According to CNN, the latest polls have McCain as the next President of the United States.
If I remember correctly from my statistics course, polls really aren't that accurate. If only 100 people are polled, and 46% (i.e., 46 people) say they would vote for John McCain versus 44% (i.e., 44 people) say they would vote for Barack Obama; then what about the other gazillion eligible voters not polled? The fact is, CNN does not provide the data (i.e., number of people polled, ages, ethnic backgrounds, political affiliation, conservative/liberal label) behind the polls. Did they poll the entire country? Did they poll a majority Republican versus Democrat area? Were the people polled liberals or conservatives, whites or blacks or Latinos? I guess only CNN knows, and they're not freely sharing the information.
In the end, polls are only as accurate as the people being polled, and as truthful as those same people. Another thing I remember from statistics class, sometimes people lie when being polled for fear of the information (whether as simple as a political election or as complex as did you cheat on your spouse) being used against them. Then again, there was always that famous political poll from years ago when the people doing the polling made up the answers. I'm just saying . . .
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
According to CNN, the latest polls have McCain as the next President of the United States.
My name is Scott, and I'm a Project Runway addict!
Once upon a time, I lived an RF (reality free life). I did not watch Survivor or any of the other reality programs that soon began to choke the airwaves and drive away scripted series. I resisted the impulse to watch any reality shows. I succeeded in this endeavor for years.
I blame my Project Runway addiction solely on my partner of (now) 14 years. He got me hooked. He is an enabler. I was doing just fine without Reality TV. I had a life. He made me watch Project Runway (during Season 1 - The I Hate Wendy Pepper Season) and the rest, dear readers, is history. I was hooked from the outset. I watched the rest of Season 1 - hated Wendy with the rest of the world - and found myself watching all the reruns (Bravo does an outstanding job of reruns so you never miss an episode), and the marathons. I laughed and cried, I booed and hissed. There was no help for me.
Season 2 came along - hated Santino, but loved his impressions of Tim Gunn. Personally, I thought Daniel should have won.
Season 3 came along - Laura almost reached Wendy level, but not quite; though her stunt with Jeffery came close to Wendy's soul sucking performance. Didn't you just love when Kara told Wendy - one day you're gonna need your soul, and you're not going to have any left. Woo-hoo!
In between Season 3 and 4, Bravo hooked me with other series: Blow Out and Top Designer, never liked Top Chef. Who knew that styling hair could be so much fun? Loved Tabitha! What about the hedge clipper challenge? Too damn funny.
Yes, as you might have noticed, Bravo Reality TV has become my passion. I still do not watch Surviver, Bachelor, The Apprentice, Amazing Rest, or any of network Reality TV. I'm a Bravo Addict . . . and proud of it.
Season 4 - the end is near. I absolutely adore Rami. I wasn't sure about Christian in the beginning; as my partner put it, is that a man or woman???? Still not sure. ; ) I think it's great that Chris, after being voted off and allowed back, was in the top 4. Personally, I think Jillian will pull off the win. She might end up in an insane asylum, but she definitely has talent. Christian has talent too, but I've seen his collection, and I'm not sure (though I'll probably be proven wrong) its strong/different enough to win. As for Rami and Chris, tonight is their ultimate face-off (though, both did show at Fashion Week in Bryant Park). I've seen both of their collections, and - personally - I think Rami did a better job. Chris did a good job, but not sure if it is good enough to win the face-off. Then again, you never know with Michael, Heidi or Nina.
So, tonight I'll turn on Bravo, watch the multiple repeats of previous episodes, and then tune in for the first of the two-part season finale! After next week, the withdrawl process will begin until Season 2 of Blow Out begins, or Bravo hooks me with another reality show - better quality, better drama, than network TV could ever up for.
As Heidi says, "one day you're in, the next you're out!"
Posted by Scott at 10:39 AM
Welcome to another day in the political arena!
At last nights debate, there was far too much whine! I mean really!
The point of the blog this morning is - surprisingly - to admit that I (to a certain extent) agree with Hillary regarding the photo of Obama discussed in an earlier post.
