
Fierce and independent, the Mohawk people at Kahnawá:ke joined in the 1990 Oka protest. They supported their relations at Kanesatak who battled to protect sacred lands and a cemetery from being seized by Oka for golf course and condominum development.
During the protest, Kahnawá:ke warriors, as directed by women leaders, blockaded Montreal's Mercier Bridge and at one point shut downRoutes 132, 138 and 207. Traditional Mohawk culture is a matriarchy, which often offends and confuses non-natives deployed against them.
At present, most students are either home or enroute home. Following an emergency plan, all facilities are being searched.
As a precaution, schools and many community gathering places were closed down, with students either being sent home or to the Youth Center. Normal medical transportation was canceled, and those in need of urgent medications were told that medicines would be delivered.
Kahnawá:ke has a long and honorable history. Many people first identify Mohawks with the fabled ironworkers who built so many Canadian and American structures.
Fierce and independent, the Mohawk people at Kahnawá:ke joined in the 1990 Oka protest. They supported their relations at Kanesatak who battled to protect sacred lands and a cemetery from being seized by Oka for golf course and condominum development.
During the protest, Kahnawá:ke warriors, as directed by women leaders, blockaded Montreal's Mercier Bridge and at one point shut downRoutes 132, 138 and 207. Traditional Mohawk culture is a matriarchy, which often offends and confuses non-natives deployed against them.
At present, most students are either home or enroute home. Following an emergency plan, all facilities are being searched.
Labels:
bomb threats,
Kahnawake,
Kanestake,
Mercier Bridge,
Mohawks,
Oka,
Peacekeepers
Monday, February 25, 2008
The Waffle Watch: Part-Time Senator Obama , Race, Iraq, & The Poor
Although Sen. Barack Obama, the very junior Democrat senator from Illinois, apparently is now more a star than, say, Elvis Presley, it's still not a bad idea to get past the hype and look at reality. As this quick-look by CBS shows, Obama has waffled on Iraq for years.
Even though Democratic party apologist Sen. Dick Durbin spreads the justification jam, the message is clear: Obama's campaign is actually a giant moving waffle house. There's another hidden message in Obama's speeches, and here CBS shows a major one.
Obama speaks of his campaign bringing whites, blacks, and Latinos together and of working on anti-poverty programs for those groups. Memo to Sen. Obama: among Illinois' top 5 ethnic groups are the original inhabitants of this land: Native Americans.
Census results from the turn of the century show that about 100 tribes are represented in Illinois, most in the Chicago area. Many Native Americans were moved to Chicago during the government's ill-fated "relocation" programs designed to break up tribal communities and reservations.
Obama needs to check on poverty statistics and needs for that section of his constituency, which makes up slightly more than nine per cent of his state's population. It's apparent, though, that like most black politicians before him, Obama finds Native Americans to be invisible--to him, at least.
Someone might also want to tell Obama that there are Asians, in fact, many racial backgrounds, in his state, and home city, and that many of them are poor or working poor. Again, Obama makes it clear, to those who can get past the media hype, that his focus is on snake-charming the all-important black, Latino, and white voters.
Does America really want, or need, a president who not only is a waffle king, but who's only interested in serving only certain groups at his slick cliche cafe? We need to think about that.
There's another problem here: the issue of race. Obama's campaign waffles there, too. It's supposedly not about race, but the mantle of "first potential black president" gets whipped around in the air like a Spanish matador's cape.
Make no mistake, it is about race--as duplicitously defined by the Obama camp. If you support him, it's not about race. If you don't support him, then you're part of America's racial problems. The core message is subtle, but pervasive: a vote for Obama is a vote to prove the U.S. is not racially prejudiced; a word, or vote against Obama proves it is.
Or so the Obama camp would have you believe. In fact, the essence of racial equality in politics is that all candidates get evaluated by their record and their statements, regardless of their race.That applies to Obama, too.
If this country really wishes to continue to mature racially, then it's time to get past the rhetoric and the hype, and make one thing clear: voting against Obama is not a vote against blacks, or a vote for white domination. It's simply a vote that chooses another candidate as more qualified and more trustworthy, based on the individual voter's beliefs and choices.
Will some people vote against Obama because he is black? Of course. On the other hand, will some vote for Obama because he is black? Of course.. Interestingly enough, a vote for Obama because he's black isn't a racial choice, according to the leftist rhetoric, whereas a vote against him is. Or (back to the waffle counter here) a vote for Obama is a good racial choice, proving our racial fairness; a vote against is racism.
America doesn't have to prove anything racially. Within a very short time, the U.S. has moved from the rotten era of routine segregation (not to mention routine sexism) to an integrated nation. If you doubt that, check out the Secretary of State's office, the Supreme Court, and just about every facet of our daily lives.
Dealing with racial issues isn't easy. Xenophobia seems to be hard-wired into us as a species. We each have to outgrow that, just as developing babies in the womb have to outgrow vestiges of a tail and the stage where the fetus looks more like a newt than anything else.
The reality is that in no time, in no place, will prejudice ever be totally rooted out of the human race other than by education and cultural changes, such as those demonstrated in the U.S. in less than 50 years. To frame this election only in terms of race is the mirror image of pre-integration days, when everything was framed by race.
