Can you tell this topic is amusing to me & my colleagues? Sure didn't take long for the email jokes to start flying.... This was one of my favorites! More to come, I'm sure.
Got home from FL trip today around noon and went to vote (in the lobby of my building - how convenient). Turns out, I'm registered as an Independent, so I couldn't vote in the democratic primary... such a bummer. I had planned on cancelling out Adam's Obama vote from this morning - Sorry Hillary!
Such a freakin' pain in the neck... the last election I attempted to vote in - I think it was in November - my address was wrong and I couldn't vote (Mayor Nutter swept, so it didn't really matter). I was surprised that I even got past the part of submitting my name this time around....
Don't know if i should even bother making the change. It won't matter for the general election, and it's unlikely (FINGERS CROSSED) that we will still be living in our current apartment by then anyway....
]]>Can you tell this topic is amusing to me & my colleagues? Sure didn't take long for the email jokes to start flying.... This was one of my favorites! More to come, I'm sure.
Elliot Spitzer played a large role in making Wall Street folks lives hell..... When he was Attorney General of NY, he launched a very public attack on investment banks. (Trying not to get into too many details). As a result, we have an insane amout of compliance obstacles to overcome - many of them make it more difficult for us to do our jobs without really protecting the individual investors in a meaningful way. (I'll stop there - there are BOOKS written on this topic).
Turns out that Governor Spitzer isn't getting the last laugh. What kind of freakin' moron getting caught up in a prostitution ring!!!! I hope he has to resign!
I love the online magazine, Slate. It has a great article on Spitzer today, comparing similarities between how he prosecuted Wall Street and his prostitution troubles. Also - I love the word SCHADENFREUDE and I think this a phenomenal example of it.
Here's another article on the topic - I think this one is phenomenally well written. Have I mentioned before that I enjoy reading the NY Times?
]]>Considering the results of the March 4th primaries, what do you think the democrats should do now?
At this point, I don't care who wins (it seems they are both aligned with the issues that are important to me). I honestly don't think that the two candidates have very different views on any topic (I swear, everywhere I turn there's a clip of Obama agreeing with Clinton's answer). JUST PICK SOMEONE! The longer this drags on, the more momentum the Republicans/McCain gain. Does anyone understand this whole Super-delegate scenerio??? American politics sure seem complicated - so much for the candidate of "the people".
I honestly don't believe the theory that if Clinton wins the nomination McCain is going to sweep away the Independent vote. Both candidates have their downsides - is there ever a flawless candidate anyway? Obama comes across as very naiive and Hillary (& McCain for that matter) seems very rigid and awkward.
Looks like the Pennsylvania primary is going to carry more weight than originally anticipated. I wonder if I got my voting card corrected? Hmmm... guess I better look into that.
]]>
Have I mentioned how much I LOVE this webpage? (www.slate.com)
]]>I love Slate. I LOVE my thursday "Dear Prudence" fix.
Here's a great election video.
]]>
I got sent an interesting link today: http://glassbooth.org/
They ask you a serious of questions about how important certain topics are for you and then it spits out which candidate represents your beliefs.
Mine were: Mike Gravel (78%), John Edwards (77%) and Hillary Clinton (76%) Barack Obama (75%).
I had to look up who Mike Gravel was, because I didn't have a clue. I found it interesting that the three forerunners Edwards, Clinton, and Obama had so few differences on the topics that mattered to me.
Still have no clue who I am voting for.
]]>How do you usually react when people start talking politics?
Cover my ears and run out of the room screaming!!!! Well, maybe not this extreme, but that's what's going on in my head. I have a low tolerance of political banter. Mainly, because I feel like people aren't really conveying their opinion, but whatever they just read in the newspaper. And I think often people pretend that they are more informed on a topic than they really are. Just admit it when you don't know everything about your candidate!!!!
We actually had an interesting politics-centered conversation with my in-laws this weekend that I enjoyed. That's usually a rarity. I haven't decided if I am for Obama or Clinton yet..... time to become an informed voter.
]]>
Interesting Op-Ed in the NYTimes today by Gloria Steinem. I've found it interesting reading today - everyone hypothesizing Hillary's NH win over Obama.
This is one of her most interesting excerpts:
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
]]>Looks like Rendell and others were unable to sway the minds of gun-toting politians. I find it sad and extremely disheartening that these politicians aren't doing anything to help the murder and crime rates in what has now been dubbed "Killadelphia", because they have a constituency of back-minded hicks living in rural PA (the article nicely refers to these people as gun-rights stronghold in the southwest -- I like my version better).
Rep. Ron Marsico (R., Dauphin), the committee's ranking Republican, said that he sympathized with Philadelphia's high crime rate, but that he did not believe "feel-good" gun-control bills were the answer.
Why don't they see that gun control is an important first step in improving the crime rate???? It's not like these laws are saying people who have guns can't have them. Is it really so bad to make it just a little harder for people to be getting their hands on a gun???? Buying one handgun a month - that's the rule they wanted to make. Why would a law-abiding citizen need to be buying more than one a month anyway? This is just curbing the activities of criminals.
Stuff like this drives me nuts!
]]>