Clinton denied any knowledge of the photo coming from one of her staff. "So far as I know, it did not," she said. "That's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign - (cnn.com 02/27/08)."
On the other hand, just the other day, her campaign manager issued the following statement: In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).
I still believe her campaign had something to do with the photo. Hillary is only human, and she's not omnipotent (all knowing). She does not have 100% control over the gazillions of people working on her campaign. It is highly likely that a member of her campaign allegedly released the photo. It is highly likely that Hillary allegedly did not know about the photo. Personally, that's always the greatest excuse in the world. Still, I'll give her a semi-break on this one issue.
I still won't give any of the candidates a break on the negativity they are spewing at each other. Enough already.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
"My friends, the war will be over soon ... for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years," the Arizona senator said. "But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us - John McCain, 02/2008"
Isn't it odd, how suddenly, John McCain changes his stance on the war in Iraq? His earlier comments about the war - U.S. forces may need to remain in Iraq for up to 100 years - were not what he meant. They were misinterpreted, misunderstood, and - the best of them all - distorted by his Democratic rivals. Yeah, and the Pope's about to allow all priests to marry!
The fact remains, the United States is currently fighting a war in Iraq that we cannot win. We need to pull our troops out and quit funneling billions of dollars per year into a war we cannot win.
My opinion about Senator McCain's comments: he realizes the war is no longer popular, and that his support of the war (hundreds of years of war) could result in him not getting elected (fingers and toes crossed on that option - for me at least) President of the United States. Go figure!
On the CNN scroll this morning, a little blurb floated across the screen about President Bush hoping that Republicans would elect a President who would continue the war in Iraq - or, something to that effect.
Let's hope not! As stated earlier in this post, the war in Iraq needs to end. It needs to end today, not tomorrow. Our troops need to come home. We cannot win the war in Iraq. We cannot win the war on terror. All we can do (United States, any nation) is to persevere and prepare. We need to remain strong and positive. We need to spend the billions of dollars spent on a war we cannot win, on counter-terrorism efforts, on strengthening our country. It does not take rocket science to come to that conclusion. It might take more than a third grade education, but definitely not rocket science.
My only hope for this country is that we elect a leader capable of change, capable of standing up against a governmental system that is archaic and in need of drastic repair, and who is capable of realizing our troops need to come home, our elderly need to be taken care of, that the influx of illegal immigrants into our country is not a good thing, and that the selling off of our country to other nations is a bad idea!
Monday, February 25, 2008
Barack Obama’s campaign accused Hillary Clinton’s team Monday of circulating a photo of the Illinois senator donning traditional Somali attire – clothing worn by area Muslims – as a goodwill gesture during an overseas trip.
In a statement, the Clinton campaign called the charge “an obvious and transparent attempt to distract” voters from serious issues – but did not issue a denial - (cnn.com 02/25/08).
Okay, so today I thought - there's nothing worth writing about. Wrong!
A photo is circulating of Barack Obama dressed in traditional Somali attire. The phoe has allegedly been circulated by Hillary's camp. Hillary's camp does not deny circulating the photo, nor do they confirm circulating the photo. Typical Political BS! If you (Hillary's camp) did not circulate the photo all they have to do (real simple here folks) is say: We did not circulate the photo. Evading a denial, in my book at least, is confirming the action.
When will it end? For the love of . . . will it ever end? Issues, people, issues, not negative ads, not what somebody did 10 or 20 years ago . . . ISSUES!!
Hillary - you're losing ground. Instead of focusing on the negatives you believe Barack Obama has, why not attempt to focus on your (if any) positives? Forget the attacks; they're obviously not working. Case in point: Earlier this year, some Clinton volunteers left her campaign in those states after circulating e-mails that falsely claimed Barack Obama was a Muslim – an inaccurate rumor his campaign has worked hard to dispel — and suggesting that his drug use as a young man might make him vulnerable to Republican attacks were he to become the nominee - (cnn.com 02/25/08).
