 |
NEXTopia
Welcome to NEXTopia, a Web diary in which NEXT writers — and readers — share their evolving thoughts on a variety of issues. The opinions you read below are those of the individual writers, not necessarily those representing The Seattle Times.
Respond to NEXTopia
Currently, NEXTopia cannot automatically post readers' comments on the blog. However, writers and editors will regularly post your name and comments unless you note otherwise. |
May 28, 2004
| War-mongering Kerry? |
Teresea Heinz, wife of John Kerry, told Newsweek recently that Kerry strives to please most everyone. In general, this isn’t such a bad life philosophy. But it does lead to some problems when it translates into shifting foreign policy stances.
Kerry told Seattlelites yesterday that Bush used “force before exhausting diplomacy” in Iraq and “underminded the legacy of generations of American leadership.”
In the same speech, however, Kerry openly announced to terrorists: "As commander in chief, I will bring the full force of our nation's power to bear on finding and crushing your networks...Any potential adversary should know that we will defend ourselves against the possibility of attack by unconventional arms. If such a strike does occur, as commander in chief, I will respond with
overwhelming and devastating force.”
In addition to making vague attacks on Bush, the Democratic presidential nominee is sounding more like a war-mongerer than an alternative to Bush’s
foreign policy. Also, his solutions to the problems in Iraq are about as vague as his critiques of Bush. As The Seattle Times reports: “What (Kerry) won't do is give many details about what he'd do differently than Bush in Iraq today.”
Perhaps Former Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, who introduced Kerry at the speech
yesterday, has a reason for why Kerry’s sound-byte filled speeches have
little content. Hart told The Times that the only limit on how much Kerry should talk about Iraq is "a limit only of boredom. If you get into much detail, people will nod off."
Right.
Of course, Bush’s speeches are usually at least 50 percent sound bytes and often lack clear details and complete explanations -- as seems to be the case
with nearly all politicians these days. But it seems his recently-announced
5-point outline for the
future of Iraq is a much more clear strategy plan for Iraq than the one proposed by all-we-need-is-diplomacy Kerry (who is now, apparently,
simulteneously war-mongering, by traditional anti-war standards).
Also, I think hard facts and solid evidence might reveal the effects of Bush’s foreign policy better than Kerry’s rhetoric. The Times reports today on the possibility of Libya, a former terrorist threat, and the U.S. working together on the humanitarian crisis in Sudan:
“U.S. willingness to seek out Libyan cooperation reflects the progress that the nation's ties with Libya have made in recent months. Libya's decision last December to dispose of its deadliest weapons has transformed the relationship dramatically. The two countries are in the process of establishing normal diplomatic relations.”
Let’s not take politician’s vague sound bytes at face value.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 04:55 PM |
| Outta gas |
I've decided Bush isn't going to be reelected. This gas thing is out of hand and while it may not be completely his fault, he seems complacent and dissinterested in saving America from the subsequent inflation that's due to follow. While his ads can blame Kerry's voting track record on gas taxes, the truth is this nightmare is happening on Bush's watch. He needs to work the voodoo, not Kerry. It's Bush's problem.
In other news related to disasterous burn outs, I've noticed a handful of doomsday articles published lately focusing on global warming and how we will all perish in misery if something isn't done soon. Apparently the Bush camp is finally jumping on the common sense band wagon acknowledging that the "scientific debate is closing" regarding this misreable trend.
Here's a great article that even the most ignorant, Ford Truck man can understand.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:39 PM |
May 27, 2004
| Real pizza |
Italy has set out the rules for what is really pizza.
Of course, commercial pizza joints ain't gonna' care, and neither will most pizza eaters. I'm not a pizza snob myself. I love most pizzas at the Pagli. When I know I won't be around anyone for a few days, I'll gobble the GASP from Romio's (the garlic takes about 3 days to fade). I love pan pizzas from Pizza Hut: that oh-so-greasy, kinda' buttery crust is the only crust that I eat even the rinds of. And Papa Murphy's kicks butt on a budget.
But now I want to try a "real" pizza and see what the big deal is. Maybe I can get a job as a pizza consultant. I don't know what would be cooler -- the fact that I'd be paid to eat pizza, or the fact that I would get a free trip to Italy to do so.
Man, now I'm hungry. Time for a slice...
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:46 PM |
| Re: WMDs |
The liberal media are so slanted, if only they could quell their gay, hippy ways, then maybe those whiny Republicans could get a fair shot.
Unfortunately, reality extends beyond the tone of Tom Brokaw's commentary. The truth is our media are run by the hyper-conservative FCC and the vast majority of the media conglomerates are owned by rich, old white guys which generally means they're Republicans.
If the media were truly dominated by the great liberal conspiracy, President Bush wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Instead of focusing on Kobe Bryant and Laci Peterson, we would extend more energy focusing on real issues like how exactly George Bush won Florida in 2000 or how he intends to make Mercury a staple of the American diet.
As for a little Sarin allegedly found in Iraq, big deal. After going to war 14 months ago, we might have the first trace of something that might resemble a reason. Please. Just about any resident of Snohomish County can tell you that if you dig through a dumpster there long enough, you'll find enough meth to qualify as a WMD.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:41 PM |
| You can't escape us |
I don't have cable -- on purpose. I mean, it is hard sometimes, not seeing the latest reality television show that puts some barely clad babe in a box full of slugs -- ohmygawd! So gross! And boy, do I miss the commercials. Or flipping through the channels for three hours because, well, there's nothing on, but surely something really good will appear any minute.
Actually, I did miss Comedy Central for a while, until I realized I could watch the Daily Show online. And I missed the Discovery Channel and History channel, until I realized there were these things called books that covered even more than the pyramids, and World War II, and the pyramids.
But oh joy! Now, whenever I go to the movies, I get to sit through the commercials anyway, 20 feet tall! And previews of upcoming reality television shows! And told why I should be really excited about this season's crappy programming!
Oh, and man do I love it when DVDs have commercials before the menu even comes up -- especially when you can't skip them!
I mean, don't get me wrong. I feel really bad for all those car companies trying to push their products onto people who need this year's extra chrome stripe and really big wheels to feel like they are somehow special. Evils like Tivo, music, video games, instant messaging, cell phones, and something called socializing (I think that's the latest wierd trend from Europe where people, like, interact) is really cutting into their prime pimping time.
But...ooops. Gotta' go. Gotta' make sure I get to the theatre early, otherwise, I might miss the "20."
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:32 PM |
| Re: The Mariners need an enemy |
It's called winning. The last thing the Mariners need is a team devoting more effort into beating them. It's bad enough already. More importantly, it would be nice if the M's owners and management actually tried to field a competitive ball club. That means when Miguel Tejada, Vladimir Guerrero, Andy Pettite, Curt Schilling, Ivan Rodriguez, Eric Chavez and company are up for free agency, you actually try to sign one of them instead of determining that Rich Aurilia is the cure-all answer to its problems.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 05:28 PM |
| I feel touched |
The latest Bush e-mail says, "Our campaign has been very effective in managing resources our supporters have given to the campaign. So much so that 2 out of every 3 dollars raised will directly touch voters."
Why do I feel a sudden need to take another shower?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:22 PM |
| Patriot Act stupidity |
Bush will soon be releasing an ad that attacks Kerry for "changing his mind" on the Patriot Act. The ad says that Kerry supported the act, and voted for it back in October of 2001, but now, "pressured by fellow liberals," he has changed his position.
Uh, news flash Bush -- plenty of Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives aren't happy with the Patriot Act. Especially conservatives who don't like big government having even more unchecked power.
Bush and company: How deep in your own extremism are you that you don't even realize that? Wasn't the fact that your even more extreme Patriot Act II got slapped down hard give you a clue? Just because people question the "Patriot" Act doesn't mean they aren't patriots.
The fact is that the "Patriot Act" was written and passed in a rush following 9-11, and was written in a way that a lot of it will automatically go away in 2005, Kerry or no Kerry. It was always meant to be changed and possibly even retired altogether.
Not only is there a lot of potential for general abuse inherent in the act as it stands, but there have already been cases of abuse and alleged civil rights violations that make people a little worried. People still want to find and capture terrorists. We just want to ensure we don't lose our rights and freedoms in the process.
The ad's tagline is, "John Kerry, playing politics with national security." Huh. Kerry is playing politics with national security. That's funny -- I could have sworn this was a Bush campaign ad. Kind of like the ads claiming Kerry hadn't supported the needs of our troops in Iraq.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but doesn't that actually mean that Bush is the one playing on concerns over national security to gain votes?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:18 PM |
| Re: WMDs |
Even if the artillery shell were found with sarin inside, we are still only talking about one shell. Iraq itself admitted they built artillery shells containing sarin gas in 1990. After the Persian Gulf War, Saddam proclaimed he no longer had shells like these. But CNN this week reported that this particular shell was "of an old style" and "ineffective."
While prepping for war with Iraq, Bush assured us that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and continued to list several chemicals. If the US forces found several very significant weapons capable of "mass destruction," I would expect the press to cover the findings with full force.
As for our news, I think the media is aware of this theory and they do their best not to hire based on political party. Supposedly "liberal" TV networks like MSNBC have given jobs to righties like Joe Scarborough and Keith Olberman, along with Pat Buchanan in hopes of breaking even. Still not satisfied? You've always got Fox News.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Kailani Koenig-Muenster at 05:05 PM |
| Re: WMDs |
The reason so little has been made of the single shell with traces of Sarin is that we already knew Saddam had such things. Heck, we helped him build his stockpile when we were supporting his little war against Iran (and at the same time secretly selling arms to Iran to fund the Contras). Is it a surprise that somebody stumbled across a leftover? Not at all. Heck, it may even be one of a small stockpile that Saddam had built more recently, but was largely destroyed or went to waste.
Nor does it seem such a major find when you consider that all of Iraq's neighbors have known stockpiles of WMDs, and are blatantly moving forward with nuclear programs. If I were Saddam, I'd have wanted something to keep my neighbors from feeling they could just waltz right in and take over. And I have to wonder why we're not more worried about all those other countries?
But does this mean there are bright, shiny stockpiles of new and deadly WMDs laying around somewhere in Iraq? No. It's possible, sure, as it always has been, but this one shell doesn't make it any more possible than it was before, when Chalabi was feeding us all that bogus intel on WMDs.
Nor does it mean that Saddam, a brutal secular leader bent on expanding his own borders, would have been any more likely to sell such weapons to foreign Islamic extremist groups than Iran, or Egypt or Saudi Arabia, or any of the other players in Middle-East war and terrorism.
