Another Casualty of the US Economy

I received a bit of news today that made me very sad. The failing economy has claimed yet another small business that I have been a patron of for many years. Old Vines, my favorite wine shop and bar in Orlando, FL.

Yeah, at the risk of sounding like some sort of depressed wino, I have to say that the explanation for why this establishment has chosen to shut its doors just disgusts me. But first, let me paint a picture for you...

About six years ago Yours Truly was delighted to find a decent wine shop near her house that did regular tastings and had a very well-educated staff to help her find just the right wine for every occasion. It was here that I first tried my favorite dessert wine Malvira Birbet, and we found a Riesling that Garith actually liked. Their big annual wine event always fell right around my birthday, so that was a nice perk as well.

Then shortly after I moved away from the city they opened a very classy little wine bar right next to the shop, where one could come in and try any number of "flights" (sample-sized wine trios) or order from an extensive wine list. It was a wonderful little spot to go once in a while, and it made my visits to Orlando all the more enjoyable. The music wasn't loud, the atmosphere was warm, the food was good, the wine was excellent, and the staff was friendly. For someone like me, it was paradise.

So when the March newsletter is a sad announcement that the wine bar has closed and the shop itself is shutting its doors forever by week's end... well, I was upset to hear of it. To learn that this came about because of major changes in the wine industry due to the rising costs of importing, producing, and transporting on account of the economy... well, I was seething.

Of course, it makes sense that imported wines are at a premium because our dollar is worth laughably less than the Euro. It also makes sense that trucking heavy crates of wine needs a considerable amount of gasoline regardless of whether the wine is imported or not.

So I have to wonder, how long before other specialty import stores that I am fond of shopping at will face the same fate? And please don't tell me to just "buy American". You tell me where in the USA do they harvest truffles (not the chocolate kind) or manufacture silk fabric? While buying American is a good idea in many cases, there are just some things that are not indigenous to the continent.

To be frank, the real reason why we as Americans should be rather upset over things like this is because it is a sure sign that our country is not as rich and powerful as we like to believe it is. Rich countries can import specialty goods and offer them to the average citizens, not just the billionaires who can afford to have a case of French wine or Austrian chocolate flown in for a party.

Another Sign of the Apocalypse – When MTV is More Unbiased than the News Stations

Yes, today I did something that I haven’t done since I was fifteen years old… I turned my television on to MTV. I did it because I’d heard that my favorite presidential candidate was actually going to be allowed time to answer questions posed to him by an audience, and I didn’t believe that would actually happen. I’m still seething about the last CNN Republican debate where they went out of their way to ignore and rudely interrupt Dr. Paul to make sure the spotlight shined directly on McCain and Romney. In fact, after that blatant show of media biased, I am no longer watching CNN at all.*

So MTV and MySpace apparently teamed up to present the candidates for both parties to an audience of younger voters. Considering how the 18-24 years olds have been coming out to vote in the primaries this year, I thought that was a wonderful idea.

What surprised me is that the two media-darling Republican front-runners, McCain and Romney, apparently decided that talking to the younger generations wasn’t worth their time. But Huckabee and Paul were there and no doubt thankful for the full twenty minutes each of them were given to answer the questions. And answer they did, uninterrupted and without the childish giggling that is often displayed by their fellow candidates.

Folks, we are in serious trouble when television stations like MTV are more considerate and interested in showing all sides of an issue than the mainstream news stations. This is especially true when it comes to an issue as important as selecting the next president of our country.

To be honest, I hadn’t expected much. I had the same expectations as my husband did, although he didn’t actually watch the program because he thought it would be MTV’s “Pimp My Campaign”. So my jaw dropped when I saw they were being serious about the issues – although I do suspect the studio audience was fed a few questions there.

But the point is, they were fair about it. That’s much more than I’ve seen on the so-called “top” news sources. I find it very sad, because those voters who follow the lead from the likes of FOX News, CNN, and their ilk are being told that there are only four candidates worth paying attention to in the race – and not telling them that a vote for any one of them means more bankrupting the country by way of taxes, war, or both.

* Beginning with FOX News and now CNN, I’ve noticed my news channel selection has narrowed significantly since this campaign began… I wonder how long until MSNBC starts pissing me off. At this rate I’ll be stuck listening to nothing but Cartoon Network and Spike TV in my studio by the time the general election comes around!

The People are Growing Angry and the Media Doesn’t Like It.

