For a while before his death in April 2008, non-blogger Myrln (aka W. A. Frankonis, i. frans nowak), posted here on Kalilily Time some kind of rant or other every Monday. Our daughter, who has salvaged his published, performed, and none-such writings, continues to send me some to post posthumously.
If you want the truth about Sarah Palin, these are must reads.
“Sarah Baraccuda.” That’s what a woman who has known Palin since their schools days says many of her neighbors call McCain’s running mate because of her unbridled ambition and predatory ruthlessness.
In an article in the LA Progressive, Anne Kilkenny, a resident of Wasilla, Alaska (where Palin was mayor) chronicles the unethical shenanigans of GOP’s VP choice over the course of her career.
If you want to learn the honest truth about Sarah Palin, it’s a must-read, and I thank Susan from Tampa for pointing me to another LA Progressive article (this one by Charlie James, an American journalist who lives in Toronto), which led me to Kilkenny’s.
James’ article begins thusly:
“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively
James goes on to report:
…. many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.
“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”
“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.
and
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.
“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.
Go and read both articles, and then wait and see what Hillary Clinton has to say when she speaks in Tampa later today.
AND, as an added bonus, read this article that is a link from the LA Progressive.
In it, a fellow student of McCain’s at the Naval Academy tells why he will not vote for the GOP ticket:
John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit, and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4-inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. I could tell many midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact, he barely managed to graduate, standing fifth from the bottom of his 800-man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.
People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always “No, John McCain was a POW with me.” The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 ½ years later, so he was a POW for 5 ½ years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.
This article sheds much needed light on McCain’s celebrated POW status and war injuries he sustained.
John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately, this was often the case; new POW’s arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was nonexistent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John’s father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW’s suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.
The articles linked to above are must-reads, especially for anyone who is even thinking about voting for “an infamous…hothead” and a “vindictive and mean…racist,” because that’s what the Republicans are offering in this year’s presidential election.
Phyllis Schlafly. Hearing that name still makes me cringe.
This gives you some idea of who she is, still at age 81:
For four decades, right-wing icon Phyllis Schlafly has been an anti-feminist spokeswoman for the national conservative movement.
……Schlafly asserted women should not be permitted to do jobs traditionally held by men, such as firefighter, soldier or construction worker, because of their “inherent physical inferiority.”
……Schlafly also contended that married women cannot be sexually assaulted by their husbands.
“By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape,” she said..
She was everything we 70s equal right supporters feared: a woman who had the resources to spread the anti-woman notions of “fascinating womanhood.”
The only differences between Palin and Schlafly are age and the fact that Schlafly preached that a woman wouldn’t raise a family and have a job at the same time. Of course, Schlafly did not practice what she preached in that case.
Gloria Steinem, in her L.A. Times opinion piece, makes the point:
This isn’t the first time a boss has picked an unqualified woman just because she agrees with him and opposes everything most other women want and need. Feminism has never been about getting a job for one woman. It’s about making life more fair for women everywhere. It’s not about a piece of the existing pie; there are too many of us for that. It’s about baking a new pie.
and
Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention that has more than twice as many male delegates as female, a presidential candidate who is owned and operated by the right wing and a platform that opposes pretty much everything Clinton’s candidacy stood for — and that Barack Obama’s still does. To vote in protest for McCain/Palin would be like saying, “Somebody stole my shoes, so I’ll amputate my legs.”
The L.A. Times piece also says this about the Sarah Palin:
She was elected governor largely because the incumbent was unpopular, and she’s won over Alaskans mostly by using unprecedented oil wealth to give a $1,200 rebate to every resident. Now she is being praised by McCain’s campaign as a tax cutter, despite the fact that Alaska has no state income or sales tax. Perhaps McCain has opposed affirmative action for so long that he doesn’t know it’s about inviting more people to meet standards, not lowering them. Or perhaps McCain is following the Bush administration habit, as in the Justice Department, of putting a job candidate’s views on “God, guns and gays” ahead of competence. The difference is that McCain is filling a job one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency.
So let’s be clear: The culprit is John McCain. He may have chosen Palin out of change-envy, or a belief that women can’t tell the difference between form and content, but the main motive was to please right-wing ideologues; the same ones who nixed anyone who is now or ever has been a supporter of reproductive freedom. If that were not the case, McCain could have chosen a woman who knows what a vice president does and who has thought about Iraq; someone like Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison or Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine. McCain could have taken a baby step away from right-wing patriarchs who determine his actions, right down to opposing the Violence Against Women Act.