So, ultimately, no it isn't a big deal. Even if we find a bunker full of WMDs, that would only show that the intel Bush used to justify his invasion was legitimate -- it still wouldn't show that the decisions and assumptions Bush made based on the supposed existence of those WMDs was valid or best for our country or the war on terror. And a single shell with traces of sarin does not a stockpile make.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:57 PM |
| The illusion of safety |
Bush would like us to believe that the efforts of his administration, and measures like the Patriot Act, have made us safer. He would like us to believe that invading Iraq somehow made us safer. Kerry would like us to believe he can somehow do even more, or do things better, to make us safer.
Meanwhile, Ashcroft is warning of an attack this summer. This follows a similar announcement during last holiday season, and occasional jumps to danger level Orange.
The simple fact is that we can never fully protect ourselves against an attack. How many resources and billions of dollars have gone into the "war on drugs," yet drugs are still moving freely across our borders and onto our street corners? How long have we been trying to secure our border with Mexico, yet thousands of illegal immigrants still find their way across seeking a better life?
We should also take claims of success with a grain of salt, because even before 9-11, major terrorist attacks on US soil by Middle-East terrorists occurred on average about 8 years apart. So unless we somehow avoid another attack until after 2009, our safety record hasn't improved.
In fact, if we are attacked before 2009, we should ask how our current practices and policies actually increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks, not reduced them.
Likewise, attacks on American interests abroad averaged every 2 years apart prior to 9-11. We were attacked in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 2003, two years after 9-11, 2001. So things are still pretty much the same.
In the meantime, what are we doing to make terrorists not feel the need to attack us at all?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:50 PM |
| A week in the life of a campaign |
So here is a summary of the e-mails I have received in one week from the Kerry campaign and the Bush campaign. Interesting to see how they are approaching things. I'm still waiting for the e-mail asking me to pass around that attack ad, "Training Wheels."
Kerry:
An email thanking his millionth online supporter.
Notice about Kerry's appearance in Washington: Speech and Rally for Energy Independence
Hillary Clinton: If Bush gets elected, it could lead to an America of diminished freedoms and hope.
Del Sandusky for Kerry: one of the Vietnam vets who served with Kerry tells why he supports Kerry.
Bush:
Journeys with John - Kerry is in Washington, wanting to put higher taxes on you. Come to their site for the truth about him.
Patriot Act: Please pass around his new attack ad on Kerry called Patriot Act.
Why American Veterans Support George Bush - come listen to a couple of veterans talk about why they support Bush.
Growing Economy Quiz: the Bush team will show you how much Bush's policies have made our economy grow!
In Case you Missed It: A letter from a marine telling us to support the mission.
Kerry's Wacky Gas Tax: Please pass around his new attack ad on Kerry called "Wacky"
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:45 PM |
May 26, 2004
| Gore/Dean -- No difference |
Could Al Gore be any more irrelevant? After watching him rant on Bush's "utter incompetence" you can't help but wonder, what does Al Gore do anymore? Does he have a job? Is he still trying to be a professor? Where's the beard?
Gore's politics and demeanor have shifted to the hard left, reflecting another rather vocal extremist: Howard Dean. The only thing missing from Gore's speech was a geography lesson, and the match is identical. Fortunately, both have shown that they are not presidential. But more importantly, they reflect the growing trend of even high profile Democrats to go off the rocker.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 05:48 PM |
| Another alert |
Attorney General John Ashcroft has issued his quarterly warning about imminent terrorist threats. My girlfriend was concerned, I was annoyed. It's like clockwork: every couple of months there's a new report to remind the faithful that we are at war and that the Patriot Act is a necessary headache we must all shoulder.
As she began to read the vague, general report about unspecified threats, I
threw my hands up. Enough already; I read this same story five months ago. Couldn't the AG's office at least issue a quasi-specific statement about something, somewhere? Or is this just how the Office of National Paranoia operates?
As for talk about about increased chatter, please Mr. Ashcroft, devise a new phrase. Chatter tells me nothing more than your agents have noticed an increase in cell phone activity among Arab speakers. If your only function, other than increasing the level of national anxiety, is to issue useless reminders, I'd rather you keep your crappy intel to yourself. What are we supposed to do with it anyway?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 05:40 PM |
| Re: Kerry's character |
Yeah, Kerry has a real problem saying on camera what many Americans say off camera -- in this case, basically, he was making a joke based on the widely held opinion that Bush is an idiot. Kerry's like the character in all those movies that forgets they still have on the microphone and walks into the bathroom to make embarrassing noises, or reveals while backstage their whole plot to take over the world and frame the protagonist. Such casualness and occasional lapses in being politically correct are, unfortunately, a problem when you are running for office.
Imagine if he were to let loose and say Bush is, oh, say, an idiotic failed middle-management war dodger who is only leading our country thanks to his daddy's name, money and family friends? But that's ridiculous. Who would say something like that? That would show really bad character.
Luckily for Bush, our prez rarely speaks to we the little people, so there are far fewer opportunities for his famous faux pas and misspeakinations. He usually has Cheney or his campaign staff make the underhanded attacks and snide remarks about Kerry, or to tell the American people how Kerry doesn't support our troops but wants to raise our gas taxes, etc.
Ultimately, I think that anyone who expects a politician to be somehow perfect is in for a serious disappointment. Not even priests are perfect, and politicians are certainly not priests. Heck, even Jesus dissed on the Pharisees. How could we expect any politician to be completely perfect then? In the end, it is all a matter of degrees. Which of the whopping two candidates we must select from is more likely to be the president we want and need?
One might, for example, consider the comparative character indicators. Bush mocked a woman he was about to put to death. Kerry made a joke about Bush falling off a bicycle. Lets see, which is worse...
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:28 PM |
| Re: WMDs |
Ooh...Brent's upset because the Big Bad Media isn't trumpeting his favorite news item from the rooftops. Yep, an artillery shell tested positive for sarin in Iraq. Also, in other media news, our blog tested positive for massive leaps in logic (all this torture coverage means the media's out to get Bush!), along with some partisan hackery and a trace of whininess.
Gee, I guess one shell with negligible range that presents NO THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY makes this whole mess worthwhile. What's 800 dead American soldiers and 4500 wounded compared to a Weapon of Possible Localized Destruction? Stop the presses and wake the children -- widespread abuse and humiliation of Iraqi civilians is no longer a story, even if this abuse pretty much alienates an entire generation of hearts and minds we must depend on if we're going to save face in Iraq.
Brent, the Pentagon's cried WMD a few times since we've been in Iraq. The media went along for the ride and filed reports, some of which received lots of airtime. They didn't pan out. So can you blame them for not giving top billing to this latest non-story? One shell does not continuing coverage make.
I agree that the NEXT blog is overly focused on partisan politics, rather than staying fresh. Andrew's found a good solution by focusing on the issues that matter. I was going to taunt him for being a Tigers fan, but hell, at least he roots for a young team with some potential. The Mariners are old, tired and ineffective -- just like Brent's argument that the media are "biased" because they think it's news that we're losing an ill-conceived war and it ain't pretty.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Nate Puckett at 05:17 PM |
| Next stop: Realm of liberty |
During his recent speech, Bush said, "These two visions [America versus the terrorists'] have now met in Iraq, and are contending for the future of that country. We will persevere and defeat this enemy, and hold this hard-won ground for the realm of liberty."
Where exactly is the realm of liberty again? Isn't that somewhere near Sweden? Or am I thinking of libertay. Man, my geography sucks.
Anyway, I'm a little lost. Who is "this enemy" again? I thought it was supposed to be Saddam and his loyalists. But now it seems it is the terrorists. So is Bush saying we will defeat the terrorists by use of force in Iraq? Really? My impression of terrorism is that it isn't really that simple, especially if many of the terrorists are coming from outside of Iraq to begin with. What's to keep more from coming once we shoot all the ones that are there now?
Or perhaps our enemies are the Iraqi factions still fighting us. So, we are contending for the future of Iraq with...the Iraqis?
Or perhaps he refers to his buddy Chalabi. You know, the anti-Baathist guy who supposedly supplied most of that dubious info on WMDs, and in return we tried to put his little group in power and gave a ton of money to. Now, turns out he's not such a buddy.
Hmmm. This all seems so familiar. Bush administration helps man in Iraq, gives him money and aid, then he becomes the enemy...Good to see we are learning from our mistakes, eh?
Of course, who could blame the Bush administration. Chalabi pretty much handed them on a silver platter the excuses they so badly wanted to believe in order to implement their long-standing obsession...er, I mean "vision," of pre-emptive war, invading Iraq, and using it as a base from which to spread "liberty" and "freedom" through the Middle-East.
Of course, that's not what we are doing. We are really spreading freedom and...uh...liberty...Huh. Whatta' ya' know? Dreams do come true.
Or are they still dreamin'?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:10 PM |
| Get off the stage! |
Just to show the importance of Bush's speech, the broadcast networks didn't even bother to show it, an unusual move. How could they think "Fear Factor" was more important than our fear-mongering prez? And after all of the horrors, crises and questions, how could they not want to be part of this momentus occassion when Bush boldly came forth to give the American people so much new and useful info?
As quoted on CNN, Bush said, "History is moving..." Wow. Really? "...and it will tend toward hope or tend toward tragedy. Our terrorist enemies have a vision that guides and explains all their varied acts of murder."
Okay! Now we're getting somewhere. Our terrorist enemies have a vision that guides and explains all their acts? Wow! That would be a really valuable thing to know! Finally, we will understand what this is all about. We will be able to really understand what drives these terrorists, to maybe address the real problems, not just the symptoms. We can predict how long this war on terror might really go on, or what might end it, or what might inspire a new attack.
And that vision is ...
"Our actions, too, are guided by a vision." Oh. Darn. Thought he was about to actually say something meaningful and informative for a second. "We believe that freedom can advance and change lives in the greater Middle East." Seriously? Freedom can change lives? Wow. That is indeed a pretty radical belief there, George.
Sure, this is all great empty, patriotic rhetoric. Again. But Bush once more failed to explain what really guides our terrorist enemies. He says our vision is that freedom can advance and change lives, but I thought our vision was that we had to ensure that weapons of mass destruction didn't fall into the hands of terrorists.
But okay, so our vision is to spread freedom to change lives in the greater Middle East. Oooo, so sorry Africa, East Asia, South America, and bad news for all you impoverished and uneducated young men serving years in US prisons for stealing a candy bar on your third strike. Our vision is just to change the Middle East through freedom. We'll get to you later.
