As we trudge through October, reading about the Great Depression and the Dow, layoffs and 401Ks, we also listen to the Presidential candidates promise that their way will be the way out of the slump we are in. So who are we to believe?
McCain makes promises and slams George W. and his own party for many decisions they have made. Is he part of the problem and now washing his hands of it now that it’s convenient and opportunistic for him? What can John McCain do to get us out of our slump?
In the same vein, Obama has no problem pointing out the mistakes of a Republican President and how things would be different with a Democratic President such as himself in the White House. But can Obama really make changes that will last and get us out of Great Depression, the Sequel?
And how do we cut through the noise to get to the truth about the candidates? There are so many opinions, lies, and exaggerations that, as in many elections, it is hard to see who is better for our country. Sometimes things get too convoluted and complicated to see through.
I was talking to a little cousin the other day and asked him if he was learning about the Presidential Election in school. He said they talked about the two candidates running for office but not much beyond that. But then he said “his friend Johnny” (we know friends seems to be the ultimate authority when it comes to kids) said that the difference between the two people, Obama and McCain, is that “If you had $50 and another person had $10, that John McCain would take the $10 and give it to the person with $50.” I asked him if he thought that was fair and he said no. Then I asked him what Obama would do, and he said, “Probably give some of the $50 to the person with $10.”
Sometimes things make more sense through the eyes of a kid. So maybe they should write the advertisements and convention speeches. Maybe things would become more clear.
I repeated the story above to an ultra Republican and conservative man in his 60s and he said, “He has it right. I want that $10!”
Sometimes knowing who to believe just boils down to first making sense of it all.
Gee, Single Gal, I thought this site was suppose to be about local politics. Yes, the election will affect local politics, but local is suppose to be bipartisan.
One of your better columns. I agree with what you’ve just said.
Ah, actually #1, local is supposed to be NONpartisan, not BIpartisan.
But of course it isn’t. When has the SJ city council had more than one Republican?
And people wonder why we have a structural budget deficit. DUH!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-YuyTXZs58&NR=1
Hank Williams Jr
#4: What a joke. “Sarah Palin tradition?” What’s that? A husband who’s a separatist? A radical who wants to ban library books? I’m glad the minority party is having fun at Palin rallies, but that isn’t going to turn our country around.
#3 Thank you, you’re correct! I must have been so side-tracked by Single Gal’s thinking regarding her $50/$10 senario, I wasn’t thinking clearly myself.
Interesting—I wonder if this will generate some additional comments.
Concerned Citizen
Here’s an interesting political item that does have a local angle.
The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act.
Senate sponsors from both parties include Boxer, Feinstein and Clinton.
Passed the House 381-41. Among the 41 Nays, Doolittle (R-Roseville), Lofgren (D-SJ).
Some provisions of the Act:
Appointment of a copyright czar
Prohibits the import and export of audio recordings
Allows law enforcement to seize assets from anyone accused of intellectual-property theft — before they are proven guilty.
The Justice Department sent a strongly worded letter to Congress opposing certain provisions. Officials in the DOJ did not like the idea of an IP czar. That’s why California Rep. Zoe Lofgren voted against the bill: She agreed with the DOJ when it said that such a position would take away the department’s autonomy. Lofgren said the bill will “divert resources from the drug cartels and organized crime and mortgage fraud and investigating the pirates on Wall Street to do copyright enforcement.”
Signed into law by Pres. Bush, who has admitted to having Beatles songs on his iPod (which must have been ripped). He has now made himself liable to face criminal penalties of between $1000 and $312500 per Beatles song.
(see legal discussion at http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/what-does-it-mean-to-be-pro-ip.html)
“The idea that criminal forfeiture provisions, drafted to reach major drug traffickers like the Columbian cartels, should be inserted into civil copyright tort provisions with a preponderance of the evidence burden, is mind-blowing. The capacity – if not intent – of these provisions for profound mischievousness is obvious: in addition to the gluttonous statutory damages that would be available, content owners now want to defendants to forfeit their computers, their cars, and their homes: all of these can be said to have been used in the commission of infringement (say defendant uses his phone to call someone else involved in the infringement and says “meet me at 11 at Moe’s).
But the bill goes even further: it is not only property actually used that is subject to forfeiture, property that wasn’t used but was “intended to be used” can also be seized. Say, a defendant intended to use his car to transport a computer used in connection with infringement, civil infringement, but decided to take his wife’s car instead. Under the bill, both cars, the computer, and the house where the cars and the computer are stored can be forfeited. But there is more: the bill also includes property “derived from any proceeds obtained directly or indirectly” as result of civil infringement. A television, children’s toy, anything that a defendant owns could fall within this: how could one disprove that any property purchased in the relevant time period was not indirectly derived from infringement. Is even gluttony enough to describe this?”
Great Depression is good thing in the long run. The air must vacuum out to make conditions good. Prices are way too high, and the depression would do nothing but them down.
#10
DOJ did oppose portions of the bill, but with the end of the Congress rush there was no stopping it.
Truth is bueatiful,without a doubt;but so are lies.
Ralph waldo Emerson
“The truth,the whole truth and nothing but the truth”,is what we don`t get from the media in San Jose. It`s not their misinformation so much, it`s what they don`t tell us that costs us in the end.
On the issue of BART,…there`s Carl Gardino, the real Angel of Truth.
#10 Why do you automatically assume the songs were ripped? Transferring his Beatles CD to iTunes is not illegal. <yet>