Discovered a video of my karate instructor on Youtube. He teaches two styles of martial arts. I take Tang Soo Do from him. This is Kajukido.
How To Get Out of Hell Free
2 days ago
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
smear tactics
I guess I am going to make a political post before the Texas and Ohio primaries. But it's not about the Democratic candidates. Now, I am a Democrat, hard core. I support Hillary Clinton and will happily vote for Barack Obama if he's the nominee. I do not like John McCain. I think he is, in my husband Karl's words, "bonkers". I have a lot of disagreements with McCain's policies. However, this latest John McCain story is not one of them.
Why are we so concerned with the soap opera of people's personal lives. I don't know if he had a "close relationship" with a lobbyist and I don't care. First, women and men can have close personal relationships without having sex, believe it or not. Second, if he did have sex with her would not effect his ability to run the country.
I have to admit the thought of sex with John McCain is scary, but not scary in the way his willingness to invade half the world in an imperialist ego-trip is scary. But the press is covering this story as if he DID invade a country unannounced. And it is because the press is willing to take any tidbit and blow it up like a nuclear bomb that stories like this continue to make the legitimate news look like the National Enquirer.
And I'm tired of it. They have been blowing every little detail out of proportion for all the candidates. I think there is enough real news there to report, and this is NOT news, just smear tactics getting elevated to real news by the press legitimizing it. Please stop.
Why are we so concerned with the soap opera of people's personal lives. I don't know if he had a "close relationship" with a lobbyist and I don't care. First, women and men can have close personal relationships without having sex, believe it or not. Second, if he did have sex with her would not effect his ability to run the country.
I have to admit the thought of sex with John McCain is scary, but not scary in the way his willingness to invade half the world in an imperialist ego-trip is scary. But the press is covering this story as if he DID invade a country unannounced. And it is because the press is willing to take any tidbit and blow it up like a nuclear bomb that stories like this continue to make the legitimate news look like the National Enquirer.
And I'm tired of it. They have been blowing every little detail out of proportion for all the candidates. I think there is enough real news there to report, and this is NOT news, just smear tactics getting elevated to real news by the press legitimizing it. Please stop.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
four for (last) friday
Okay, I'm off for a week, and I intend to blog daily. In an election year, I do write more about politics, but my political opinions have been expressed and have not changed. I'm waiting until after Texas and Ohio to see how things go there before I comment again. So I've been searching the memes, going backwards from Wednesday. It turns out some of my favorite memes seem to have died, or gone into stasis since I was last doing them. Because of that and absolutely boring or stupid questions in others, I ended up back at last Friday before I found one interesting enough to answer.
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1 - Prescription Drugs: Unless you've been living under a rock these past few weeks, you know that actor Heath Ledger tragically died earlier this month of an accidental prescription drug overdose. Despite the fact that doctors and pharmacists are drilled in the art of explaining to their patients and customers exactly how to take prescription drugs, far too many people--a lot of them actors--still get it wrong and accidentally over or wrongly medicate themselves. Have you ever become sick because of drugs your prescribed by a doctor, or have you ever accidentally over medicated yourself?
No. I'm a minimalist when it comes to drugs, except vitamins. I won't even take an Advil unless my head is really throbbing. But I'm more interested in why soooo much time is spent on tv talking about dead actors and other so-called celebrities. It drives me nuts that so many scientists and authors and people who actually help our society progress are ignored while Anna Nicole and Heath Ledger dominate the airwaves by dying stupidly.
Q2 - Advice: What advice would you give to a young boy or girl who expresses a sincere interest in becoming President of the United States?
Okay, so I do get a LITTLE political writing into this response.
My advice would be to risk being called a geek and run for your school offices, get a feel for what running for office is like. No matter how good you are, no matter how honest, no matter how sincere, you will have to deal with people criticizing and ridiculing you, calling you a liar, and trying to stomp on your dreams. Google any politician in the Presidential race today and I bet the negative slams will be more than double the positive press. Newspapers and bloggers alike choose to spend their inches criticizing and sniping at candidates they are against rather than advocating the ones they are for, and I can't see that that is going to change, so get used to it. You have to overcome all of that and still aim high.
I do know a young man, Patrick, with whom I take karate, who intends to run for the city council of his town as soon as he is old enough and wants to be President. I've known him long enough to know he's got what it takes. Having a black belt doesn't hurt. He knows what it's like to get punched and still fight back. I hope to vote for him for President in 30 years.