The best part, this is just the first of about six such amazing speeches. Oh man, I can't wait for the rest! Next week: How a shot of freedom is destroying the evil cancer of...evilness. Maybe, if we can turn this into a reality show, the networks will even show it. American President. You the people get to vote based on his performance. Wouldn't that be a cool idea?
Of course, as American Idol has shown, the votes don't always reflect the best choices or even the real popular opinion...
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:05 PM |
| WMDs |
Surprisingly, no NEXT writers mentioned the fact that the U.S. found the first sign of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. An artillery shell that tested positive for sarin was found in a roadside bomb in Baghdad. I thought it would be interesting to sit back and see who would mention it first. Nobody did.
Not that this is a surprise. The media gave it little attention either. Surprising? Hardly. Most in the media have made it no secret that they are voting for John Kerry. Lou Dobbs practically endorses Kerry each night. The big three -- Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather -- are all liberals, whose "news" (aka, commentary) about Bush is less than pleasant every night.
MTV U, a television channel here at the UW, has literally had a field day about the Abu Gharib prison scandal, playing the same story again and again, but amazingly, not a word about weapons of mass destruction -- at least not since the shell has been found.
What really surprises me is Bush's ability to stay competitive with Kerry in the polls despite a nearly 24/7 barage of "Bush is evil" propaganda from the left and the all-too-willing-to-report media. Actually, it's amazing Republicans in general have had as much success as they have in recent years considering the plethora of mainstream media bias.
Here's Times columnist Collin Levey's piece about this same frustration.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Brent Ludeman at 11:07 AM |
May 24, 2004
| Kerry's character |
Here’s a revealing tidbit on the character of John Kerry. After President Bush fell off his bike on the 16th mile of a 17-mile bike ride, he suffered –- in addition to a few cuts and bruises -– the stinging
remarks of Mr. Kerry: “Did the training wheels fall off?” he joked with reporters in front of video cameras.
Kerry maintains the comment was off the record, but everything’s on the record when Matt Drudge gets wind of the incident.
Regardless, Kerry’s jab also represents a sign of either the senator’s poor memory or his lapses of hypocrisy; Kerry had his own bicycling mishap earlier this month when he hit a patch of sand and took a spill.
Is Kerry really this partisan -- or at least this spiteful of Bush -- that he resorts to such low blows over a bicycling accident? I would have hoped that something as silly as falling off a bike wouldn’t become an opportunity for Kerry to engage in another round of Bush-bashing.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 02:02 PM |
| Gas prices -- who's to blame? |
Kerry has an ad on his website called Oil house.
While it’s more factual than Bush's ad titled “Whacky,” and in fact Bush’s oil connections go well beyond those in the ad, I have a problem with the conclusion this online ad reaches.
It says that Bush's team has done nothing to lower oil prices because, where they come from, increased oil prices are a "good thing." I doubt that.
True, one should never underestimate the power of greed. But higher gas prices don’t help Bush's campaign or the job growth he needs to produce.
Rather, I think that this administration's ability and willingness to take the necessary actions are compromised by their connections with and dependence on the oil industry and its leaders. I also think that they simply aren't as capable or likely to think outside the oil barrel for energy solutions.
So whose fault is the gas prices? Well, OPEC is looking to make more money. And again, perhaps the Bush administration could have done more to address this issue. But we also have real issues with refining the crude oil into gas and distributing it. Nobody wants a new refinery in their town, and gas standards are a mess.
And frankly, it’s our own dang fault for being too unwilling to sacrifice a little convenience or to be demanding enough to truly encourage and use alternatives.
Kerry’s plan is put pressure on OPEC, simplify those diverse content and quality rules for gas in different states, no secret energy meetings or drilling in Alaska wilderness, and create 500,000 jobs in the renewable energy industry and in building fuel-saving cars. Might work.
Of course, such solutions will take time. So would increasing domestic oil production, which actually wouldn’t do much anyway, given the availability and the amount we already produce.
In the meantime, I agree with Bush that it would be a bad idea to tap strategic oil reserves during war time. But I also like Kerry's proposal, that instead of tapping the reserves we divert new incoming oil from being added to the reserves until the costs come down. And most importantly, let's get serious about reducing our dependence on that petroleum crack.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:33 AM |
| They murdered a man, not freedom |
Can we please stop with the empty rhetoric? The men who killed Nicholas Berg are not "enemies of freedom," as White House spokesman Scott McClellan called them.
Do not mistake me. I hold no sympathy for Berg's killers. If they really wanted something there are countless options open to them that do not involve the murder of an innocent civilian. Neither Gandhi nor George Washington arbitrarily beheaded anyone to achieve their goals.
Let's capture them, try them, and punish the hell out of them. But dismissing terrorists and insurgents as evil-doers who attack only for the destruction of freedom, democracy, puppies and flowers everywhere misses the real reasons they are fighting or angry -- and actually increases the danger to our nation and our troops.
Terrorist recruits would not join and commit suicide just to further the power of a madman. They might hate our political and economic practices in the Middle East, or hate living in oppression, poverty and starvation. They may want a homeland. But I doubt they hate freedom. And dismissing them this way does nothing to prevent future generations from being recruited as terrorists as well.
I have yet to hear serious plans to eliminate or address the economic, political, or social root causes of terrorism. I have yet to hear this administration talk frankly or informatively about what really motivates our enemies, or our own role in those motivations.
All I hear is the president talking about evil evil-doers and madmen attacking freedom. But bottom line, there's not a lot you can do to banish "evil" as a motivating factor -- except maybe a global exorcism.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:22 AM |
| Asleep at the wheel |
Well before the news broke, the military was already investigating and taking action against prisoner abuse. Unfortunately, that was not enough. Once the pictures came out, the situation became a disaster.
But depending on how you look at it, the president had between a year and four months to ensure the strongest actions against the abusers, to lay the groundwork to salvage international relations and good will, and did not. He had a couple of weeks to prepare for the fallout of those horrible pictures, yet he did not even find out about the pictures until they were aired on CBS, the same as the rest of us.
Maybe if Bush were more focused on his job instead of maintaining his record as the president with the most vacations and campaign fundraisers in history, our nation would not be in quite such a vulnerable and compromised state. Maybe not. Maybe Rumsfeld hoping it would just quietly go away is still the real problem.
Certainly, fighting terrorism takes more than a group of war hawks sitting around, waiting to pounce on the next terrorist threat. It takes a preventative and responsible vision to foresee what larger, long-term effects our policies and actions will have globally. It requires being ever vigilant not just for Arabs with box knives on planes, but for American individuals, corporations and government giving radical Muslims reasons to feel martyrdom is a necessary or desirable choice to begin with.
These reasons include everything from our king-making practices, to our trade policies, to Iraqi prisoners being abused without real action or accountability being taken as swiftly and decisively as, say, a pre-emptive war.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:18 AM |
May 21, 2004
| Go Ella! |
Way to go, Ella Gunderson. As reported in a Seattle Times article, this 11-year-old girl wrote a letter to Nordstrom criticizing fashion choices for young girls being limited to "sexy" clothing.
I myself have been amazed at the fashions stores have made available for young girls -- almost as amazed as at the fact their parents buy them. I mean, g-string underwear for 8-year-olds? I suppose that was so their underwear didn't show over their low-rider skin tight jeans.
I found part of the article disturbing though. It was the part where Gigi Solis Schanen, the New York-based fashion editor for Seventeen magazine, stated, "If modesty is what she is looking for, it's going to come full force in the fall...The '50s sexy-librarian look is in."
Oh, fabulous! Just what we need -- "sexy" librarian tweens.
I'm not saying we should hold clothes burning rallies, or that I think 8-year-old girls are running out and having sex just because they dress "sexy". But I do think it is important to know the difference between sexy and beautiful, between cheap and feminine, between healthy pride in one's own appearance and an unhealthy need for attention, between pride in one's body and an unhealthy concern with one's appearance.
We need to cultivate such awareness in girls, and in boys, especially during the difficult social, emotional and identity changes of the tween and teen years. Otherwise, our overly image-conscious and sex-driven culture may contribute to today's children having problems with eating and weight disorders, self-esteem issues and depression, increasingly younger and more frequent cases of teen pregnancy and social diseases, and unhealthy relationships.
Of course, as Ella proves, not all children are blithely unaware of the images and expectations being pushed on them. Reading the statements of her mother, I'm guessing some of that has to do with her parents. But not all children are Ella Gunderson.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 11:56 AM |
| The War is Not the Warrior |
George Bush sent out a campaign e-mail highlighting a letter in USA Today from Marine Major Ben Connable. I admire both Connable’s conviction and eloquence.
Doubtless, the campaign’s intent was to use the letter to shore up support for “the mission,” and by extension, for President Bush.
But I do feel that the letter confuses our duty to question war, and our leaders, with somehow lacking support for our troops.
I am sure that our military can win any battle in Iraq that can be won by force or skill, including the battle to rebuild Iraq. And I am certain that there is a lot of good being done and a lot of positive results in Iraq that are not covered by the news. And yes, doomsayers abound.
But the war is no longer just a matter of supply lines and standing armies, or even of rebuilding schools. Some things are ultimately beyond military solutions, at least within the time and cost we would find acceptable. Would we commit our Marines to go in and establish peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
Iraq is struggling with economic, cultural, political, ethnic and religious issues. Further, terrorists are pouring into the country in part because we are there. Terrorists can be killed, but the war on terror is not a war that can be won by might alone, or by making a target of our troops and by extension, the Iraqi people.
Major Connable writes, "Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with. Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades."
I really don't think anyone of note is trying to deter them from caring about the Iraqi people, or taking away from their sacrifices.
It is our duty, in a federated republic with democratic principles, to always question war; not out of fear, but out of concern and responsibility.
We must consider how and why we got there, how prepared our leaders were for the war and the aftermath, and ask questions of priority. For we the people elect the leaders who make those decisions, and we are ultimately responsible for the decisions they make.
But this does not mean we are questioning the caring or sacrifices of the men and women sent to fight the war or rebuild the country afterward.
For how else are we to learn from our mistakes, or even know what our mistakes were? How else to ensure that we help the most people and achieve the greatest security, in the best way, with the fewest sacrifices of brave Americans as possible?
And yes, how else to hold our leaders accountable for their actions and decisions, for good or ill.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 10:22 AM |
| The Mariners need an enemy |
At the risk of diverting some of this blog’s attention away from presidential politics, I’d like to say that Seattle is not a baseball town. Not yet.
