Maybe it’s more simple than that – maybe the American people need a comedic relief from all the pain and suffering that they’ve been going through in recent months. Speculation of a double-dip recession, concerns about the environment, concerns about BP dumping millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and even concerns about mainstream, oft-trusted companies like Johnson & Johnson poisoning their children. Maybe America does need a break; because it just doesn’t seem like Lindsay Lohan going to jail for 90 days should be this big of a deal.

More of my two cents.

Ranter

He does on to say that Obama was elected on hope, and apparently his qualifications, public personality, and ability to hold his own in debate (not to mention Sarah Palin is an idiot) had nothing to do with it.

“I’m blacker than Barack Obama. I shined shoes. I grew up in a five-room apartment. My father had a little laundromat in a black community not far from where we lived,” Blagojevich said. “I saw it all growing up.”

The blubbering idiot continued along while trying – too late – to cement his point, but the damage has been done. I’m not sure when this fools twenty-minutes of fame are going to be up, but I think that time has passed and it is definitely time for him to move on and accept that the people have seen enough – shut up and move along.

Ranter

Will Rod Blagojevich receive his just due?

It has taken four months for the indictments to come down, and if any of them are true, and I suspect they all are, it’s not a day too soon.  That’s right, I’m talking about former Governor Rod Blagojevich who is now being charged with 16 felony counts, including racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud, extortion conspiracy and lying to federal agents. The government is seeking forfeiture of $188,370 from Blagojevich and will try to take his Ravenswood Manor home in Chicago if needed.

And to think, this started with everyone thinking his pay-to-play effort to sell President Obama’s vacated seat on the US Senate.  Now it seems like that’s the least of his crimes, and considering his elected status, that’s pretty bad.  What bothers me most is that of all the groups that should self govern – politicians appear least willing to look at their own and ask the hard questions.  Rod Blagojevich should be publicly stoned by anyone that cast their vote, and those that stood with him, knowing of his crimes, should be right there with him.

Unfortunately, it appears that things like this are happening more and more frequently now, and it’s unconscionable to me that the American public just lets this happen.  Looking at Obama’s efforts to fill his cabinet should offer another example – how many politicians aren’t paying their taxes while the average, middle-class American struggles to pay their taxes, their mortgage, put food on the table, and keep their children educated.  It’s a tough time and unfortunately it’s not equally tough for all.

Of course, as is often the case, Rod’s statement claims innocence.

“I’m saddened and hurt, but I am not surprised by the indictment,” Rod Blagojevich said in a statement. “I am innocent. I now will fight in the courts to clear my name. I would ask the good people of Illinois to wait for the trial and afford me the presumption of innocence that they would give to all their friends and neighbors.”

But don’t all the guilty cry foul when arrested and indicted?

Ranter

For a while I was so caught up in how stupid it would be for Alaskans to elect convicted felon Ted Stevens that I didn’t keep up on what this could have meant for Sarah Palin.  As I discussed in an earlier article, a win by Ted Stevens could have resulted in a special election after his getting kicked to the curb ousted by other party members.  Assuming that Alaskans were voting their ticket, the Republican Sarah Palin (with her fancy clothes) could very easily have assumed Ted Stevens seat in the senate.  What a nightmare that could have been.

Fortunately for Alaska – and probably America as a whole – Ted Stevens didn’t win his bid for re-election and Sarah Palin has lost her chance to get anywhere near the Senate this term.  Sure, that could change in the future, or if you believe in wild possibilities she could be running for President in 2012, but at this point I am hopeful that her 15 minutes of fame have passed and she’ll quietly fade into oblivion.  Heck, maybe she’ll leave her husband and run off with Joe the Plumber.  How many kids would that give them?

Ranter

One article I read quoted some idiot man saying, “God says marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman.”  What?  Are you kidding?  Come on people – I don’t care what your religious convictions are, God didn’t write the bible and if he’s talking to you, I have a jacket I’d like you to put on.  Marriage, as we’re talking about it today, is a civil and judicial process, and accordingly it has nothing to do with church, God, or your beliefs.  Separation of Church and State, remember?

These Catholic and Mormon churches have a captive audience to preach to every week, and I’m wondering how they feel about the homosexuals in their midst and congregations.  Are these people less worthy of savior and God, to the point where they should be treated differently?  I believe most preists would say “No, they’re equally worthy, but…  It’s that “but” that’s disconcerting to me, beause it’s really saying that everything in the preceding statement is untrue – and that’s how the churches are coming across.  Mormons believe that polygamy is an acceptable practice, ultimately creating a significantly larger problem for the people and finances of this country – why is that any more okay?  Marriage is between a man and a woman and another woman and another woman.  Yeah, I think I remember seeing that in the bible, too.