Q3 - The Sky Is Falling: Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the U.S. government said yesterday it will try its darnedest to shoot down a broken down, bus-size U.S. spy satellite that's on a collision course with Earth. The Pentagon hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week--just before it enters Earth's atmosphere--with a single missile fired from a Navy boat in the Pacific Ocean. Do you have faith that the Navy will succeed in hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 to 175 miles above the Earth's surface when the shot is fired?
They'll hit it, most likely the first time. But if not, by trying when it's 175 miles above the earth, it gives them a second shot if necessary. The second might end up with shrapnel hitting the earth, but not the big satellite, which could be supremely disastrous. I used to work on the HARM missile and know how good guidance and signal processing was in the early '80s and I'm sure it has improved even more since then.
It's not like they're throwing a football across a stadium while trying to avoid 300 lb. tackles. They know the satellite they are trying to shoot down. They know what their tracking missile should "look for". And of course, the math of trajectory help. It's unlikely that either the satellite or the missile will change trajectory during the fall/pursuit and the guidance system will reorient itself if perchance it does go off course.
Q4 - Spam: Which do you find more annoying... email spam or snail mail junk mail?
Email spam. I check my email several times I day. I check my snail mail once a day. So I have to deal with email spam more often. But even given that, I have never had snail mail spam, unless you count the misleading statements of Publisher's Clearing House, that told me I've won a lottery, inherited millions of dollars, or pounds or dinars, or whatever. I've never had anyone in snail mail send me chain letters for victims that don't exist, warning me of dangers that don't exist or stupid jokes I heard 30 years ago. It would be nice to open my email and have everything in it be relevant to me, just once.
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1 - Prescription Drugs: Unless you've been living under a rock these past few weeks, you know that actor Heath Ledger tragically died earlier this month of an accidental prescription drug overdose. Despite the fact that doctors and pharmacists are drilled in the art of explaining to their patients and customers exactly how to take prescription drugs, far too many people--a lot of them actors--still get it wrong and accidentally over or wrongly medicate themselves. Have you ever become sick because of drugs your prescribed by a doctor, or have you ever accidentally over medicated yourself?
No. I'm a minimalist when it comes to drugs, except vitamins. I won't even take an Advil unless my head is really throbbing. But I'm more interested in why soooo much time is spent on tv talking about dead actors and other so-called celebrities. It drives me nuts that so many scientists and authors and people who actually help our society progress are ignored while Anna Nicole and Heath Ledger dominate the airwaves by dying stupidly.
Q2 - Advice: What advice would you give to a young boy or girl who expresses a sincere interest in becoming President of the United States?
Okay, so I do get a LITTLE political writing into this response.
My advice would be to risk being called a geek and run for your school offices, get a feel for what running for office is like. No matter how good you are, no matter how honest, no matter how sincere, you will have to deal with people criticizing and ridiculing you, calling you a liar, and trying to stomp on your dreams. Google any politician in the Presidential race today and I bet the negative slams will be more than double the positive press. Newspapers and bloggers alike choose to spend their inches criticizing and sniping at candidates they are against rather than advocating the ones they are for, and I can't see that that is going to change, so get used to it. You have to overcome all of that and still aim high.
I do know a young man, Patrick, with whom I take karate, who intends to run for the city council of his town as soon as he is old enough and wants to be President. I've known him long enough to know he's got what it takes. Having a black belt doesn't hurt. He knows what it's like to get punched and still fight back. I hope to vote for him for President in 30 years.
Q3 - The Sky Is Falling: Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the U.S. government said yesterday it will try its darnedest to shoot down a broken down, bus-size U.S. spy satellite that's on a collision course with Earth. The Pentagon hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week--just before it enters Earth's atmosphere--with a single missile fired from a Navy boat in the Pacific Ocean. Do you have faith that the Navy will succeed in hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 to 175 miles above the Earth's surface when the shot is fired?
They'll hit it, most likely the first time. But if not, by trying when it's 175 miles above the earth, it gives them a second shot if necessary. The second might end up with shrapnel hitting the earth, but not the big satellite, which could be supremely disastrous. I used to work on the HARM missile and know how good guidance and signal processing was in the early '80s and I'm sure it has improved even more since then.
It's not like they're throwing a football across a stadium while trying to avoid 300 lb. tackles. They know the satellite they are trying to shoot down. They know what their tracking missile should "look for". And of course, the math of trajectory help. It's unlikely that either the satellite or the missile will change trajectory during the fall/pursuit and the guidance system will reorient itself if perchance it does go off course.
Q4 - Spam: Which do you find more annoying... email spam or snail mail junk mail?