It’s easy to look like a baseball town when you’re team wins 116 games, but not so easy when you are out of it by June. How Mariners fans deal with this slump (and it could be a long slump with the Mariners' big stars becoming senior citizens soon) will determine if this town really is a baseball town as advertised.
I won’t get into what the Mariners need to improve (hitting, pitching and a bullpen in no particular order), but as the team heads for a dreaded “rebuilding year,” I have to wonder why Mariner fans are begging Bud Selig to bring the Expos to Portland. Portland is being considered as a home for the soon-to-be-former Expos and it could only help Seattle baseball.
First of all, it would even out the American League West to five teams. More importantly, it would finally give the Ms a rival. All baseball teams need a rival -- just look at what it does for the Yankees and Red Sox or the Cardinals and Cubs. Seattle and Portland have a built-in city rivalry that would instantly make a Seattle Mariners, Portland Expos (or Environmetalists, my choice for the team's new name) match up a classic.
Plus, the Northwest is the only region, depending on how you want to draw the lines, that has one baseball team. And they are seriously thinking about giving another ball team to the East Coast. Come on!
As for me, I’ll be watching my Tigers sweep the Mariners this weekend. And then eating these words come Monday.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 10:09 AM |
| Bush the man |
Now John, I don't know that it is fair to question Bush's manliness just because he cleverly dodged the war. Some would argue that the Vietnam war was worth avoiding, given the casualty rates and the lack of clear reason or direction from our leaders. Of course, I somehow doubt Bush took the easy way out as a form of moral protest. But let's cut him some slack -- he was still in his party boy phase after all. Heck, if he'd gone to Vietnam, he might never have gotten over his drinking and drug problems.
But let us not forget that as governor he was, like, the king of executing people. I mean, he was no Saddam, but he certainly killed him lots of criminals. That's manly, ain't it? And most of them were probably even guilty, even the mentally retarded one. At least, we assume so, since most of their trials were jokes.
Heck, he even mocked one woman about to die. That's pretty macho, right? Macho in a compassionate conservative way, of course.
And what is more manly than buying a sports team, huh? Even if it was with money from alleged insider trading and family friends. Still, using taxpayer dollars to build his own little stadium profit machine took some pretty serious family jewels, don't you think?
Besides, you should be careful what you ask for. Looking for the most manly candidate might just get someone like Schwarzenegger elected into power.
Wait, what am I saying. That could never happen.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 09:59 AM |
May 19, 2004
| Whacky -- shouldn't there be a law? |
False advertisement is illegal, isn't it? So I don't understand why political ads aren't under the same rules. I just received an e-mail from President Bush. Yeah, me and him are buds. Well, okay, actually I signed up on both the Kerry and the Bush campaign sites, so that I could see what they are each telling their supporters.
Mostly, they are asking for money. Kerry has guest e-mailers like Clinton, Howard Dean, and one of the guys that served with him in Vietnam singing John's praises and asking for support.
I haven't been on the Bush list as long, but so far he seems to be continuing the smear tactics against Kerry. Now, instead of exploiting the war and our troops, they are exploiting the gas prices. His latest e-mail is about how Kerry "supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax.” He's asking everyone to forward along his attack ad, called "Whacky," which is about how Kerry supported a 50-cent gas tax, supported gas tax increases 11 times, and has this "whacky" idea that taxing gas will make us drive less.
The problem is that, as with their ads claiming Kerry doesn't support our troops, or that he voted against body armor needed in Iraq, this is a complete manipulation and confusion of the facts. It's as close to an outright lie as you can get and still claim that, technically, you were sorta telling the truth in a weird sorta way.
In this case, apparently John Kerry did make a statement about supporting a balanced budget (something Bush obviously knows nothing about) in which he said to do so he would support a recent proposal for a 50-cent gas tax, which would be phased in over multiple years. This was way back when gas was about $1. But in fact, he found other ways to support a balanced budget and never voted for or sponsored such a tax increase.
And the 11 tax increases Kerry supposedly supported are really only a couple of small gas tax increases. The Bush administration was also counting times Kerry didn't vote for removing them, or didn't vote at all.
And Bush's own chief economic advisor actually did support a 50-cent gas tax increase, claiming it would reduce traffic, boost the economy, and reduce global warming (oooh, awkward, especially since the Bush line is that global warming doesn't really exist...).
The Kerry site also rebuts with, among other things, "while they are happy to use the gas tax for political purposes, George Bush and the Republicans have NEVER ONCE supported lowering the gas tax on middle class families, despite the fact that Bush promised to during his 2000 campaign."
Isn't that whacky? Unfortunately, the average voter won't know all this. All they will see is yet another flashy ad that basically lies to them, playing on their fears and the difficult economic times. Way to bring morality and integrity to the White House, George.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:36 PM |
| Fact, not fiction |
I just read Bruce Ramsey's column about
the coral reefs and was surprised by his conclusions. I saw the same Imax film, "Coral Reef Adventure," a movie by the National Wildlife Federation, about two weeks ago and walked away from the experience thinking if the media were more inclined to incorporate educational tools into entertainment mediums, our culture would be more easily enlightened.
The disputed film explores coral reefs of the south Pacific and generally concludes that they are dying off as a result of our negative effects on their ecosystems in general. The film cites global warming and logging as two primary factors that proliferate the decline of our ocean's reefs.
Ramsey is aggressively defensive when considering these options, citing that
the producers were seeking to promote "a certain social view." Indeed they
are -- the social view of a scientific community that is no longer in the dark
regarding the destruction of our waters.
While President Bush may not be directly to blame for global warming, his ignorant, unscientific policies certainly don't help the cause. Bush is the last person Ramsey should defend in the name of accurate environmental studies.
On the logging front, there is no debate as to whether or not logging increases sedimentation in streams and ocean-bound tributaries. Run off clogs rivers, raises the temperture of the water and creates dead zones around the deltas where it is eventually dispersed. This isn't theory, it's fact.
Like it or not, man is the primary factor in the decline of natural areas. Locally, our resident Orca populations have declined drastically in recent years. Marine biologists cite chemicals and pollutants in our waters as having the greatest effect. While the Candainan government has placed the J-Pod Orcas of the San Juans on its version of the endangered species list, our own government is dragging its feet.
With an oceanic catastrophe so close to our shores, it's hard to understand
where Ramsey gets the gall to defend the shortsighted consequences of man's
exploits at the expense of nature as a whole.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:27 PM |
| Bad act |
Unless President Bush wants to be on the butt end of a verbal beat down in the upcoming debates, his administration ought to lay off the Kerry military bashing.
Kerry has actually fought a war; Bush just sends people to fight for him. While NASCAR meatheads might find Bush's Burt Reynolds trip attractive in a cowboy western kind of way, it should be noted that as a man, Bush is all talk. He spent his war years keeping the Vietcong out of West Dallas. By my definition of a man, Bush is the epitome of a coward.
Unlike the draft dodgers who are currently plotting our foreign policy, Kerry actually knows what war feels like. Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz were all pro-war hawks back in the Vietnam days; they didn't avoid combat due to moral qualms, but just wanted somebody else to die for the country.
It's kind of like little man syndrome -- they know that nobody respects their actual stature so they try to over-compensate with this hyper-tough agenda.
Unfortunately, much of America is buying this front. Too bad people don't know a bad act when they see one.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by John Hieger at 04:18 PM |
May 18, 2004
| Marching in lockstep |
So the GOP has this policy -- they call it the 11th commandment and have members sign a contract -- that says Republicans can't speak critically of other Republicans, they can only attack Democrats. And they are denying one of their candidates the right to speak at the upcoming GOP convention since he refuses to sign the contract.
I'm sure something similar exists in the Democratic party, though probably not as extreme or formalized.
I know this is naive, but wouldn't it be nice if candidates could actually stand for what they believe in, and for what their constituents believe in, instead of playing party politics? Ultimately, it is not supposed to matter whether the representative is Republican or Democrat -- once elected, his or her job is supposed to be to represent all people in his or her area of influence equally and fairly, regardless of race, sex, economic status or party affiliation.
Sometimes, that means opposing the actions or views of another person of the same party.
People join political parties for a variety of reasons. A Republican might be "Republican" because of his or her views on taxation, or trade, or on abortion and homosexuality, or because his or her family is Republican, or because he or she feels the Democrats betrayed the white southern culture, or because he or she like elephants.
Not every Republican believes exactly the same thing on all subjects, or supports all the same solutions or policies. Nor is every Republican goal or policy exactly opposite of Democrats. And not every Republican loves Bush, or the mess he has made of our economy, our international relations, or the war.
But under GOP policy, all Republicans are one, they are all right and good, and only the Democrats are wrong.
Sure, whatever.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 04:16 PM |
| Kerry's voting record |
Believe it or not, I did have this sneaking suspicion that not every voter in America would dig through Kerry’s records in the Library of Congress. I even have this suspicion -- but surely it can’t be true -- that many people won’t vote at all.
But for those who would like to make an informed vote, or don't want to be blindly manipulated by false political ads, you don’t have to go sifting through the Library of Congress site. Luckily, there’s plenty of easily found info on Google if you just type in something like “John Kerry Voting Record.”
Links like:
How the Bush spin on Kerry is not only dishonest, but hypocritical.
And here.
And for examples of how some “legitimate” news outlets are not calling the Bush administration on their bull about Kerry, click here.
And here.
Of course, this is only if voting for the most powerful person in the nation, and arguably the world, is worth 10 minutes of your time.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:58 PM |
| Kerry catch phrase |
Kerry’s “100 days to Change America” is optimistic, but just not snappy enough. And it’s too vague to be a catch phrase -- it actually requires that you also go and get the details. I mean, change isn’t always good, right?
I tried to think up a catch-phrase that would appeal to the "average voter":
“100 Days –- Of PAR-TAYS!”
“A Free Bottle of Heinz Ketchup in Every Home!”
“Vote for Kerry and He’ll Give You Some Money.” Oh, wait, Bush already took that one. Um …
“Vote Kerry, He’ll Build A Hot Tub on your Porch!”
Well, okay. That’s why I’m not a campaign coordinator.
I do have to say, though, that his tagline “John Kerry -- A Lifetime of Service and Strength” strikes a chord with me, since that not only is the type of person that I’d want as President -- someone who has devoted himself to serving our country the majority of his life and done a decent job of it -- but is at the same time so opposite of who our president is now:
“George W. Bush: A Lifetime of Dodgy Business Deals, Family String-Pulling, and Personal Agendas. Oh, And Some Service. With Lots of Vacations.”
