Ginny’s Thoughts & Things

Assalamu alaikum, I wanted to blog about this when this first came out, but well, I procrastinated and didn’t get to it. Anyway, you say Hillary “mis-spoke”? Mis-spoke? Are you sure? Uh, wouldn’t a more apt term be “embellished” or “exaggerated”, or perhaps “lied”?

But mis-spoke? No, that doesn’t do what she actually did justice! “Mis-spoke” is when you say the wrong word when you actually meant to say something else, accidentally quote the wrong statistic, perhaps cite the wrong source in a speech, something like that. And what Hillary did was not what I’d call “mis-speaking”.

She deliberately embellished/made up a story, regarding an event that she participated in, in order to pad her foreign policy / experience credentials. Now, if anyone else were to do this, this would severely weaken their campaign if not ruin the campaign outright. But no! Some Hillary supporters/campaign members, as noted earlier, are still saying that Hillary could actually win this thing!

Now, let’s see, what is worse, someone’s pastor saying some controversial (but mostly true, if not admittedly uncomfortable) statements, or the actual candidate outright lying (let’s call it what it actually is OK?) about an event that she participated in? Oh, what would we have done if it weren’t for YouTube?

And this is one of many reasons why I can’t even see myself voting for Hillary in November, not to talk of any primaries. I’m wondering if others see that too, or are they more frightened by a black preacher making controversial statements. Now isn’t that scary, you’ll put up with a lying white candidate, but not a black candidate who’s indirectly linked to statements that, though controversial, are mostly true? Oh, the double standard, if proven to be true, would be shocking but not surprising, to me anyway. It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, and as the campaign continues on, people need to be reminded of this, among other things, of course.

Assalamu alaikum / greetings, I was passing through the living/dining room of my house, on the way to take my Leader Dog Chloe out to use the bathroom.  I didn’t stay long once I got
to the door, because I’d not taken her out yet for the day, and I didn’t want any accidents.  Thus, I didn’t hear the whole debate that was playing out
on the TV, nor who all the voices were talking.

All I know was that it was a Sunday talk show of some sort, and that one of the voices was Senator John Kerry.  There were discussing whether or not Hillary
Clinton should get out of the raise.  Someone was saying how she shouldn’t, because she could actually win the popular vote if Michigan and Florida were
redone/if the delegates were reseated, and that there were yet ten states to go yet, and something about the people being allowed to have their voices
be heard.  Kerry mentioned something about how the Clinton Campaign keeps shifting the goal posts, first saying the primaries mattered, then saying they
didn’t, then saying the delegates mattered, then saying it was the popular vote, now saying, well, perhaps the popular vote doesn’t matter, well, unless
she wins it of course.  It’s as though the rules keep changing, or don’t apply to her and her campaign, and could someone tell me how this is different
from what we’ve been seeing since 2000?

 Listen, I ive in Florida, I was not terribly happy that I voted in a primary where my vote, as of now, has not been factored in.  However, I also understand
that the rules are the rules, that Florida knew the rules going in, and knew the consequences of violating those rules should they choose to do so. 

As of now, to my knowledge, both Florida and Michigan have thrown out the idea of do-overs, so there has to be a way that the delegates are seated in a
fair way.  Florida is easy because Barack’s name was actually on the ballot, so you could just seat the delegates proportional to the percentage of Hillary
and Barack’s votes.  The question to me anyway is that of Michigan’s delegates as Hillary was the only one to have left her name on the ballot when that
primary was held.  I’m not sure how those delegates would be divided up, in a fair way.  Is it 50/50?  Would you divide them up based on the national popular
vote percentages? 

Back to the Sunday talk show I referred to earlier.  Is there a way that Hillary could actually win the popular vote?  Why is Florida and Michigan’s popular
votes even being discussed anyway?  I heard the pro-Clinton guy (not sure of his name right now), say something about that if Florida and Michigan were
counted, then Hillary would have won the popular vote, also taking into account supposed upcoming victories.  And according to him, that would just blow
away one of the Obama campaign and his supporters’ arguments as to why Clinton should drop out of the race, namely that he holds the most delegates, currently
the most super-delegates? and the popular vote. 

OK, currently excluding Michigan and Florida, is there any way that Hillary could possibly win?  With the last ten primaries to go, is there any way she
could win and secure the nomination?  With Michigan and Florida factored in, could she win that way?  How would she factor in Michigan, a state where her
opponents’ names weren’t even on the ballot?  How is that fair, putting a state in your column where you’re the only name on the Democratic ballot?  Talk
about “letting the people’s voices be heard”.  What about those people’s voices who didn’t support you?  Do they matter? 