Email spam. I check my email several times I day. I check my snail mail once a day. So I have to deal with email spam more often. But even given that, I have never had snail mail spam, unless you count the misleading statements of Publisher's Clearing House, that told me I've won a lottery, inherited millions of dollars, or pounds or dinars, or whatever. I've never had anyone in snail mail send me chain letters for victims that don't exist, warning me of dangers that don't exist or stupid jokes I heard 30 years ago. It would be nice to open my email and have everything in it be relevant to me, just once.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
booked by 3 for february
Booked by 3 for February
Bet you thought I forgot, huh? The truth is, coming up with new questions after a couple of years is hard work. Let's see how this group works.
Book Memories
1. Do you associate reading particular books with the places you read them or events of the time you read them?
Some... When I read "The Prince of Tides" I was on a business trip. But the child abuse scenes were so painful because they resembled my own that I put the book away to read when I got home and could be in contact with my siblings when I read it. Their basic reaction when I read them parts of the book was to say, "Did this guy live with us?"
The first time I read "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", I was home sick with a cold and could not lie down or my nose would fill up, so I stayed up all night and read it.
And actually I was sick with the flu when I read "The Stand" too. I remember because usually when I read disaster novels I picture myself as one of the survivors. But this book has the virus that kills off people being a version of the flu, it affected how I read the book. When someone was about to die King would say something like "And such and such blew his nose" right when I needed to blow mine.
And I read the entire Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover series one summer when we had a contract on a house in June and didn't end up moving until September, and I spent the entire summer in a house full of boxes.
Looking back at those, I realize that like many memories, it's the extreme memories that I recall.
2. Do you remember the books you read or do they fade quickly? Or do you remember some better than others? How about remember details like character names, not just overall plot?
Mostly books fade quickly but there are those that have such an effect on me that I remember them, and sometimes even read them again. "The Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer Bradley, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith, and then there's "Replayer". It is not a classic, but it was one that made me think about it, over and over. The premise is a guy who dies and wakes up in his 18 year old body knowing everything he knew when he died. A middle-aged person's ultimate fantasy.
And yeah, I remember characters more than their plots. Stephanie Plum, John Rain, Laura Ingalls, Matt Scudder, Joanna Brady, etc., etc., etc. Many times I remember the personal details of the people's lives in the books, but not the main plot.
3. Have you ever forgotten you've read/own a book and borrowed/bought it again?
I don't know. Probably. But I don't remember. <-;
Bet you thought I forgot, huh? The truth is, coming up with new questions after a couple of years is hard work. Let's see how this group works.
Book Memories
1. Do you associate reading particular books with the places you read them or events of the time you read them?
Some... When I read "The Prince of Tides" I was on a business trip. But the child abuse scenes were so painful because they resembled my own that I put the book away to read when I got home and could be in contact with my siblings when I read it. Their basic reaction when I read them parts of the book was to say, "Did this guy live with us?"
The first time I read "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", I was home sick with a cold and could not lie down or my nose would fill up, so I stayed up all night and read it.
And actually I was sick with the flu when I read "The Stand" too. I remember because usually when I read disaster novels I picture myself as one of the survivors. But this book has the virus that kills off people being a version of the flu, it affected how I read the book. When someone was about to die King would say something like "And such and such blew his nose" right when I needed to blow mine.
And I read the entire Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover series one summer when we had a contract on a house in June and didn't end up moving until September, and I spent the entire summer in a house full of boxes.
Looking back at those, I realize that like many memories, it's the extreme memories that I recall.
2. Do you remember the books you read or do they fade quickly? Or do you remember some better than others? How about remember details like character names, not just overall plot?
Mostly books fade quickly but there are those that have such an effect on me that I remember them, and sometimes even read them again. "The Mists of Avalon" by Marion Zimmer Bradley, "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn" by Betty Smith, and then there's "Replayer". It is not a classic, but it was one that made me think about it, over and over. The premise is a guy who dies and wakes up in his 18 year old body knowing everything he knew when he died. A middle-aged person's ultimate fantasy.
And yeah, I remember characters more than their plots. Stephanie Plum, John Rain, Laura Ingalls, Matt Scudder, Joanna Brady, etc., etc., etc. Many times I remember the personal details of the people's lives in the books, but not the main plot.
3. Have you ever forgotten you've read/own a book and borrowed/bought it again?
I don't know. Probably. But I don't remember. <-;
Sunday, February 17, 2008
stars & stripes shiai
I'm sitting in a hotel room in Portland, Maine. The tournament, Stars & Stripes Shiai, was yesterday. This is the 3rd of the season and the first where Bill came home emptyhanded. Usually there was 7-8 kids in his division. There were FIFTEEN this time. I hope it gets him to practice more. His form is very good, but it's not "great". He needs more power and force. He needs lower stances. He needs better kicks. But he's getting there.