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:51 PM |
| Military service not required, but matters |
Many have raised the question of why Kerry’s military record should matter. It didn’t matter for Clinton, they say. I agree; military service is by no means a requirement for the presidency, nor is it a guaranteed indicator of how well the president will perform his or her job.
However, unlike during Clinton’s elections, today we are at war, so many voters will be swayed by the candidate’s military service. The Bush team knows this, which is exactly why so much of their efforts so far have been focused on tearing down Kerry's record, and manipulating facts to imply he has denied our military the support it needs.
But Bush deliberately pulled strings to get the easiest, non-combat position he could get, and then reportedly didn’t show up even for all of that. Kerry volunteered for active duty in combat, and arguably he served heroically.
Further, and perhaps more relevant to today’s situation, he demonstrated a willingness to be unpopular, stand up and demand accountability by the government for the war afterward, and worked to get us out of a losing situation.
Another important consideration is that Bush ran last time on a platform of bringing morals and integrity back into the White House, playing on the Clinton sex scandal to win votes.
One might then consider the comparative military service of Bush and Kerry as part of an overall measure of integrity and morals, just as one might ask about the integrity or morality of Bush’s past business dealings, his ties to Enron, the way in which he took us to war in Iraq, the ways in which he has dealt with the aftermath, the ways in which he has allowed corporations to poison us, influence our policies, and more.
Should military service be the only or even dominant determining factor in electing a president? No. And in other election years, it probably shouldn’t matter at all. But in this election, with these candidates, with our current national and global situation, it will affect the outcome of the election whether it should or not, whether we want it to or not.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:47 PM |
| Re: Why Kerry corrected |
Thanks for the correction, Gavin.
I admit, all this time I have been blogging based on Gavin’s original statement that “I entered this election year ready to choose a candidate other than Bush. All I read about from any liberal is just standard “but he’s bad!” whining. Give me a reason more than “because I said so,” and I’ll listen.”
So I was working under the apparently wrong impression he was asking for real information, and was asking for, well, himself.
But now that Gavin has corrected me, I agree with him one hundred percent. Kerry isn’t doing a good enough job being inspiring in a catchy sound-bite kinda’ way, and isn’t doing a good enough job of convincing those voters who vote on good feelings, not facts. I have stated previously that Kerry needs to come up with a couple of resounding themes and tie all his various statements back into them.
So, in a rhetorical catch-phrase sense, why Kerry? I don’t know. But I can say my vote won’t go to Nader, because one requirement of my vote is someone who can actually win. And I won’t vote for Bush because, well, sorry Gavin, but “he’s bad.”
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:40 PM |
May 14, 2004
| Re: Why Kerry? |
My purpose in asking these questions was not really for myself, but more in terms of the general populace. At this point Kerry is failing to properly define himself in the public sphere. If Randy Henderson's desired solution is for me or any other undecided voter to do an in-depth analysis into pros and cons, then he has a rather idealistic perception of the standard voter.
As I said before, if Kerry fails to grab hold of the sound byte or catchphrase (such as “compassionate conservative” or “I feel your pain”) that wins him the voter who watches CNN consistently, but doesn’t have the time to go online to the Library of Congress to research old Senate records, then as long as that voter doesn’t like Bush, what’s to stop him/her from voting for Nader?
Yes, it’s sad that elections are defined by such trivial issues, but that’s also reality. To also just say it’s too early is to make the same mistake Bob Dole’s election team made in the beginning of Clinton’s reelection campaign, when Clinton successfully created Dole’s image for him (and Dole never recovered).
It’s making excuses for a campaign that’s falling behind the curve in making itself a viable presence.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:48 PM |
| Re: Going too far |
I wholeheartedly agree with Randy Henderson’s assessment of Senator James Inhofe’s remarks about the Iraq prison abuse scandal. There is no excuse to try and validate horrible actions of which there is no place in a civilized society.
I guess Senator Inhofe desires to be the Republican Party’s answer to Rep. Jim McDermott...
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 04:38 PM |
| Ballard skate bowl victory |
Congratulations and kudos to the teen activists and supporters who saved the Ballard skate bowl! The decision is in, and the bowl will remain, integrated into the design of the future park. These guys aren't even old enough to vote, yet have already done more to participate in their government and community than most people three times their age. I hope it inspires more people to do the same.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:23 PM |
| Saint Dubya |
A Colorado Bishop has extended the discussion of whether politicians who support abortion rights, stem cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage should be denied holy Communion with a pronouncement that Catholics who vote for these politicians should receive the same treatment.
So does this Bishop really believe he speaks for the Catholic Church as a whole? I mean, The church is supposed to believe strongly in the democratic
principles our nation is based on, but now this guy in Colorado thinks he can dictate to us Catholics how we should vote?
The article goes on to point out that the Bishop's pronouncement doesn't include other Vatican-opposed matters like the war in Iraq and the death penalty, stating that they don't carry the same weight. Excuse me?
How does the death penalty not fit in with abortion and euthanasia? We're still dealing with human life, right? And how does an un-justified war that may have killed thousands of innocent Iraqis, hundreds of U.S.troops and put thousands more in harm's way still somehow pale in comparison to the prospect of gay marriage?
I'm sorry, but these remarks completely blow this Bishop's cover. With one transparently contradictory sentence, paired with a suspiciously Bush-flavored
attempt to manipulate the will of voters, he has transformed himself from Catholic Church official to campaign spokesman.
Forget reckless, deadly foreign policy, complaisant attitudes toward corporate fraud that robs average workers, disasterous environmental policy that pollutes the planet and poisons Americans daily -- every good Catholic should know who to vote for in November.
He's the guy who can send a repentant, fellow born-again Christian to the electric chair and still keep a clear conscience: Saint Dubya.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 03:16 PM |
| Re: The Fading label of liberation |
I agree that we are definitely outstaying our welcome as occupiers. However, I do think it is important to keep clear that not all Iraqis hate or are attacking Americans, just as most American soldiers are not abusing prisoners.
There are a number of factions within Iraq: some friendly, some wish we would leave but are not hostile, some are glad we are there but wish we would do more, some are concerned or angry about the government or power structure they fear is being put in place.
And then there are the terrorists pouring into the country now that we're there.
I think it is safe to say, however, that since Rumsfeld and Bush were in complete control of when the invasion was started, who would be involved, and even if there was going to be an invasion at all, they did a poor job planning for the aftermath.
Not that they weren't warned. But then again, they were a little rushed, what with all the evidence for WMDs and terrorist ties falling apart.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 03:09 PM |
May 13, 2004
| Rummy isn't reading this |
So I heard Rumsfeld on the radio today, talking about how he's dealing with this whole situation -- he's stopped reading newspapers.
Good strategy, Rummy. First, you don't really make anyone like, oh, say, Bush pay attention to the prisoner abuse, just kinda' hopin' it will go away. Then, when it doesn't, you just don't read about it or people's criticism of your actions, just kinda hopin' it will, you know, go away.
Geez, newspapers. Why won't you listen to Cheney and just get off poor ol' Rummy's back? You suck all the fun out of wagin' war. Meanies.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:14 PM |
| Re: Why Kerry? |
Come to think of it, how can anyone really answer that question -- it's only May. I mean, we don't even know who his vice president is going to be. The only thing I can say with relative certainty is that he will be running against Bush.
I suggest we wait until after the conventions, when Kerry will actually be expected to officially outline his platform, his expected administration, and why you should vote for him. Can't wait for the debates.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 06:07 PM |
| The good kind of grafitti |
In the 2000 election, just 32 percent of 18- to 24-year-olds voted, compared to 55 percent of all eligible voters, according to Census figures.
What's that figure going to be in 2004?
Well, the stereotype seems to be youth = apathetic MTV babies. But I disagree, and here's one reason why.
Today, while riding the bus to school, I noticed new graffiti gracing one of the passing bus stops. And it said simply: Vote.
Everywhere people stare. Somebody wrote that message with the statement that really, we do care. If only someone would just listen.
I think this election will be different. This is the year that youth will hear the cry of democracy and (finally) step up. It's unfair to classify youth based on the actions of the majority -- because some, like us and our local guerilla artist, want change and are willing to work for it.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Hana Kawai at 06:02 PM |
| Going too far |
I shook my head in disgust, but with little surprise, at the racist remarks of Trent Lott, and the homophobic remarks of Rick Santorum.
But I simply can't believe the remarks of Republican Senator James Inhofe, who is expressing "outrage at the outrage" over the prisoner abuse in Iraq. He is basically saying they probably killed Americans, so we shouldn't be making such a big deal over the way they were treated. I somehow doubt he would be saying the same thing if an American soldier, who had killed Iraqis in the line of duty, was so abused by Iraqis under the pretext that he or she deserved it.
Thank goodness that, in this at least, the majority of the Republican party is as embarassed and opposed to Inhofe as I am. And he probably won't get the royal defense from the White House for his damaging actions, unlike longtime Bush friend Rumsfeld.
While I have no doubt that Inhofe does indeed represent an unfortunately sizable number of extremist Americans, his comments only add to the damage of our image and reputation that seems to just keep coming under Bush.
From Bush's inept foreign policies, early isolationist stance, withdrawal from numerous treaties and international efforts, handling of the Iraq war and relations with the UN, and Rumsfeld's bungling of the Iraqi prisoner scandal, we have not exactly moved forward in making the world like or respect America.
Whatever Inhofe feels, he should have considered the impact his comments will have on those troops he praises so highly, when angry Arabs and Iraqis retaliate against them.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:54 PM |
| The Fading Label of Liberation |
My president told me that it is “us” versus “them.” I am a little confused. I thought we weren’t like “them.” I thought we were symbols of morality. I thought we were the “liberators.” I thought we would take away the horror of torture to the Iraqi people. Yes, “they” hung our soldiers in Fallujah, and there should have been more outrage here and in the Arab world. But we are better than that, and we are not “them,” right?
Ah, now some of you say “they” are defined as the terrorists, not the Iraqi people. But didn’t you say that Saddam and the rest of Iraq supported terrorists? Didn’t you say if you don’t support America, you are with “them”?
Well from the resistance I see, I don’t believe the Iraqis are with “us,” or maybe I’ve perceived this wrong and flowers and candy are just not available in Iraq? Since we are using our leader’s definition of “them,” I’d have to say that with the resistance we see daily from the Iraqi people against the “liberators,” they must be with “them.”
The “liberators” condemned Saddam for torturing Iraqi people in his prisons, but now the chain of command of the “liberators” cannot prevent the same from happening! Yes, these are probably a few soldiers (we'll soon find out), but a higher authority allowed this to happen under their watch.
