They Did What !

The Democratic primary candidates just had their first debate at South Carolina State. After watching it, I wondered who decided to call this political showcase a debate. I wouldn’t even call it a Q & A session because a good percentage of the time, the question asked is not answered. Rather a little mini political speech is given filling, or often overflowing, the allotted time. Other than the candidates getting a little free face time on national television and the media getting to act like they are performing a public service, these evens serve little purpose.

The curious thing is that we go along with these charades they call debates. Why do we do that? We could end the use of this format by letting the networks know we will not watch these so called debates all the while calling for the real thing. Networks don’t continue to air shows that nobody watches. If the candidates don’t want to debate, that will tell us something about them that will figure in our voting choice.

A real debate, with the candidates going back and forth expressing their different points of view on the best way to deal with the important issues facing our country would be a real public service. It would give us a peak at the plan each candidate has developed to solve our nation’s problems... or... allow us to see they have no plan! It would give us a foundation for making an informed decision when we choose our next president.

This is something we can all do with very little time and effort. Send an email to MSNBC and tell them thanks but no thanks for these “not debates” and ask for the real thing. Then send the candidates an email and let them know you want them to have real debates with each other - with only two or three issues that they actually deal with in depth. And while you’re at it, tell them which two or three issues are most important to you.

You too can actually make a difference… try it, you’ll like it!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 08:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The comment keeps popping up that we invaded Iraq so we could grab thieir oil. The Bush administration continually and hotly denies that oil had anything to do with it. Do you suppose they could be lying?

Take a look at the animated video at http://hightowerdownload.com/node/36
and decide for yourself.

Posted by Trish Purcell at 03:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First our government pays farmers to not grow things… like corn for instance. Actually it appears that most of these “Farm Subsidies” go to big agribusiness and not small farmers but that is a subject for another day.

Then we start pushing for alternative energy and one of the possibilities is ethanol which is usually made from corn. I understand there are other things like sugar cane, switch grass, etc. that can also be used to make ethanol but again that is a separate subject.

Then we are told that the demand for corn to make ethanol has caused the cost of corn to go way up. This causes, among other things, big trouble for the poor in Mexico who can no longer afford the corn they need for their basic food staple, the tortilla, and big trouble for ranchers who need corn to feed their stock.

So the next thing we hear is that ethanol as an alternative fuel is a problem because of the high cost and short supply of corn. ???????! What have I missed here?

Does it not seem reasonable that if our government stopped paying agriculture to not grow corn:

It would save the government money.
It would bring the price of corn back into reach for the poor of Mexico.
It would give the ranchers adequate feed for their stock.
It would give more small farmers a profitable crop to grow.
It would produce the needed corn for an alternative energy source.

It has also been mentioned, though rarely, that possibly the process of converting corn to ethanol is itself a gobbler of energy making it a poor choice as an alternative. That may well be, and that would be a reasonable argument against ethanol. So why then do we hear about all the illogical reasons and very little about the one reason that might make sense? Where oh where have all the thinking people gone?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Is there a big For Sale sign on the Presidency of the United States? All the news about the presidential election seems to be about how much the candidates have raised as though that is the deciding factor in who will win.

Hilary Clinton - $26 million, , Barak Obama - $25 million, Mitt Romney - $ 23 million, Rudy Guliano - $15 million, John Edwards - $14 million, John McCain - $12.5 million.

If they are going to make such-a-much of the money raised, maybe they could include information about who gave how much. At least that way we will know to whom our new president will owe allegiance. If we know that, we will be able to predict the kinds of laws that will be passed - like what will probably happen with the war, health care, education, and the economy - which rich will get richer and just how much poorer the poor will get.

We are repeatedly told the news gives us what we want, covers what we are interested in. Good heavens! That must mean my circle of family and friends is the only group that wants to hear election coverage dealing with the issues that concern us. Isn’t that strange - that we are the only ones who would like to ask the candidates questions like:

What steps would you take to end the war in Iraq and bring our troops safely home?

What would you do to stabilize the economy and bring some equity back to the distribution of wealth in this country?

How would you work toward weaning our country off of Middle East oil?

What would you do about health care costs and the growing number of uninsured in our country?

How would you work toward reducing the amount of damage we are doing to our planet and atmosphere?

What would you do to equalize education for all the children of America so poor areas can offer the same education opportunities as more affluent areas?

All these questions ask for specifics – not just pie in the sky theories about these issues but what are you going to do about them. These are the questions the media could and should ask, and ask, and keep on asking, until the candidates realize that they need a plan and they need to be able to tell the people what that plan is if they want to be president.

What a concept! Do you think it could possibly catch on?

Posted by Trish Purcell at 04:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

That saying, the truth shall set you free, has been around for years but in Washington, DC they don’t seem to get it. For some reason they just keep shooting themselves in the foot.

The most recent case in point is the embattled Attorney General. Not a fan to begin with – anyone who calls the Geneva Conventions “quaint” seems a poor choice for such a position – his current performance under scrutiny for the U.S, Attorney firings, confirms my lack of enthusiasm. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in The Washington Post, “The attorney general appoints prosecutors who have law enforcement priorities reflecting the policy preferences of the president.” Sounds like justification for the firings doesn’t it? But Gonzales instead of stating that from the get go and leaving it at that, seemed to feel the need to make himself look innocent. Can’t help but wonder why – what did he have to hide? Whatever it was, he wound up making himself look guilty and destroyed his credibility in the process. The truth would have set him free or at least left him with whatever credibility he had coming in.

Rember Watergate?. It was not the break-in that destroyed Nixon, it was the attempted cover up. If they had just picked someone to fall on his sword and let the investigation end that way, everyone else would have come out reasonably unscathed. It is a bit of a stretch to think of that as “the truth” setting them free, but it would have been closer to the truth than what they did. And it would have set most of them free.

Bill Clinton’s fall from grace could have ended differently if he had just fessed-up. There is nothing the public takes to heart more than a repentant sinner. But instead of admitting the error of his ways and promising to do better, he went to ridiculous lengths of rationalization trying to look innocent. All he got for his efforts was to go from looking guilty to looking like a guilty liar. Even now, years later, his idiotic statements are fodder for the comics. And this from a Rhodes Scholar! What was he thinking?

The list goes on and on – Iran-Contra, Ted Kennedy in Chapaquitic, Scooter Libby, and of course our current President who seems totally incapable of admitting his mistakes. Even in the face of repeated proof that what he said was not true, he never says, “I’m sorry, I was wrong.” Instead he just changes his story and goes on as if the new story is just an addendum to the old one even if it contradicts it. The connection between this behavior and the continuing downward slide in his credibility rating doesn’t seem to register with him. There is a little thing called “truth”, Mr. President. Try it, you might like it… and you can bet we will!

Posted by Trish Purcell at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)