Let me preface this note by saying that I respect your right to participate in such an event and respect that you are getting involved in a cause you believe in.
Now let's get down to business.
I do not know the motivation behind your decision to participate. For some of you, it is certainly a religious stand and I do not begrudge your freedom to express your religious beliefs. I respect those of you who have truly thought about the issue of abortion and have made a conscientious decision to hold the views that you do. Remarks in this note are not primarily directed toward you. I believe that the best way to resolve the issue is constructive discussion between those of differing opinions.
The aforementioned group I hold in esteem. Some other members of the conservative community do not show such tolerance, however. Believe it or not, those with pro-choice beliefs suffer considerable discrimination from those on the other side, however much organizations want to promote the idea of "anti-Christian hate". I have lost track of the number of times we have been denigrated as murderers and baby-killers. We are stereotyped as having no morals, as if conservative Christians were granted authority to self-righteously judge the values of all other people. The very terms "pro-life" and "pro-abortion" themselves have highly insulting implications. Am I "pro-death" if I support a woman's right to choose an abortion as an option of last resort? Am I anti-life? Because a majority of this country supports legal abortion (with varying degrees of restrictions) and by your standards, this country as a whole is "pro-death" or "anti-life".
Barack Obama said on 5 October 2004 at Benedictine University that "No one is pro-abortion". Think about that for a moment. That's right. Contrary to what some on the right may believe, we do not want more abortions. We do not want abortion to become a form of birth control. How many abortions would you like to be carried out in America? Zero? That's what I thought, because that's what I would like as well. That's what Bill Clinton said some years ago as he reprimanded a crowd of pro-choice supporters who cheered a legal victory. Let me repeat. NO ONE IS PRO-ABORTION.
We all share a goal of reducing the need for a woman to have an abortion. We all would love to live in a country where no vulnerable woman is pressured into having unprotected sex. There are just differing approaches on how to best reduce the number of abortions: through education and aid, or through a legal ban. You must understand this if there is to be a viable effort to reduce the number of abortions, we must understand each other. There are those on my side of the fence who do not care for the opinions of others, just as some people on your side. I disown those individuals. As much as I may disagree with you, I will show you respect and try to win you over through civil discussion. But if you call pro-choicers baby-killers and try to claim moral superiority, I can not reason with you. If you think we want abortions to be as widespread as the pill, I can not reason with you. While I respect the right of Silent Solidarity students to hold events, I cannot give credence to the actions of many of the participants. I am sorry for those of you who are not guilty of the accusations I have made, there are just too many among you who are. I cannot help but view the protest as a slight against the pro-choice community, despite the noble intentions of some of you.
Thank you for taking the time to read my note. Hopefully, this will clarify some misconceptions and move us further in the quest to reduce the number of abortions to zero.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
John McCain's acceptance speech
Let me preface the rest of this post by listing the points of McCain's speech that I liked.
-The Iraq vet protesters with the "McCain votes against vets" sign
-Nuclear power
-Double the child tax exemption
That's all that I could find in my notes, there are probably a few more.
Now let's move on to the lies. I'll stick to the lies that I can debunk off the top of my head.
-"You have my respect..."-to Obama campaign: So all the personal attacks? That's respect? Wow, Obama should really be more respectful to McCain, shouldn't he?
-Palin's tax cuts: As far as I know, Palin did not cut taxes. Alaska has no state income or sales tax. She did give a $1200 tax rebate per citizen from oil money. A technicality but there is a difference.
-"The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt...": Yeah about that...you know blacks supported Lincoln. Southerners hated him. Robber barons hated Roosevelt. You know that thing called civil rights? Started with Lincoln. Oh and Lincoln instituted the first income tax. Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt my ass.
-Will appoint judges who don't legislate from the bench: So let me get this straight. When judges say that withholding habeas rights from prisoners at Gitmo, it's legislating from the bench. When judges say that a handgun ban is unconstitutional, it's doing their duty. When judges say that abortion is legal, it's legislating from the bench. But when you appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, it's not legislating from the bench? And since when could judges make law anyway? I should invite John McCain to my gov class.
-Obama will raise taxes: On Bill Gates maybe. Hell, the McCains even get a $5,641 tax break under Obama and they make 6 million bucks a year. I keep wondering why Obama doesn't hit McCain for this lie that he's repeated over and over in ad after ad.
-Obama will tax small businesses to force them to cut jobs: Didn't McCain listen to Obama's acceptance speech? Obama specifically mentioned a small business tax cut.
-Obama wants to bring back old jobs and McCain new ones: Apparently McCain doesn't watch much TV. He might have seen that Obama ad that says that we can retrain workers from the old economy to build a new one.
-Obama wants schools to answer to unions and bureaucrats: See above. And also, remember that crazy idea to eliminate tenure in exchange for higher salaries for competent teachers? That was Obama. This section on education I felt was extremely similar to Obama's during his acceptance speech.
===
That's all for the blatant lies. There were plenty of other semi-contradictory statements and positions I just don't agree with in the speech. Those may come later.
-The Iraq vet protesters with the "McCain votes against vets" sign
-Nuclear power
-Double the child tax exemption
That's all that I could find in my notes, there are probably a few more.
Now let's move on to the lies. I'll stick to the lies that I can debunk off the top of my head.
-"You have my respect..."-to Obama campaign: So all the personal attacks? That's respect? Wow, Obama should really be more respectful to McCain, shouldn't he?
-Palin's tax cuts: As far as I know, Palin did not cut taxes. Alaska has no state income or sales tax. She did give a $1200 tax rebate per citizen from oil money. A technicality but there is a difference.
-"The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt...": Yeah about that...you know blacks supported Lincoln. Southerners hated him. Robber barons hated Roosevelt. You know that thing called civil rights? Started with Lincoln. Oh and Lincoln instituted the first income tax. Party of Lincoln and Roosevelt my ass.
-Will appoint judges who don't legislate from the bench: So let me get this straight. When judges say that withholding habeas rights from prisoners at Gitmo, it's legislating from the bench. When judges say that a handgun ban is unconstitutional, it's doing their duty. When judges say that abortion is legal, it's legislating from the bench. But when you appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade, it's not legislating from the bench? And since when could judges make law anyway? I should invite John McCain to my gov class.
-Obama will raise taxes: On Bill Gates maybe. Hell, the McCains even get a $5,641 tax break under Obama and they make 6 million bucks a year. I keep wondering why Obama doesn't hit McCain for this lie that he's repeated over and over in ad after ad.
-Obama will tax small businesses to force them to cut jobs: Didn't McCain listen to Obama's acceptance speech? Obama specifically mentioned a small business tax cut.
-Obama wants to bring back old jobs and McCain new ones: Apparently McCain doesn't watch much TV. He might have seen that Obama ad that says that we can retrain workers from the old economy to build a new one.
-Obama wants schools to answer to unions and bureaucrats: See above. And also, remember that crazy idea to eliminate tenure in exchange for higher salaries for competent teachers? That was Obama. This section on education I felt was extremely similar to Obama's during his acceptance speech.
===
That's all for the blatant lies. There were plenty of other semi-contradictory statements and positions I just don't agree with in the speech. Those may come later.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Palin's daughter pregnant
Yes, Palin's daughter is pregnant. No, it should not have anything to do with the campaign.
This announcement will make more waves with the very religious conservatives that McCain is supposedly reaching out to, than with moderates and Democrats who do not believe that family matters should be dragged into politics.
I severely criticize the rumormongers that have been circulating the rumor around liberal blogs that Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter. But for Republicans to call foul and say Obama is behind the rumors (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true )...just as despicable. I applaud the mainstream media for at least placing Hurricane Gustav as the priority news item.
It goes to show the laserlike focus of our media that this has been picked up. To me, it is yet another family issue that shouldn't be in the media at all (guess I'm guilty of talking about it too). The nation should just let it go. Cheney has a lesbian daughter. Does it matter at all?
I will be severely disappointed if the Obama campaign does anything except offer its condolences to the Palin family. I will also be severely disappointed if the McCain campaign continues to link Obama's name to every piece of trash that comes out of the blogosphere.
Let's just let it go.
This announcement will make more waves with the very religious conservatives that McCain is supposedly reaching out to, than with moderates and Democrats who do not believe that family matters should be dragged into politics.
I severely criticize the rumormongers that have been circulating the rumor around liberal blogs that Palin faked a pregnancy to cover up for her daughter. But for Republicans to call foul and say Obama is behind the rumors (http://www.reuters.com/art
It goes to show the laserlike focus of our media that this has been picked up. To me, it is yet another family issue that shouldn't be in the media at all (guess I'm guilty of talking about it too). The nation should just let it go. Cheney has a lesbian daughter. Does it matter at all?
I will be severely disappointed if the Obama campaign does anything except offer its condolences to the Palin family. I will also be severely disappointed if the McCain campaign continues to link Obama's name to every piece of trash that comes out of the blogosphere.
Let's just let it go.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Re: Obama Picks Biden
The following is a response to my post: Obama Picks Biden. Following that will be my counterresponse.
===Response===
First of all, I want to congradulate Biden for his vp nomination. I personally thought that Hillary Clinton could of brought the same message that Biden brought and more. She could of united the Democratic party and could of carried 18 million votes compared to Biden's 5,000. That's my opinion though. Biden is a good man and I respect him.
I want to mention this constant lie that McCain is like Bush. This is my message to Obama and others who think the same. Bush is not running this year, GET OVER IT! On the environment, U.S. diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, McCain has strikingly different views from Bush. And although he shares the president's goals in Iraq, he was always an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
Speaking of Iraq, the only reason why the White House now supports a withdrawel plan is because McCain's plan has worked. Obama wanted to pull out troops in a time that many though that Americans were losing the war in Iraq. We are now winning, and the Iraqis are beginning to stabilize the region by themselves, so Obama's plan works well now. The problem is that Obama wanted to pull out during a time that Iraq was in complete chaos. McCain was the first and one of the only men in the senate to push for the idea of the surge, and it now shows that he was right.