And yes, I fully support our troops and I appreciate what they are doing, but they were misled about fighting to protect Americans from weapons of mass destruction that do not exist...now, they are left with the label of “liberators.” An unexpected label that now has even started to fade.
I want you all to put the shoe on the other foot for a minute: We are invaded and forced to create an ideal from another country, who are “liberators;” an ideal we have never been familiar with in our country. This ideal will probably make our country run better, but it is unfamiliar to us and we do not want another country forcing it upon us.
Finally, these “liberators” are liberating us from a dictator who tortured us in prisons, but then why are these same “liberators” torturing our people in these same prisons that they were supposed to protect us from?
Sit back and think of what message you get.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Karan Gill at 05:50 PM |
| Re: Why Kerry? |
Gavin, what you say regarding info on Kerry is valid. While there are of course a ton of websites, books and other sources of information on Bush, Kerry has until recently been the concern pretty much only of his own constituents, and therefore there is not the wealth of public thought and opinion on the man as there is on the president.
Especially since Kerry hasn't been scrutinized and criticized for years due to a lack of qualifications, horrible environmental record, insider trading, business failures, military scandal and dubious acts as president.
So if you disregard Kerry's decent military and senate record, what do you have left? His campaign, ala the flashy website, of course.
So if you want to know what Kerry stands for, or why you should vote for him, you have only a couple of options. You have to actually listen to what he has to say through his speeches and his website, then sift the truth from the campaigning. You have to go out and examine his voting record, and understand why he voted as he did on seemingly inconsistent or unpopular votes.
And, of course, you have to review the Bush team's criticisms of him, and then do your own research into how valid those criticisms are. Then compare against the same for Bush.
I'm not a Kerry activist, so I'm not one to argue his campaign promises for him. My strong recommendation is that rather than asking liberals to tell you the info, go forth and seek it that ye may find it. Especially since you do not seem to want to take Kerry at face value -- why then would you take anything his supporters say at face value?
Basically, you're asking others to make the old saying "'tis better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't" not apply here.
But either way you vote, you are rolling the dice. If you do not want to do the work to sift through their various policies and histories and make a nice little pro/con chart, then you just have to ask whether, given his at least decent record, could things really be any worse under Kerry? It's not like the man is campainging on abolishing the military, or instituting communism or anything. He's pretty predictable.
So let's say, worse case scenario, Kerry is just another D.C. out of touch politician, or a tax and spend liberal. Bush is a not-tax but spend and spend and spend on the wrong things conservative, who passes the tax burdens, deficits and unfunded mandates down to the states and future generations.
Worse case, even if Kerry is faking it, he won't be able to bring the nation to destruction, especially with Congress and the judiciary stacked as it is. At worse, Kerry will be as bad as Bush but will put a little balance back into the checks and balance.
At best, he will undo some of the damage Bush has caused.
Or here's a thought. If you can't find reasons to vote for Kerry, look for reasons to vote against Kerry. Then line those up next to reasons to vote against Bush, and make your decision that way. Just make sure you have plenty of room on the Bush side of the chart.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:45 PM |
| Re: Moore and the mouse |
I also read that Eisner had told Moore's rep at one point that he feared an anti-Bush film would jeopardize Disney's cushy tax breaks in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor, though Eisner is now denying this is a reason for Disney's decision. I do agree that it is great for publicity.
As for the practicing what you preach thing, that is a difficult one. True, Moore could have gone with a smaller company. But let's keep in mind that he technically didn't go with "Disney" films; he did go with a smaller company known for its controversial, independent-style films -- a company that happened to be bought by Disney a few years back.
Heck, try finding a media outlet that hasn't been gobbled up into the great media oligarchy by companies like Disney. And the FCC certainly isn't doing anything to make the situation any better.
Further, I think it is unrealistic to expect anyone to be as perfect as, say, Jesus. As soon as Moore became successful, he faced a publicity dilemma -- the fact that his films and books take shots at corporations and the powerful, yet he is now a wealthy man and part of the great corporate media commercial process.
Still, as with the question of politicians and their ties to corporations and money, I think the important thing is not how much you have, or who you work with, but what it is you do with it all.
Moore's new movie isn't "Dr. Phil's Pilates workout the Atkins way." His books and films aren't brainless pieces of commercial fluff. His documentaries are real, but not "reality television."
He is not putting out video tapes that may explode, but the cost of the lawsuits over consumer deaths is acceptable given the profits. He is not giving Disney the right to dump poisonous chemicals into our air and water in exchange for international distribution rights. Moore is trying to raise awareness, to help others, to do what he thinks is good and necessary (whether he is right is a subjective matter).
So I tend to be understanding of the fact that his books are sold in bookstores, or his movies sold by companies, that he actually features in his films as the bad guys, because in his way, he is trying to change the system from the inside. Or something like that.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:37 PM |
May 11, 2004
| Moore and the mouse |
Michael Moore's latest Bush bash "Fahrenheit 911" is not being picked up by Disney. Are you surprised? Even before connections between EuroDisney and the Saudi royal family were brought up and it was pointed out that Disney's television stations don't mind playing the 700 Club -- even before all of that you had to think: Why would Michael Moore want his film associated with Disney?
When Moore's film is finally released, it will bring in big bucks for whatever company distributes it. Moore could release this film in his garage and it would be a hit. But he decided to go with one of the biggest movie company in the world. Either he knew Disney would reject the film causing him some free publicity and giving Disney some headaches, or he just wanted to get as much money out of the film as possible.
Michael Moore is good when he is preachy, but he should try practicing, too.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 12:52 PM |
| Re: The biggest domestic crisis? |
If I understand Chris Collins' point correctly, "cultural Christians" are those who pick and choose Biblical teachings to support their own personally held beliefs, while the beliefs of "Biblical Christians" are actually derived directly from the
Bible. So what Chris is saying is that while it may be hypocritical for non-believers to use the Bible to defend one position, it's equally contradictory for
certain believers to interpret Biblical teachings to their own taste.
So, I must ask, is true Christianity only defined by a strict, all-or-nothing, literal interpretation of the Bible? And with so many varied Christian denominations out there, many with highly divergent views on any number of matters, is this how we determine which is truly the most Christian?
It was good of Chris to point out that practiced homosexuality, while clearly admonished in the Bible, is placed no where near the category of sin murder
falls into. But perhaps in this case, his choice to use the example of murder did not make for the best analogy. While murder, being an act of malice, is viewed as fundamentally immoral by all Christians, this view is considered a universal truth among all decent people, whether Christian or not.
The same reasoning cannot be applied when approaching the matter of homosexuality. This falls into the category of Biblical teachings that condone,
among other things, slavery and misogyny. It's a category of Biblical law many Christians consider archaic and irrelevant by present-day standards.
While very few Christians would deny that Jesus considered murder immoral, there is not one single Biblical passage in which he addresses the matter of
homosexuality. Though many simply assume that Jesus considered it an abomination, this belief has increasingly come into question at every level of the
Christian establishment.
So, absent a direct edict from the mouth of Christ, how can we really determine the most Christian view on homosexuality?
What I'm getting at here is that I do not believe that varying interpretations of Biblical teachings indicate varying degrees of Christianity. I don't think one person can be "more" Christian than another. You're either a Christian or you're not -- I think Chris will agree with me on that.
But the gray area lies in the question of what defines Christianity. It seems like Chris believes that true Christian beliefs strictly adhere to the letter of the Bible, and as a fellow Christian, I don't begrudge him that right.
But I believe that true Christian values lie more in the spirit of the teachings of Jesus, which weren't about laying down the law for what's permissible in the bedroom. They were about showing us that righteousness doesn't necessarily lie in one's actions; it lies in one's heart.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 12:42 PM |
| Why Kerry? |
In response to Randy Henderson’s latest few blogs attempting to answer my challenge, I was again disappointed. While it was great to see all the wonderful research Randy did on the evils of the demon currently running our country, all he could offer up on Kerry’s behalf was that he was a war hero (and did that matter for Randy with Clinton?), a senator (yippee), and has a snappy website.
I was also not impressed by the “they’re both trying to get elected for the first time” stuff. Do I have to still hear this repetitive whining? So I again ask...not why not Bush, but why Kerry? If all Democrats can do is state why Bush is bad, then they have no excuse for Nader eating up all those votes again. Basically, the “well, Kerry can’t be worse” approach is tiring and dull.
As for John Hieger and his Christian TV rant, I shudder at him actually linking real Christians with what goes on most of the time on those stations. Bush isn’t the low point; most of those tele-evangelists are worse (Jerry Falwell most definitely included).
I do agree with a few of Hieger’s points about hypocrisy, although I would quickly point out, however, that Hieger is a little off about the “core message of the Bible” being forgiveness from sin, eternal life, etc. For most Christians, it is equally as bad for us to see the many points that Kerry departs from church teaching on and claims his faith true as well.
Basically, I don’t like seeing Christianity used as a political tool, and both candidates are trying.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 12:34 PM |
| Keeping priorities straight |
So a judge told two parents that they could not have any more children until they were fit to care for the ones they already had.
These two had previously been found guilty of neglect and abuse of their three children. The children, all under 7 years old, even tested positive for cocaine. The parents ignored orders to seek mental health treatment or parenting classes. Then the parents had a fourth child, and the judge said enough is enough. Of course, the judge's order isn't really constitutional.
More importantly, I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, let's keep perspective here folks -- these parents aren't gay. And that's what's really important, right? I mean, if they were GAY, drug-using, neglectful abusive parents, that would be worth some alterations to the Constitution. That would be worth some rallies. But, married or not, these people exemplify the glorious and apparently sole purpose of marriage -- a man and a woman having a bunch of kids together.
If anything, I think this fine couple is a vindication of the movements to keep family planning and contraceptives out of our schools. So I say, let's leave these poor parents alone and stay focused on what's really important: keeping those stable, loving, gay couples who are in healthy lifetime relationships from adopting children or ruining the sanctity of marriage. Who's with me, huh?!
(That was sarcasm, by the way.)
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:22 PM |
| UN report on Sudan just the beginning |
I've been keeping a close eye on developments in Sudan. This country seems close to finally coming to a resolution after 20 years of civil war -- which is really just the northern Muslim government brutalizing the southern blacks and Christians.
My dorm neighbor is a former "Lost Boy." His partents were both killed by the Sudanese government and he is now making a new life for himself in America. It's hard for me to udnerstand the fact that my friend comes from a country so messed up as Sudan. It's also hard for me to understand why the world is not outraged at this ongoing atrosity.
