November 16, 2008

Please STOP calling him a Socialist!

To everyone that mistakenly categorizes Barack Obama as a Socialist:

STOP IT. Shame on you for trying to start another Red Scare.

By the way. Last time I checked, nationalizing the banks through a bail-out plan was (hmm. what do you know?) Socialism!



Socialists: Obama no socialist

By Rex W. Huppke | Tribune staff reporter
October 20, 2008

These are hard times to be a socialist in America. And not just because there’s a bourgeois-bloated Starbucks on every other corner, thumbing its capitalist nose at the proletariat.

No, it’s tough these days because you’ve got politicians on the right, the same guys who just helped nationalize the banking system, derisively and inaccurately calling the presidential candidate on the left a socialist. That’s enough to make Karl Marx harumph in his grave.

Local communists, rarely tapped as campaign pundits, say Sen. Barack Obama and his policies stand far afield from any form of socialism they know.

John Bachtell, the Illinois organizer for Communist Party USA, sees attempts by Sen. John McCain’s campaign to label Obama a socialist as both offensive to socialists and a desperate ploy to tap into fears of voters who haven’t forgotten their Cold War rhetoric.


Red baiting is really the last refuge of scoundrels,” Bachtell said. “It has nothing to do with the issues that are confronting the American people right now. It’s just a big diversion.”

Of course that’s just one man’s opinion. (And everyone knows you can’t trust a communist.)

The “s-word” bubbled up from the McCain campaign after Obama said, in his chat with Joe the Plumber, that he thinks “when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

Well, that certainly sounds like the words of a Red Menace. But is it socialist?

There are about as many definitions for socialism as comedian Jeff Foxworthy has for the term “redneck.”

So, how do you know if you’re a socailist?

Generally, it involves espousing government control over a country’s basic industries, like transportation, communication and energy, while also allowing some government regulation of private industries.

“Obama is about as far from being a socialist as Joe The Plumber is from being a rocket scientist,” said Darrell West, director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “I think it’s hard for McCain to call Obama a socialist when George Bush is nationalizing banks.”

And this from Bruce Carruthers, a sociology professor at Northwestern University: “Obama is like a center-liberal Democrat, and he is certainly not looking to overthrow capitalism. My goodness, he wouldn’t have the support of someone like The Wizard of Omaha, Warren Buffet, if he truly was going to overthrow capitalism.”

Bottom line: pure capitalism and socialism can be a difficult mix.

Which hits at the heart of the problem. Right now, with the economy in the tank, the idea of a little wealth sharing doesn’t sound so bad to people whose 401k plans are worth less than the contents of their coin jars.

“The idea of closing that wealth gap, I think, is a concern for many, many Americans,” said Teresa Albano, editor of the Chicago-based People’s Weekly World, a communist newspaper. “I don’t think people are going to respond negatively to the idea of spreading around the wealth.”

Which is not to say that, by electing Obama, the country will gamely head down the path of socialism.

“The whole point of his policies don’t really represent the political economy of the working class,” said Robert Roman, who edits the newsletter of the roughly 250-member Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America. “Obama’s going to be a person who represents all of us, he’s going to be representing the interest of the capitalists as well as the working people. He’s not really talking about transforming society beyond capitalism.”

But don’t worry, Sen. Obama. You’re still likely to win the vote of avowed socialists.

“Having Obama as president would be greatly superior, from our point of view, than having McCain as president,” Roman said.

And you can expect to see that quote in a McCain ad in 5, 4, 3, 2….

An Irritated Pro-Choicer's Concerns

Topic: Last Night’s 3rd, and Final, Presidential Debate

Issue: McCain’s Answer to a Question

The Question: Would you ever appoint a justice to the Supreme Court that had different views than you do on abortion? -Scheiffer

The Answer: (Paraphrased) I would never apply a “litmus test” to any appointees I am considering. That is unethical. I would instead choose/vet them based on their qualifications and merit….someone who was qualified to be a Justice wouldn’t be Pro-Choice anyways.