Back to the differences between McCain and Bush. McCain advocates the end to the detention of foreign terrorists in Cuba. Bush on the other hand thinks they should remain open. Unlike Bush, McCain is against any forced interrogation methods, such as Water-boarding. A week after the storm, McCain blasted Bush administration for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
There are other differences between McCain and Bush, but I think the most important difference is that Bush is clearly incompetent and McCain, though not perfect has shown clear competence. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House.
Secondly, Joe Biden is a good friend of John McCain. Biden said in many debates that Obama lacked experience. This could hurt the Obama campaign dramatically. He also said HIMSELF that he would be honored to campaign with or against McCain.
Although Biden has good foreign policy experience, he is the vp, not the president. I want a commander in chief, not someone who needs a mentor. Barack Obama is the president and he is going to have to make decisions on his own. He can't ask Biden for advise on every issue.
I will talk more about this topic, but I have to go to work right now.
===My Response===
You are correct that McCain differs from George Bush on diplomacy. Meaning he is even more of a neocon. Bush (or someone in his administration) has finally realized that diplomacy with hostile nations is the only way to solve problems, whereas McCain has repeated the "we deal with hostile nations with bombs not words" rhetoric.
You are also correct that the surge has worked and that McCain was correct about it. You do not remember the point I have made countless times before-that it is not the surge that determines one's judgement, it is the initial decision on the war. Obama stands alone in opposing the war from the beginning. Joe Biden himself has never come out and criticized the president for misleading the country into war, he has done what McCain has done and simply criticized its execution. This war could quite well produce a democratic paradise in Iraq. The country has forgotten that Bush did not take us into war to build a democracy. He took us into war to find weapons of mass destruction that he knew were not there. The tactics of the surge are up to the generals. Having knowledge of military strategy is far from a requirement to be president. I would much rather have someone who listens to advisors and can make a reasoned decision. The decision to go to war in the first place was the one that rested with the president. And Obama was right about that most important decision.
You must realize that calling McCain a Bush clone does not mean every single decision he will make will be the same. It is a way of pointing out McCain's vocal support for many of Bush's policies and his silence in opposing others. Biden today mentioned privatized social security. If you go to McCain's website, you will find that his health care plan is more of Bush's "more options" plan and none of the Democrats' socialized medicine. You will find that McCain wants to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision by appointing conservative judges. You will find that McCain does not support embryonic stem cell research to quickly find new cures for diseases. You will find a tax plan that gives more breaks to the wealthy than to the poor. I will not debate the merits of these positions here but I would like to point out that they look a lot like Bush's policies. On issues such as corruption, the environment, and the general competence of a McCain administration, he is much better than Bush and is as much of a change as Obama is. But those issues are less important than the economy, healthcare, and Iraq in the eyes of the voters. I agree, calling McCain a Bush clone does not do him justice. You could not have said that about the John McCain of 2000 or 2004. But his positions have moved more in line with Bush recently and I am really dismayed that such a great public servant has become the man he is today. McCain=Bush is not completely true. But it's a useful summary of many of his positions and it's good politics. It's better than much of the trash coming from the right.
Biden's past comments will do nothing to hurt Obama. In 1980, George H. W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" before he joined him as his vice president. It didn't hurt Reagan at all. Even though his plan of lowering taxes and increasing spending was total bullshit and eventually led to a HUGE deficit (not nearly Bush-sized), the voters didn't care about Bush 41's comments.
You need to remember that Hillary Clinton comes with a lot of people who hate her simply because she is Hillary Clinton. She comes with a lot more haters than new Obama voters. And she comes with a Bill Clinton who cannot be controlled by Obama. Although she is a great leader, it would not be politically feasible for Obama to pick her as VP. Besides, do you really think Clinton would tolerate being VP? She has much more clout in the Senate where she will most likely rise to leadership after the campaign. You will not catch a Clinton playing second fiddle to anyone.
I challenge you to show me an occasion where Obama has showed ignorance on foreign policy issues. Show me where he has erred (excluding the surge, I already addressed that) and showed that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't need to have served for a huge amount of time to know what's going on in the world. That's why the president has such a huge bureaucracy to aid him and give him information. I would much rather have a smart person who has smarter advisors as president. You don't have to know everything. John McCain knows absolutely nothing about the economy and has admitted it many times. Do you hold that against him? Henry Kissinger did pretty much all of Nixon's foreign policy. Does that detract from Nixon's accomplishments (visit to China, end of Vietnam)? You get the same result.
You will have to do better than say "Obama doesn't have experience" to convince me that his views are wrong. If people don't agree with his views, they won't care how much experience McCain has. Bush has one of the most experienced administrations in history. And you know how that turned out. People don't buy the experience argument as much as they used to.
===Response===
First of all, I want to congradulate Biden for his vp nomination. I personally thought that Hillary Clinton could of brought the same message that Biden brought and more. She could of united the Democratic party and could of carried 18 million votes compared to Biden's 5,000. That's my opinion though. Biden is a good man and I respect him.
I want to mention this constant lie that McCain is like Bush. This is my message to Obama and others who think the same. Bush is not running this year, GET OVER IT! On the environment, U.S. diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, McCain has strikingly different views from Bush. And although he shares the president's goals in Iraq, he was always an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
Speaking of Iraq, the only reason why the White House now supports a withdrawel plan is because McCain's plan has worked. Obama wanted to pull out troops in a time that many though that Americans were losing the war in Iraq. We are now winning, and the Iraqis are beginning to stabilize the region by themselves, so Obama's plan works well now. The problem is that Obama wanted to pull out during a time that Iraq was in complete chaos. McCain was the first and one of the only men in the senate to push for the idea of the surge, and it now shows that he was right.
Back to the differences between McCain and Bush. McCain advocates the end to the detention of foreign terrorists in Cuba. Bush on the other hand thinks they should remain open. Unlike Bush, McCain is against any forced interrogation methods, such as Water-boarding. A week after the storm, McCain blasted Bush administration for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
There are other differences between McCain and Bush, but I think the most important difference is that Bush is clearly incompetent and McCain, though not perfect has shown clear competence. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House.
Secondly, Joe Biden is a good friend of John McCain. Biden said in many debates that Obama lacked experience. This could hurt the Obama campaign dramatically. He also said HIMSELF that he would be honored to campaign with or against McCain.
Although Biden has good foreign policy experience, he is the vp, not the president. I want a commander in chief, not someone who needs a mentor. Barack Obama is the president and he is going to have to make decisions on his own. He can't ask Biden for advise on every issue.
I will talk more about this topic, but I have to go to work right now.
===My Response===
You are correct that McCain differs from George Bush on diplomacy. Meaning he is even more of a neocon. Bush (or someone in his administration) has finally realized that diplomacy with hostile nations is the only way to solve problems, whereas McCain has repeated the "we deal with hostile nations with bombs not words" rhetoric.
You are also correct that the surge has worked and that McCain was correct about it. You do not remember the point I have made countless times before-that it is not the surge that determines one's judgement, it is the initial decision on the war. Obama stands alone in opposing the war from the beginning. Joe Biden himself has never come out and criticized the president for misleading the country into war, he has done what McCain has done and simply criticized its execution. This war could quite well produce a democratic paradise in Iraq. The country has forgotten that Bush did not take us into war to build a democracy. He took us into war to find weapons of mass destruction that he knew were not there. The tactics of the surge are up to the generals. Having knowledge of military strategy is far from a requirement to be president. I would much rather have someone who listens to advisors and can make a reasoned decision. The decision to go to war in the first place was the one that rested with the president. And Obama was right about that most important decision.
You must realize that calling McCain a Bush clone does not mean every single decision he will make will be the same. It is a way of pointing out McCain's vocal support for many of Bush's policies and his silence in opposing others. Biden today mentioned privatized social security. If you go to McCain's website, you will find that his health care plan is more of Bush's "more options" plan and none of the Democrats' socialized medicine. You will find that McCain wants to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision by appointing conservative judges. You will find that McCain does not support embryonic stem cell research to quickly find new cures for diseases. You will find a tax plan that gives more breaks to the wealthy than to the poor. I will not debate the merits of these positions here but I would like to point out that they look a lot like Bush's policies. On issues such as corruption, the environment, and the general competence of a McCain administration, he is much better than Bush and is as much of a change as Obama is. But those issues are less important than the economy, healthcare, and Iraq in the eyes of the voters. I agree, calling McCain a Bush clone does not do him justice. You could not have said that about the John McCain of 2000 or 2004. But his positions have moved more in line with Bush recently and I am really dismayed that such a great public servant has become the man he is today. McCain=Bush is not completely true. But it's a useful summary of many of his positions and it's good politics. It's better than much of the trash coming from the right.
Biden's past comments will do nothing to hurt Obama. In 1980, George H. W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" before he joined him as his vice president. It didn't hurt Reagan at all. Even though his plan of lowering taxes and increasing spending was total bullshit and eventually led to a HUGE deficit (not nearly Bush-sized), the voters didn't care about Bush 41's comments.
You need to remember that Hillary Clinton comes with a lot of people who hate her simply because she is Hillary Clinton. She comes with a lot more haters than new Obama voters. And she comes with a Bill Clinton who cannot be controlled by Obama. Although she is a great leader, it would not be politically feasible for Obama to pick her as VP. Besides, do you really think Clinton would tolerate being VP? She has much more clout in the Senate where she will most likely rise to leadership after the campaign. You will not catch a Clinton playing second fiddle to anyone.
I challenge you to show me an occasion where Obama has showed ignorance on foreign policy issues. Show me where he has erred (excluding the surge, I already addressed that) and showed that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't need to have served for a huge amount of time to know what's going on in the world. That's why the president has such a huge bureaucracy to aid him and give him information. I would much rather have a smart person who has smarter advisors as president. You don't have to know everything. John McCain knows absolutely nothing about the economy and has admitted it many times. Do you hold that against him? Henry Kissinger did pretty much all of Nixon's foreign policy. Does that detract from Nixon's accomplishments (visit to China, end of Vietnam)? You get the same result.
