More election stuff...

alright, so some of you might be tired of hearing me bash Obama, but really, if McCain did anything worth bashing you'd hear about it, because I don't entirely like him either. Right now he is the lesser of two evils.

Read This, or at least skim it please.

The problem I find with this is that like the article says it is inappropriate for Obama to even attempt to do this. It displays a lack of tact and foresight, that are so necessary for our President to have.

There are actually two reasons that this is inappropriate and disgraceful.

#1 Like the article cited, there is a certain lack of sensitivity in using another nations symbol of unity and patriotism for the personal and political gain of a person from another country.

#2 Runs deeper. Why is Obama campaigning in Germany at all? Does the German public have the right to elect the president of the United States? No. Here is my theory on what Obama is trying to do. This is theory and conjecture only, but quite serious if it is true. By courting and winning the favor of the populaces of the foreign countries he can portray himself as the choice of the "World Community" to be our next leader, or at least as an acceptable and approved of man by the other people of our planet. This ,Obama needs since he is incurring the wrath of the Muslim countries by forsaking his Muslim birth. (I shall need to tell you about that sometime)

This is downright wrong, unethical and irrelevant. The choice of our leader belongs to the American public and to the citizens of our country alone. By campaigning in another country, Obama is trying to undermine a vote that may perhaps go against him. (again, this pure conjecture and theory but a likely one you must admit) This is as much wrong as it would have been for President Bush to accept the endorsement (I can't remember in which election) of the French President.

I don't understand...

Foul language. An odd topic for a post, yes? And don't worry, I shall not actually say/type any of it. I just wonder what is foul or profane about it.

I can understand some forms being considered unspeakable (thought of mostly today as the milder ones actually) Biblically, we are commanded to not take the "Lord's name in vain". But what about the other stuff, the S words and the C words and the B word and the all terrible F word. What makes them dirty? Who was the first person to declare that a perfectly acceptable word for (forgive me) human excrement was too foul to utter in the presence of anyone? If you have read the memoirs of James Herriot, the British veterinarian, you would here numerous sentences from farmers using these words without shame or guilt and without fear of offending any sensitive ladies who happened to be standing nearby. Why? Because the words had a straight forward practical meaning exactly like they do today.

So what is the problem today? To many self-righteous people determined to restrict the uses of perfectly harmless words simply because their parents told them it was "dirty".

Now please note that I will not be saying any of these things just because I can in good conscience. Teachers adults church leaders would never understand and they would be super offended and not even bother to listen to reason. So yeah. Basically all I am going to do about is not be offended and treat it as a perfectly normal word when I hear them. I just wanted to rant is all.

A Social Outrage

Well, at least I thought so.

This is going to be a somewhat politically incorrect post, with no attempt to be anything other than straight truth as I saw and observed. This post creates racial profiles and makes not attempt to be "color blind". I shall not try to keep from offending people, because anybody who is offended by what I shall say shall more seriously offend me than that type of people already have. I must say that that was very refreshing.

Alright, so I was invited to attend the Independence Day Celebration at Independence Hall in Philly this morning. Before the celebration, there was a breakfast where I was given the opportunity to meet Mayor Nutter and talk briefly with him. I find that I liked the man's personality, ideals and sense of humor very much.

The ceremony was the most horrendous mockery of a celebration of our country that has ever been seen on public television, and I had second row seating for the whole thing.

Complaint #1: Sunoco sponsored it. I have no problem with companies supporting a celebration like this instead of the money coming from private sources or taxpayer money. Not that I see any money at all necessary, why can't business "donate" equipment for the 6 hours it takes to set up, have a program, and take down stuff? Why do they need to be reimbursed for contributing to the community like that on a day that should be above others in the recognition of the need for a greater awareness of community and what we can all do to make life better for each other out of our own free will instead of communist compulsion. But I got off on a tangent there, sorry. Well, Sunoco put their logo on everything. Signs, name tags, banners, podiums (thankfully not the main podium). That definitely annoyed me. Is there sense of patriotism so small that they will only agree to support something like this if they can get their publicity and advertising (distastefully from my artist's perspective) plastered everywhere. Why can't they give out of their own bounty that the people supplied them with, without all the ugly logos and publicity. Has the recognition of the birth of our country come down to a publicity stunt for an oil company?

Complaint #2: The speakers. Most would call it "politically correct". I call it absolutely disgusting. Every speaker, save one, gave a lecture on civil rights and how all the injustices of the past are coming to an end (but only if we elect a black man to president) and how their is more racial equality being shown in events like these (Nutter very clearly and intentionally brought to attention how many black mayors had come before him, but it was also interesting to note that there was only one white person who was given the opportunity to say something other than a token sentence or two) . Nutter highlighted his initiatives to make sure that "people of color" have more opportunity for educational advancement, and spoke of how the politics of the past were now coming to an end with Obama as Democrat nominee and himself as mayor. A (black) woman with the President House Project spoke of how George Washington held slaves, and about how he signed the Fugitive Slave act, demeaning one of the most loved men in our nation's history, and also tactfully ignoring how Washington freed all of his slaves. There were others too. We are supposed to be color blind, we are supposed to be the society that doesn't care what color your skin is, but here they were highlighting their black culture in a celebration that is supposed to be representative of the feelings we all are supposed to share and express. (please note that I have restrained myself from my rants on BET, and other such equality hypocrisies) No speaker highlighted the true cause for our presence that day, which (in case from watching it you have become confused) was to honor the signing of the Declaration of Independence 232 years ago.

Complaint #3: The music. I sat there and watched, and the only word that came to mind was: Irreverent. The program said that the agenda was to "feature patriotic songs". During the opening, they played country guitar music. Oh, there were two songs. They played the national anthem (black singer) and then moved on to "Somewhere over the Rainbow". Now I shall boldly call "stupid" whoever thinks that "Somewhere over the Rainbow" is a patriotic song. A nostalgic and wistful song of dreaming for the ideal country, but never patriotic, they distort and demean the meaning of the word. All this was turned into another "civil rights" as well as a cultural statement when it was sung by "Patty LaBelle's Boom Boom Choir", very black, very obnoxious choir who sang the song so that you could not understand the words, and any beauty that you remembered from Judy Garland or some other artist singing it was lost. I proudly say that though there were cheers from around me, I did not applaud or smile. I call it disrespectful junk that disgraces a ceremony of that repute (although it fit in rather well with the other disgusting motions they went through). Later, the same choir sang "He's Got the Whole World". It is a very nice song that paid tribute to God, but was sung just like the other. With no attempt to put any beauty or dignity into it. They were dancing and bouncing to the music, screaming all the time. I did applaud that time, because instead of paying attention to the bouncing people on stage, I was more focused on the sign-language translator. She got as much into it as the singers did, but she was a more dignified (white) person going completely out of character and going along with the beat. She was very entertaining and amusing and therefore, even though not as dignified as the ceremony deserved, worthy of applause. The other patriotic song was played as people filed out of their seats to go home. I think it was America the beautiful. Oh well.

Complaint #4: The wanton disrespect of the military, by not only people in the program, but also the crowd. Symbolic of the willingness of the soldiers who were serving, there was a brief ceremony where a soldier reaffirmed his oath to serve his country. This was met with token applause from the crowd. (and he got almost no introduction to the stage) Both spectators and participators made it clear that this sort of thing was not politically correct or welcome at this event.

I shall not be participating in any future ceremonies of any kind hosted in Philly, especially by Mayor Nutter. The words that would best describe me this afternoon are: outraged, disgusted, incensed, and disappointed.

Again, you don't have my apologies if you are offended. Call it revenge? :-p