This is about civil rights – it’s no different than women’s rights, the rights of blacks, or the rights that we, as a country, afford to foreigners in our country.  It’s time for us, as a race of people, to stand up for equality regardless of our differences and stop hiding behind religion, heritage or the bible when we don’t like something.

Ranter

Starbucks, Krispy Kreme doughnuts, and Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, to name a few, have all offered incentives to voters just to vote – to do their patriotic duty.  Unfortunately, some state laws consider these incentives illegal.  Georgia, for example, has it written into their law:

“Any person who gives or receives, or offers to give or receive, or participates in the giving or receiving of money or gifts for the purpose of registering as a voter, voting, or voting for a particular candidate in any primary or election shall be guilty of a felony.”

Makes me grateful that I live in the United States while making me think – some lazy ass people need an incentive to get out of bed – what’s wrong with giving them a cup of coffee for the trouble of voting, too?  Because you have to chose a party, I understand why incentivizing registration would be illegal, and I get that we can’t buy votes, but sometimes people need a kick to get them to vote – why is this so wrong?

Fortunately, Tara Darrow, spokeswoman for Starbucks, has come out to say “to ensure we are in compliance with election law, we are extending our offer to all customers who request a tall brewed coffee.”  In recognition for their effort I bought my regular drink and a bit more, too.  Thanks Starbucks for trying to do the right thing and then standing up and doing the right thing when your decision was questioned.  I don’t like everything you guys do, but agree with your decisions here.

Krispy Kreme didn’t have a statement that I could find as to how they might change things, although considering the cost of a doughnut I’m sure they will do the right thing too.  Ben & Jerry’s site simply says that everyone is getting a free scoop of ice-cream, so I guess it’s safe to say that they’re doing the right thing, too.  Thank you all.

Ranter

What it does:  Proposition K would decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco, deny funds for the First Offender Prostitution Program, commonly known as “John school,” and forbid the city from using state or federal funds that involve racial profiling to identify human trafficking victims.

Not too surprisingly, the Erotic Service Providers Union is supporting this move because they believe it will improve safety for sex workers while potentially reducing sexually transmitted diseases.  They’re also saying it’s fiscally responsible, reducing the amount of money spent on enforcing laws against prostitution.  Interesting arguments, from everyone, but the opponents, like Mayor Gavin Newsom, are arguing equally that it will turn San Francisco into a haven for sex trafficking, violence and other sex related crimes.  Apparently Gavin doesn’t watch the news, because that sounds like parts of the San Francisco that I know today.

So here’s where the rant comes in – are they decriminalizing it or making it legal?  Is there a difference?  Frankly, I think there’s a huge difference, and the one that’s going to benefit the most is the hooker.  Basically what they’re saying is that you can’t be busted for being a hooker.  What they’re not saying is that prostitution is a broad crime and I’m quite certain that a few loopholes will quickly be created.  Additionally, by not legalizing it they’re losing the tax-base.  Why not just make it legal and tax the hell out of it to hopefully get some return for all the other problems that are going to be created due to no regulation?

The union says it will reduce city expenses, but it’s also going to limit revenues.  The “John school” allows men who have been arrested for soliciting a prostitute to attend a class and pay $1000 to have the charges against them dropped – is that a no brainer for everyone?  Imagine the revenue potential if they stepped this up a little.  With Prop K this revenue stream will be closed.

“The danger of this measure is that it’s definitely a wolf in sheep’s clothing,” said Heidi Machen, president of the City Democratic Club. “It promises to protect the very people it will end up hurting. The pimps and traffickers will have a free pass to San Francisco.”

Obviously, I could go on forever and talk about why and why not, citing quotations from both sides, but the way I see it is all bad.  Not because I’m against prostitution – quite the contrary, I think it should be legal everywhere, but instead because I think there is a huge difference between legalized, regulated and managed prostitution, like what we have in Nevada, and decriminalizing prostitution like what is being recommended here.  To me this is too much like decriminalizing theft of anything less than $10.  Fundamendally it’s still wrong by the law, but we’re not going to enforce the rules for petty thieves, how is that going to look to our children?

Ranter

Their article, and other like it, go on to suggest that perhaps McCain is using the electoral college and campaigning to win in the places that would matter enough to allow him a chance of taking the 270 electoral votes necessary.  Fortunately, the mathematical experts are suggesting that it’s very unlikely that a split vote could happen, while at the same time admitting that the polls are only so accurate.

The National Journal’s Mark Blumenthal, a former Democratic consultant and founder of Pollster.com, said:

“The idea that somehow you can focus on six states and only move them while the rest of the nation stays frozen – that’s not very realistic,” he said. “All of this is sort of interesting, and we talk about it like it is moving pieces on a chessboard, but the reality is, and this is my main point, if the national margin doesn’t close, none of that is going to happen.”