Recently I’ve read about a few personalities from the major mainstream news sources spouting on and on about how they are being attacked by Ron Paul supporters and they just can’t figure out why. Hannity bemoans having to run past a mob of people who heckled him in New Hampshire while they were protesting FOX News for excluding Ron Paul from a candidate forum. I find it hard to believe that Hannity couldn’t figure out why the protesters were so upset, especially under the circumstances that clearly illustrated media biased against Dr. Paul.

A few minutes ago I read an article about a woman who was involved with the miscounting of hand ballots in one of the recent primaries. Apparently she’d been receiving a few vile words from supporters who are sick and tired of having their candidate receive the short end of every stick in this election. And, as to be expected, the media jumped all over the opportunity to brand Dr. Paul’s supporters as being rabid maniacs who haven’t any good reason to be angry.

I’m disgusted. I truly am.

I’m not going to defend the actions of those who have resorted to harassing questionable poll workers or chasing newscasters down the street, but I will say that I understand their frustration and anger. Many of these individuals are people who were inspired by Dr. Paul’s message and felt confident that the rest of the country would happily embrace the message that is so very different from the bullshit we’ve been putting up with for so many years. Then the door slammed in their faces and they learned that the last thing that the rich and powerful want in this country is change.

Many of these people never realised how brain-washing and shepherding the mainstream media really is until they got a big heaping spoonful of it during this campaign. And, like some of us who were long aware that the traditional news media is not to be trusted, they are pissed off about it.

Quite frankly, the media has no one to blame but themselves for the harassment and hardships they’ve endured with this campaign. As more and more people realise they have been duped (and this has become blatantly obvious with the editing if not downright exclusion of Dr. Paul during this election), they realise that they are fighting a giant. Some strive to cut off the giant’s food supply, others throw sticks at it, and still other run all over the place to let people know that the giant means to do them harm.

But still there are the masses who have grown up trusting the giant without question and refuse to believe that we are anything but a free and prosperous nation. The giant knows this, and it appears as an injured child to its believers and tells them of the crazy hooligans who are running amuck and attacking it without good reason. It can get away with it because it will never show them the other side of the story and they will never look elsewhere for information.

It’s a double edged sword. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It is no mystery to me why some people are just furious.

What concerns me is that I’m familiar with history, and there is usually a bloody side to any type of revolution when the people get pushed too far. I’ve heard it said many times that this goes well beyond Dr. Paul, and I don’t expect it to stop after the last ballot is dropped. People have witnessed the media deceptions and aren’t likely to just close their eyes again when it’s all over and the new media-christened king takes the throne. They aren’t likely to go back to sleep when more and more troops are sent to the Middle East to wage war and their paychecks no longer cover even the basic expenses. They aren’t likely to take kindly to the inevitable military draft that will have to happen if we fully engage another country in battle. They aren’t going to turn the other cheek when more taxes eat away at their insufficient paychecks in order to pay for more government programs and warfare. And they will feel angry that the majority of the population was not given a fair opportunity to examine a candidate who had tried to stop these things from happening, but were rather told by the media that he was a long-shot, kooky pseudo-racist that was not worth their viewing time… but here’s the latest on Britney Spears.

Believe me, I feel the anger. I watch at least an hour of CNN or MSNBC every day, and I want to scream whenever the reporters talk about how “none of the candidates in either party are addressing the real issues”. I know better, but they won’t enlighten the viewing masses on the policies of He Whom Cannot Be Mentioned. Instead, they’ll spend hours bantering back and forth about which candidate looks presidential enough or which one can cry on cue or which one can come up with the best insult in a debate.

It’s sickening.

And these newspeople really wonder why they are targets for scathing letters and shouting mobs in the street? Actually, I doubt they are so stupid as to not understand, but the guys who sign their paychecks tell them to be stupid. And if some of them are afraid, I think they do have reason to fear. As time goes on, snowballs may well become rocks as the angry people grow more and more discontent and bring the reasons of their discontent to their friends and neighbors.

The media and the powers that be seem to be betting on the idea that the majority of Americans are just incurably lazy and want to be nannied by their government to the point where they will question nothing. While this may hold true for now, that may be quick to change as our younger generations embrace the idea of revolution. The signs are there for anyone who knows how to look past the boob tube to see.

How the Candidates Run Their Campaigns Proves Ron Paul’s Points

Anyone who has even slightly followed Ron Paul’s campaign is aware of the list of federal programs he would like to see disappear… the Department of Education, The Department of Energy, etc… And they know that he feverishly speaks about reducing the size of the federal government in general.