IMHO, we should follow the rules as they’ve been adopted, and then find a fair way to split the delegates of Florida and Michigan and seat them accordingly. 
How that is done, well, I’ll have to leave it up to, well, whoever’s in charge of that sorta thing.
This once again reminds me of what has bothered me about Hillary during this campaign and why I’m not sure, should she end up with the nomination, that I could “hold my nose” and vote for her come November. Firstly, her and her campaign have consistently kept changing the goal posts, saying “little states don’t matter”, then insinuating that Obama was only winning because he was securing the African-American vote, then saying the popular vote didn’t matter, then I even heard someone say that we should use the allotted electoral college delegates to determine the nominee? Huh? And this is not a sequential nor an all-inclusive list, this is just what I can remember from the top of my head.

This isn’t even to talk of her and Bill’s seeming endorsement/campaigning for John McCain, saying that he’s more ready to lead this country than Obama, saying McCain’s more patriotic, etc. And this is hte problem, Hillary’s willingness to throw her own party members under the bus, if it means she looks better in the eyes of the voters, if it means she ultimately wins! And in all of the years that I was at least nominally interested in American politics, I don’t think I’ve ever seen this. Primary opponents generally were at least somewhat civil toward each other, because the winner would eventually need the endorsement and support of their primary opponents during the general election.

And this has happened with the Republicans, even if many Republicans don’t exactly agree with McCain on many issues. Although he’s also pandering to many Conservatives and evangelical Christians as well, imho. But the point is that now that McCain is the presumptive nominee, Republicans are getting behind him! And the question is, will we be able to do this on the Democratic side? Perhaps if Obama is the nominee, but not sure about Hillary. Perhaps even Obama would have a tough time winning over the “Archie Bunker Democrats” as this blog post refers to them.

…. from anyone! Was watching a video of his recet performance in Atlanta (think it was December?) and Chloe grabbed one of her toys and started excitedly playing with it, and even my fellow housemate came to the door to ask if Chloe was listening to Youssou Ndour again! I said yes, I was watching a video, and it’s funny, because the volume was pretty low, but Youssou’s soaring vocals could still be heard!

Anyway, getting ready for basketball in a little while! And it’s a beautiful day so perhaps I’ll go outside.

Assalamu alaikum, well, it seems that
Jericho has indeed been cancelled. This is unfortunate as I thought it was a good show, but the season/series finale was so haphazardly thrown together, that if it were my first time watching, I’d wonder why it had not been cancelled sooner.

I guess it got cancelled so fast that they had to throw something together to satisfy the Jericho fans. And although I’m disappointed that it got cancelled, I have to be honest and say that I’m not sure if I’m going to participate in the various campaigns to try to either bring the show back on CBS or to get it picked up by another network.

I’m not sure how far you can take this sort of a show, once you find out who actually set off the bombs, who actually is running the show now, and once all of the comforts of modern life are restored. Where would the hsow go from there? Unless of course you want to go the direction of the finale that they showed on Tuesday and have another American Civil War. Then once you got that finished, what would you do then?

It was and is a good show, but I’m not sure how many seasons you could reasonably take the show without it completely veering away from what originally started the show in the first place? But whatever the case, it’s certainly better than reality TV.

Oh, well, guess I’ll go back to watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann and National Geographic/The Dog Whisperer. (not that I’ve ever stopped watching those shows but, well, that’s just about the only TV I watch anymore). Unles sof ocurse you’re talking about the NCAA men’s basketball tournament going on now. Woo-hoo! And there have been some pretty good games!

Assalamu alaikum, IzzyMo has written a wonderful article dealing with stereotypes against Muslim women, and how not-so-representative “Muslim” women are pushed out in front, so to speak, and used to represent “Mainstream Muslim women”, or they are used to validate already existing stereotypes of what Muslim women actually are, by saying things that pretty much confirm feminists’ worst fears about “the lives of Muslim women”.

What is sad is that in most cases, the points of view of other, usually more religious, Muslim women are not sought out. It’s usually the secularized, disaffected woman, or the woman who had a “bad experience” with Muslims who is sought out, not hte practicing Muslim woman, the woman who willing strvies to please her Creator, who prays regularly, who wears hijab willingly, etc.

I find that sad, it’s almost like people are just looking for someone who already fulfills their preconceived notions of what a “Muslim woman” actually is, or I should say, someone “from the inside” who can confirm their worst fears for htem. Someone like say, Ayan Hirsi Ali, or Wafa Sultan, or whoever else fits that role. Feminists can find these people who will confirm what they already think they know, and they usually don’t try to get antoher opinion on the matter.

I’m glad to see that they were willing to publish Izzy Mo’s article, and Inshallah, this open’s up people’s eyes, that not all Muslim women are oppressed, etc., etc., etc.

Assalamu alaikum, didn’t realize this was two books in one.

Doug the black Labrador is just a pup when he comes to spend a year with George and his foster family. Afterwards, Doug will become a guide dog for a blind person. Since George has problems with his eyes, it’s possible that he will need a dog guide one day. Mine for a Year is a remarkable true story of a boy and a dog.