The tournament was PACKED. It was Master Fournier's first tournament and it's hard to judge how many people will be there before you've even had one. The Catholic High School gym was definitely not big enough for 250 competitors and spectators. I am still spectating this year, though I might start judging. Hell, I think I got more injured as a spectator than I ever did as a competitor by people bounding up and down the bleachers. I got my foot stomped on, a knee in the arm, various pushing, shoving and so on. I realize I miss being out of the floor, even if it's as a judge. I don't think I want to compete, it's far too stressful along with all the driving, but I'm tired of sitting among the spectators when I could be out there in my uniform judging.
Although it may have been safer out on the floor, this time I am glad I was there for Bill. He woke up with a cold yesterday. We stopped and bought some Dayquil but it wasn't until after his second dose that he finally got some color in his cheeks and his happy attitude back. He doesn't really have a chance for winning weapons, so it wasn't too bad that he lost. One judge actually liked his sword form and scored him higher than a lot of the kids doing staff, but the other two game the classically low grade for a "nonflashy" weapon form. Well, Andy is working on Bill for Bo-staff. By next year he'll be up there. And one of the judges even came up and talked to him afterwards about the things she wanted to see. She said that at his rank they expect the sword to come out of the hilt, not already be out for the form. And that he needs to be more aware of his space. Personally, I think the other competitors need to be aware that weapons are being used and not run behind the ring, but as I told Bill, he needs to think of it like I do when I drive. I assume I am invisible and no one else can see me. Assume people are stupid and that they will run into the sword if he doesn't watch it.
I did get pictures this time, but forgot to bring my cable, so I can't upload them till we get home.
But although he was disappointed in no trophy, he still had a great time. We had lobster for dinner last night and then stopped in at the after-tournament party which was in the same building. Master Fournier, who ran the tournament, remembered him and even that he did a sword form. Now there's the good end of doing something that none of the other kids do! Maybe we should just work on getting the sword form better. Right now he's down at the hotel pool, swimming, where he's been since 7 a.m. And where he was all last night after the party and all Friday night.
And speaking of that, it's time to drag Billy out of the pool, get packed up and drive for four hours home... Two weeks till the next tournament, then four weeks off before we have three weekends in a row. Whew...
The tournament was PACKED. It was Master Fournier's first tournament and it's hard to judge how many people will be there before you've even had one. The Catholic High School gym was definitely not big enough for 250 competitors and spectators. I am still spectating this year, though I might start judging. Hell, I think I got more injured as a spectator than I ever did as a competitor by people bounding up and down the bleachers. I got my foot stomped on, a knee in the arm, various pushing, shoving and so on. I realize I miss being out of the floor, even if it's as a judge. I don't think I want to compete, it's far too stressful along with all the driving, but I'm tired of sitting among the spectators when I could be out there in my uniform judging.
Although it may have been safer out on the floor, this time I am glad I was there for Bill. He woke up with a cold yesterday. We stopped and bought some Dayquil but it wasn't until after his second dose that he finally got some color in his cheeks and his happy attitude back. He doesn't really have a chance for winning weapons, so it wasn't too bad that he lost. One judge actually liked his sword form and scored him higher than a lot of the kids doing staff, but the other two game the classically low grade for a "nonflashy" weapon form. Well, Andy is working on Bill for Bo-staff. By next year he'll be up there. And one of the judges even came up and talked to him afterwards about the things she wanted to see. She said that at his rank they expect the sword to come out of the hilt, not already be out for the form. And that he needs to be more aware of his space. Personally, I think the other competitors need to be aware that weapons are being used and not run behind the ring, but as I told Bill, he needs to think of it like I do when I drive. I assume I am invisible and no one else can see me. Assume people are stupid and that they will run into the sword if he doesn't watch it.
I did get pictures this time, but forgot to bring my cable, so I can't upload them till we get home.
But although he was disappointed in no trophy, he still had a great time. We had lobster for dinner last night and then stopped in at the after-tournament party which was in the same building. Master Fournier, who ran the tournament, remembered him and even that he did a sword form. Now there's the good end of doing something that none of the other kids do! Maybe we should just work on getting the sword form better. Right now he's down at the hotel pool, swimming, where he's been since 7 a.m. And where he was all last night after the party and all Friday night.
And speaking of that, it's time to drag Billy out of the pool, get packed up and drive for four hours home... Two weeks till the next tournament, then four weeks off before we have three weekends in a row. Whew...
