Response To Hillary Comment

In the previous blog, Linda posted the following comment: "Hillary said what she had to say and she certainly wants her party to win. That said, like many, she is well aware that Obama's shine began to fade soon after the South Carolina victory - and he is perilously close to letting the presidency slip away. He barely gained the nomination and now he is falling in the polls every day.Obama got where he is by having 99%positive press coverage until Hillary was out of the way. Then, as soon as Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, etc. came out, he started to fade - and his many flip-flops have revealed him to be a politician, not an once-in-a-lifetime agent of change.If nothing else contradicted his CHANGE theme, the selection of BIDEN for VP certainly did. - The consummate Washington insider and a huge disappointment.John King on CNN said one day that some in his campaign call Obama - OBAM-E, the E standing for ego. Even for the sake of his party, he would NOT nominate Hillary for the VP - and he never considered her.So, Hillary did her thing last night - so magnificently - and he can never match her.In the end she has won the hearts of MOST Democrats, even those now suffering from Obama Buyer's Remorse. However, she has lost what she wanted most: to have her party in power so the lives of Americans can be improved."


My verbose, I mean, informative response:

Your point about media coverage is certainly valid, although I find it ironic that in 2000, the media had a love affair with John McCain.


"Washington" takes a hit from virtually every American, and many times deservedly so, but the reality of politics is much like the weather, "Everybody complains about it, but nobody does anything about it." Without gaining power in Washington, neither party can attempt to enact their respective agendas. Biden has been a Washington fixture since I was...well...a long time. He brings lots of experience to the ticket, especially in foreign policy, something Obama lacks, but also in Washington savvy. Jimmy Carter tried to be the outsider and reform Washington candidate, but as president, we all know how that ended. Change is usually incremental in American society, barring some dramatic event, like the Great Depression, which gave Roosevelt the opportunity to push through lots of legislation in his famous "100 days" and "The New Deal." When the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, they had a huge agenda, and what they perceived to be a mandate for change. What they found was that change is easy to talk about, but not so easy to implement. In all due respect, they helped to change America in that time, along with Bill Clinton.

Early on in the primary campaign, I must admit that I was "leaning" ever so slightly to Hillary. There is something amazing, however, in that many Democrats seemed to be looking elsewhere for an alternative to her. Obama's win in Iowa brought a large number of supporters to him, and it certainly gave him lots of favorable press coverage. Let us not forget, many Democrats were looking for an alternative to Hillary. These weren't Republicans.

For Hillary (and Bill), their years of experience also had a negative side. I guess you could say, their strength was also their weakness. To their favor was the fact that EVERYBODY knew Hillary, and she had no problem with name recognition. Further, they had loads of contacts and friends within the Democratic Party power structure, including the ability to raise lots of money for her campaign. On the other side, being so well known has its negative side, as polls all showed Hillary with the highest negatives of any Democrat in the race. Part of that, in my opinion, transferred to her from her husband, fairly or unfairly (no one has ever claimed that politics is fair). By winning in New Hampshire, Hillary seemed to stop the bleeding, but the open wound was really just beginning to fester. The Clinton campaign seemed knocked off stride, and what had seemingly been a march to the coronation... I mean nomination, became a brutal slug fest. Bill Clinton seemed to have run off the "bridge to the 21st Century," as he failed to comprehend that with 24 hour news and the Internet, virtually anything and everything said or done by high profile individuals, like himself, will be reported in the media.

There's no need to go over the rest of the campaign, as we all know what happened, but there's no question that Hillary made Obama a better national candidate, and that he made her a better candidate. And she did get better! Much better! Thus the campaign dragged on as Obama, while leading continuously, was unable to put the race for the nomination completely away.

Hillary's speech to the convention was certainly a great one, and I, too, wondered if Obama could top it, BUT HE DID!!!

To kind of finish up here, there's just something about the Clintons that make people suspicious of their motives; that they always have their own interests first and foremost. Maybe "Clinton fatigue" plays a part, but again, these feeling aren't just out there among Republicans, but many Democrats, too.