In the end, I know I cannot expect a positive political campaign. Politicians only seem to know how to fight negativiely, rather than positively. Politicians - so history has shown (and present day as well) - are incapable of running an honest campaign focusing solely on their qualifications for office.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
As Barack Obama solidifies his lead, Hillary Clinton is shaking things up with a revamped message and sharper digs at her party's front man - (cnn.com 02/21/07).
What was wrong with her initial campaign message? Oh, that's right, it's not working, Barack's in the lead, and she's scared.
"It is time to get real," Clinton said, "to get real about how we actually win this election... It is time to move from good words to good works -- from sound bites to sound solutions" - (cnn.com 02/21/07).
So, everything up to today was not real? What was it, a figment of America's collective imagination?
Clinton has also stepped up attacks on Obama's strong point -- his words. She's accused him of offering rhetoric with no specifics, and this week, based on similarities between his words and those of Obama-ally Deval Patrick, her campaign accused him of plagiarism - (cnn.com 02/21/07).
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the plagiarism allegation. I just think, unless Hillary can claim 100% ownership to every word in every speech she has spoken, then she just needs to let the proverbial sleeping dog lie! I guess what bothers me most, is that very few, if any, political candidates write their own words. They pay someone to do that. Personally, it is wrong. I don't want to hear what a paid speechwriter thinks the candidate should say. I want to hear what the candidate has to say. If you need a speechwriter, maybe you shouldn't be running for office. Do the candidates give their speechwriters credit? If not, hey, wait, isn't that plagiarism? Shouldn't Hillary - or candidate of choice - acknowledge the fact that they did not actually write the words they are speaking? Smells like plagiarism to me. Hmmmmmmm . . .
Other thoughts . . .
Why can't the candidates - Hillary, Oback, John - just be honest? Why do they have to attack, undermine, create controversy where none actually exists? Yes, each candidate is different. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Yes, each candidate has a different message, the message they believe will get them elected. Again, no rocket science needed. There is not a perfect person on this Earth, and there is not a perfect candidate. Everybody has faults, everybody has secrets, and - in the end - none of it matters. What matters is what you - the candidate - is going to do for our country?
Lastly, why hasn't Hillary produced her income tax records like all the other candidates? What's the big secret?
Friday, February 15, 2008
It appears there is a bounty of inspiration out there for my blog. I don't think I've ever wrote this often on the blog. What's the latest?
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton desperately wants meaningless wins in Florida and Michigan to turn into votes she can count on" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). As I'm sure everyone out there knows, the Democratic National Committe stripped the delegate counts from FL/MI because both states held their primaries earlier than allowed. Please note, this was not a spur of the moment decision made just weeks before the FL/MI primaries, but rather a decision made last year when FL/MI announced their plans to hold their primaries earlier than normal.
Now that Hillary (sorry, not meaning to pick on her, but she makes it so easy lately), is behind in votes, she wants her 'meaningless wins' to count. But . . . drumroll please . . . "Clinton did not object to the DNC stripping the states of their delegates when the decision was made last year" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). In fact, irony at its best (or worst if you're Sen. Hillary Clinton), some of her "backers were on the committee that made the decision to do so and activiely supported it" (comcast.net - news - 02/15/08). Does the word two-faced hold any meaning here?
I mean, really, people! Get a life. The fact is, Hillary wants to change the rules because they adversely affect her at the moment. If the rules were not adversely affecting her, would she be raising such a fuss? Highly unlikely. If the proverbial shoe was on the other foot (Obama's foot, though I'm not sure how he'd look wearing Hillary's shoes), would she be raising such a stink? Highly unlikely. In fact, I could probably place money on this one, I think Sen. H. Clinton would be fighting tooth and nail to uphold the DNC ruling if Obama was wearing her shoes. Heck, if Obama was wearing her shoes, she might have plenty more to say.
In the words of a good friend of mine . . . I'm just saying . . .
Thursday, February 14, 2008
I've never understood the point of negative ads. My philosophy: insecure people run negative ads. Since the majority of politicians run negative ads . . . I guess that means all politicians are insecure. I think it also - at least in my opinion - means that politicians running negatives ads are immature.