You will have to do better than say "Obama doesn't have experience" to convince me that his views are wrong. If people don't agree with his views, they won't care how much experience McCain has. Bush has one of the most experienced administrations in history. And you know how that turned out. People don't buy the experience argument as much as they used to.
Obama Picks Biden
Unfortunately the Obama text message was sent at 3:23 AM so I wasn't able to report on this immediately.
Out of the names that were floating around, Biden was the one person who could turn around the slump that Obama's been having recently. Last week he dropped below McCain in the RealClearPolitics electoral vote count. McCain's lies and whines have been working.
Obama needs someone to strike back, and Biden has certainly shown a willingness to attack when he needs to. He might screw up once in a while but that's better than not saying anything at all.
McCain will also no longer be able to use his greatest weapon-his foreign policy "credentials". Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he supported the Iraq War. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but it is Obama's plan for withdrawal that has been vaguely endorsed by American generals and Iraqi politicians. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he does not realize that "surrender" is not an option in Iraq because we are not fighting a group that it is possible to surrender to. It's not quite that bad yet, but we're getting to the point that we can say McCain's sentences are composed of a noun, a verb, and "I was a prisoner of war". Not to say that McCain cheated at Saddleback (I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt), but what does being a prisoner of war have to do with that? War heroes can't cheat? What ever happened to Duke Cunningham? Or that guy Benedict Arnold? Of course I'm not comparing McCain to either of those people, but he can't keep using the prisoner of war card like it's a get out of jail free card. I see him using that tactic far more than Obama has pulled his race card.
I just hope that the Obama-Biden joint appearance today will be the start of a new campaign phase, where the Democrats actually get their act together and go attack the other candidate. And we can attack McCain with truth, instead of the lies he's using. You can't pull the prisoner of war card on the truth.
Out of the names that were floating around, Biden was the one person who could turn around the slump that Obama's been having recently. Last week he dropped below McCain in the RealClearPolitics electoral vote count. McCain's lies and whines have been working.
Obama needs someone to strike back, and Biden has certainly shown a willingness to attack when he needs to. He might screw up once in a while but that's better than not saying anything at all.
McCain will also no longer be able to use his greatest weapon-his foreign policy "credentials". Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he supported the Iraq War. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but it is Obama's plan for withdrawal that has been vaguely endorsed by American generals and Iraqi politicians. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he does not realize that "surrender" is not an option in Iraq because we are not fighting a group that it is possible to surrender to. It's not quite that bad yet, but we're getting to the point that we can say McCain's sentences are composed of a noun, a verb, and "I was a prisoner of war". Not to say that McCain cheated at Saddleback (I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt), but what does being a prisoner of war have to do with that? War heroes can't cheat? What ever happened to Duke Cunningham? Or that guy Benedict Arnold? Of course I'm not comparing McCain to either of those people, but he can't keep using the prisoner of war card like it's a get out of jail free card. I see him using that tactic far more than Obama has pulled his race card.
I just hope that the Obama-Biden joint appearance today will be the start of a new campaign phase, where the Democrats actually get their act together and go attack the other candidate. And we can attack McCain with truth, instead of the lies he's using. You can't pull the prisoner of war card on the truth.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Chinese Olympic Gymnastics Hate Groups
Let me preface all of this by saying that I don't believe that the some of the women on the Chinese Olympics Gymnastics team are over 16. Obviously the government changed their passports. It does violate the rules but it's for the IOC and the IGF to decide what should happen.
But let me make this point: do the Chinese women deserve to be stripped of their medals because they are underage? Did they not show that they are the best gymnastics team in the world? Barring some scoring controversies, they showed that they deserve to be called the best gymnasts in the world. And the scoring controversies have nothing to do with a home advantage or bias, as the judging panel is not allowed to have members from the teams they are judging. If anything, scoring errors are what caused the American gymnasts to lose out on some medals that they deserved.
===
Here is but one of the many hate groups you will find on Facebook.
"I Hope When the Chinese Olympic Gymnasts Get Their Periods, It Kills Them"
No explanation needed. I invite everyone to report the group.
===
Some samples from other groups:
"Maybe that's true Silas. Yes we might be whiney. But we are venting about the injustice that is going on in what is suppose to be a fair world competition. It might not change, that's true. But at least we have a place where we can talk out all the cheating that's going on in these events.
The fact that Nastia tied with that Chinese girl and got second is sickening. I'm not sure how that is possible. And Devon is right. We should have known going in there that the world basically hates Americans. Especially the Chinese. Geez we have more freedom then they do, and they are working in in Sweatshops for like 5 cents an hour making products that go to America. and they probably don't see any of the profit. So the Least they could do is cheat and give their country the gold medal(s). That's probably the only gold or profit these girls will see in their lifetime. It's just disheartening."
Apparently this person thinks he can sympathize with the working conditions in China (which he misstates) and sympathize with the gymnasts and trash everything else about China. Not to mention his ignorance of the tiebreaking procedure. Once again, note the victim attitude of "everyone hates America, including China". Looking at the rapid rate at which China is consuming American cultural exports, I'd like to know where he gets this impression.
===
"FUCK THESE OLYMPICS AND LET ALL THE JUDGES ROT IN HELL"
This guy really knows what he's talking about. China has definitely been suppressing the rights of Taiwanese who they don't even have control over. China doesn't deserve to have control over Tibet (a historical part of many Chinese empires) because...well...we said so? The author surely knows how to judge a gymnastics routine better than professional judges. And when American athletes get points off because they fall and make mistakes? That's called getting "fucked over".
===
The rest of the groups are filled with the same kind of hate, which spreads to misinformed rants about other issues. No one seems to remember that the tiebreaking procedure that gave the gold to He Kexin over Nastia Liukin was put in place before the competition and has been released to the public. No one seems to remember the judging scandals that took place at the 2004 Olympics No one seems to remember that the point of the Olympics is to find the best athletes. If the best athletes are underage, then they deserve to win, even if they can't compete.
Nastia Liukin herself said it best. "(He) is an excellent athlete, no matter how old she is. She's done her hard work and her preparation, and she deserved that gold medal tonight."
America seems to have forgotten that it doesn't own the world. If something goes against us, we whine and scream and throw a tantrum until the rest of the world is either scared into changing things or just sick of our behavior. So the Chinese overstated their age. Big deal. Yes it's against the rules but does it help their performance? I'd say it gives them a disadvantage to have a younger team with less experience. America has no room to talk when our athletes regularly take performance enhancing drugs and don't get punished. Our athletes are all about the money and the fame that they get from success. Not to say that some don't deserve it, there are many professional athletes who are great people as well. But we have plenty who get arrested from everything from murder to dog fighting. The Chinese gymnasts are hardworking girls who came from poor families. They gave it their all to have a shot at becoming Olympic champions. They compete for their country. You may fault the government for cheating, but surely you can't fault the athletes themselves?
Once again, I repeat my belief that the Chinese gymnasts are not all of competition age and that under IGF rules, it is not allowed. The final resolution of the situation is not for anyone else to decide. But let me caution anyone who shares the views of the people posting in the various hate groups. It does not help your case when all you can do is whine and complain about technicalities. A true Olympic champion does not whine. It does not help you win a gold medal if you make personal attacks against the opponent. Just ask Frenchman Alain Bernard, whose "We'll smash the Americans" comment was just your normal pre-competition tough talk. It does not help your case when you are a country with as little international credibility as the United States. When you have many athletes back home who juice and do drugs and get arrested for violence. Yes, cheating is wrong. Yes, there were judging errors. But humans are not perfect. There is always controversy at the Olympics. This time is no different. Just because for once, the United States is losing out doesn't mean it's any more important or any worse a violation than before.
But let me make this point: do the Chinese women deserve to be stripped of their medals because they are underage? Did they not show that they are the best gymnastics team in the world? Barring some scoring controversies, they showed that they deserve to be called the best gymnasts in the world. And the scoring controversies have nothing to do with a home advantage or bias, as the judging panel is not allowed to have members from the teams they are judging. If anything, scoring errors are what caused the American gymnasts to lose out on some medals that they deserved.
===
Here is but one of the many hate groups you will find on Facebook.
"I Hope When the Chinese Olympic Gymnasts Get Their Periods, It Kills Them"
No explanation needed. I invite everyone to report the group.
===
Some samples from other groups:
"Maybe that's true Silas. Yes we might be whiney. But we are venting about the injustice that is going on in what is suppose to be a fair world competition. It might not change, that's true. But at least we have a place where we can talk out all the cheating that's going on in these events.
The fact that Nastia tied with that Chinese girl and got second is sickening. I'm not sure how that is possible. And Devon is right. We should have known going in there that the world basically hates Americans. Especially the Chinese. Geez we have more freedom then they do, and they are working in in Sweatshops for like 5 cents an hour making products that go to America. and they probably don't see any of the profit. So the Least they could do is cheat and give their country the gold medal(s). That's probably the only gold or profit these girls will see in their lifetime. It's just disheartening."
Apparently this person thinks he can sympathize with the working conditions in China (which he misstates) and sympathize with the gymnasts and trash everything else about China. Not to mention his ignorance of the tiebreaking procedure. Once again, note the victim attitude of "everyone hates America, including China". Looking at the rapid rate at which China is consuming American cultural exports, I'd like to know where he gets this impression.
===
"FUCK THESE OLYMPICS AND LET ALL THE JUDGES ROT IN HELL"
This guy really knows what he's talking about. China has definitely been suppressing the rights of Taiwanese who they don't even have control over. China doesn't deserve to have control over Tibet (a historical part of many Chinese empires) because...well...we said so? The author surely knows how to judge a gymnastics routine better than professional judges. And when American athletes get points off because they fall and make mistakes? That's called getting "fucked over".
