Here are my two (different) takes from the PA election: 1. Corbett (PA gov, as you probably know) most likely did not lose PA because of the anti-Corbett/pro-Joe Paterno faction as much as (PSU) people think, but his now saying he does not think JoePa should have been fired is odd timing-wise. 2. Wolf (the PA gov-elect, as you also probably know) is not going to accept a salary. I am torn about this. On the one hand, the 5 percent of me that is into socialism applauds that; the guy has/makes enough money already, and this is a good way to appeal to the middle and lower classes. But most of the rest of me thinks he is doing the job, so why should he not get a salary. I would be more in favor of his not having an inauguration.
I like the idea of people that have enough money (and recognizing it) turning down a salary (or Social Security), so that the money might be better spent elsewhere. I don't know that I'd call that "socialism" though. More like a good deed.
And I agree about the big inauguration galas, which I suspect are used more to reward big donors than anything else.
p.s. Every time I comment on your site, I'm getting a malware warning from my antivirus program. Something about (badly paraphrased, just in case) "lifting young people up while avoiding spiritual entanglements"...
Right. When W. won his 2nd term, Fox and the GOP called it a mandate. When Obama won both terms by a higher margin, it wasn't a mandate. And now once again, the people have spoken? Horseshit. The people are actually divided.
All over the country, people voted for progressive laws and referenda, and then elected people who oppose said laws. The People are nuts.
7 comments:
This country gives me shame. We live in a cartoon. .
Here are my two (different) takes from the PA election:
1. Corbett (PA gov, as you probably know) most likely did not lose PA because of the anti-Corbett/pro-Joe Paterno faction as much as (PSU) people think, but his now saying he does not think JoePa should have been fired is odd timing-wise.
2. Wolf (the PA gov-elect, as you also probably know) is not going to accept a salary. I am torn about this. On the one hand, the 5 percent of me that is into socialism applauds that; the guy has/makes enough money already, and this is a good way to appeal to the middle and lower classes. But most of the rest of me thinks he is doing the job, so why should he not get a salary. I would be more in favor of his not having an inauguration.
What say you?
I like the idea of people that have enough money (and recognizing it) turning down a salary (or Social Security), so that the money might be better spent elsewhere. I don't know that I'd call that "socialism" though. More like a good deed.
And I agree about the big inauguration galas, which I suspect are used more to reward big donors than anything else.
Seriously. What really chaps my hide is that the Fox "News" watchers all totally believe that last frame. It's nuts.
Cristy
p.s. Every time I comment on your site, I'm getting a malware warning from my antivirus program. Something about (badly paraphrased, just in case) "lifting young people up while avoiding spiritual entanglements"...
Cristy
No idea what that is... Anyone else have this problem?
Right. When W. won his 2nd term, Fox and the GOP called it a mandate. When Obama won both terms by a higher margin, it wasn't a mandate. And now once again, the people have spoken? Horseshit. The people are actually divided.
All over the country, people voted for progressive laws and referenda, and then elected people who oppose said laws. The People are nuts.
Post a Comment