Are you SERIOUS? I don’t care if you’re Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. This ridiculously stereotypical comment should bother people on both sides of the issue. Does McCain honestly believe that an abortion proponent could never be qualified to serve in the Supreme Court?

I’m sorry. I’d rather have “that one” who “pals around with domestic terrorists” as my President, than an old, closed-minded, insult-hurling geezer.
October 2, 2008

The Vice Presidential Debate - Thursday Oct 2nd

Could Sarah Palin have been any more informal and conversational at tonight’s VP Debate? Her speech pattern, tone, and comments were totally unproffessional and certainly not vice presidential? In addition, the amount of coaching she received was unbelievably obvious.

Just a few problems I have..

Sarah Palin just said “nucular”. FOUR TIMES.

And she said “Oh MAN. It’s so obvious I’m a Washington outsider, and I’m not used to all this”.

And she callled the government “the Feds”.

And she mentioned “hockey moms”, yet again. Well, at least she changed it up a little by mentioning Soccer dads too.

And she said that we need to stop pointing fingers at George Bush.

And (my ultimate favorite) she said (in response to Gwen’s question about whether or not there were any promises their campaigns would have to break) - Oh, how long have I been in this? Five weeks? So, everything I’ve promised so far I’m going to follow through on. My promises are the right way for the American people.

I don’t care how attractive, likeable, or personable she seems to be. I hope the American populous doesn’t get caught up in her scripted and contrived personality. My fear is they will…

September 17, 2008

Hockey Moms - Pigs - Lipstick

How did sport’s mothers, barnyard animals, and makeup make their way into this season’s presidential campaigns?

A few oddly placed comments and a bad sense of humor, that’s how.

Riddle me this…

What’s the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney?

KCITSPIL [Read backwards to discover the answer to this puzzler]

I was given this “bumpersticker” on FaceBook, and it truly bothered me.This is an actual welcome sign from the front of Havens Corner Church. I am baffled that a church would post this bulletin as a welcome message for their congregation and for public passer-bys. This hate message is anything but welcoming. If I were a member of the congregation, this sign would make me extremely uncomfortable. To know that my church is projecting its personal judgment on to the world without any discretion or tact would push me into a state of dissatisfaction and disbelief. The lessons that I remember from my former involvement in the Christian faith were not of hate and bigotry. They were of tolerance, acceptance, and peace. Churches are supposed to be a haven of welcome and a place of learning. An inappropriate condemnation is not a way to welcome present Christians or anyone aspiring to be faithful. And churches wonder why so many are becoming disillusioned by religion. I have never understood why people of faith believe it is their right to judge and condemn. I vaguely remember something about a prostitute and a first stone…hmm…I conclude my concerns with these questions: What would Katie Perry think about this? And…Have you ever noticed that Christians are quick to condemn homosexuals, but the homosexuals typically refrain from criticizing Christians? Seems to me like those who are “sexually aberrant” understand the fundamentals of Christianity better than Christians do!
I was given this “bumpersticker” on FaceBook, and it truly bothered me.

This is an actual welcome sign from the front of Havens Corner Church. I am baffled that a church would post this bulletin as a welcome message for their congregation and for public passer-bys.

This hate message is anything but welcoming. If I were a member of the congregation, this sign would make me extremely uncomfortable. To know that my church is projecting its personal judgment on to the world without any discretion or tact would push me into a state of dissatisfaction and disbelief.

The lessons that I remember from my former involvement in the Christian faith were not of hate and bigotry. They were of tolerance, acceptance, and peace. Churches are supposed to be a haven of welcome and a place of learning. An inappropriate condemnation is not a way to welcome present Christians or anyone aspiring to be faithful. And churches wonder why so many are becoming disillusioned by religion.

I have never understood why people of faith believe it is their right to judge and condemn. I vaguely remember something about a prostitute and a first stone…hmm…

I conclude my concerns with these questions: What would Katie Perry think about this? And…Have you ever noticed that Christians are quick to condemn homosexuals, but the homosexuals typically refrain from criticizing Christians?

Seems to me like those who are “sexually aberrant” understand the fundamentals of Christianity better than Christians do!