===
The rest of the groups are filled with the same kind of hate, which spreads to misinformed rants about other issues. No one seems to remember that the tiebreaking procedure that gave the gold to He Kexin over Nastia Liukin was put in place before the competition and has been released to the public. No one seems to remember the judging scandals that took place at the 2004 Olympics No one seems to remember that the point of the Olympics is to find the best athletes. If the best athletes are underage, then they deserve to win, even if they can't compete.
Nastia Liukin herself said it best. "(He) is an excellent athlete, no matter how old she is. She's done her hard work and her preparation, and she deserved that gold medal tonight."
America seems to have forgotten that it doesn't own the world. If something goes against us, we whine and scream and throw a tantrum until the rest of the world is either scared into changing things or just sick of our behavior. So the Chinese overstated their age. Big deal. Yes it's against the rules but does it help their performance? I'd say it gives them a disadvantage to have a younger team with less experience. America has no room to talk when our athletes regularly take performance enhancing drugs and don't get punished. Our athletes are all about the money and the fame that they get from success. Not to say that some don't deserve it, there are many professional athletes who are great people as well. But we have plenty who get arrested from everything from murder to dog fighting. The Chinese gymnasts are hardworking girls who came from poor families. They gave it their all to have a shot at becoming Olympic champions. They compete for their country. You may fault the government for cheating, but surely you can't fault the athletes themselves?
Once again, I repeat my belief that the Chinese gymnasts are not all of competition age and that under IGF rules, it is not allowed. The final resolution of the situation is not for anyone else to decide. But let me caution anyone who shares the views of the people posting in the various hate groups. It does not help your case when all you can do is whine and complain about technicalities. A true Olympic champion does not whine. It does not help you win a gold medal if you make personal attacks against the opponent. Just ask Frenchman Alain Bernard, whose "We'll smash the Americans" comment was just your normal pre-competition tough talk. It does not help your case when you are a country with as little international credibility as the United States. When you have many athletes back home who juice and do drugs and get arrested for violence. Yes, cheating is wrong. Yes, there were judging errors. But humans are not perfect. There is always controversy at the Olympics. This time is no different. Just because for once, the United States is losing out doesn't mean it's any more important or any worse a violation than before.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
On Jerome Corsi
Here's an idea. Why doesn't Barack Obama sue Jerome Corsi for his book The Obama Nation? The book is clearly libelous and littered with flat-out lies. Why doesn't John Kerry do the same; Corsi was the coauthor of Unfit for Command which was part of that slander campaign known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. How is it that freedom of speech protects those who spread vicious lies with the full knowledge that they are untrue and will cause damage to people's reputations? Isn't that the very definition of libel and slander? Last time I checked, those were illegal.
This article from Tim Rutten of the LA Times delves deep into Corsi's background. A surprising player in this whole affair is Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist who just happens to be married to Democratic strategist James "It's the Economy, Stupid" Carville. The fact that a respected person like Matalin would associate herself with a book by someone who believes George W. Bush wants to merge the United States and Mexico, someone who refers to Muslims as "ragheads" and the pope as "senile", someone who has appeared on The Political Cesspool...
This article from Tim Rutten of the LA Times delves deep into Corsi's background. A surprising player in this whole affair is Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist who just happens to be married to Democratic strategist James "It's the Economy, Stupid" Carville. The fact that a respected person like Matalin would associate herself with a book by someone who believes George W. Bush wants to merge the United States and Mexico, someone who refers to Muslims as "ragheads" and the pope as "senile", someone who has appeared on The Political Cesspool...
Sunday, August 10, 2008
NBC interviews George Bush @ Olympics
George Bush was just interviewed by Bob Costas during his visit at the Beijing Olympics. Right behind him was...the giant portrait of Mao in Tiananmen Square.Of course they mentioned human rights, Darfur, Iran, and all those issues. I must say Bush was extremely gracious in his remarks and repeated his policy of engaging China on friendly and respectful terms. He might have been a failed president but he can still handle himself with poise.
That being said, I had to object to his comments regarding Darfur. He called China a nation that welcomed Omar al-Bashir with open arms, which is true. But what he didn't mention was our own welcoming of Sudanese intelligence chief Salah Gosh into the United States in order to get "information" on Osama bin-Laden, who could not have been hurt by any Sudanese intelligence. We can't possibly to expect other nations to comply with our wishes when we ourselves set such a poor example.
Bush also said that he talked to Vladimir Putin regarding the South Ossetia conflict, saying the violence was unacceptable. Noble words, but Bush should know by now that the man whose soul he looked into cares little about world opinion. The announced ceasefire will be dictated completely on Russian terms. Georgia can expect little assistance from the West.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Invasion of Georgia
Go Georgia, show those Russians what you're made of!
Russia (as well as other thorns in the side of the West) has know for a long time that it can walk right over the wishes of the West. Especially post-Iraq, no Western nation has the guts to back their words with any action at all. It's all up to Russia to determine how far this conflict goes. Hopefully Georgia will shoot down a few more jets and destroy a few more tanks before this ends.
Russia (as well as other thorns in the side of the West) has know for a long time that it can walk right over the wishes of the West. Especially post-Iraq, no Western nation has the guts to back their words with any action at all. It's all up to Russia to determine how far this conflict goes. Hopefully Georgia will shoot down a few more jets and destroy a few more tanks before this ends.
John McCain attack ad during Olympics
The title says it all. In my area, John McCain aired an attack ad during the Olympics. So much for not politicizing the Olympics. I find it appalling that anyone would even consider airing political ads during the Olympics.
---Edit---
I just saw an Obama ad too, didn't see what the content was though. I still don't approve of political ads during the Olympics.
---Edit---
I just saw an Obama ad too, didn't see what the content was though. I still don't approve of political ads during the Olympics.
Chinese politics commentary
Yesterday's opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics will be the show to end all Olympics opening ceremonies. I pity the poor person in charge of designing the 2010 Vancouver show. Only in China could a show of such magnitude occur. The ceremony was certainly a spectacle that demonstrated to the world the enormity of Chinese history and culture.
And yet Westerners still compare the massive hordes of performers to the massive hordes of young Nazi soldiers at the 1936 Berlin Games. This article from the generally sensible Telegraph gives the impression that China is somehow the enemy of the West. Many Westerners still look at China today and see the China of Mao. They take the government's official Communist stance and equate it with Stalinism. If the West is to maintain its position of global dominance with a rising China, it must discard its misconceptions about China and engage it as the nation it is now, not as the nation it was in the 1970s.
China's "Communist" government knows full well that its policies have been straight-up Wild West capitalism, more extreme than those of any Western capitalist state. No one can truly claim that China's goal is a Communist dictatorship. Deng Xiaoping kept the communist label and Mao's god status solely for political reasons-to eliminate all that Mao had done would be political suicide at a time when the memory of the Cultural Revolution of the previous decade was fresh in the minds of the population. Deng would have gladly done away with the legacy of the man who had him and many of his allies purged from the government and thrown in prison. He knew communism didn't work. He knew full well that the new China would be all-out capitalist. China knows it isn't fooling any Chinese by calling itself communist. But it is certainly fooling plenty of Westerners.
Human rights certainly is a big problem in China. But anyone who says China has no intention of moving gradually toward a Western-style democracy has no idea how Chinese politics works. Much of the current generation of Chinese leaders has been educated in top Western universities. China is liberalizing, and it will only become more so as new generations of leaders take power. It is hypocritical to expect China to change overnight. In the past decades, individuals have received property and entrepreneurial rights, as well as an increased freedom to voice their opinions. Yes, dissent is still suppressed but you don't see masses of people being killed for criticizing the government. And the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government right now. Without changes in official policies, the massive economic growth that has lifted countless millions of Chinese out of poverty would never have happened. And most Chinese would rather have money in their pockets before the right to free speech. Bringing your country prosperity is a far greater good than complete freedom. When Deng Xiaoping ordered the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations, he did so to preserve order so that his economic plans would succeed. In China, economic growth comes before civil rights. And Western countries have followed much the same path. Look at Great Britain. It took centuries of gradual change from the Magna Carta to today for it to evolve into a liberal democracy. It certainly didn't change overnight. We can't credibly criticize China for not liberalizing because it is following the same path of gradual change that Western countries have.
Assuming that China's political elite is a static group solely concerned about preserving its own power is a huge error in analyzing Chinese politics. Even Mao Zedong himself was a different breed of Communist dictator. Stalin truly was concerned solely about his power and didn't care at all for his people or the communist ideology. Mao on the other hand was a true believer in the Marxist cause. His ideal of "continuous revolution" was meant to strive toward the ultimate goal of the egalitarian Communist state of Marx's theories. Of course he was concerned about power, it would be a lie to say otherwise, but Mao pursued his ideology because he wanted to bring prosperity back to China. He could have easily gone back to traditional imperial rule and crowned himself emperor if he wanted power. But he believed (albeit incorrectly) that Communism was the way to bring China into the modern world. And he was partially correct. Although millions died as the result of famines and political purges, by the end of his rule, China's population had increased dramatically, its industrial capacity had grown, the literacy rate was fast approaching that of Western nations, and China had secured its place as a world power. It is ignorant to say that China was worse off after his rule than before. China was pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages until Mao, and he dragged it with whatever force necessary into the modern world. He certainly committed his share of atrocities but looking at historical Western figures, we can't criticize him without hypocrisy.
China's political system is in many ways more geared toward success than those of most Western nations. Although corruption and connections play a huge part in Chinese politics, at its base, China's government is a huge meritocracy. You work your way up the ladder of power through hard work, education, and competence. As recent high-level convictions show, China is working on eliminating corruption, even going so far as using the death penalty for some senior officials. Only the most talented and intelligent can make it to the top. Looking at the backgrounds of senior Chinese officials, many are trained engineers, scientists, and economists-exactly the kind of people you need to run a country as large as China. Compare that to America, where we have lawyers making decisions about the economy, defense, education, healthcare, and scientific research. Which system would you pick to run a country?