Hillary Clears The Bases

I've never been much of a Hillary fan, but I've got to tell you that her speech to the Democratic Convention was absolutely tremendous!!! She's really come a long way in her public speaking performances, as was evident in the later primaries, but for her though, it came a bit too late to overtake Obama in the delegate count; although, in typical Clinton fashion, she and Bill tried to make the primaries about popular vote when they couldn't get the delegate count on their side. All of that is now past, and she gave a truly astounding speech in support of the Democratic Ticket. She even gave John McCain a couple of smacks upside the head. Of course, she didn't fail to give her husband a pat on the back for the 1990s. I kind of think that if she had left that out, Bill would have gone into pouting mode. She talked about health care and supporting working people, something dear to this old guy's heart, as you may already know, if you read this blog on any kind of regular basis. Her husband, Joe Biden, and indeed, Obama himself have their work cut out for them to equal what Hillary did. I'm sure many of her true supporters will take heart and support Obama. There will always be some who will go their own way.

The only criticism I can give to the speech was that Hillary didn't exactly wrap her arms around the Obama-Biden ticket in a personal way. Her support was given because of shared goals and concerns. So many Americans are always at least a little skeptical about anything the Clintons are involved with, and I'm one of them. She cleared the bases for Obama, and I'm sure that both she and Bill will campaign for Obama, but there's always that lingering suspicion in my mind about who they will end up actually voting for.

Oil Speculators Dominate

Well, the Bush Administration has long insisted that speculators are NOT a big part of the oil market. Now, the regulatory (cough, cough) agency concerned with the oil markets says otherwise. Finally there's an admission that oil contracts are in the hands of the very few. I think most people aren't terribly stunned to hear this news, as we aren't as dumb as some think we are.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26321642/

Hypocrites

This is just TOO good to pass up. It gets both, liberals and conservatives:

http://specials.msn.com/AreTheyHypocrites.aspx?cp-documentid=9374298&GT1=34124

Another Piece Of The Housing Mess

Here's a link to a good article about the failure of oversight of housing appraisals. Government at all levels fails us at times, but also at times, agencies are set up without proper funding and are, therefore, unable to fulfill their assigned missions (sometimes to the glee of those who wanted them to fail in the first place). Further, the Bush Administration has never been much interested in anything approaching regulation of business interests. I'd guess that most Americans don't want a totalitarian approach to business, but they recognize that there needs to be oversight and regulation to keep a lid on things. Well, the lid has come off of the housing business, and all of the businesses involved in it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26254079/

A "Word" About Some English Words

You might want to check out these related, previous blogs:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2007/12/how-do-you-say-that-in-english.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-do-you-say-that-in-english-part-two.html

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/01/how-do-you-say-that-in-english-part-3.html

English is a West Germanic language akin to Frisian, German, Dutch, Flemish, Yiddish and Afrikaans. Here are some common modern English words and a bit of their history. Keep in mind, while we still have these words, they were not always pronounced the same as we pronounce them today, nor did they always have the same meaning.

Bird-Certainly a common word today, but originally, English had "fogol" (also spelled fugol) for our feathered friends, which eventually morphed into "fowl." German has the related "Vogel," pronounced foe-gel. Why we have "bird" is something of a mystery, especially for such a common word. It overtook "fowl" as the main word for a flying animal, but that wasn't until the Middle Ages. There is a theory by many linguists, but not all agree, that "bird," which was originally spelled "bridd," was merely a form from "breed" or "brood," and that the "r" and "i" were transposed at some point. Without this theory, it is tough to come up with an explanation for the word, as the other Germanic languages do NOT have it, and in fact, no other Indo European language has a similar word for a flying animal. (By the way, in case you didn't notice, "breed" and "brood" are related words, and German has "bruet(en)" for breed (the "ue" vowels are represented in standard written German by an "umlaut," that is, the two little dots over the "u," and then the "e" is omitted. It is something of a combined sound of u and e being pronounced together.) The related "brood" has German "Brut," for a relative, and it is pronounced pretty much like our word "brut," as in "Don't hit me, you brut!"

Girl-Here is another tough one. No one is quite certain why we say "girl." Originally in Old English, it meant simply a child, but not specifically a female child, as that came along much later. Low German has "goer" (again an umlaut is typically used, and so the word is spelled gor, with the two little dots over the "o."), and it indeed means "child" in Low German. Since the Angles and Saxons came from the area where Low German is spoken, that's likely the source of our word. Norwegian dialect (another Germanic language) has "gurre," which means lamb, so we stay with the idea of "young," or "child sheep." Later, in some English dialects, the "r" sound in "girl" died out, leaving "gal," which we still use today.