We don't have to buy into proving ourselves as "not racist" by voting for Obama. That needs to be repeated. Evaluate him fairly--which means looking at him without the "first black" rhetoric.
Because color, or racial background, is a lousy reason to vote for, or against, someone.
Even though Democratic party apologist Sen. Dick Durbin spreads the justification jam, the message is clear: Obama's campaign is actually a giant moving waffle house. There's another hidden message in Obama's speeches, and here CBS shows a major one.
Obama speaks of his campaign bringing whites, blacks, and Latinos together and of working on anti-poverty programs for those groups. Memo to Sen. Obama: among Illinois' top 5 ethnic groups are the original inhabitants of this land: Native Americans.
Census results from the turn of the century show that about 100 tribes are represented in Illinois, most in the Chicago area. Many Native Americans were moved to Chicago during the government's ill-fated "relocation" programs designed to break up tribal communities and reservations.
Obama needs to check on poverty statistics and needs for that section of his constituency, which makes up slightly more than nine per cent of his state's population. It's apparent, though, that like most black politicians before him, Obama finds Native Americans to be invisible--to him, at least.
Someone might also want to tell Obama that there are Asians, in fact, many racial backgrounds, in his state, and home city, and that many of them are poor or working poor. Again, Obama makes it clear, to those who can get past the media hype, that his focus is on snake-charming the all-important black, Latino, and white voters.
Does America really want, or need, a president who not only is a waffle king, but who's only interested in serving only certain groups at his slick cliche cafe? We need to think about that.
There's another problem here: the issue of race. Obama's campaign waffles there, too. It's supposedly not about race, but the mantle of "first potential black president" gets whipped around in the air like a Spanish matador's cape.
Make no mistake, it is about race--as duplicitously defined by the Obama camp. If you support him, it's not about race. If you don't support him, then you're part of America's racial problems. The core message is subtle, but pervasive: a vote for Obama is a vote to prove the U.S. is not racially prejudiced; a word, or vote against Obama proves it is.
Or so the Obama camp would have you believe. In fact, the essence of racial equality in politics is that all candidates get evaluated by their record and their statements, regardless of their race.That applies to Obama, too.
If this country really wishes to continue to mature racially, then it's time to get past the rhetoric and the hype, and make one thing clear: voting against Obama is not a vote against blacks, or a vote for white domination. It's simply a vote that chooses another candidate as more qualified and more trustworthy, based on the individual voter's beliefs and choices.
Will some people vote against Obama because he is black? Of course. On the other hand, will some vote for Obama because he is black? Of course.. Interestingly enough, a vote for Obama because he's black isn't a racial choice, according to the leftist rhetoric, whereas a vote against him is. Or (back to the waffle counter here) a vote for Obama is a good racial choice, proving our racial fairness; a vote against is racism.
America doesn't have to prove anything racially. Within a very short time, the U.S. has moved from the rotten era of routine segregation (not to mention routine sexism) to an integrated nation. If you doubt that, check out the Secretary of State's office, the Supreme Court, and just about every facet of our daily lives.
Dealing with racial issues isn't easy. Xenophobia seems to be hard-wired into us as a species. We each have to outgrow that, just as developing babies in the womb have to outgrow vestiges of a tail and the stage where the fetus looks more like a newt than anything else.
The reality is that in no time, in no place, will prejudice ever be totally rooted out of the human race other than by education and cultural changes, such as those demonstrated in the U.S. in less than 50 years. To frame this election only in terms of race is the mirror image of pre-integration days, when everything was framed by race.
We don't have to buy into proving ourselves as "not racist" by voting for Obama. That needs to be repeated. Evaluate him fairly--which means looking at him without the "first black" rhetoric.
Because color, or racial background, is a lousy reason to vote for, or against, someone.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The Oscars Parade In; Red Carpet is Rolled Out
With the writer's strike settled, Oscar organizers say that this year's show is going to be "amazing." As the stars get buffed, pouffed, glittered, and prepped for the walk of the year, workers are getting things ready for the star-spangled moments.
Here at the Peanut patch, we hope that the Academy redeems itself from its fevered embrace of Brokeback Mountain. Although hailed as ground-breaking, it really wasn't at all.
For a much better look at the barriers society builds between people based on sexual preference, race, and class, the must-see film is Far From Heaven. Truly artistic on many levels, Far From Heaven is more than a scenic postcard for gay "rights," as was BB Mountain.
The Academy, alas, often forgets that its role is to judge the art of film making. Using movies as propped-up placards in a parade for whatever liberal cause is fashionable means that some worthwhile movies get overlooked simply because they lack the "right" message.
Here at the Peanut patch, we hope that the Academy redeems itself from its fevered embrace of Brokeback Mountain. Although hailed as ground-breaking, it really wasn't at all.
For a much better look at the barriers society builds between people based on sexual preference, race, and class, the must-see film is Far From Heaven. Truly artistic on many levels, Far From Heaven is more than a scenic postcard for gay "rights," as was BB Mountain.
The Academy, alas, often forgets that its role is to judge the art of film making. Using movies as propped-up placards in a parade for whatever liberal cause is fashionable means that some worthwhile movies get overlooked simply because they lack the "right" message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)