China truly wants to join the global community as a partner, not as a ruler. The West remains frightened by the rise of a country with a strange language, strange culture, and strange politics. Our efforts to use our so called superiority to force China to conform to our standards (increase its currency value in order to rescue American manufacturers, take our side in sanctions against its allies, etc.) have only led to China playing by its own terms. The West has shown no signs of wanting to engage China as an equal, and so, China's policies continue to frustrate the West. China fully recognizes its power and the fear it puts into the West and it knows full well how to utilize that power. If the West does not change its attitude toward China, it will have no reason to cooperate with the West.
Paris Ad
A little late but oh well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html
My head asploded when she used the word hybrid.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html
My head asploded when she used the word hybrid.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
McCain campaign making the same mistakes as Hillary Clinton
Let me once again preface the following by saying that I have a profound respect for John McCain's service for our country in Vietnam, and his years of dutiful service in the Senate fighting corruption and standing up for his beliefs.
Didn't John McCain follow the Democratic primaries? Hillary Clinton should have taught him that calling Obama an elitist doesn't work. When you are the son and grandson of admirals and the husband of a wealthy beer heiress, you can't call someone who was raised by a single mother an elitist and expect it to work for too long. Jake Tapper of ABC recently posted an "elitist celebrity quiz" that hits back at McCain.
It is getting to the point where McCain has to use the tactic of bullying the press into "equal coverage" by saying that they have to cover his campaign just as much as Obama's, when Obama goes to Germany and McCain goes to German restaurants in Ohio. The press has to give just as much credibility to McCain's Iraq policy when Obama's has been all but endorsed by Iraq's PM and leading military officials. The press has to cover McCain's 200 person town hall meetings just as much as Obama's 200,000 rally in Berlin.
Obama's an elitist because he made money by writing books, but you know, forget that Cindy McCain is a wealthy beer heiress. Forget that Obama was raised by a single mother. Forget that he has risen to his current position out of the rough streets of Chicago politics. Of course "community organizing" doesn't mean working in soup kitchens but it does mean working to help poor people to get their voices heard and their needs met.
When Obama goes on a world tour, meets with leaders who he will possibly be working with as president, and draws huge crowds, he is arrogant and premature. But when John McCain makes trips overseas, it shows that he has foreign policy experience. Obama can't play the race card but McCain is allowed to bash his patriotism all day. Obama is a flip-flopper when he makes political decisions but when John McCain runs ads comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? No that's just a questioning of Obama's substance, not a personal attack that McCain once swore to abstain from.
The John McCain of 2000 would have made a great president. If he hadn't been demolished by Bush, Rove, and Co., we would have had an election between two excellent candidates. Maybe the debate would have been about policy rather than about whether Al Gore really said he invented the internet.
What's happened to that John McCain?
His upcoming VP announcement will certainly shake things up but there's no one he can pick that will really turn his campaign around. The Olympics will be starting soon and right after that will be the Democratic National Convention. The Straight-Talk Express has run itself over a cliff. I have the profoundest respect for John McCain as a person, but he has put himself in a race that he simply cannot win, and it is markedly upsetting him.
Didn't John McCain follow the Democratic primaries? Hillary Clinton should have taught him that calling Obama an elitist doesn't work. When you are the son and grandson of admirals and the husband of a wealthy beer heiress, you can't call someone who was raised by a single mother an elitist and expect it to work for too long. Jake Tapper of ABC recently posted an "elitist celebrity quiz" that hits back at McCain.
It is getting to the point where McCain has to use the tactic of bullying the press into "equal coverage" by saying that they have to cover his campaign just as much as Obama's, when Obama goes to Germany and McCain goes to German restaurants in Ohio. The press has to give just as much credibility to McCain's Iraq policy when Obama's has been all but endorsed by Iraq's PM and leading military officials. The press has to cover McCain's 200 person town hall meetings just as much as Obama's 200,000 rally in Berlin.
Obama's an elitist because he made money by writing books, but you know, forget that Cindy McCain is a wealthy beer heiress. Forget that Obama was raised by a single mother. Forget that he has risen to his current position out of the rough streets of Chicago politics. Of course "community organizing" doesn't mean working in soup kitchens but it does mean working to help poor people to get their voices heard and their needs met.
When Obama goes on a world tour, meets with leaders who he will possibly be working with as president, and draws huge crowds, he is arrogant and premature. But when John McCain makes trips overseas, it shows that he has foreign policy experience. Obama can't play the race card but McCain is allowed to bash his patriotism all day. Obama is a flip-flopper when he makes political decisions but when John McCain runs ads comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton? No that's just a questioning of Obama's substance, not a personal attack that McCain once swore to abstain from.
The John McCain of 2000 would have made a great president. If he hadn't been demolished by Bush, Rove, and Co., we would have had an election between two excellent candidates. Maybe the debate would have been about policy rather than about whether Al Gore really said he invented the internet.
What's happened to that John McCain?
His upcoming VP announcement will certainly shake things up but there's no one he can pick that will really turn his campaign around. The Olympics will be starting soon and right after that will be the Democratic National Convention. The Straight-Talk Express has run itself over a cliff. I have the profoundest respect for John McCain as a person, but he has put himself in a race that he simply cannot win, and it is markedly upsetting him.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Abortion comment + response
The following is a note regarding abortion, followed by my response.
===Original Note===
This following passage came from a woman named Eileen Crosby. She is currently a student at Franciscan University. I received this as an imbox message from one of the groups I am in, "Barack Obama is So Pro-Abortion It's Frightening." Eileen posted this under the topic view: "Franciscan Students are So Republican It’s Frightening." This is post #6, so if you want to see the original copy, you can do so. This woman wrote beautifully on how abortion can affect all aspects of politics, including our foreign policy. I really hope you think this is really awesome! I most certainly did :) Passage from Eileen Crosby: Jul 17, 2008 at 7:27 AM “Why I am a single issue voter: Because abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and all issues that threaten innocent human life is not a single issue.
Foreign policy is largely affected by the life stances of each president. If the president is "pro-choice" then countries suffer. Under Clinton's administration, our UN delegates single-handedly bullied the world conference on agriculture in order to force developing countries to legalize abortion. How? We denied foreign food aid to 3rd world countries until they legalized abortion. We even forced South American countries -- who culturally and traditionally abhor abortion -- to legalize the practice. Barack Obama has also promised to reverse the Mexico city plan which will provide money to Mexico specifically for abortion. These are just some examples. The war in Iraq: will abortion be legal in Iraq? It would be illogical for this to happen -- Iraq is a Muslim nation that is fundamentally against abortion. However, our administration, whether or not they are for or against the war, will have a large impact on the socialization of the country. Will we press our 'values' on this country?
Health care: Senator Obama's health care plan requires that everyone have health care and that all health care covers abortion. That means that whether you agree with this or not, your tax dollars WILL fund abortions for your friends, coworkers, maybe even cousins or sisters. Besides this, his plan calls for socialized medicine, which in itself is not bad, however his plan specifically makes it illegal for you to add your own money to a health plan. Yes, you will not be allowed to purchase more health care for yourself or for your family. This means that when you run out of coverage, you are just out of luck. It means that there will be health care rationing. It means that when you break your leg or need allergy shots or stitches or an MRI you will get it no problem. But when grandma needs kidney dialysis she probably won't have any coverage left, and since the hospitals can only get so much money, they will probably "let her die" in order to set your broken leg next time you fall out of the tree you were climbing. Don't believe me? Check out the futile care cases that are happening now in Texas, where people like Andrea Clark or Emilio Gonzales were denied care and died because of this idea of health care rationing.
Economically: Abortion is a HUGE industry. It affects our economics. Think of how our economy could benefit from the 50 million dead children. Our social security would not be crashing! There would be more people to work, less need to import workers. More people making food, goods, serving others. Instead of paying money to wound our mothers and kill our children we would be benefiting from the work they would do. But I hope you are getting my point, so I will end with one last reason of why I am a single issue voter.
Socially: Our mothers deserve more then a dead baby. We keep abortion legal because we have to "make it so women don't need abortions", when in reality by keeping abortion legal we are telling women that they are not worth a real solution. We keep abortion legal, 'just until we can come up with a better welfare program', and so instead of helping a mother raise her child, feed her child and clothe her child we hand her a dead child. Is this what she deserves? What about the schools? We need a better school system that can handle more children and educate children better. So instead of letting them go through a less then adequate school system (by our standards) we kill them and hand their mother a dead child. Is this what they deserve? We take women who have been raped and say "we understand your pain, here have an abortion and it will make this better" and rip the only life they have left in them out of them, and hand them a dead child. Now she is not a rape survivor, but a victim of rape holding a dead child. So there are no jobs. To fix this do we hand mothers dead children? They now have no job and a dead child. There is not social system to protect these women. You are right. There is no one standing up for them and their dignity. Women deserve better then abortion. Our society deserves better then abortion. It is a joke to set up social program after social program when abortion is still legal. It is a joke to push for women's rights when abortion is still legal. Because when the day comes to a close we are still telling these women that the best we can offer them is a dead child. We tell them that we are working on these programs, but right now all we have to offer them is death. I don't believe that this is what the United States of America represents.
I am a Franciscan student. I am a woman. I am a social work major who is VERY concerned with social policies. Maybe because of these qualities you will not be able to listen to what I have to say. But maybe, because of the women in your own life who I am sure you love and respect, you will hear the danger in taking this issue out of the forefront of our fight for justice.” [Eileen's passage ends here]
Now I have some things to add to this wonderful statement by Eileen In addition to what she said; Obama is so radically pro-choice, that if elected president, he would make sure that the $400 an abortionist would regulary receive from each abortion would increase by $3600. That means that an abortionist will get $4000 for each abortion. This is an additional 36 hundred dollars that would come out of American tax dollars. This also would not just come out of the wealthy class, like Obama claims. I'm sure anyone can do the math efficiently knowing that there are over a million abortions taking place each year in the United States alone. I truly believe that if abortion becomes more common to perform, a huge number of people will become happy to do it for the sole purpose of money. This is just plain wrong and it will be completely contradictory with the position of looking out for the safety and well-being of women who are pregnant.