Thursday, February 07, 2008
election day lesson plan
In one of my Algebra classes we are studying probability, so I thought I'd put together a lesson plan about polling, sample sizes, and the actual outcomes of the Connecticut primary election. On my way in to school, I thought, Hey, on PI Day (3/14) we put out regular lesson plans on hold and do a day of "Pi" lessons, so instead of doing the lesson in one class I decided to do it in all five. Which I did. With some pretty interesting results.
It turned out to be more of a civics lesson than a math lesson when I discovered that most of my students did not have any idea what the electoral college is, how primaries work, or many did not even know who won the Connecticut primaries nor who any of the candidates were. One even thought that we had elected a new President on Tuesday!
One of the things I did was take a poll of the students in each class and had them calculate the percentages for each candidate. A couple very interesting things came out of this. Fourth period, there were four black girls who all voted for Hillary over the protestations of their fellow black male students. But they stood staunchly behind their vote. They said they were "voting for the woman." In 7th period, when the students were giving me a hard time for voting for Clinton, I told them I wanted to see both Clinton and Obama on the ticket and thought that the only way for that to work would be for Hillary to lead the ticket. A boy who I would not have thought had the depth of thought to come up with this, said that it made sense, that it gave the Democrats a better chance to stay in power longer. That since Hillary is "old" (his word, not mine <-; ), she could be President for eight years and then Obama could run again, and he'd still be young.
Interesting questions came out of it. Whether Bill Clinton could run again, whether both Obama and Clinton would get us out of Iraq, what their stands were on gay marriage, and many more. It seems that unless they were taking Civics, none of their other classes had even discussed the election! I was totally amazed with that. I would think that, like Pi Day for Math, Election Day would mean a special lesson in any Social Studies or History class.
We did manage to get SOME math into the lesson. As well as figuring the percentages, we talked about the fairness/unfairness of the way votes are calculated and the delegates distributed. Some thought the "winner take all", like the Republicans do in CT, is more fair, like if you win a boxing match and go onto fight the next level match. Others thought that splitting them, as the Democrats do in CT is more fair since it more validly represents the voters wishes. I am in agreement with that.
Although my 8th period (whom I have named my 9th grade kindergarteners) got loud and did not pay as much attention as my other classes, even they paid attention. And 7th period, who have never shown much interest in Geometry, were rapt in their attention, and interested in knowing how things work. I told them all that for my 3rd marking period project I intend to give them an option to analyze the primaries. I'm curious to see how many choose that option.
It turned out to be more of a civics lesson than a math lesson when I discovered that most of my students did not have any idea what the electoral college is, how primaries work, or many did not even know who won the Connecticut primaries nor who any of the candidates were. One even thought that we had elected a new President on Tuesday!
One of the things I did was take a poll of the students in each class and had them calculate the percentages for each candidate. A couple very interesting things came out of this. Fourth period, there were four black girls who all voted for Hillary over the protestations of their fellow black male students. But they stood staunchly behind their vote. They said they were "voting for the woman." In 7th period, when the students were giving me a hard time for voting for Clinton, I told them I wanted to see both Clinton and Obama on the ticket and thought that the only way for that to work would be for Hillary to lead the ticket. A boy who I would not have thought had the depth of thought to come up with this, said that it made sense, that it gave the Democrats a better chance to stay in power longer. That since Hillary is "old" (his word, not mine <-; ), she could be President for eight years and then Obama could run again, and he'd still be young.
Interesting questions came out of it. Whether Bill Clinton could run again, whether both Obama and Clinton would get us out of Iraq, what their stands were on gay marriage, and many more. It seems that unless they were taking Civics, none of their other classes had even discussed the election! I was totally amazed with that. I would think that, like Pi Day for Math, Election Day would mean a special lesson in any Social Studies or History class.
We did manage to get SOME math into the lesson. As well as figuring the percentages, we talked about the fairness/unfairness of the way votes are calculated and the delegates distributed. Some thought the "winner take all", like the Republicans do in CT, is more fair, like if you win a boxing match and go onto fight the next level match. Others thought that splitting them, as the Democrats do in CT is more fair since it more validly represents the voters wishes. I am in agreement with that.
Although my 8th period (whom I have named my 9th grade kindergarteners) got loud and did not pay as much attention as my other classes, even they paid attention. And 7th period, who have never shown much interest in Geometry, were rapt in their attention, and interested in knowing how things work. I told them all that for my 3rd marking period project I intend to give them an option to analyze the primaries. I'm curious to see how many choose that option.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
hillary or barack. who cares. it's making history!!!
This post has been long in coming. As always there are a million things I want to blog about but since I have changed the endorsement on my page, and the Connecticut Primaries are on Tuesday, I guess this one has to come now.
