The Writer's Poke

I'm not a preacher, but if you follow the teachings of Jesus, it was he who said: Do to others as you would have them do to you. That's from Luke 6:31 , and reading all of Luke 6 isn't a bad way to spend five minutes of your time.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%206&version=NIV I guess a lot of Christians understand the Golden Rule and practice it in their daily lives. Others, however, especially political Christians (and specifically those promoting Christian Nationalism) seem to ignore the Golden Rule. They don't care about humanitarian issues. They claim they either don't exist, aren't the problem of the United States, or are the fault of the victims. They counter with distractions like, "Why do you care so much about THEM when you should be caring about the REAL people who matter?" Sorry, but I don't recall Jesus ever dividing people into those who matter more and those who matter less. Of course, Jesus also said not to j...

When someone does something repugnant or slimy, I often wonder: Who hurt you? With JD Vance, I've found myself thinking, "Bless his heart. He's just being Trump's bitch. I wonder who hurt him. Was he bullied much as a kid?"  I've read Hillbilly Elegy, but I don't remember much in it. Below are a few places where he mentions being bullied: "When I was younger, I was the new kid in town. And as I quickly learned, the new kid always gets bullied." (Chapter 1) "At school, I was constantly picked on, and I couldn’t understand why. My classmates would make fun of my clothes, the way I talked, and the way my mom acted." (Chapter 2) "I was a poor kid with a messy home life, and I became the target of constant teasing, and that made me even more ashamed of where I came from." (Chapter 3) "It’s hard to be proud of yourself when every kid in your class has more than you, and the people who tease you are just one reminder of your soc...

 When I was in Guatemala a few years ago, a guide said, "We're really proud of our bridge. It's the only one like it in the entire region." While it was a nice enough bridge, I felt jaded. We probably have a million bridges like that in the U.S., I thought.   But I'm sure that this bridge made life much easier for the people who lived in this region. Because that's what bridges do. They make life easier.  In the United States, we have 600,000 bridges. Some small, some big. They all serve the purpose of making life easier. What's involved in designing and building a bridge? How does a bridge go from imagination to reality?  1. People decide a bridge is needed.  2. Politicians agree, and the process begins -- funding, designing, building, and so on.  3. Once the bridge is built, it will still require maintenance -- more funding, monitoring, and so on.  4. A good bridge will probably last for decades.  Elon Musk's DOGE is tasked with cutting a $1 tri...

Eight years ago, I was putting together a GOP Principles Handbook. Why did I stop? And do the principles from 2017 apply to the political world in 2025, or are there a whole new set of principles? I'm guessing some of the old principles still apply. This week, for example, all GOPers were saying that it was a "mistake" that an Atlantic journalist was included on the Yemen warplans chat. In fact, in an interview with CNN, one Representation said, "It was a mistake," and when the reporter tried to ask a follow-up question, she smirked and said, "I've already given you the soundbite." It's funny to me. They know they're playing a game. We know they're playing a game. It's not like the playbook is a secret. But of course they play the game because there are no repercusions. They aren't willing to penalize others for their incompentency, because incompentency made by party members is just a "mistake," and as the Preside...

“Politicians come and go. The people are here to stay.” – Rick Stevens In 2008, Rick Stevens traveled to Iran to see if the country matched the images Americans see in the United States. Not surprisingly, he found some of Iran to be like what is shown on American television, but he also found so much more. The people of Iran were genuinely glad to see him. He recalls asking Iranians to guess where he was from. Typically, they would wrongly guess five or five different countries before he told them he was from the United States. Instead of shouting “Death to America!”, however, they inevitably smiled at him, welcoming him warmly as, perhaps, the first actual American they had ever met. Stevens felt as though the people of Iran didn’t hate Americans, although they might hate America’s leaders. Why would they hate America’s leaders? Because they scare them. In 2008, for example, presidential candidate John McCain parodied the Beach Boys with his version...