The thing that troubles me so greatly about Obama is that he is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. His views about abortion are completely radical to the average pro-choice view. The reason why this is a problem is because his opinion could impact the public opinion of abortion, due to the fact that he is so popular. Since the president of the country is supposed to be a moral leader, I don't believe Obama is qualified for president. Words such as "punished with a baby" (words that Obama used) show that he has complete disregard for the sanctity of life and the seriousness of the abortion procedure.
Neither McCain nor Obama are going to be able to provide peace and prosperity for the people of the world as well as they should, believe me when I say that. At the end of the day, however, one candidate will be publicly against killing the unborn while the other candidate will support it. It's one thing for a leader to fail to provide for the American people, (like Bush and Clinton). It's another thing for one, however, to personally approve killing the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society intentionally. This is all my opinion though, and I do respect the fact that others may have their own views.
The last that I have to say is to simply look at one of the pieces of legislation that he has promised to sign into law with his first act of presidency. Eileen mentioned one of them in another post. The one that she mentioned is the "Freedom of Choice Act." This is by far more radical then Roe v. Wade. It would legalize abortion in ALL 9 MONTHS OF PREGNANCY for any reason. It would also make it illegal to give information or support to women in these crisis pregnancies. This is flat out ridiculous. I honestly respect people for being pro-choice, but this is too far to the extreme. Most pro-choice people I know only support it before 6 months of the pregnancy. I still STRONGLY disagree with that philosophy, but I can respect those who have this opinion, because I know that they have this view out of concern for the woman. I find it very difficult to respect people's opinion of abortion of all 9 months, however. I hate to sound rude, but that this is common sense, and you really have to lack common sense if you think a baby is not a human after 6 months. As you can tell, I am VERY passionate about this, so I'll stop before I go to far and offend anyone. I thought this was really important to address though. I don't think many people truly know Obama's positions. He has become more of a celebrity than a presidential candidate, which is really dangerous. Anyways, feel free to add any comments that you wish to add.
===My Response===
Even if Obama personally has many radical views on abortion, there is no political will to change the current status of abortion. The majority of the American people support the right to choose but a majority also supports restrictions on abortion. The status quo is not going to be changing.
That being said, this article makes the assumption that we are forcing mothers to get abortions (see the section about handing rape victims a dead baby). Abortions are not forced. They are a painful decision made by a woman and her doctor. I respect the fact that the author of this article is a woman and thus has more of a right to be anti-abortion than me, but I still do not believe anyone has the right to make a decision about abortion other than the woman who has to make the decision.
The claim that abortion hurts our economy is simply untrue. If it was, then why isn't our government pushing for people to have more children? The book Freakonomics has a chapter that brings up the highly controversial theory that legal abortion was the key factor in the decrease in crime in the 1990s. I will not voice support for the theory solely due to the controversy of it, but I will summarize it. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. Prior to the decision, middle-class and rich women got illegal abortions that were either highly dangerous or highly expensive. Poor women could not. After Roe v. Wade, poor women who were in the unfortunate situation of having an unwanted pregnancy could afford to get abortions. Those poor women were often urban, black, and single (taken from the book). Think about children raised in that kind of environment. It is common knowledge (check the records) that many criminals grew up in impoverished, urban settings with a poor family life. The theory asserts that 1990 was around the time that the aborted babies would have grown up to become criminals. Ideologically, the theory is untouchable, but you have to admit it makes sense.
I am moderately pro-choice, solely because I know I have absolutely no right to forbid a woman from having an abortion. Abortion is always the option of last resort, and it is a painful decision for a woman to make. I remind you of the occasion when Bill Clinton talked about his pro-choice stance in front of a group of Democratic activists, who applauded. Clinton promptly ended the applause, as his goal was to reduce the number of abortions to zero. He also understood that the government has no business in a mother's womb. This article, like many from anti-abortion (yes, unlike pro-abortion or pro-life, the term anti-abortion does not mince words about the people it
describes) voters, seeks to demonize those that perform abortions or have abortions performed on them. It does not recognize that there is a biological difference between a fetus and a baby. It uses the term "infanticide" and implies it to be the same as terminating a fetus.
I do not support the most radical policies of pro-choice activists, however the debate is not about them. The debate is about the women who are put into the unfortunate situation of having an abortion. When right-wingers protest in front of Planned Parenthood clinics and shout insults at the women walking in, they are hurting women who are already in a difficult situation as it is. We must respect the sanctity of life, and some people forget that respect applies to living adults as well as unborn fetuses.
===Original Note===
This following passage came from a woman named Eileen Crosby. She is currently a student at Franciscan University. I received this as an imbox message from one of the groups I am in, "Barack Obama is So Pro-Abortion It's Frightening." Eileen posted this under the topic view: "Franciscan Students are So Republican It’s Frightening." This is post #6, so if you want to see the original copy, you can do so. This woman wrote beautifully on how abortion can affect all aspects of politics, including our foreign policy. I really hope you think this is really awesome! I most certainly did :) Passage from Eileen Crosby: Jul 17, 2008 at 7:27 AM “Why I am a single issue voter: Because abortion, euthanasia, infanticide and all issues that threaten innocent human life is not a single issue.
Foreign policy is largely affected by the life stances of each president. If the president is "pro-choice" then countries suffer. Under Clinton's administration, our UN delegates single-handedly bullied the world conference on agriculture in order to force developing countries to legalize abortion. How? We denied foreign food aid to 3rd world countries until they legalized abortion. We even forced South American countries -- who culturally and traditionally abhor abortion -- to legalize the practice. Barack Obama has also promised to reverse the Mexico city plan which will provide money to Mexico specifically for abortion. These are just some examples. The war in Iraq: will abortion be legal in Iraq? It would be illogical for this to happen -- Iraq is a Muslim nation that is fundamentally against abortion. However, our administration, whether or not they are for or against the war, will have a large impact on the socialization of the country. Will we press our 'values' on this country?
Health care: Senator Obama's health care plan requires that everyone have health care and that all health care covers abortion. That means that whether you agree with this or not, your tax dollars WILL fund abortions for your friends, coworkers, maybe even cousins or sisters. Besides this, his plan calls for socialized medicine, which in itself is not bad, however his plan specifically makes it illegal for you to add your own money to a health plan. Yes, you will not be allowed to purchase more health care for yourself or for your family. This means that when you run out of coverage, you are just out of luck. It means that there will be health care rationing. It means that when you break your leg or need allergy shots or stitches or an MRI you will get it no problem. But when grandma needs kidney dialysis she probably won't have any coverage left, and since the hospitals can only get so much money, they will probably "let her die" in order to set your broken leg next time you fall out of the tree you were climbing. Don't believe me? Check out the futile care cases that are happening now in Texas, where people like Andrea Clark or Emilio Gonzales were denied care and died because of this idea of health care rationing.
Economically: Abortion is a HUGE industry. It affects our economics. Think of how our economy could benefit from the 50 million dead children. Our social security would not be crashing! There would be more people to work, less need to import workers. More people making food, goods, serving others. Instead of paying money to wound our mothers and kill our children we would be benefiting from the work they would do. But I hope you are getting my point, so I will end with one last reason of why I am a single issue voter.
Socially: Our mothers deserve more then a dead baby. We keep abortion legal because we have to "make it so women don't need abortions", when in reality by keeping abortion legal we are telling women that they are not worth a real solution. We keep abortion legal, 'just until we can come up with a better welfare program', and so instead of helping a mother raise her child, feed her child and clothe her child we hand her a dead child. Is this what she deserves? What about the schools? We need a better school system that can handle more children and educate children better. So instead of letting them go through a less then adequate school system (by our standards) we kill them and hand their mother a dead child. Is this what they deserve? We take women who have been raped and say "we understand your pain, here have an abortion and it will make this better" and rip the only life they have left in them out of them, and hand them a dead child. Now she is not a rape survivor, but a victim of rape holding a dead child. So there are no jobs. To fix this do we hand mothers dead children? They now have no job and a dead child. There is not social system to protect these women. You are right. There is no one standing up for them and their dignity. Women deserve better then abortion. Our society deserves better then abortion. It is a joke to set up social program after social program when abortion is still legal. It is a joke to push for women's rights when abortion is still legal. Because when the day comes to a close we are still telling these women that the best we can offer them is a dead child. We tell them that we are working on these programs, but right now all we have to offer them is death. I don't believe that this is what the United States of America represents.
I am a Franciscan student. I am a woman. I am a social work major who is VERY concerned with social policies. Maybe because of these qualities you will not be able to listen to what I have to say. But maybe, because of the women in your own life who I am sure you love and respect, you will hear the danger in taking this issue out of the forefront of our fight for justice.” [Eileen's passage ends here]
Now I have some things to add to this wonderful statement by Eileen In addition to what she said; Obama is so radically pro-choice, that if elected president, he would make sure that the $400 an abortionist would regulary receive from each abortion would increase by $3600. That means that an abortionist will get $4000 for each abortion. This is an additional 36 hundred dollars that would come out of American tax dollars. This also would not just come out of the wealthy class, like Obama claims. I'm sure anyone can do the math efficiently knowing that there are over a million abortions taking place each year in the United States alone. I truly believe that if abortion becomes more common to perform, a huge number of people will become happy to do it for the sole purpose of money. This is just plain wrong and it will be completely contradictory with the position of looking out for the safety and well-being of women who are pregnant.
The thing that troubles me so greatly about Obama is that he is not pro-choice, but pro-abortion. His views about abortion are completely radical to the average pro-choice view. The reason why this is a problem is because his opinion could impact the public opinion of abortion, due to the fact that he is so popular. Since the president of the country is supposed to be a moral leader, I don't believe Obama is qualified for president. Words such as "punished with a baby" (words that Obama used) show that he has complete disregard for the sanctity of life and the seriousness of the abortion procedure.
Neither McCain nor Obama are going to be able to provide peace and prosperity for the people of the world as well as they should, believe me when I say that. At the end of the day, however, one candidate will be publicly against killing the unborn while the other candidate will support it. It's one thing for a leader to fail to provide for the American people, (like Bush and Clinton). It's another thing for one, however, to personally approve killing the most vulnerable and innocent members of our society intentionally. This is all my opinion though, and I do respect the fact that others may have their own views.
The last that I have to say is to simply look at one of the pieces of legislation that he has promised to sign into law with his first act of presidency. Eileen mentioned one of them in another post. The one that she mentioned is the "Freedom of Choice Act." This is by far more radical then Roe v. Wade. It would legalize abortion in ALL 9 MONTHS OF PREGNANCY for any reason. It would also make it illegal to give information or support to women in these crisis pregnancies. This is flat out ridiculous. I honestly respect people for being pro-choice, but this is too far to the extreme. Most pro-choice people I know only support it before 6 months of the pregnancy. I still STRONGLY disagree with that philosophy, but I can respect those who have this opinion, because I know that they have this view out of concern for the woman. I find it very difficult to respect people's opinion of abortion of all 9 months, however. I hate to sound rude, but that this is common sense, and you really have to lack common sense if you think a baby is not a human after 6 months. As you can tell, I am VERY passionate about this, so I'll stop before I go to far and offend anyone. I thought this was really important to address though. I don't think many people truly know Obama's positions. He has become more of a celebrity than a presidential candidate, which is really dangerous. Anyways, feel free to add any comments that you wish to add.
===My Response===
Even if Obama personally has many radical views on abortion, there is no political will to change the current status of abortion. The majority of the American people support the right to choose but a majority also supports restrictions on abortion. The status quo is not going to be changing.
That being said, this article makes the assumption that we are forcing mothers to get abortions (see the section about handing rape victims a dead baby). Abortions are not forced. They are a painful decision made by a woman and her doctor. I respect the fact that the author of this article is a woman and thus has more of a right to be anti-abortion than me, but I still do not believe anyone has the right to make a decision about abortion other than the woman who has to make the decision.
The claim that abortion hurts our economy is simply untrue. If it was, then why isn't our government pushing for people to have more children? The book Freakonomics has a chapter that brings up the highly controversial theory that legal abortion was the key factor in the decrease in crime in the 1990s. I will not voice support for the theory solely due to the controversy of it, but I will summarize it. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973. Prior to the decision, middle-class and rich women got illegal abortions that were either highly dangerous or highly expensive. Poor women could not. After Roe v. Wade, poor women who were in the unfortunate situation of having an unwanted pregnancy could afford to get abortions. Those poor women were often urban, black, and single (taken from the book). Think about children raised in that kind of environment. It is common knowledge (check the records) that many criminals grew up in impoverished, urban settings with a poor family life. The theory asserts that 1990 was around the time that the aborted babies would have grown up to become criminals. Ideologically, the theory is untouchable, but you have to admit it makes sense.
I am moderately pro-choice, solely because I know I have absolutely no right to forbid a woman from having an abortion. Abortion is always the option of last resort, and it is a painful decision for a woman to make. I remind you of the occasion when Bill Clinton talked about his pro-choice stance in front of a group of Democratic activists, who applauded. Clinton promptly ended the applause, as his goal was to reduce the number of abortions to zero. He also understood that the government has no business in a mother's womb. This article, like many from anti-abortion (yes, unlike pro-abortion or pro-life, the term anti-abortion does not mince words about the people it
describes) voters, seeks to demonize those that perform abortions or have abortions performed on them. It does not recognize that there is a biological difference between a fetus and a baby. It uses the term "infanticide" and implies it to be the same as terminating a fetus.I do not support the most radical policies of pro-choice activists, however the debate is not about them. The debate is about the women who are put into the unfortunate situation of having an abortion. When right-wingers protest in front of Planned Parenthood clinics and shout insults at the women walking in, they are hurting women who are already in a difficult situation as it is. We must respect the sanctity of life, and some people forget that respect applies to living adults as well as unborn fetuses.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Media Bias, etc.
The following is a response to a comment on the response of the media to political gaffes of John McCain and Barack Obama. The original comment will be posted pending the permission of the author.
===Original comment===
Remember when Obama said that he had visited all 57 States during his campaign? Then there was the time that he said "Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's." Oh, and what about the time that Obama said "10,000 people died" in the Kansas tornadoes (death toll really 12). Let’s not forget when Obama said that Arkansas was a "nearby" state to Kentucky. Man was that a major flub showing a complete lack of knowledge of simple geography.
I bet you no one knew that he made those mistakes until I just mentioned them. Obama has made his fair share of mistakes. Once again, I’m not a big fan of John McCain AT ALL, and I don't have an issue with Obama making mistakes. It happens. But I’m sick of people attacking McCain for slipping and saying that he is making mistakes because he's too old.
So, McCain is senile and Obama... well, he just needs a nice nap.
The press is doing their level best to gin up McCain's flubs but are correspondingly dismissive of Obama's. Obama's constant gaffes are being called "minor misstatements," and are only made because he is so, so tired. They are all bending over backwards to excuse Obama's gaffes while unbendingly calling McCain's a result of some mental problem!
Well, there are great lists on the Internet of the flubs and gaffes from both candidates, so you decide what those gaffes can be blamed on. As to the left, unsurprisingly they can only see McCain's. Good thing the left is so much more "fair" and "balanced" than the rest of us.
But, there is one lingering question that hangs over this whole business. If McCain's gaffes are a result of his being old and tired, how is it they can use being "tired" as an excuse to paper over the mistakes of Obama? And if Obama's are ascribed to mere exhaustion then why can't we say that McCain is just as tired? After all, McCain is a 71-year-old man. Is Obama so weak that he tires as easily as a man of such advanced years as McCain?
Well, I guess all I can say is that the left's excuse making is weak indeed. Weak and tired.
I want to make it clear though that I have a lot of respect for Obama as a charismatic person, and I understand that campaigns can be long and tiresome. This is exactly why I think it is unfair to attack McCain about this and not Obama. Either attack both or attack neither.
===My Response===
Although many farther left than me have used McCain's gaffes as a sign of his senility, I will not resort to using his age against him. Nor will I completely excuse Obama from his slips. Everyone can be excused for slip-ups at times.
However, not all gaffes are created equal. I specifically brought up McCain's Iraq-Afghanistan border issue because of the nature of the incident. McCain has sold himself to the American people as being a national security expert and a better commander in chief than Obama. I honor his military service and I think he is a true American hero for his experiences as a POW. However you cannot equate his service as a soldier with foreign policy experience. Note that I am not saying Obama has more experience than he, McCain has been extensively involved with foreign policy during his service in the Senate. But the main foreign policy issues of this election are Iraq and Iran. McCain and the Republicans have shoved it down our throats that he was right on the surge and Obama's policies would have created a civil war. And I completely agree with that viewpoint, as I have stated many times on my blog. Obama was wrong about the surge, and I was wrong on the surge too. But remember, who was the one who opposed going to war in the first place? Obama would never have had the opportunity to mess up on the surge, because we would never have invaded Iraq when we were attacked by terrorists from Afghanistan. There have been countless books and nonpartisan investigations into the administration's misconduct of the war so I won't repeat their findings here.
If you take the time to do "a google" (note, that's simply a joke, plenty of people are just as technologically challenged as McCain), you will find many articles about how that traitor *cough* I mean that Senator Joe Lieberman has had to correct McCain when he mixes up Sunni with Shiite. That is not a mistake you make when you are a person who claims to have extensive knowledge of Iraq. That's a mistake you make when you are George W. Bush and you invade a country without planning for a long occupation.
-Last I checked, Arkansas was less than 50 miles from Kentucky. If Obama had said "bordering", it would have been a mistake but I'd definitely say Arkansas is "nearby" Kentucky".
-Ok the 57 state thing I can't explain. You win on that one. I had heard about it though.
-Come on, the Israel Israel thing is kinda obvious...heard about it and discarded it
-The tornado death toll I haven't heard and can't explain.
Now I am not dismissing Obama's missteps. Plenty of McCain's statements have been similarly easily explained. But I have not heard Obama diagnose the economic crisis as a "mental recession", which McCain has done along with Phil "Banished-to-Belarus" Gramm. Yes that was a gaffe, but how can you say those kinds of things on accident? Make no mistake, it wasn't a simple misquote, McCain has admitted many times his economic incompetence. The GAO (an official government agency) has studied both candidates' tax plans. I will not argue the 5.7 trillion dollar cost of McCain's plan here, but I do know that there is no way to balance the budget with that big of a taxcut. Kill all the pork you want, you just can't do it. And although Obama's plan is less of a cut (and an increase for the richest), it at least doesn't claim to be able to balance the budget and give a massive tax cut at the same time. Look up Obama's enormous economic team. Then look up McCain's. Look up Obama's record of not listening to his advisors. Can't find it? Look up McCain's. McCain has done some wonderful work in fighting corruption in Congress but his tax plan is simply ridiculous. I (as a pro-business liberal) can't support Obama's remarks against free trade, but I trust that he is taking advice from competent people. I mean he has Warren Buffett. A guy worth $62 billion can't be an economic idiot.
Your fair and balanced comment works against you. I have never claimed that the media is fair or balanced. I don't even get my news from cable networks. I use the BBC for news and RealClearPolitics.com for politics. I have read my share of Weekly Standard articles as well as the New York Times. But who claims to be "fair and balanced" anyway? What network came up with the "No Spin Zone"? I grant you there is a huge bias toward Obama in this race (and what are you going to do about it?), but the liberal bias in the media prior to this campaign is a complete invention of the right. Don't take it from me, talk to David Brock, a former member of the vast right-wing conspiracy that impeached Clinton for lying about an affair that affected maybe 3 people, but produced a shrub that lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and got 4,000 heroic American soldiers killed. Not to mention enabled 9/11 to happen (again, don't take it from me, go read the 9/11 Commission Report). I don't think it's fair that Obama has 3 anchors following him around the world while McCain stews and home, but the media follows the stories, and there obviously is a reason that they chose Obama. He inspires people more than McCain so obviously the media will follow him to improve ratings. I read somewhere (forgot the source) that John McCain will not get people to pick his speeches over American Idol, but Obama will.