Take-Originally, English used "niman" for "take," and German still uses the related "nehmen." English got "take" from Old Norse/North Germanic at some point after 1100 A.D. Then often spelled "tacan," it really meant "seize," in the Norse meaning, but English adapted it to be less forceful and it replaced "niman." So what happened to "niman?" The base, "nim," became our modern word "numb," the sense being that feeling is "taken" from a body part.

Go-This traces back to Indo European, but it seems that only the original Germanic carried forth with the word. Originally it was "gan," in English, with the "a" being a long sound. German has "geh(en)," Dutch has "gaan," Danish has "gaa." Interestingly, the modern past tense, "went," was not the original past form, which was "yode," also earlier spelled "eode." (Okay, no "I yode to the store a little while ago.") It wasn't until around Shakespeare's time (1500s) that "went," which is actually the past of "wend," began to be used more often for the past tense of "go."

Word-While I'm at it, I should give this...ah...word. It traces back to Indo European, and the original base gave Latin "verb," which originally meant just "word," which is why we say "verbal" and "verbose." (No snickers, please.) In the Germanic languages, the Indo European base, or root word, gave English "word," German "Wort," and Dutch "woord," for example.

Well, I guess I'll go for now and rest, since I yode to work last night.

The Government & The Economy

If you haven't seen the previous blog on the subject, see:

http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/08/government-intervention-in-free-market.html

This is sort of a "Part Two" to the above. Now, having given the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve a pat on the back, I now must give a more scathing view of their action, or inaction, but first, a short preface.

Many people are skeptical of politicians, and with good reason. There's nothing wrong with some healthy skepticism about anything in and around our lives. The problem for us becomes when politicians switch positions on a given issue, or at least seem to do so. Did they change to get votes, or did they really change out of conviction? We're often not sure, but just as often, our answer to that question probably mirrors our political views. If a politician swears by chocolate ice cream, but then changes to vanilla ice cream, if you like chocolate, you may well feel that this politician is pandering to the vanilla vote. If you like chocolate, you welcome a new convert. There isn't a really good answer to the question, but hopefully we try to decide these things on an individual basis, and get some info on the particular subject and the politician involved. We're in an election year, when all such things are intensified, but I hate to think that a politician of either party must always hold to some idea and never change or modify their position without being called a "flip-flopper." On the other hand, there are some blatant changes that go on which only concern politics, but we always have to keep in mind that this is part of the "genius" of our system. Politicians tend to want to get on the side of the bulk of the electorate, and that makes our system go.

Now, having muddied the waters... I mean having gotten that out of the way, there are certainly some valid criticisms of the recent government involvement in the economy. The administration did little to help anyone early on in the current crisis. Their "free market" mantra led them to utter statements about how if you buy a home and can't pay, tough sh... ah, luck. Then the chickens came home to roost, as the banks and mortgage companies began to reap what they had sown, and losses on their balance sheets mounted. Now, this was something the Bush Administration could understand, the plight of millionaires. When banks were threatened with insolvency, the administration quickly got off of their butts and just as quickly forgot about their own "free market" crap.. I mean positions. The pro-business, free market mantra is, "If you take whatever action, then you have to bear the consequences or the benefits." So, if banker XYZ lends Joe Shmo 200 grand to buy a house, and old Joe makes $8.50 an hour and he can't pay the mortgage, banker XYZ takes a hit. With this administration, when Joe Shmo couldn't pay, they didn't give a damn, but as soon as Joe's loss hurt banker XYZ, they sprang into action.

Now, I'm not ideological on this, as I think, as distasteful as it is, banker XYZ had to be helped, for fear that the whole system could come tumbling down. Don't forget, it really isn't just banker XYZ, but many, many bankers in trouble, and this crisis doesn't appear to be over yet, but as the article (with link in part one) notes, the administration favored helping bankers, but when Congress added help for homeowners, they balked, until political reality set in, and they went along, although reluctantly. So what does this mean? To the Bush Administration, if you're a banker and you gave that loan to Joe Shmo (even if you knew, or should have known that Joe couldn't afford it), you should be protected against Joe's default on the loan. If you're Joe Shmo, "The hell with you!"