No matter what happens with the Democrats, we are making history this year. In fact, I have to shake my head and point at a post I made on November 04, 2004, over three years ago. In my post, Hillary and Barack, I facetiously predicted their pairing because Democrats couldn't possibly win an election so we may as well run a FUN ticket. Now here it is, almost four years later and my wish must might come true, AND be electable.
Initially I supported Barack Obama. Because of my sister's comments in a previous blog post I almost did not change my support, but I decided that I couldn't let a disagreement with my sister drive my support. There are many reasons I have changed. Hillary's touches of humanity don't hurt. Barack's wish to "create a Kingdom of Heaven on earth" didn't sit well with me. But the biggest reason is that I do want to see them both on the ticket, and think their electability will be higher if Clinton is on the top of the ticket.
Another reason I am supporting Hillary is that she is a woman. Women got the vote in 1920. It has been 88 years and although we have made progress, it has taken almost a century to get a viable woman on the ticket, and I will feel proud to vote for a woman.
However, I still consider Barack Obama to be a viable candidate, and will happily vote for him if he gets the nomination. My sister disagrees and suggested we debate this in our blogs, and so I will take her response, one phrase at a time and tell her why I think she is wrong.
No, first I want to explain the difference between lies and being wrong. When a student tells me the computer ate their homework, it's likely they are lying. When a students tell me they need to have a cell phone in school, I know that students THINK they are RIGHT, I think they are wrong. In my opinion, no one needs a cell phone during school hours. When someone tells me that abortion should be outlawed, I know that person's opinion might be well researched, and that that persons KNOWS they are right. But my opinion is well researched too. And I think that person is wrong. So now, although I know my sister believes her statements, I believe I am right. Thus, the debate.
(Bonnie's original response is in bold)
I have to respectfully disagree with a couple points. First it sounds as if you are not giving her your vote because she is a strong woman who refuses to break down and cry.
I was not giving her my vote because I did not think she was electable, partly because she did not show any emotion. And I was worried that if she did show emotions, people would say she had a "break down", rather than that she was simply being human. Maybe what she did do was acting, maybe it was real. But apparently, I was not the only person who was put off by her lack of humanity because she has since shown some, almost immediately after my article, but remember, I said it FIRST. LOL.
Also, with Obama aligning himself tightly with Al Sharpton it has become all about race.
Here is one of those places where what happened/happens becomes a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the press caused this to be "all about race". To me, it seems that the press tried to use a comparison of Sharpton and Obama to try to split the black vote. When researching this "aligning", most of what I found were articles such as Rev. Al Sharpton laughs off notion Obama win slap in face to his politics, Is Al Sharpton Jealous of Barack Obama?, Why Sharpton is badmouthing Obama, etc., etc., etc...
And although Sharpton has now endorsed Obama, the question of why he had not before was well said by Sharpton himself, "Why don't you have a story that Newt Gingrich hasn't come out for any white candidate yet? I mean, why are we playing the black guy against the black guy?"
And lastly, on her blog, my sister has a picture of Obama and Sharpton together. Well, let's see what else I can find:
So what Bonnie seems to me to be saying is that it's okay for a white person to court the black vote but not a black person.
You didn't hear the speeches he gave to the mainly black groups here in SC. It was all about race and nothing about issues. All about taking the government away from the white folks and putting the blacks in power. I am sure he gave an entirely different speech up north. Unfortunately, all the politicians have a different agenda and speech that differs on where they are speaking.
She is right. I did not hear the speeches he gave there. And I admit that it would be different in a state like South Caroline which is 30% black versus Connecticut which is 11% black. On the other hand, in all my research I could find NO references, even on the antiObama pages, of any speech where he talked about "taking the government away from the white folks and putting the blacks in power."
However, I can see where blacks would be excited about having a viable black candidate (even if he's only half-black) just as I'm excited about having a viable woman candidate. If Hillary came to a NOW conference, my bet would be she would talk about the fact that it is time to share the power, for women to take their rightful place among the men, just as I'm sure Obama would tell a group of blacks about his desire to have blacks have their rightful place in government. I remember when Catholics were excited about Kennedy. People get excited when someone "like them" has a shot at the Presidency.
So, if Hillary breaks down and cries instead of taking the high road of showing strength and fortitude you will vote for her?
Once again, I only asked for Clinton to act human. I would never consider showing emotion as being a "break down" and only women are considered to be having a "break down" if they show emotion. When Bill Clinton cried it was called showing his humanity, and that was all I was asking of Hillary. She did as I asked and sure enough, she won New Hampshire.
Right now I don't know who I will vote for, except it won't be for Obama. Racism in any form is still racism.