Case in point: (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday sharpened her attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama as she faces what even her supporters admit are must-win situations in Texas and Ohio in the weeks ahead.
The above is from http://www.cnn.com/. Sen. Clinton, because Barack Obama is in the lead, is now 'sharpening' her claws and running negative ads. She didn't do this when she was winning, so why now? Why can't she - and all politicians - just run positive ads, highlighting what they are going to do for the country, instead of focusing on alleged negative aspects of their opponents? I'm more likely to vote for someone who runs a positive versus negative campaign.
Now, before someone leaps to a conclusion - I'm neither for nor against any candidate at this point, though I do have preferences (please refer to other posts). I just want honesty in a candidate. I want maturity. We are not in kindergarten! We are adults. Negative attacks should not exist.
Monday, February 11, 2008
If I were a gay man, I'd make some musical quote for this blog. Oh, wait, I am a gay man, so . . . "and the money kept rolling in from every side" (Evita for you non-musical people, gay or straight, out there). Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent on the current political campaigns. I just don't get it! Why is it, that political candidates can raise millions of millions of dollars to bombard an unsuspecting, and unwilling in some cases, society with political ad after political ad (95% negative, 2% positve, and 3% that make no sense at all - in my opinion), and yet cannot find money for worthwhile causes once they get into office?
Think of it - millions upon millions of dollars going for cancer research, AIDS research, border security, eliminating the deficit . . . and the list goes on. Instead, millions upon millions of dollars is wasted every time an incumbent or new candidate runs for office. Think of it - for every winner, there are one, two, if not three losers per political office. Think of the millions upon millions of dollars down the drain. It is wasted money. The money had no effect whatsoever. The candidate did not get elected.
So, why shouldn't the candidates - the money so easily accessible - not donate 65% of campaign contributions towards charitable organizations, the national deficit, border security, or some other cause? Why not make the money useful rather than useless?
Friday, February 08, 2008
Current President - and thankfully out of office soon - Bush wants to keep a conservative in office. My question: What have conservatives done for the country lately?
Let me make a list:
1) Sent us to fight a war we should not be fighting based on an outright lie: WMD!
2) Sent our country into a recession.
Do I need to say more? Conservatism is not what our country needs. We need to quit funneling billions of dollars into a pointless war, bring our troops home, and let them defend our country, on our soil, and not some foreign war that we cannot - and will not - win, not matter how long we stay over there. And, before the right wing conservatives take aim, I currently have one nephew in Iraq, and another set to go at some point in time. I support our troops 100%. I just do not support the administration that started a war we could not win based on false (WMD) information. We need a President/Administration that is going to see to the needs of the United States first and foremost - homelessness, illegal immigration, the economy.
We need a government that is for the people, by the people, and not the current state of government that is for the conservatives, by the conservatives, and to hell with the rest of the population.
What do I want in a political candidate?
1) Honesty - tell me what you think you can do, what you want to do, but don't give me false promises. Don't tell me, that when you're elected, you're going to create a fair tax, create national healthcare, blah, blah, blah . . . It's not gonna happen! Tell me that you would like to create a fair tax, but, you know it's probably not going to ever happen, but you'll try your best. Don't tell me about your plans for national health care, rather, tell me about your plans to set fair and stable pricing across the board by hospitals and physicians. The reason insurance companies charge so much in premiums, is because the hospitals/physicians charge so much to the consumer. A band-aid does not cost $2.99. The mark-up on hospital/physicians bills is incredible - I should know, I work in the insurance industry. So, national healthcare candidate, tell me how you want to solve that problem, outline your plan, and finish your statement with the truth: you'll do the best you can. The country has listened to the false promises of candidates since the beginning of our established government. What the country has not listened to is honest statements about what they hope to do once in office. Try that for a change and see what happens.
Okay, so I ranted off subject, but so what, since it all ties in together. The United States is failing. We are a country in crisis. It is time the energy of we the people (that means the government as well) went to fixing our problems, rather than focusing on the problems of every other country in the world.