As the crisis deepened and the government took stronger actions, thus increasing government power, the administration spokespeople kept spouting the free market nonsense, and acting as if they really believed in it, in spite of the actions they were taking. It has been much the same with oil/gasoline prices. When the cry went out to curtail speculators in the oil and gasoline markets, the administration spokespeople, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson, said that there really wasn't much speculation causing prices to soar, it was just the free market setting the price, which was another flight from reality by this bunch. Now, in the last couple of weeks, as oil and gas prices have plummeted, it has been noted that speculators have been fleeing the oil markets. I thought speculators weren't the problem? You can't have it both ways!!! (Note that just because oil has fallen in price, don't get too gleeful as yet, as we will have to see what happens in the longer term.)

Government Intervention In The "Free Market"

Below is a link to an article describing how the government has intervened in the free market economy in just the past year or so. I have to offer a congratulations to the Bush Administration, something you've not heard much from me, for adapting to a crisis. This administration has preached this "free market" nonsense for so long, however, that they haven't really gotten much credit for intervening during the current crisis. It just shows that ideologues of what ever persuasion need to draw in their horns and take action, after a dose of harsh reality. In this case, promoting "free markets" is one thing, and seeing and acting upon the weaknesses of free markets is another. Ben Bernanke and the Federal Reserve have acted, too. Bernanke, from what I understand, concentrated much of his economic schooling on understanding The Great Depression, and it seems to have served him well, so far. Let's hope we can pull out of this mess without actually experiencing a severe recession, or even a depression. One analyst on CNBC (a cable business channel) noted recently that Bernanke and the Fed have been trying to keep the slowdown in America from "morphing into a depression."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26101238/

Some Health Myths

Just want to provide this link to some health myth info; interesting stuff:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100212198&imageindex=1

The Candidates And Iran

Here's a link to an article about Iran and the possible situation that will confront the next president about this oil producing country, that has been so troubling to the United States and other nations since the late 1970s. If you're old enough to remember the ordeal of the "Hostage Crisis," you know that Iran and the U.S. have been at odds ever since, although at varying levels of intensity. Now, with Iran's president pushing nuclear development, either for energy or weaponry, or both, this situation must soon come to a head. Throw in the situation with Israel, and you've got a possible war on your hands.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25442607/

The Candidates and China

First, I thought I'd post this link to an article about how McCain and Obama feel about issues the U.S. has with the world's most populous country, China. America runs a large trade deficit with China, and in more recent months, we've seen that Chinese products do not always meet U.S. standards as to safety, for example, when lead was found to have been used in numerous, but certainly not all, toys made by the Chinese. There seems to be no question that America has lost jobs to China, with many American workers having been displaced, particularly in the manufacturing area, where decent wages and benefits had helped propel American workers into the middle class. How many of these jobs have been lost is still open to debate. To me, it isn't just how many jobs have been lost, but also the "tone" that the situation of "free trade" in general has created, as wages and benefits for American workers have been under pressure with the growing number of trade deals, not only with China, but with other countries too. Free traders say that cheaper Chinese products have helped save Americans money, while also providing a wider variety of products available to American consumers.

There are also a variety of issues on the foreign policy front, where in recent years the U.S. has relied upon China to help pressure North Korea in the nuclear weapons debate. Tibet and Taiwan are also among other issues confronting the next president. Anyway, here's the link to the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25288252/

Health Info On Some Foods

I thought I'd post the link to a slide show about some of the positives and negatives about certain foods:

http://health.msn.com/nutrition/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100211575&GT1=31036

The Fears Of Working People

Folks, I hope you'll take the time to click on the link below and read the article about how some people are trying to survive in modern America. As the article says, many of the people included call themselves, "working class," but just think for one moment how many of your fellow Americans work hard EVERY day, but make relatively low wages, get no vacation (let alone paid vacation!), no health care, or even sick days, yet they trudge on, knowing that they're only a pay or two away from financial meltdown; that is, perhaps, the streets. With the working world so fickle, just where do you fit in? If you lost your job, what would you do for a living?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25994435/

Jobs to China

In an article published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer on 7/30/08, which cited a study by the Economic Policy Institute of Washington D.C., the United States lost 2.3 million industrial jobs between 2001 and 2007, as a result of trade with China. The study, "The China Trade Toll," authored by Robert Scott, notes that here in Ohio, 102,700 jobs were lost. California suffered the biggest overall loss, with 325,800 lost jobs.

States Feeling The Pinch

Here's a link to an article about how many states are feeling the pinch of lower revenues and higher costs, and how their leaders are trying to cope with the situation.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25955845/

Related:
http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2008/07/full-effect-of-economic.html