But when women form groups to help other women get elected, it's not called sexism. If a Polish-American group supported a Polish-American, or an Irish-American group and Irish-American, it would not be looked upon as racist because they both happen to be white.
When Bill Clinton was president many of my black friends said he was the closest thing to a black president they ever had, and many still agree. They are afraid, with Obama's racist alignments, he will start more race wars in America than do any good.
Again, I have not heard any of this, nor do I find it in research. However I do find that many black Americans are afraid to vote for Obama because he might be assassinated by racist whites. Many of my students have expressed this fear. I have told them that Obama knows this and still chooses to run. This is not a man who is afraid of the future but is willing to embrace it.
That in the end he will divide America even more between the races rather than bring unification.
So, only white people can give blacks their equality? There's something wrong with this picture.
A couple of other points Bonnie makes on her own blog are also worth addressing:
Barack Obama's financial sponsor, George Soros, hates Israel and the United States! Soros calls the U.S.A. a danger to world peace that needs "de-Natzification."
It seems to me that Obama has distanced himself from Soros repeatedly. Obama Rebuffs Soros, A Fan Obama Doesn't Need. And it seems to me that just because someone decides to support a candidate does not mean that candidate supports the person. Soros also supports the Bill and Linda Gate foundation, which does a lot of good work but it doesn't make the Gates' family a danger to world peace.
He has now allowed Oprah Winfrey to buy the election for him with her power and money, while she herself has opened a school for poor children in South Africa (black only) and when questioned about this responded she didn't have to answer to the white folks and that her roots were in Africa.
Celebrities have supported candidates for decades. Chuck Norris stands behind Romney, Barbara Streisand has endorsed Hillary Clinton. But once more, because a black celebrity endorses a black candidate it's suddenly all about race. Personally, I don't know anyone who chooses who to vote for based on a celebrity endorsement any more than they'll buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it, or a grill because it has George Foreman's name on it.
As far as opening a school in South Africa for blacks only. I couldn't find anything resembling the quote about not having to answer to white folks. And the Academy is a leadership academy for black GIRLS, so I guess she must be sexist too. And once more, what Oprah does is not a reason to not vote for Obama.
Well, there is, as always, much more to say, but there are also lesson plans to do, dinner to make, and miles to go before I sleep.
No matter what happens with the Democrats, we are making history this year. In fact, I have to shake my head and point at a post I made on November 04, 2004, over three years ago. In my post, Hillary and Barack, I facetiously predicted their pairing because Democrats couldn't possibly win an election so we may as well run a FUN ticket. Now here it is, almost four years later and my wish must might come true, AND be electable.
Initially I supported Barack Obama. Because of my sister's comments in a previous blog post I almost did not change my support, but I decided that I couldn't let a disagreement with my sister drive my support. There are many reasons I have changed. Hillary's touches of humanity don't hurt. Barack's wish to "create a Kingdom of Heaven on earth" didn't sit well with me. But the biggest reason is that I do want to see them both on the ticket, and think their electability will be higher if Clinton is on the top of the ticket.
Another reason I am supporting Hillary is that she is a woman. Women got the vote in 1920. It has been 88 years and although we have made progress, it has taken almost a century to get a viable woman on the ticket, and I will feel proud to vote for a woman.
However, I still consider Barack Obama to be a viable candidate, and will happily vote for him if he gets the nomination. My sister disagrees and suggested we debate this in our blogs, and so I will take her response, one phrase at a time and tell her why I think she is wrong.
No, first I want to explain the difference between lies and being wrong. When a student tells me the computer ate their homework, it's likely they are lying. When a students tell me they need to have a cell phone in school, I know that students THINK they are RIGHT, I think they are wrong. In my opinion, no one needs a cell phone during school hours. When someone tells me that abortion should be outlawed, I know that person's opinion might be well researched, and that that persons KNOWS they are right. But my opinion is well researched too. And I think that person is wrong. So now, although I know my sister believes her statements, I believe I am right. Thus, the debate.
(Bonnie's original response is in bold)
I have to respectfully disagree with a couple points. First it sounds as if you are not giving her your vote because she is a strong woman who refuses to break down and cry.
I was not giving her my vote because I did not think she was electable, partly because she did not show any emotion. And I was worried that if she did show emotions, people would say she had a "break down", rather than that she was simply being human. Maybe what she did do was acting, maybe it was real. But apparently, I was not the only person who was put off by her lack of humanity because she has since shown some, almost immediately after my article, but remember, I said it FIRST. LOL.
Also, with Obama aligning himself tightly with Al Sharpton it has become all about race.