When it comes to putting the pressure on Sudan, there needs to be more than reports and resolutions coming out of the UN. I don't think those will change the pattern of indiscriminate murdering that has defined the last 20 years of Sudan's history.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 12:08 PM |
| Don't be too literal |
Regarding Chris Collin's statement that the Bible isn't a pick and choose document, I have to pretty strongly disagree.
The protestors were choosing to focus on a couple of statements against homosexuality in the Bible. The protestors did not choose to hold a rally condemning cutting the hair on the side of your head, eating shellfish, being disobedient to your parents, or any of the other things that are listed as abominations in the Bible worthy of being punished or put to death.
As for his larger point that the Bible only supports a single, clear view of Christianity, I again must respectfully disagree. It can in fact be used to support a variety of contradicting views and beliefs. This is one of its great strengths, allowing it to be embraced by such a wide variety of people across such a wide variety of times, places and situations.
Here are some links for more on this:
Click here.
And here.
And finally, here.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:05 PM |
| More on The biggest domestic crisis? |
Chris Collins would do well to embrace the teachings of Thomas Jefferson and catch up on the Declaration of Independace. Jefferson devised the notion of
separation of church and state, keeping America from following in the footsteps of the many tragic theocricies that have existed throughout modern history.
The foundation of this country is based upon the notion that "all men are created equel." This point seems lost on our Republican leadership of late. The Jeffersonian bible may be the most insightful interpretation of Jesus' legacy to date. Jefferson focused soley on Jesus' teachings as a philosopher. The bible belt would be more insightful if the folks down there could differentiate between the literal and the fictitious.
More to the point, what does Chris Collins know about marriage? He may feel this issue just affects our generation, but I guarantee this debate won't subside anytime in our lives.
In the context of homosexuality and its place in a developing society, consider these words from Jefferson and contrast them with the "traditional" beliefs of our current administration.
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Has the truth ever rang more true?
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 11:59 AM |
| Iraqi prisoners |
The first soldier to face a court martial was announced two days ago, on Mother's day, for the reported Iraqi prisoner abuses.
Happy Mother's Day.
According to a Bloomberg.com news article, "U.S. Soldier Faces Court-Martial in Abuse Case, Military Says" by Jay Newton-Small posted today, "at least five other soliders are facing criminal charges and six officers have been reprimanded."
What is going on over there in Iraq? We're supposed to be the good guys, aren't we? We're not supposed to be abusing our power overseas -- I was under the impression that cruetly such as this was what the United States went over there to stop.
The very idea that U.S. soldiers have been engaging in such sinister and unthinkable crimes is sickening. I saw the cover of "The Economist" for May 8th-14th this morning with the title in big bold letters, "Resign Rumsfeld" and I felt my fingers grow clammy.
In addition to the title the cover displays, the grainy picture of a figure standing on a box, his head covered in a black hood, his body draped with the same coarse fabric and what looks like electric wires attached to his fingers. This picture does not inspire patriotism, and it certainly does not make my chest swell with confidence in my country; it makes me angry and ashamed.
My first reaction is to deny it is possible -- that there must be some mistake, that it is a hoax, a terrorist tactic to zap confidence in our troops. But picture after picture surfaces and it becomes harder to refute what is right before my eyes.
Perhaps the United States has done many positive things in Iraq in the past months, but these actions undermine everything the United States stands for and their motives for intervening in the first place. No longer any better than those they are endeavoring to stop, it seems some U.S. soldiers may have forgotten what they are fighting for.
"An eye for an eye" has no bearing here; countless heart-wrenching and unspeakable wrongs are undoubtedly committed daily over there, many to our own U.S. troops, and that breaks my heart. However, it does not justify such actions. In order to stop such atrocities someone must be the bigger party and say ENOUGH!
The United States is supposed to be that party, and with any luck, it still
can be.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Julia Ugarte at 11:29 AM |
May 07, 2004
| Christian calling |
In case you missed it, our president appeared on Christian TV last night to celebrate National Prayer Day. Apparently the Evangelical Television Circuit is running low on qualified public speakers.
Bad speeches aside, Christian TV doesn't appear too concerned with the consistency of the Christian message they intend to spread. When the president of the United States is the best moral leader they can find, you know the network has really lowered the bar.
My impression of a good Christian is someone who actually lives up to the standards they promote.
Bush talks the talk, much to the joy of those who already agree with what he says before he says it. But an obvious examination of his actions shows somebody who is very out of step with the core message of the Bible.
Bush's environmental policies result in the poisoning of his people. His favorship for corporate polluters at the expense of the general public is essentially a slow death sentence for many Americans, liberal or conservative. Review his reclassifications for Mercury emissions under the Clean Air Act if you need a better idea.
The Bible seems to beat the idea of helping the less fortunate over the head, yet Bush's tax breaks obviously favor those who are already taken care of. The Bible doesn't rationalize survival of the fittest or any of that heartless Darwinian swill.
In the words of a May 6th editorial in the Washington Post, "What kind of Christian exaggerates military intelligence to manipulate public opinion so people will support war?"
I've got the answer, a cheap Christian, a man whose actions aren't Christian, but his words pander to a hungry demographic looking for something strong to follow. Bush's alliance with Christianity only hurts its cause and hinders the credibility of good Christians who want to practice what they preach.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 03:35 PM |
| Re: More on: The Biggest domestic crisis? |
I'll agree with Daniel Thies that it's overtly hypocritical to cite the Bible to argue that homosexuality is a sin while not ascribing to a religion. The Bible isn't a pick-and-choose document -- you sort of have to either accept it or reject it.
Imagine if we took the U.S. Constitution and said that we like most of it but we'll disregard parts of the document. Now imagine doing something like that to the Bible, which is divinely inspired. Pulling a Thomas Jefferson is pretty impossible when the Bible itself speaks to its own credibility.
This brings up my second point. I understand that "cultural Christianity" is rampant in American society. It's a clinging to an institution, community or human-inspired feeling that keeps us comfortable and confident. It's also a big problem.
It results in stubborn beliefs -- many of them conservative -- that are backed only by the values their parents taught them, for example. It also results in pick-and-choose beliefs that are based on personal reasoning and impressions.
For example, I'd really have to question my Christian beliefs if I believed that both person A, who believed Jesus would not consider murder a sin, and person B, who believed that Jesus would consider murder a sin, are both "right," but just have varying opinions. One of these views would represent a non-Christian view.
Before I continue the analogy, let me just make the disclaimer that I do not regard murder and homosexuality as anything near the same thing or holding the same immoral equivalence. I want to be clear about that. With that said, it also makes sense that two people with divergent views on homosexuality can't both be holding Christian views (the Bible speaks pretty clearly about homosexuality).
I completely agree that it's important to question our own views -- whether religious, political, etc. Introspection is vital for understanding what's true and what's just impression. I don't understand, however, how we can look at Jesus' life and what the Bible says and conclude that practicing homosexuality is consistent with Christian beliefs.
I'm trying to not make this a personal attack. I think it's extremely important to keep talking about this since it represents the contrasts between the two types of Christianity I keep referring to -- cultural Christianity and Biblical Christianity. That's why, I think, many of the 20,000 ralliers showed up last weekend to support the idea of what marriage means -- a bond between a man and a woman. That's why allowing gay marriage would be "anti-marriage," or at least against what marriage should be.
This really is an issue of our generation. It also represents a much deeper conflict than seems apparent on its surface. Let's keep blogging on this one.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Chris Collins at 03:18 PM |
May 06, 2004
| More on: The biggest domestic crisis? |
When Chris Collins asks if it's simply Biblical interpretation that defines homophobia, I would have to argue that it's often the other way around. In far
too many cases, I have heard otherwise non-religious folks defend their homophobic views with Biblical passages. I suppose when examining these individuals, the question of which came first -- their homophobic attitude or the Biblical shelter they hide under when backing it up -- is up for discussion.
Still, the sorry fact remains that much of the existing homophobia in this world is based on fear, not faith.
Of course, there are people whose views on sexuality and marriage are in fact based on a solid religious foundation. I have no doubt that many of the people at Safeco Field harbor no real animosity toward homosexuals, but simply find the gay lifestyle to be out of step with Biblical teachings. That's fine. That's their constitutional perogative.
My initial, constitutionally protected reaction to the Safeco Field event was less out of contempt for these people's religious views, though I did feel some, but more out of disgust that with so many more important struggles in the world, 20,000 people can still find time on a Saturday afternoon to go on the offensive over a matter that doesn't really matter.
Believe what you will, but not one of those individual's lives will be changed the day gays are allowed to marry.
I am not a non-religious person, but I, like many fellow Christians, have often questioned and challenged my own beliefs. Because of this, my faith has been strengthened and my beliefs reinforced. I believe that blind, unchallenged faith can be harmful, even dangerous.
I'm not sure if Chris Collins is referring to me personally, or the gay community at large when he asks if he can call "them" anti-marriage advocates. Either way, I would call that a wholly inaccurate description. Speaking for myself, I also believe in the sanctity and importance of marriage. I consider it a sacred institution, whether civil or religious -- and I want in.
I don't understand how the gay community's struggle for equal marriage rights qualifies them as anti-marriage. By fighting for a broader definition of marriage that would include same-sex couples, we're simply doing what Jesus would do: challenging the status-quo.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 01:46 PM |
| Why not Bush? |
Hesse's request for reasons to vote against Bush other than "just standard 'but he's bad' whining," and the fact that he comes off as a complete idiot when he has to speak for himself, here are a few:
Click here. Granted, I think it is unfair to blame Bush for the economic recession or economic factors beyond his control, but I think it is fair to blame him for the ways he made things worse rather than better.
Click here. A little more detail handily broken down by areas of interest. Ain't technology wonderful?
And here. He's killing us softly with his policies on the environment.
And here. Corporate ethics? Er, I misunderstandify the questioning.
Click here. Oh, I thought science was, like, subjective.
And here. There's nothing to see here. We are quietly stripping away your rights. Please go about your business. (This is presented by a liberal-leaning organization).
And finally, click here. Here's an example of the types of people Bush puts in charge of your country, your tax dollars, your health, and more. Long-time family friends, a person who lobbied against the government protecting the environment as our Secretary of the Interior, a person who tried to abolish the Energy Department as our Secretary of Energy, etc. Gotta' love it.
Of course, the question then becomes why vote for Kerry? Well, there's the fact that he has a long and at least reasonably laudable history of service to our country in the military, as an activist, and as a Senator, and he couldn't possibly be worse for us and our country than Bush. I don't have much else to offer except his own website.
And just to be fair, here's what Bush has to say for himself (and against Kerry). Of course, given what he said last campaign, I'm not sure how much you can actually believe.