First, I know that rich people are people too. And yes, rich people have rights. But of the 535 members of congress, how many do you think have a net worth of a million dollars or more? I'll bet you a donut the number is far greater than the national average. Which leads to the question: can rich people effectively govern in the best interests of members of the non-rich classes? No one likes to talk about class these days, I realize that. God forbid someone be labelled as trying to ignite class warfare, just for pointing out the obvious. *** According to politico.com, the answer is 237. So, 237 out of the 535 members of congress are millionaires; but only seven have a net worth of $100 million or more. That's some comfort, I guess... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29235.html

Sean Hannity , Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck -- the modern-day Three Stooges. None of them would ever fight in a war themselves, but all of them love war. All of them believe in an Enemy, and without an Enemy, they would have nothing to talk about. Their whole worldview is wrapped up in an "us vs. them" mentality . They spend 99% of their time talking and 1% listening; they think they know all the answers, which means they don't value asking questions. Millions of people listen to what they say every day; I used to listen to Hannity and Rush, too, and it's amazing how they can fill 3 hours every day and say basically nothing, over and over again. And yet, the limited amount they do repeat over and over sticks in the minds of their listeners. What did Lenin say? "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." *** We shouldn't be surprised that the Three Stooges attack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Frankly, they don't believe in peace, they do...

To all of those people that say: "Barack Obama's race shouldn't matter." I agree with you; it shouldn't. But we don't live in a "it shouldn't matter" kind of world. We live in a world where African Americans were 3/5 of human for the first 87 years of the country's existence -- a country where it would take another 100 years after that for African Americans to more fully secure their civil and human rights. We live in a country that, once Obama leaves the senate, will have 100 non-Black senators. So, yes, race matters. Ideally, it shouldn't. And maybe one day it won't. Right now, it does, and that's not a bad thing. Thanks to Accordion Guy for the image: http://www.joeydevilla.com/

As a reminder: Voter turnout is expected to heavy across the nation. Therefore, election officials have decided to extend voting through tomorrow. Democrats are asked to vote today, and Republicans are requested to vote tomorrow. Thank you for your cooperation.

Have you ever wondered how we get stuck with the candidates that we're asked to vote for? Actually, this year's crop (with maybe one major exception) turned out to be pretty good.

The people have called, and I have listened to their call. The country is hungry, and I will feed their bellies. Yes, I am happy to announce that I am running for president of the United States of America. Please click the following link to see a news story about my surprise entry into this year's political campaign. There are only three weeks left, but together, we can change the world! http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=370617&altf=Csfu&altl=Gvmmfs

Christopher Buckley, son of National Review founder William F. Buckley, has decided to jump the sinking McCain ship to support Obama! Buckley who still writes for National Review himself notes that he decided to post his endorsement to thedailybeast blog rather than in the conservative magazine because he didn't have the stomach for the amount of hate mail he knew it would generate. (That's probably the longest sentence I've ever written without any controlling punctuation marks.) It's time for more Republicans to attempt that McCain's ship is sinking. More importantly, it's time for more Republicans to come out for Obama. Click on the link below to read the Buckley piece. http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-10/the-conservative-case-for-obama/

For the past few days, McCain and Palin have been calling Obama a plethora of things as I've noted in a previous post. Not surprisingly, impressionable Republican minds have been soaking up these warnings like sponges. Friday night McCain seemed to understand that his campaign was taking things too far. He actually took the unusual step of defending Obama's character! Yes, McCain told his crowd that Obama was an honorable man, and a good American. He told them that they had nothing to fear from Obama as president of the United States. Incredible. Question: Will McCain now tone down the rhetoric in his stump speeches and in his commercials? Will he put a leash on pitbull Palin? Or, will he continue taking the low road, while attempting to take the high road simultaneously? Pundits on MSNBC tonight suggested that perhaps McCain knows that he's fighting a losing battle, and perhaps the so-called "old McCain" is coming out. Perhaps the McCain that really does believe ...