Palin’s value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women’s wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves “abstinence-only” programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers’ millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn’t spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
Palin’s speech last night was scary because it was a perfect combination of content and delivery. She came across as, indeed, your neighborhood hockey mom who wins popularity as a cute, funny, and entertaining dinner speaker. What she says is not deeply thoughtful; but it is entertaining. Her delivery is so engaging that even non-conservatives might be sucked in by her natural charm and sarcastic wit.
I hope today’s women are smarter than that.
Sure, I like the idea of a woman as president or vice-president. And, since I thought that Hillary Clinton had enough competencies and credentials to be a decent president, I was rooting for her.
But I would never vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. And I would never vote for a particular ticket just because there was a woman running on it. And I believe that women across America who try to live by Liberal ideals will use their vote to try to ensure that the next president is one who champions those ideals.
I know that pundits, and others, are speculating about Barack Obama losing the votes of women who wanted Hillary Clinton to get the Democratic presidential nomination — or, at least, the VP slot.
It just goes to show you how little these speculators must think of the intelligence of women. If we believe that the current administration has been an abysmal failure on every policy front, we are not going to vote for a Republican ticket that would continue those policies, even though that ticket includes a woman.
I will admit that, if the case were such that a competent, credentialed, charismatic man were running against an equally competent, credentialed, and charismatic woman, I would probably vote for the woman.
But such is not the case with the upcoming presidential election.
And, especially in this case, just because you’re a woman doesn’t mean that you champion the ideals that Liberal women hold dear. And, conversely, you don’t have to be a woman to champion the ideals that Liberal women hold dear.
Feminists and other Liberal women who had originally supported Clinton, will vote for Obama. Wait and see.
And, while you’re waiting, read this great post on that issue on Don’t Gel Too Soon.
That’s what this is, isn’t it.
For the first time in my life I’ve actually watched a political party convention on television. It feels like I’m watching the rebirth of a nation, the enthusiastic start to a constructive revolution.
And I loved the line from Hillary about the “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants Suit.” The speech writers all outdid themselves across the board. Every speech was packed with quotable, chantable phrases.
Hope, heart, and humor. That’s what drives the Obamaphenomenon. Even I feel optimistic.
For a while before his death in April 2008, non-blogger Myrln (aka W. A. Frankonis, i. frans nowak), posted here on Kalilily Time some kind of rant or other every Monday. Our daughter, who has salvaged his published, performed, and none-such writings, continues to send me some to post posthumously.
Which makes wind a lot like people.
Four days with my daughter and family put me in another reality, one suffused with conversation, laughter, play, sunshine, and time — things I don’t have here, where the insistent needs of a 92 year old woman hold just about every moment hostage.
I was able to sit in the dappled shade and finish the mystery novel I started to read last month. I was able to relax enough to ease the spasms I’ve been getting in my back from an out-of-place rib. I sat on the floor and with my grandson and his various construction, rescue, and police vehicles. I slept like the dead.
I never got to post a new piece on the education issue. That will have to wait until next week. As for now, I’m struggling with re-entry.
Meanwhile, if you’re hungry for something more important to read, go over to No Utopia to this post about what conservative and writer Andrew Bacevich had to say to Bill Moyers during a PBS interview.
Bacevich’s responses include this:
Well, I think the clearest statement of what I value is found in the preamble to the Constitution. There is nothing in the preamble to the Constitution which defines the purpose of the United States of America as remaking the world in our image, which I view as a fool’s errand. There is nothing in the preamble of the Constitution that ever imagined that we would embark upon an effort, as President Bush has defined it, to transform the Greater Middle East. This region of the world that incorporates something in order of 1.4 billion people.
I believe that the framers of the Constitution were primarily concerned with focusing on the way we live here, the way we order our affairs. To try to ensure that as individuals, we can have an opportunity to pursue our, perhaps, differing definitions of freedom, but also so that, as a community, we could live together in some kind of harmony. And that future generations would also be able to share in those same opportunities.
The big problem, it seems to me, with the current crisis in American foreign policy, is that unless we do change our ways, the likelihood that our children, our grandchildren, the next generation is going to enjoy the opportunities that we’ve had, is very slight, because we’re squandering our power. We are squandering our wealth. In many respects, to the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we’re also going to squander our freedom because imperial policies, which end up enhancing the authority of the imperial president, also end up providing imperial presidents with an opportunity to compromise freedom even here at home. And we’ve seen that since 9/11.