That this thought, in this day and age, is even something that the people of this country have to question is somewhat indicative of why there are problems in government today.  We urge people to come out to vote only to inject at the end – well, your vote really doesn’t matter.  At least not four times in the past – and possibly not this time either.  That’s rediculous and the people need to rally behind their vote.

Every November over 90 million Americans exercise their right to vote.  They think they’re voting for President, but what they’re really voting for is to instruct the electors on how they want them to vote.  For example, if you vote for a Republican candidate you’re really voting for an elector who will be “pledged” to vote for the Republican candidate.  This system was established in Article II of the Constitution and amended by the 12th Amendment in 1804.  What’s important to know is this – while the state electors are “pledged” to vote for the candidate of the party that chose them, nothing in the constitution requires them to do so.

Using a little math, it’s possible to see that the Electoral College system makes it possible for a candidate ti actually lose the popular vote and be elected president.  In fact, using the numbers, it is possible for a candidate to be off the ballot in 39 states and still be elected president by winning the vote in just 11 of these 12 states: New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia or Virginia.

Obviously, this is difficult for Americans to swallow, and without raising the cause flag, this author would suggest that it’s time to look more closely at a system that allows the popular vote to fall behind the opinions of a few.  Our Founding Fathers, when creating this system, were looking at a different time, different communication tools, and different voters.  It’s time to look again, with a modern eye, and give the people a chance to be heard without allowing unjust mathematics to potentially take away the wishes of the majority.

Ranter

]]> http://www.uncensoredrants.com/2008/10/28/could-obama-lose-even-with-the-popular-vote/feed/ 0 http://www.uncensoredrants.com/2008/10/27/down-goes-senator-stevens-r-alaska/ http://www.uncensoredrants.com/2008/10/27/down-goes-senator-stevens-r-alaska/#comments Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:35:11 +0000 ranter http://www.uncensoredrants.com/?p=70 The Republican Party has taken it’s fair share of knocks lately, and I believe that the Senate’s longest-serving Republican, Senator Ted Stevens, is another example of why their future isn’t looking so bright.  Surprisingly (NOT!) he hails from Alaska, which begs the question what’s in the water up there in Alaska – which is also home to Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin.

Fond of saying “the only special interest I care about is Alaska,” Ted Stevens was convicted today on seven counts of lying about more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations he received from corrupt oil and field services contractor Bill Allen (founder of VECO, Corp.)  I guess he figures because his home is in Alaska, that was an improvement that everyone could appreciate.

A couple of interesting facts as quoted by Fox News:

1. Stevens has held his Senate seat for 40 years.
2. He won his sixth term of office in 2002 with 78% of the vote.
3. In 1999 he was named “Alaskan of the Century” for having the greatest impact on the state in 100 years.
4. The anchorage airport is named in his honor.
5. He plans to continue running for office, although he now faces a tight race with Democrat Mark Begich.

My take on these facts:

1. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.  It’s examples like this that suggest term limits are there for a reason.  Someone that powerful, if at all inclined, eventually thinks that they are above the law.  That’s not the case.
2. Term limits, term limits, term limits.  This isn’t Wal-Mart.  The people of Alaska and every other state need to start thinking about what new people are able to bring to the table.  New ideas; new integrity.
3. When a state reveres someone to this extent, it’s only a matter of time before something like this happens.  Nobody is immune to human nature.
4. I guess hoping that they’ll rename the airport after Barack Obama is out of the question?
5. Can you effectively run an office from prison?  I mean, this is a felony, right?!?!  They have rules about those things, even in Alaska, right?  (Each count is punishable by 5 years in prison.)

So in all fairness, I commend Ted Stevens for what he’s done for the state of Alaska.  I’m sure he’s done some good things – it’s just too bad that’s all for nothing when convicted of a crime like this.  But, Sarah Palin has told us many times that Alaska is not another country (or planet for that matter) and I believe that it’s time the people of Alaska realize that for themselves – there are stupid people in Alaska, too, but that doesn’t mean you have to put them in office.

To acknowledge his years of service and mitigate any damage that he might do to her, Sarah Palin was quick to put out a less than supportive quote:

“The verdict shines a light on the corrupting influence of the big oil service company that was allowed to control too much of our state. It was part of the culture of corruption I was elected to fight. And that fight must always move forward regardless of party or seniority or even past service.  I’m confident Senator Stevens will do what’s right for the people of Alaska.”

I’m sure Senator Stevens is thinking, “and thank for your support, bitch.”

Ranter