Friday, September 19, 2008

Obama's Harassment

"I want you to argue with them and get in their face," Obama said in an article from the San Francisco Chronicle online.

Obama is telling his supporters to go out and get in the face of those that support him? Ya, that will help his case.

I was talking with someone about harassment in the workplace. Specifically we were talking about whether or not criticizing someone's political views is considered harassment. I am not saying it is or is not, I am just posing the question. Some might get offended by it, others may see it as constructive. I think it depends on how you approach the argument.

Every day at work I talk politics. Some things I agree with, some I don't. There is a strong Obama supporter here at work. If this guy ever walks in and "gets in my face" about his politics, we will have a very serious problem. I know where he stands, he knows where I stand.

Of course I would never expect this behavior from anyone. I find it very amusing that Obama would ask his supporters to do this. Does he not know those who actually give a damn are already arguing politics across the nation? There is no doubt more people are paying attention to this election than any other.

I can't wait to see the news article that describes the poor Obama supporter who got his ass kicked for getting in someone's face. I am sure anyone who is on the fence does not want to hear either Republicans or Democrats argue with them and get in their face.

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Al Gore Was Wrong, It Is Worse Than We Thought

Thomas Friedman, author and New York Times columnist, has written a new book titled Hot, Flat, and Crowded. Promoting his book, he recently came to my neck of the woods to give a speech.

Before the speech, I have to admit, I was not very familiar with him. Turns out he is a flaming liberal. His book is about what he calls energy technology. He referred to it as ET and said we need an ET revolution similar to the IT revolution.

According to Friedman, the government has to put regulation on the consumer to force them to start using cleaner, more reliable sources of energy. By forcing them to do this, companies will be able to reduce the cost of their products, and in turn, provide a cheaper, cleaner, more reliable source of energy.

My question to him is, where the hell does he think all this magical money is going to come from? OK, say the government says you must be using 30% alternative energies by 2018. How do people who are losing their house or businesses struggling to stay open, spring for this increased energy cost?

Perhaps there is a better way to illustrate my point. But certainly you can see the problem with this. You can't just have the government start forcing people to use other sources of energy. When these alternatives become cheaper, then we can start using it. Not vice versa. We don't use the government to bring down the price. The last thing we need is the government doing us any favors.

During the speech he said he was talking with his buddy Al Gore. He told his buddy Al Gore he should write a column titled "I Al Gore, got it wrong. Climate change is worse than I thought." Thats right, worse than even Al Gore thought. Friedman said the polar ice caps will have completely, yes completely melted by 2012. Thats a little more than three years from now. Guess we'll see.

He also said at one point "drill, baby drill" is not the answer. After he soaked up the applause, he said he was not opposed to drilling. When a few in the crowd began to applaud that, he quickly snapped at them and said "this is not crossfire, we are having serious conversation." Well, why didn't he tell the other 2,000 people that were clapping we were having a serious conversation.
photo by: www.morguefile.com

I will say I agree we need to be innovators and leaders in providing alternative energy sources. It is the future and we, as the United States of America, have to be involved in every aspect in order continue to be global leaders. However, having the government force us to use other types of energy is not the answer.

Monday, September 8, 2008

O, be honest

I really don't know why I write this stupid blog...

Oprah Winfrey has turned her back on her audience. She had decided to support Obama and said she will no longer use her show as a political platform for candidates. Huh? So this comes, she says, now that she has aligned herself with one of them. Here is the story.

Oprah is a brand in herself. She has so much power in the media, just the attachment of her name to Obama's campaign is using her show as a platform for a candidate. If she really did not want to use her show as a platform she would not be out campaigning for Obama. She can back whoever she wants. That is not where I have the problem.

The problem here in she should just come out and say "I support Obama and having Palin on my show will decrease his chances. Therefore I will not have her on because I don't want to give the opposition any more media coverage than they are already getting." It's no secret that there is very little media coverage for the opposition in the first place.

I think she is alienating herself from her audience. Women love Oprah. There may be a small portion that support her based on her race. But I think the show is primarily geared toward women. So, the most popular woman in the world right now, who is a prime example of the "supermom" should not be on the show?

Someone will do it and there will be a bunch of people watching. With all of these other competitors to Oprah, it should be no problem finding a replacement to interview Palin. Liberal or not, those would be good ratings for anyone.