Some people, who don’t understand what exactly some of these beneficial-sounding departments actually do, gasp in disbelief. How could he say he wants to get rid of the Department of Education? Does Ron Paul really want to take away public schools from us?

The answer, of course, is no. Ron Paul doesn’t want to take public education away from you. But he does want your community to decide how is the best way to educate your children instead of the federal government dictating programs that might not fare well in your state. Ron Paul wants the individual states to have much more of a say in governing themselves, a job that certainly is better suited for those who have the inside view at the local level. Who knows more about your state’s unique problems … your state governor and elected city officials or a bunch of folks in Washington D.C. who may have never stepped foot in your town?

I thought about this while listening to CNN political analysts talking about the various candidates and how they’d have to switch tactics in order to appeal to one state or another. Iowa is full of Evangelical Christian conservatives while New Hampshire seems to be loaded with independent-minded people. A message that gets a standing ovation in California might not play very well at all in Alabama. All of the candidates have to mold themselves to fit each state’s unique demographics.

Well, all but one.

Ron Paul doesn’t have to change his tune at every state because his tune promises less interference in each state’s affairs. He doesn’t have to pretend to be sympathetic with pro-choice people on the abortion issue in a state that would likely vote to keep abortion safe and legal. He doesn’t have to pretend to be all for drugs in a state that would gladly legalize marijuana or even heroin if they are allowed the option to do so. He doesn’t have to pretend to be anything at all in order to secure voters. He understands that each state knows more about what its citizens want and need than he would on these issues, and he wants to give them the power to make those calls.

I listen to some of the other candidates (both Republicans and Democrats) talk about all the great things they would do to fix the country entire. The problem is, they cherry-pick the issues to pander to whichever crowd they are speaking to. When they start getting on national policies that affect everyone (such as National ID cards or Universal health care) I begin to shudder. When they talk about average incomes, I’m convinced it’s been a long time since many of them have seen what an average middle-class paycheck looks like. When was the last time Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney had to dig under the couch for loose change in order to gas up their cars between paychecks?

When I listen to Ron Paul speak, he’s not promising me that he’s going to take good care of me by way of government programs. Instead, he tells me that he’s going to bring our troops home and stop all the money being spent overseas to help build up the economy for this country. He’s not going to force me to purchase health insurance, but rather remove federal restrictions and open up free markets in order to bring the costs of medicine and health care down so that I can decide whether or not I need insurance for myself. He’s not going to make me pay into a Social Security program that he knows may not be able to properly compensate me when I retire in thirty years, but rather he’ll give me the option of investing for my own retirement in whatever way I see fit. And furthermore, he’s very interested in making sure that my money doesn’t lose value in the process.

Ron Paul’s platform is solid, and it doesn’t have to be tailored between one demographic and another. His limited federal government policies allow the individual states to tailor themselves. And unlike most (if not all) of the other candidates, his long political record is near-perfect in reflecting his strong standing on these positions. He’s not going to tell us one thing to get our votes and then suddenly do a complete turnaround once taking the presidential office. Even in the ABC/FaceBook debate I watched tonight, the moderator had nothing he could accuse Dr. Paul of changing his tune on except that Paul ran in the Libertarian party back in the late 1980s. That speaks volumes when compared with all the position-changing the other candidates on the stage were accused of.

So ask yourselves this… who knows more about the needs of your area? The local government, or the folks in Washington D.C.? *

While the other candidates hop from one foot to the other trying to cater to the wildly varying demographics during this campaign, pay attention that Ron Paul’s message never changes no matter what the flavor-of-the-week happens to be. Then decide who is most likely to stick to their base principles.

* If you happen to live in the D.C. area, kindly disregard that question.

This video pretty much says it all on the subject.

In case you couldn't tell, mainstream media has enjoyed a huge downslide of popularity in my household over the past year. My husband sent me this clip he found, and I thought I'd share it here.



Gotta love smart people with video cameras! :)

Terrorizing the Voters

I recently saw this ad from the Giuliani campaign, and I have to say I was left speechless by the underlined message of “Vote for me or die”. Is this man seriously using the promise endless war and military action as a positive campaign platform?

Please tell me that no one is buying into this war-mongering. The country simply cannot afford it. With an attitude like this, voters can kiss their privacy and more of their paychecks good-bye if this man takes office in the White House.

War Is Not On Voter’s Minds?