For a while before his death in April 2008, non-blogger Myrln (aka W. A. Frankonis, i. frans nowak), posted here on Kalilily Time some kind of rant or other every Monday. Our daughter, who has salvaged his published, performed, and none-such writings, continues to send me some to post posthumously.
This is one: Notes from “Nepperhan Days” his self-tale:
In many ways we are all immigrants.
(This is the third of my series of posts about the issue of education in the upcoming presidential election, in response to the challenge issued by Ronni Bennett in her blog, Time Goes By.)
Let’s face it. We Americans look to our leader to set an example as well as set policy. When it comes to computer and communications technology, McCain and Obama, as a recent NPR All Things Considered segment affirmed:
…..have very different digital resumes. Their habits were shaped, in part, by what they were doing when the digital age arrived.
Obama has been seen walking with his BlackBerry — so absorbed you worry he might bump into something.
McCain, on the other hand, says he rarely uses e-mail or the Internet.
OK. So, Obama sets a better example than McCain about the usefulness of technology. How does that translate into their policies, which, in turn will drive how important technology will be in education.
On the GOP side, from here
Asked if McCain had taken a position on broadband internet access in schools, Graham Keegan [who has worked with McCain since his 2000 presidential bid]said the senator had not yet released his stance on classroom technology. At a news conference after the forum, she said that position would be unveiled in the coming weeks. .
As might be expected, McCain’s technology initiatives would focus on the private sector and the free market, assuming, as Republicans tend to do, that the benefits would filter down to the common people:
McCain has proposed a program to provide tax and financial benefits for companies that provide broadband services to low-income and rural users, Powell says. “It may require some government assistance, either through financial subsidy policy or through other kinds of creative tools, like community or municipal broadband services.”
[snip]
The real key for McCain, Powell says, is to hire more people with technology experience throughout the government who can envision technology solutions for education, health care, homeland security and other issues.
On the other hand, from here:
Obama has called for the creation of a new Cabinet-level position: a “chief technology officer” who would make sure the federal government imports the best technology tools from the private sector. That’s according to William Kennard, a technology adviser to the Obama campaign.
[snip]
Obama’s philosophy on technology is “more activist” than that of GOP presidential candidate John McCain, Kennard tells NPR’s Michele Norris.“Obama understands that the future of our economy depends to a large extent on how we can ensure that Americans have access to technology and we empower Americans to use it,” he says.
Obama supported a Clinton administration plan to provide all schoolchildren access to the Internet at school; McCain opposed it, Kennard says. He says Obama and McCain also differ when it comes to the universal service fund — a long-standing mechanism for providing phone service to rural areas that Kennard says Obama “embraces.”
“The reality is that if we rely simply on the free market, there will be many people in this country that will have to do without. This is fundamentally about economic development. It’s about making sure that people in rural areas can participate in the information age,” Kennard says.
It sounds to me that Obama is suggesting a coordinated effort, across the nation, to educate people (from schools to government agencies) on how to apply technology to make their daily work more effective. And he would appoint someone to be in charge of that effort.
McCain, on the other hand, has a less structured approach, seeming to suggest that private sector experts be hired by the government to “envision” how technology could be put to best use in all aspects of government, including education.
Why do I keep thinking of “Haliburton,” “Blackwater,” and outsourcing when I hear McCain’s approach?
The eSchool News piece cited before adds this about McCain’s long-term vision:
The president or other federal officials could promote more technology-based education, but long-term changes would largely be up to principals, superintendents, and school board members, Graham Keegan said.
A comment on that site, left by an experienced teacher, pretty well sums up what happens when you continue the approach supported by McCain that leaves it up to the individual school administrators to decide how important technology is to educating their students for success in the future:
You can’t have quality, functioning, technology without an onsite technology specialist. I was in one school that had one and it was wonderful. I also had more computers than students. Of course it was a wealthy, suburban system where most of the kids would have learned whether they had technology or not. Then I was in 2 poor urban systems. In one I had a half-broken MAC and a donated model I had to beg for. At another school I had 5 computers. 1 worked properly, but neither of the two printers hooked to it worked. Having technology entails taking responsibility for keeping it functioning.
If good, effective leadership requires both setting example and setting policy, the best candidate is obvious