Here is one of those places where what happened/happens becomes a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the press caused this to be "all about race". To me, it seems that the press tried to use a comparison of Sharpton and Obama to try to split the black vote. When researching this "aligning", most of what I found were articles such as Rev. Al Sharpton laughs off notion Obama win slap in face to his politics, Is Al Sharpton Jealous of Barack Obama?, Why Sharpton is badmouthing Obama, etc., etc., etc...
And although Sharpton has now endorsed Obama, the question of why he had not before was well said by Sharpton himself, "Why don't you have a story that Newt Gingrich hasn't come out for any white candidate yet? I mean, why are we playing the black guy against the black guy?"
And lastly, on her blog, my sister has a picture of Obama and Sharpton together. Well, let's see what else I can find:
So what Bonnie seems to me to be saying is that it's okay for a white person to court the black vote but not a black person.
You didn't hear the speeches he gave to the mainly black groups here in SC. It was all about race and nothing about issues. All about taking the government away from the white folks and putting the blacks in power. I am sure he gave an entirely different speech up north. Unfortunately, all the politicians have a different agenda and speech that differs on where they are speaking.
She is right. I did not hear the speeches he gave there. And I admit that it would be different in a state like South Caroline which is 30% black versus Connecticut which is 11% black. On the other hand, in all my research I could find NO references, even on the antiObama pages, of any speech where he talked about "taking the government away from the white folks and putting the blacks in power."
However, I can see where blacks would be excited about having a viable black candidate (even if he's only half-black) just as I'm excited about having a viable woman candidate. If Hillary came to a NOW conference, my bet would be she would talk about the fact that it is time to share the power, for women to take their rightful place among the men, just as I'm sure Obama would tell a group of blacks about his desire to have blacks have their rightful place in government. I remember when Catholics were excited about Kennedy. People get excited when someone "like them" has a shot at the Presidency.
So, if Hillary breaks down and cries instead of taking the high road of showing strength and fortitude you will vote for her?
Once again, I only asked for Clinton to act human. I would never consider showing emotion as being a "break down" and only women are considered to be having a "break down" if they show emotion. When Bill Clinton cried it was called showing his humanity, and that was all I was asking of Hillary. She did as I asked and sure enough, she won New Hampshire.
Right now I don't know who I will vote for, except it won't be for Obama. Racism in any form is still racism.
But when women form groups to help other women get elected, it's not called sexism. If a Polish-American group supported a Polish-American, or an Irish-American group and Irish-American, it would not be looked upon as racist because they both happen to be white.
When Bill Clinton was president many of my black friends said he was the closest thing to a black president they ever had, and many still agree. They are afraid, with Obama's racist alignments, he will start more race wars in America than do any good.
Again, I have not heard any of this, nor do I find it in research. However I do find that many black Americans are afraid to vote for Obama because he might be assassinated by racist whites. Many of my students have expressed this fear. I have told them that Obama knows this and still chooses to run. This is not a man who is afraid of the future but is willing to embrace it.
That in the end he will divide America even more between the races rather than bring unification.
So, only white people can give blacks their equality? There's something wrong with this picture.
A couple of other points Bonnie makes on her own blog are also worth addressing:
Barack Obama's financial sponsor, George Soros, hates Israel and the United States! Soros calls the U.S.A. a danger to world peace that needs "de-Natzification."
It seems to me that Obama has distanced himself from Soros repeatedly. Obama Rebuffs Soros, A Fan Obama Doesn't Need. And it seems to me that just because someone decides to support a candidate does not mean that candidate supports the person. Soros also supports the Bill and Linda Gate foundation, which does a lot of good work but it doesn't make the Gates' family a danger to world peace.
He has now allowed Oprah Winfrey to buy the election for him with her power and money, while she herself has opened a school for poor children in South Africa (black only) and when questioned about this responded she didn't have to answer to the white folks and that her roots were in Africa.
Celebrities have supported candidates for decades. Chuck Norris stands behind Romney, Barbara Streisand has endorsed Hillary Clinton. But once more, because a black celebrity endorses a black candidate it's suddenly all about race. Personally, I don't know anyone who chooses who to vote for based on a celebrity endorsement any more than they'll buy an ab machine because Chuck Norris recommends it, or a grill because it has George Foreman's name on it.
As far as opening a school in South Africa for blacks only. I couldn't find anything resembling the quote about not having to answer to white folks. And the Academy is a leadership academy for black GIRLS, so I guess she must be sexist too. And once more, what Oprah does is not a reason to not vote for Obama.
Well, there is, as always, much more to say, but there are also lesson plans to do, dinner to make, and miles to go before I sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)