I’ve been hearing scattered reports in the Mainstream Media that the topic of war is not really that important to voters anymore.

Excuse me? If this is true than it means that a good 75% (if not more) of the country just decided that being entangled in very expensive and very pointless wars is no longer a big deal. Of course, the reports also say that more Americans are worried about the economy now.

Hello? Please tell me that this is just more of that wonderful media spin running itself in circles again.

Yesterday I turned on CNN for about an hour and I saw Bhutto’s assassination shown no less than a dozen times, and heard reporters using the word “terrorism” every other sentence. Call me crazy, but doesn’t it seem like the media is trying to stir the country up in order to get us rallying to send more troops into the Middle East and start more fighting?

And sure enough, I see many of the Republican presidential candidates heading into the primary season using this as an excuse to rattle their sabers and show their strong stance on keeping the war machine moving forward. If this comes to play and the USA gets involved in even more foreign affairs under the guise of weeding out global terrorism, then we will both run out of military manpower and money. That means we should expect a draft and a whole lot of taxes, folks.

War and giving foreign aid are two of the big reasons why our economy is in freefall. We don’t spend our money where it is needed most in this country, instead we spend it to keep funding Bush’s global policing efforts and as charity to help other countries while our own citizens could really use the help. (See New Orleans for more details.) Look at the bills he vetoes and then tell me exactly which country’s best interests does he really have in mind.

This must stop. Don’t count on the Democrat front-runners to slow the war machine down. We tried that already when we elected them to Congress under the promise they’d get our troops out and we see what a lot of good that did. Think the Democratic candidates are from a different breed then those in Congress?

Even if they promise to eventually withdrawal all our troops from Iraq, most of them still leave the door wide open for sending troops out to “battle terrorism”. (Keep in mind that it’s really easy to declare any group as a terrorist nowadays.)

From Clinton’s website (www.hillaryclinton.com) – “As our forces redeploy out of Iraq, Hillary would also organize a multi-billion dollar international effort -- funded by a wide range of donor states -- under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to address the needs of Iraqi refugees. And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.”

From John Edward’s website (www.johnedwards.com) – “Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within nine to ten months. We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.

From Barack Obama’s website (www.barackobama.com) – “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.”

From Chris Dodd’s website (chrisdodd.com) - “ Chris Dodd believes the time for giving President Bush blank checks is over and that we should begin safely redeploying U.S. combat troops out of Iraq, beginning immediately and completed within eight to ten months...In addition, Chris Dodd would insist on three narrowly targeted exceptions -- the protection of U.S. personnel and infrastructure, specific counterterrorism operations, and assistance with the training and equipping of Iraqi forces."

From Joe Biden’s website (www.joebiden.com) – (In regards to drawdown US troops) “Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the summer of 2008… Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces.”

From Bill Richardson’s website (www.richardsonforpresident.com ) - “We should start redeploying now. The longer we stay, the more people die, the further the situation deteriorates, and the more damage we do both to our military and to our reputation. Only when we are out of this quagmire can we refocus on the real war against Al Qaeda -- the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, and who are still headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border -- not in Iraq.”

This next one is a little iffy... I'm not entirely sure what "aggressive diplomacy" entails.

From Mike Gravel’s website (www.gravel2008.us ) – “Senator Gravel's position on Iraq remains clear and consistent: to commence an immediate and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. troops that will have them home within 120 days. The sooner U.S. troops are withdrawn, the sooner we can pursue aggressive diplomacy to bring an end to the civil war that currently consumes Iraq. Senator Gravel seeks to work with neighboring countries to lead a collective effort to bring peace to Iraq”


Okay, now there are a couple of candidates out there for those who want our troops out of Iraq and everyone else’s hair pronto. In fact, there’s a Democrat and a Republican here and both voted against the war in Iraq from the start and want immediate and total withdrawal from this mess. I think anyone who reads this blog is aware of who I’m rooting for, but in the spirit of fairness I list them both for your consideration:


From Democratic Candidate Dennis Kucinich’s website (www.dennis4president.com ) - “By abandoning the arrogant “my way or the highway” attitude we can reengage the world in productive discussion on our common goals of universal peace and prosperity. Maintaining our current course of action will only end with a world in flames and economic ruin.”

From Republican Candidate Ron Paul’s website (www.ronpaul2008.com) – “Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home.”


Now does it seem a little odd to you that the mainstream media sources don’t spend a lot of time talking about these two candidates or openly ridicule them whenever they have to mention them?