McCain is angry. A University of Wisconsin study found that 100% of McCain's TV ads are negative. In comparison, only 34% of Obama's ads are "negative." And in his desperation, it looks like McCain has nowhere to go but deeper into the gutter. He will continue to attack Obama and try to make his "character" an issue. Great move, McCain. Don't attack Obama on the issues. Just try to attack him personally. Yeah, I'm sure that will work for you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/09/uselections2008.johnmccain4 Interestingly, Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman announced today that he will pull all negative ads in his race against challenger Al Franken. He's also going to skip a McCain rally today... "to 'dedicate his time to implementing his suspension' of negative ads. " http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/10/coleman_ads/?refid=0 Hmmm... interesting... This indicates to me that Coleman is no dummy. McCain is a s...

John McCain claims that he can "work across party lines." Really? This man's campaign offers no sense of working collaboratively with people. Look at how he and Palin (and their ads) have described Obama: 1. Liar 2. Hypocrite 3. Naive 4. Terrorist 5. Dangerous 6. Liberal 7. Dishonorable Those are just the first seven descriptors that easily come to my mind. Let me ask you: If someone described you in these terms, would you be willing to work with that person with a smile on your face? Of course not. Name-calling is not the way to form alliances and to work with people that disagree with you. Now look at the other side. Has Obama and Biden (and their ads) described McCain in the same ways? For the most part, clearly not. Yes, they have tried to tie McCain to Bush, but they've never criticized him as a person . McCain's tactics bother me. Yes, he's just playing the political game, but Obama is showing that you don't have to play that game. For the most part,...

You cannot win a metaphorical war. The next time you hear someone say "We must stay in Iraq and win the War on Terror," please remind them: The War on Poverty started in 1964 -- and there are still poor people. The War on Drugs started in 1971 -- and there are still drugs. Terrorism as a term has been around since at least the French Revolution (that, by the way, began in 1789). The point is: There is no such thing as "The War on Terror," and therefore, there is no "front" to this war -- not in Iraq, and sorry, not in Afghanistan, either. Further, there really is no "enemy" for our military to attack. Can you defeat terrorism by dropping bombs and locking up people in Cuba? Nope.

After last night's debates, I was left wondering: why even have debates? Palin admitted early on that she wasn't planning to address the questions asked by the moderator; instead, her strategy was simply to vomit out all the talking points that she had memorized at McCain's ranch. And it's probably a good thing she did that, of course. When she was interviewed by Charles Gibson and Katie Couric, she got herself in trouble when she didn't stick to her talking points (i.e. when she had to come up with an original thought on her own). If you compare Biden's answers with Palin's, it's pretty clear that Biden knew a lot more. Biden, I'd betcha (to use Palin talk), didn't have to prep or study for the debate. He already knew the issues, and he clearly knew what he was talking about. Palin, on the other hand, didn't express a deep understanding of the issues. However, Palin does have an ideology, and she stuck to that ideology, but what use is havin...

Have you read John Updike's "A&P"? It's a short story, and the narrator asks what pretty girls have for brains -- perhaps just a fly buzzing around in a jar. Personally, I don't think Palin is stupid, but based on the limited number of interviews she's granted over the past couple of weeks, it's painfully evident that political issues aren't her forte. And that's unfortunate; since she somehow got elected governor of a state, and was "tapped" by McCain to be VP, you'd expect her to know something about political issues... Most of you have probably seen her response to Katie Couric's question about supreme court decisions, other than Roe v. Wade, that she disagrees with. Amazingly, she cannot come up with a single case. I look for patterns. It might even be excuseable for her just to be off for one question, or even one interview, but let's look at the pattern: 1. Charley Gibson asked her about the Bush Doctrine, and she ha...

On May 1, 2003, President Bush declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Americans have short memories, and no balls. Most Americans don't even realize there are two American wars going on right now. How sad. Okay, I'll admit that I supported the invasion of Iraq. At the time, I doubted the line of bull the government was telling us, but I supported the removal of Hussein for his past offences. Who cared if we were punishing him 15 years too late, or under false pretenses? But by 2003, it became clear that our declared mission was over. Even Bush said so. And yet, we're still there 5 years later. If we even talk about leaving Iraq, Sean Hannity questions our patriotism, and says that we are giving aid and comfort to the enemy. So I have some questions: 1. How will we ever know when the mission is over, when it was declared over five years ago? 2. Who do we expect will "surrender" to U.S. forces? We're not fighting an army. We're fighting an ideo...