Of course, both of these sites are extremely biased and spinning things in their own favor.
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 01:30 PM |
May 05, 2004
| Re: Corporate swine |
Gavin Hesse is correct in that both sides of the political party include, and are funded by, wealthy individuals and corporations.
News flash -- it takes a lot of money to run for president.
Putting aside the question of how Heiger represented Bush's corporate ties, the important question is not who has received funding from corporations, but rather how has that funding affected the politician's votes and policies? And to some degree, how has the level of influence on the politician's votes and policies in turn led to favoritism of one party over the other in average donations (in other words, both parties get money from company X, but which party gets the far larger donation?).
I could argue that "rich hollywood stars" donating to Kerry may influence him to approve tax breaks on plastic surgery expenses, but that Bush's top donors being from industries like oil and gas, automotive, banking and health professionals might influence policies that have a more dire effect on my life.
Still, arguing the relative "goodness" or "badness" of donors is largely subjective. Again, the important thing is not as much where the money comes from (although this does still matter), but rather what the politician does with, or to earn, the money.
Here are some sites to compare such information:
The Center for Public Integrity.org
Project Vote Smart
Commondreams.org
Respond to this posting
|
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 05:50 PM |
| Re: The biggest domestic crisis? |
I was a little surprised when I heard that my parents attended the 20,000-strong pro-marriage (as in, not "anti-gay") rally held last weekend -- mostly because my parents aren't exactly the political-rally type. But I think it illustrates just how important the homosexuality debate is to people from all walks of life, even those who don't normally participate in rallies and protests.
I agree with Daniel's argument that James Dobson may have overlooked the issues of terrorism, poverty and abortion, for example, before concluding that homosexuality is the most controversial issue since slavery. But at its roots, the current marriage debate pits a view of biblical Christianity against cultural Christianity and many other religious and secular views.
That's why it's so divisive.
And it's a good observation that no conflict erupted between the two groups of protesters. Maybe that really says something about the marriage-ralliers' peaceful intentions.
Citing the biblical reference to no one "casting the first stone" is a good point, too. I don't think most of the pro-marriage ralliers would say they are perfect and sinless, but to stand up for their religious beliefs is actually a basic freedom guaranteed in the Constitution. Taking advantage of that freedom and defending a clear teaching in the Bible is not a crime.
Honestly, I don't understand why some -- can I call them anti-marriage advocates? -- have a gut reaction to rallies like these and immediately assume all 20,000 ralliers (including my parents) are out there to express visceral, homophobic views. If homophobia is simply saying that you believe in the Bible, then this country is set for a clash of phobias.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 05:36 PM |
| Duh...hold a clothing drive |
Not everyone has the time and inspiration to work side-by-side with street youth and the poor. But at least, as college students, we can do something as simple as tossing our old clothes in a box to help the needy.
As blogger Matt Rosenberg points out, the University of Michigan collects roughly 10,000 pounds of clothing, 2,100 pounds of shoes and 1,700 pounds of bedding and blankets left behind by students moving out of campus residence halls, according to the Ann Arbor News .
My dorm is holding a clothing drive right now and there are loads of clothes overflowing from the donor boxes. Grabbing the unused pants, sweaters and coats from last winter could easily go to the homeless –- and not to the dorm
clean-up crew.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Chris Collins at 12:24 PM |
| Corporate swine? |
Exactly what corporate swine is John Heiger referring to that Bush has affiliated himself with? Are we just talking about rich people because of the tax cuts? If so, why do all those rich Hollywood stars fawn over Kerry? Who is George Soros if not a rich billionaire? Or is it that Bush is in bed with the “bad” CEOs, while Kerry accepts millions from the “good” CEOs?
Is there some actual data on these corporate swine that lift Bush into political victories? Isn’t it a little more realistic to say the truth...that rich people are affiliated with both parties? Perhaps that’s not offensive enough to say...at least not by a fellow Christian fanatic.
Also, in response to Randy Henderson, I agree with only one of the many standard liberal Bush attacks you listed: the environment. If Kerry were to push forward a real environmental plan (which he tried to do a couple of weeks ago, but failed miserably, as he seems to do every time he has a “major policy speech”), I would be much more inclined to listen to him.
Right now, however, both candidates are focused on Iraq. The choice appears to be the “stay the course” Bush or the “stay the course” Kerry.
As for the economy and other social issues, Kerry has yet listed a realistic cost for those plans (or what most of those plans truly are) and the taxes needed to pay for them. So basically, Randy seems to be arguing for Kerry because he’s a better public speaker (which I don’t entirely agree, since watching Kerry is about as exciting as watching UWTV), has better reasons for flip-flopping, and because he’s not George W. Bush.
Still looks eerily like the election of ’96 to me. I believe I remember that correctly -- incensed opposition party, boring-as-hell candidate with lengthy Senate experience and war hero credentials. I believe I remember how that one turned out, too.
Seriously, I do consider myself a swing voter. I entered this election year ready to choose a candidate other than Bush. All I read about from any liberal is just standard “but he’s bad!” whining. Give me a reason more than “because I said so,” and I’ll listen.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Gavin Hesse at 12:19 PM |
| The biggest domestic crisis? |
While at work last Saturday, I heard from a colleague that a huge rally would be taking place that day. Considering that Saturday was the one-year anniversary of President Bush's ill-concieved "mission accomplished" spectacle, and my store's adjacency to the Jackson Federal Building downtown, I prepared myself for what I assumed was going to be an enormous anti-war demonstration right at our doorstep.
To my surprise, and relief, I found out from the next day's Seattle Times that the event had nothing to do with such an irrelevant matter as the war in Iraq,
but was in fact a good 'ol fashion, 20,000-strong, tent-revival-style queer bash.
Thousands of the Puget Sound region's faithful gathered at Safeco Field to defend the institution of traditional marriage from a homosexual agenda bent on obliterating the foundation of everything good and pure in this country.
James Dobson, of the Focus on the Family organization, and the most eloquent featured speaker of the event, put it best, calling the fight against same-sex marriage "the most difficult issue to face Americans since the Civil war."
Damn right.
Forget about Iraq, terrorism, illegal immigration, the economy, crime, pollution, poverty and, oh say, an over-50 percent divorce rate. The issue of gay marriage is the single biggest domestic crisis since slavery!!
As we all know, this rally had everything to do with love and the peaceful, tolerant teachings of Jesus Christ, and nothing to do with homophobia. The
attendees don't hate homosexuals; they just disapprove of their unrighteous, unnatural lifestyle. Of course, they weren't passing any kind of judement on the sin of the gay lifestyle; only spreading the word of God.
With as many as 3,000 counter-demonstrators outside, there were surprisingly few meaningful confrontations. While an event like this could quickly descend into a rock fight, things remained relatively peaceful.
Apparently, no one could be found to cast the first stone.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Daniel Thies at 10:50 AM |
May 03, 2004
| Re: Fantasy Camp |
Brent, thanks for responding to my "Summer of discontent" blog. Just to set some things straight: The FCC is run by Colin Powell's son -- hardly independent. Forget trashy Janet Jackson; look at the bigger picture and examine the FCC's heightened fines on radio broadcasters who don't toe the party line.
The typical young Republican may have an overwhelmingly uptight sense of humor, but they should still appreciate a free society's need for a variety of entertainment voices and perspectives. Otherwise they invest zero faith in the intelligence of their masses.
A progressive society can differentiate between smut and quality and should be allowed to make its own decisions.
While some may want the government to hold their hands and tell them what's what, us big kids like to make our own decisions.
As for Bush, he is both a Christian fanatic and an embracer of corporate swine. Regarding his support of the average consumer at the same time, that's a "ridiculous juxtapostion" even the right shouldn't get jiggy with.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:56 PM |
| Accomplished? |
Just a reminder: last weekend marked the one-year anniversary of Bush's awe-inspiring landing on the USS Lincoln where he declared, "Mission Accomplished!"
This just in...U.S. soldiers are dying at an alarming rate in Iraq. I don't know what the president's definition of "accomplished" is, but I think somebody better get that guy a dictionary.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by John Hieger at 12:35 PM |
| Re: Fantasy camp |
Is Kerry perfect? Of course not. No politician is. He does have plans, but unfortunately he spreads himself way too thin attempting to give his two cents on every news headline, doesn't do a good enough job tying his comments back into a central message, and isn't overly inspiring.
Does that mean he would make worse choices than Bush though?
At least Kerry's not as bad of a public speaker as Bush -- that is, when Bush has to actually speak for himself, not just read a carefully prepared speech or answer carefully rehearsed questions.
And most of the "flip flop" image is thanks to conservatives confusing the facts, and spending a lot of money to do so. Bush opposed nation building in his campaign, but now is the king of nation building. Bush ran as a compassionate conservative, and promptly dropped the compassionate part when selected.
Things change, and that was true for Kerry as well as Bush. Further, Kerry's votes are understandable if you bother to look at the actual reasons for those votes.
But since when are presidential elections really about voting for the best person in the nation to lead it? They almost always come down to what we have here -- voting for the less evil of two compromises.
So while Ludeman is slamming that "dolt" Kerry, he should also look at that incomparable genius Bush, who says things like the famous "Fool me once" quote, then pick the less doltish.
Bush struts across aircraft carriers to declare an end to major combat while soldiers continue to die, promises increases in federal tuition assistance after having just slashed it behind closed doors, increases poisons in our water and air, cripples us economically, and more goodness.
Before September 11th Bush was bumbling along and dropping rapidly in popularity. If 9-11 had not happened, there would be no question today that selecting Bush was a horrible mistake. And with September 11th, I still think Bush is not the best person to lead us forward.
In the end, Ludeman can form selective and rhetorical attacks against Hieger's more colorful choice of words, but the position he is defending is itself pretty weak, and the larger facts do not favor Ludeman's side of the extremist political war. |
| Posted by Randy Henderson at 12:27 PM |
| Teaching Students Not to be Pirates |
I was shocked and amused when I read this article in Wired.
The Motion Picture Association of America is funding school programs that teach the ethics of file-sharing. These programs seem like nothing more than guilt tripping kids into anti-piracy.
But the whoa-is-me attitude of Hollywood is a tough sell. When all you see from the entertainment industry is the lavish lifestyle, how are downloaders supposed to feel bad about saving 10 bucks by skipping the movie theater?
The ethics of Internet piracy is an important topic of debate, but an MPAA-funded school program is not the right format.
Respond to this posting |
| Posted by Andrew Avery at 11:59 AM |
|
Back to top