http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375164,00.html
We have heard about Supreme Court hearings over children who get kicked out of school for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance in school. I am actually glad that we ruled that our children should not be "forced" to say anything they don't want, as that would make our country socialist. But here we have a different case; a woman who sings a completely different song when she should be singing the U.S. National Anthem. Yes, she did sing a song referred to as the "Black national anthem" but I dont think race has the primary part here.
It almost seems that there are days of radical African American attitudes due to the response to our nation's democratic candidate, Barak Obama. It reminds me of Malcom X. I don't have a problem with African Americans getting the same freedoms as everybody else; we are all humans with the same DNA and should be treated equally. However, I feel our nation should have overcome the anger that still resides in many people - especially those who did not live in the times where there was a large separation. It seems that blacks are trying to separate themselves from the rest of society, and unite together as a large "people" similar to an interest group. Again, I donnot have a problem with this. But the fact of the matter here, is you have somebody disrespecting our nation with an intent to do so. She was not "not participating," she was actively trying to create a separation of blacks and whites that we have worked a centry to dissipate.
Although I think this was an extreme lack of responsibility for Rene Marie, I donnot think she should be legally punished. I think it is okay for people to express their feelings - it is called an interest group. But to purposly replace a large part of our history to single out your race is a large disrespect to the other inhabitants of this nation.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4613744512420419288&postID=7027899764188904310&page=1
I understand what you mean by questioning the sources for financing in today's politics. In the past, there has been extreme accounts of people lobbying to get tax benefits, to get a bill passed, to get a governemnt contract to work in Iraq (Halliburton) and much more. I think it is absurd that we allow so much money to be tossed around just for financing a campaign. In the long run, is it more important to vote for soomebody because they could raise more money? I think the answer to this is no, because the people who often raise the most money, are most supported by the wealthy lobbyists who can afford to make a campaign donation. They don't represent the normal population.
I think the government should set new standards to our campaigns. I think we should use tax payers' money to split evenly between the candidates, and instead of having massive advertising campaigns, have the candidates speak through tv shows, debates against each other, and other personal agenda's, instead off leaving a TV message or sending you a letter in the mail. That way people would vote for who they saw as the better of the two candidates; not who they knew most about due to large campaign funding.
Good use of criticism, although it is a little choppy and lacks direction. You make it obvious that you feel similar to me in that raising money for campaigns isn't necessarily a positive attribute, but it is hard to accuse somebody of potentially "getting his hands dirty" because there is no proof of this yet.
I understand what you mean by questioning the sources for financing in today's politics. In the past, there has been extreme accounts of people lobbying to get tax benefits, to get a bill passed, to get a governemnt contract to work in Iraq (Halliburton) and much more. I think it is absurd that we allow so much money to be tossed around just for financing a campaign. In the long run, is it more important to vote for soomebody because they could raise more money? I think the answer to this is no, because the people who often raise the most money, are most supported by the wealthy lobbyists who can afford to make a campaign donation. They don't represent the normal population.
I think the government should set new standards to our campaigns. I think we should use tax payers' money to split evenly between the candidates, and instead of having massive advertising campaigns, have the candidates speak through tv shows, debates against each other, and other personal agenda's, instead off leaving a TV message or sending you a letter in the mail. That way people would vote for who they saw as the better of the two candidates; not who they knew most about due to large campaign funding.
Good use of criticism, although it is a little choppy and lacks direction. You make it obvious that you feel similar to me in that raising money for campaigns isn't necessarily a positive attribute, but it is hard to accuse somebody of potentially "getting his hands dirty" because there is no proof of this yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)