Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Four Questions

I'm not the first person to ask these questions, nor, I hope, will I be the last.  But if you can answer them, you're smarter than I am.

Why is it that when the government spends $200 billion to bail out Wall Street investment banks it's seen as sound economic policy and a strong response to a growing financial crisis, but when it's suggested that the government spend similar amounts to provide ordinary citizens with affordable health care, the idea is dismissed as "Socialized Medicine"?

Why is it that night after night political pundits criticize Barack Obama for his association with a black minister who, admittedly, said some pretty offensive things, but these same pundits say nothing about John McCain who actively courted, and eventually received, the endorsement of religious bigot John Hagee?

Why is it that any time Obama or Hillary Clinton makes the slightest error, the press immediately begins to question their readiness to be Commander-In-Chief, but John McCain, on three separate occasions, mistakes Sunni for Shia and erroneously states that Iran is working with al Qaeda, and it barely merits a mention in the evening news broadcasts?

Why is it that we still hear people talking about the so-called "liberal bias" of the press?

Today's music:  Kenny Burrell (Soul Call -- Thanks, Jim.)


( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 20th, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC)
Becuase people are stupid?
Mar. 21st, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
Well, I was hoping to avoid out and out cynicism, but yeah, okay, that could be the answer.....
Mar. 20th, 2008 05:28 pm (UTC)
Cue morbid amusement.
Wasn't one of the first attacks upon Obama focused upon his Muslim family members (the existence of which doubtless meant that he was intending to personally sell America to Osama bin Ladin)?

Now, suddenly, the problem is his Church of Christ ex-minister? (Who -- yes -- won't be winning any awards for diplomacy anytime soon.)

I'm not a tremendous fan of Obama, but these two accusations seem particularly ridiculous on the heels of one another. First we should hate him because of a hypothesized lack of godliness, then we should hate him because of his affiliation with the church? Talk about a lose-lose situation.

If we're going to bring religion into our politics, why can't we just pick one ridiculous accusation and stick with it? I'm pretty sure it would save time.
Mar. 21st, 2008 12:17 am (UTC)
Re: Cue morbid amusement.
Yeah, they pretty much got him coming and going on that one. It's sad that simply implying that a person is Muslim is now considered an insult in our society, but I suppose this is a product of our times (and our present leadership).
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )


Australia, Ghost Gum
David B. Coe

Latest Month

September 2014


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner