Posts Tagged ‘election’

h1

IKEA Voting

October 30, 2007

I went to IKEA on October 28th for my first ever visit to the iconic chain store.  IKEA Sunrise (which is not in downtown Miami, as is depicted on the IKEA website) opened on October 17.  As I thought that I had given enough cooling off time for the eager crowds, I was taken aback by the number of people waiting in line to enter the store.  I won’t dare to estimate, but it’s true that I couldn’t see the end of the line.  Once the store opened, the place was so jammed with shoppers, it was nearly impossible to look at any of the merchandise.

While waiting in line, I thought about people waiting in line to vote.  Despite rampant reichwing patriotism, US citizens use so many excuses not to vote.  Furthermore, if any “hurdle” is put into the mix on election day (e.g. a long line, rain, cold, traffic) many US citizens choose not to vote.  But here we waited (for over an hour, standing in the South Florida sun, with no shade) for the store management to open the doors.  One woman said she had driven from Orlando just for the privilege of visiting the store.  She admitted that she had come to the store the previous evening, but gave up her quest to get in after waiting for three hours.

People camp out at stores to wait for the release of new products.  They will sit outside in the rain, snow, and frigid temperatures to watch sporting events.  But the same people will use lack of time and inclement weather as excuses for not voting.  Oh, the irony of it all.

Since people don’t mind waiting in line for something “good,” perhaps we should put polling places at popular stores.  Better yet, let’s tie elections to special events like product releases and sports games.  Would thousands of people still show up to a sporting event if they knew they would have to cast a vote before entering the stadium?

People should be thrilled to wait in line to vote, no matter the weather or time constraints.  If it’s OK to “suffer” for sports and consumerism, why is the same not true for voting?  Only when it’s too late, will most Americans realize that they were too busy shopping while they should have been exercising their right (and duty) to vote.

Advertisements
h1

Equality includes marriage

October 12, 2007

Glassy eyed, lying Mitty boy took another step toward winning ‘bigot of the year’ with his recent gay discrimination remarks.  Oy, what an idiot.  Once again, he asserted that only straight couples can get married.  Then he claimed that he doesn’t believe in discriminating against gay people.  Reality check to Mitty–you can’t have it both ways!  Oh, and he also had to mention that he had a gay person in his cabinet while governor of Massachusetts.  Tokenism doesn’t make equality.

If Romney had said, “I’m not racist, look I had a black person in my cabinet, but they shouldn’t be at the front of the bus” or “I’m not anti-Semitic, I hired a Jew once, but they shouldn’t be allowed to own businesses” his comment would have made headlines.  Unfortunately, he got away with his stupid comments because it’s OK to bash gay people. 

Romney, and other wacko, xtian neocons are so convinced that they are right.  However, their argument for “traditional” marriage can’t stand when confronted with truth and reality.  If marriage exists solely for reproduction and raising kids:

Why are people who don’t want children allowed to get married?

Why are women who have gone through menopause able to get married?

Why are infertile people allowed to get married?

Why isn’t there a test to prove that one is fertile before marriage?

Why is it biologically possible to produce children outside of marriage?

Why are people allowed to divorce once they’ve reproduced?

Yep, some pretty silly questions to illustrate the stupidity of the “traditional marriage” nutjobs.  The reality is, marriage has nothing to do with producing and raising kids.  Rearing children without marriage has happened since the beginning of time.

The equal marriage debate concerns the special rights available to married people.  How can Romney say he’s against discrimination, and then deny gay people certain rights (e.g. inheritance, social security benefits, health care, tax breaks.)  What do these rights have to do with producing and raising children?  Because these special rights are granted by the government, they have to be available to everyone.  We cannot pick and choose which groups of people get which rights.  It’s against the constitution.  Our government should stop granting marriages.  Let’s just call them civil unions.

A marriage license is granted by the state, not a church.  Religious marriage has nothing to do with civil marriage and its rights, privileges, and protections.  If people want to get married in a church, so be it.  I don’t care.  But don’t take rights away from me just because you’re a bigot.

One last question:  if xtians are so convinced that children need to be in families with one man and one woman, why is that, across the country, there are thousands of unwanted children in state custody?

h1

Snakeoil seller Romney

October 10, 2007

Romney is such a liar.  He’s oily, smarmy, and creepy too.  It’s not possible for him to tell the truth anymore because he’s told lies for so many years.  His performance at the CNBC debate last night was disgusting.  Prior to the debate, his coaches must have told him to say “Hillary Clinton” and “I lowered taxes” as many times as he could–as if that would prove him the winner of the debate.  His coaches should have worked on getting him to stop blinking.  His rapid blinking is a tell; the faster the blinking, the bigger the lie.

Sure, yeah, I admit it’s true, Romney did lower taxes in Massachusetts.  However, cutting a capital gains tax benefits only the wealthy.  How does that impact the lives of working people?  Unfortunately, the majority of voters in the country will never hear that Romney increased just about every fee that the Commonwealth levies.  That’s right, Romney cut taxes for the wealthy, but raised fees for everyone else.  Hey Mitty boy, just because a fee is a different three letter word, doesn’t mean it’s not a tax!

How can the man sleep at night knowing that he let his wealthy friends keep more of their money, but levied fees (i.e. taxes) on blind people?  Wow.  If I believed there is a devil, I would have to say it’s Romney.

Only the devil could say that helping daddy run for president is equivalent to serving in Iraq.  So, it’s ok for the regular people (poor taxpayers who don’t own investment corporations) to get maimed and killed, but not the offspring of wealthy “patriotic” liars.  Hmmm…

I hope that the good people of this country see through Romney’s smoke and mirrors.  After eight years of chimpy, we cannot continue the nightmare with a glassy-eyed, ‘my friends need to get rich too’, lying replacement.