My mother read this book to me shortly after I’d gotten Abby. She found it in the “discards”, i.e., books that the library was going to get rid of. When she read it to me, I almost cried, I wondered if Abby had a smiliar life to the puppy Doug, before she went back to Leader Dog for training and I got her.

I wish I could get the book again, well, in an accessible format, and read it again.

Link found via this blog

Assalamu alaikum, OK, whether you think this is a deliberate attempt to instill fear in the Gambian people, or you think this man has truly gone mad or is getting their fast, this
is pretty darn scary! And this is supposed to be a head of state? A world leader? What more can you say? And yet the religious leaders continue to say nothing…

Assalamu alaikum / greetings, when I listened to Obama’s speech on race a couple days ago, a phrase struck me, which I’d wanted to blog about (yeah I know that sounds convenient now), however, sometimes I need time to process things, and at that moment, I was focused on “race”. And so I didn’t mention it then, besides, I just thought I was being a bit oversensitive, as I’m wont to do at times.

But it was his use of the “radical Islam” phrase, I mean, it just hit me like a ton of bricks. I think, perhaps?, though I can’t remember now, he was talking about Israel? I don’t know, and I’d have to go back and read or listen to the speech and truthfully, I just don’t feel like doing that now. Besides, the phrase “radical Islam” just made me forget about everything else surrounding it, and I just thought “oh it’s radical Islam again”, never mind all of the other stuff, the bombing of innocent civilians, the oppression of people, the taking away of their land (oh we can’t talk about that). It’s those darn “radical Muslims” if they’d just go away everything would be fine. I just couldn’t believe he even put that in a speech dealing with America’s racial issues.

Anyway, Umm Zaid said it better than me anyway.

I’m thinking that while Obama is uring us to look our (meaning America’s) race problem squarely in the face and come to terms with it, perhaps he should apply that same strategy to the Palestinians, I mean, it ain’t all because “them there Palestinians” are just a bunch of “radical Moo-slims”. Maybe they have some actual grievances, perhaps the Israelis commit atrocities too (oh shudder the thought). I mean, human rights abuses aren’t just committed by “a-rabs” or “moo-slims” or whoever it is we (meaning the American government) don’t like today. I mean, we knew Saddam was gassing his own people, we knew that the Taliban was oppressing women, and what about the African dictators America was either propping up or assassinating (or at least was aware of other countries’ assassination of African dictators). Reminds me of an HBO movie I saw a few years ago about Patrese Lumumba and the scene where the Belgians are plotting his assassination, and there was this American CIA guy there, and they bleeped out his name (ya know ’cause someone in the government didn’t want his name mentioned, and I gotta see if I can find the article I read that talks about that). But anyway, when I saw that scene, I literally screamed! And started to cry, because right there, for me in living, er, well, right there on TV, was a depiction of the US government’s complicity in the assassination of a duly elected leader of a sovereign nation, who we didn’t like because he called in the Russians to help him with a dispute he was having.

And yet, many want to become upset at what Jeremiah Wright was saying? Well, what, in actuality did he realy say?

Is it really so bad to say that, yes, we love our country, but some really horrible things have been done in our name? And I know why Obama can’t be all pro-Palestinian, and I can understand why he has to distance himself from Jeremiah Wright’s comments right now, but, uh, well, I get the feeling that he’s hatin’ on a fright right now, and he’s doing it for political expediency. I’ve often wondered to myself how the ReverendWright is feeling, to seemingly be thrown under the bus for political expediency?

Perhaps it’s not that bad, however, at least Obama is trying to have it both ways, to distance himself from Wright’s comments, on one hand, but still call him “just like family” at the same time.

This doesn’t take away from Obama’s speech, because IMHO, this was a “conversation” that we as Americans have been needing to have for a long time. However, if we’re going to be honest about one thing, let’s be honest about everything.

Obama, imho, the lesser of evils among the three candidates running for President right now, but as long as he keeps referring to “radical Islam”, every chance he can, it gives me pause when I decide to vote for him. The same for how he talks of the Palestinians, like everything is all their fault and the Israelis are all just sweetness and light.

As I’ve said before, I really like Obama and want to support him, yet these nagging issues with him won’t let me go. And him slipping in that “radical Muslim” phrase just made it worse for me. I wondered what his Muslim family/friends thought of that? I wondered if he embraces his Muslim family members the way he embraces his family members of differing races? And then I thought, “what does he mean by radical Islam/Muslims”?

And I’m going to ramble again, so I think I’ll stop. I’m just writing now. Oh and btw, maybe I’m a radical but when I listened to Reverend Wrights comments in context and in their entirety, I find myself agreeing with many of them. So what exactly was it that Obama *didn’t* agree with? Can someone tell me again?

2 fired over Obama passport breach - Decision ‘08- msnbc.com

Assalamu alaikum / greetings, someone seems to have been looking for something… And that’s all I’ll say for now, as this is breaking news.