Ok that was way off topic. Let me just say that I never attacked McCain for the things he has said just because he is old or just because he happens to be running against Barack Obama. It's just that you have to look at what the gaffes say about the candidate. Obama has said things that have made me see him as just an ordinary politician, but he has yet to make me think that he will run our country into the ground. John Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain has said many such things. You can't just explain things like that away by saying "oh that's just a little slip-up". Even when Hillary Clinton said things about attacking Iran, I got the same unease. Obama at least made the politically incorrect choice of being honest and saying that we have to talk to hostile leaders to get them to negotiate. Oh look, even the Bush administration agrees, we just sent negotiators to Iran. Regarding Obama's remarks about attacking Pakistan, I have news for you. The right went just as crazy about that. And al-Qaeda is actually hiding in Pakistan. Remember Jeremiah Wright? Louis Farrakhan? Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Why does associating with them mean Obama is automatically a radical? Some people on the right prefer to ignore Obama's positions and go straight to the radicals he's been around for ammo. And the media has extensively covered his radical associations.
Oh look, I just got an email from MoveOn.org's John McCain media watch. CBS edited his statements to make him appear more knowledgeable about Iraq. Yes, MoveOn is a left-wing organization but facts are facts. The media is indeed biased but John McCain hasn't given it any reason to adore him like they did back in the 2000 campaign when he ran against the previously mentioned shrub.
===Original comment===
Remember when Obama said that he had visited all 57 States during his campaign? Then there was the time that he said "Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's." Oh, and what about the time that Obama said "10,000 people died" in the Kansas tornadoes (death toll really 12). Let’s not forget when Obama said that Arkansas was a "nearby" state to Kentucky. Man was that a major flub showing a complete lack of knowledge of simple geography.
I bet you no one knew that he made those mistakes until I just mentioned them. Obama has made his fair share of mistakes. Once again, I’m not a big fan of John McCain AT ALL, and I don't have an issue with Obama making mistakes. It happens. But I’m sick of people attacking McCain for slipping and saying that he is making mistakes because he's too old.
So, McCain is senile and Obama... well, he just needs a nice nap.
The press is doing their level best to gin up McCain's flubs but are correspondingly dismissive of Obama's. Obama's constant gaffes are being called "minor misstatements," and are only made because he is so, so tired. They are all bending over backwards to excuse Obama's gaffes while unbendingly calling McCain's a result of some mental problem!
Well, there are great lists on the Internet of the flubs and gaffes from both candidates, so you decide what those gaffes can be blamed on. As to the left, unsurprisingly they can only see McCain's. Good thing the left is so much more "fair" and "balanced" than the rest of us.
But, there is one lingering question that hangs over this whole business. If McCain's gaffes are a result of his being old and tired, how is it they can use being "tired" as an excuse to paper over the mistakes of Obama? And if Obama's are ascribed to mere exhaustion then why can't we say that McCain is just as tired? After all, McCain is a 71-year-old man. Is Obama so weak that he tires as easily as a man of such advanced years as McCain?
Well, I guess all I can say is that the left's excuse making is weak indeed. Weak and tired.
I want to make it clear though that I have a lot of respect for Obama as a charismatic person, and I understand that campaigns can be long and tiresome. This is exactly why I think it is unfair to attack McCain about this and not Obama. Either attack both or attack neither.
===My Response===
Although many farther left than me have used McCain's gaffes as a sign of his senility, I will not resort to using his age against him. Nor will I completely excuse Obama from his slips. Everyone can be excused for slip-ups at times.
However, not all gaffes are created equal. I specifically brought up McCain's Iraq-Afghanistan border issue because of the nature of the incident. McCain has sold himself to the American people as being a national security expert and a better commander in chief than Obama. I honor his military service and I think he is a true American hero for his experiences as a POW. However you cannot equate his service as a soldier with foreign policy experience. Note that I am not saying Obama has more experience than he, McCain has been extensively involved with foreign policy during his service in the Senate. But the main foreign policy issues of this election are Iraq and Iran. McCain and the Republicans have shoved it down our throats that he was right on the surge and Obama's policies would have created a civil war. And I completely agree with that viewpoint, as I have stated many times on my blog. Obama was wrong about the surge, and I was wrong on the surge too. But remember, who was the one who opposed going to war in the first place? Obama would never have had the opportunity to mess up on the surge, because we would never have invaded Iraq when we were attacked by terrorists from Afghanistan. There have been countless books and nonpartisan investigations into the administration's misconduct of the war so I won't repeat their findings here.
If you take the time to do "a google" (note, that's simply a joke, plenty of people are just as technologically challenged as McCain), you will find many articles about how that traitor *cough* I mean that Senator Joe Lieberman has had to correct McCain when he mixes up Sunni with Shiite. That is not a mistake you make when you are a person who claims to have extensive knowledge of Iraq. That's a mistake you make when you are George W. Bush and you invade a country without planning for a long occupation.
-Last I checked, Arkansas was less than 50 miles from Kentucky. If Obama had said "bordering", it would have been a mistake but I'd definitely say Arkansas is "nearby" Kentucky".
-Ok the 57 state thing I can't explain. You win on that one. I had heard about it though.
-Come on, the Israel Israel thing is kinda obvious...heard about it and discarded it
-The tornado death toll I haven't heard and can't explain.
Now I am not dismissing Obama's missteps. Plenty of McCain's statements have been similarly easily explained. But I have not heard Obama diagnose the economic crisis as a "mental recession", which McCain has done along with Phil "Banished-to-Belarus" Gramm. Yes that was a gaffe, but how can you say those kinds of things on accident? Make no mistake, it wasn't a simple misquote, McCain has admitted many times his economic incompetence. The GAO (an official government agency) has studied both candidates' tax plans. I will not argue the 5.7 trillion dollar cost of McCain's plan here, but I do know that there is no way to balance the budget with that big of a taxcut. Kill all the pork you want, you just can't do it. And although Obama's plan is less of a cut (and an increase for the richest), it at least doesn't claim to be able to balance the budget and give a massive tax cut at the same time. Look up Obama's enormous economic team. Then look up McCain's. Look up Obama's record of not listening to his advisors. Can't find it? Look up McCain's. McCain has done some wonderful work in fighting corruption in Congress but his tax plan is simply ridiculous. I (as a pro-business liberal) can't support Obama's remarks against free trade, but I trust that he is taking advice from competent people. I mean he has Warren Buffett. A guy worth $62 billion can't be an economic idiot.
Your fair and balanced comment works against you. I have never claimed that the media is fair or balanced. I don't even get my news from cable networks. I use the BBC for news and RealClearPolitics.com for politics. I have read my share of Weekly Standard articles as well as the New York Times. But who claims to be "fair and balanced" anyway? What network came up with the "No Spin Zone"? I grant you there is a huge bias toward Obama in this race (and what are you going to do about it?), but the liberal bias in the media prior to this campaign is a complete invention of the right. Don't take it from me, talk to David Brock, a former member of the vast right-wing conspiracy that impeached Clinton for lying about an affair that affected maybe 3 people, but produced a shrub that lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq and got 4,000 heroic American soldiers killed. Not to mention enabled 9/11 to happen (again, don't take it from me, go read the 9/11 Commission Report). I don't think it's fair that Obama has 3 anchors following him around the world while McCain stews and home, but the media follows the stories, and there obviously is a reason that they chose Obama. He inspires people more than McCain so obviously the media will follow him to improve ratings. I read somewhere (forgot the source) that John McCain will not get people to pick his speeches over American Idol, but Obama will.
Ok that was way off topic. Let me just say that I never attacked McCain for the things he has said just because he is old or just because he happens to be running against Barack Obama. It's just that you have to look at what the gaffes say about the candidate. Obama has said things that have made me see him as just an ordinary politician, but he has yet to make me think that he will run our country into the ground. John Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain has said many such things. You can't just explain things like that away by saying "oh that's just a little slip-up". Even when Hillary Clinton said things about attacking Iran, I got the same unease. Obama at least made the politically incorrect choice of being honest and saying that we have to talk to hostile leaders to get them to negotiate. Oh look, even the Bush administration agrees, we just sent negotiators to Iran. Regarding Obama's remarks about attacking Pakistan, I have news for you. The right went just as crazy about that. And al-Qaeda is actually hiding in Pakistan. Remember Jeremiah Wright? Louis Farrakhan? Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn? Why does associating with them mean Obama is automatically a radical? Some people on the right prefer to ignore Obama's positions and go straight to the radicals he's been around for ammo. And the media has extensively covered his radical associations.
Oh look, I just got an email from MoveOn.org's John McCain media watch. CBS edited his statements to make him appear more knowledgeable about Iraq. Yes, MoveOn is a left-wing organization but facts are facts. The media is indeed biased but John McCain hasn't given it any reason to adore him like they did back in the 2000 campaign when he ran against the previously mentioned shrub.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
France ends mandatory 35 hour work week
That's right, France has abolished the mandatory work week. As much as I admire France and its delicious baked goods, the 35 hour week is ridiculous. What are they doing with that extra hour a day? Not to mention the whole month of August. I mean that's at least 10 whole days a year that they're not churning out pastries and 
baguettes and headbutts.
Did I mention I like French bread?
baguettes and headbutts.Did I mention I like French bread?
McCain wipes Iran off map
"We have a lot of work to do and I'm afraid it's a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border,” McCain said on ABC News, effectively wiping Iran off the map. (source)
The Iranian threat is gone! All hail John McCain!
Maybe this is why McCain thinks Iraq is the central front of the war on terror. I mean, Iraq doesn't even sound like Afghanistan. It'd be a little more forgivable to confuse Iraq and Iran, but Afghanistan? I guess Joe Lieberman didn't get there in time to catch that one.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Government owes music royalties for use at Gitmo
A slight change of pace from genocide (my trip tomorrow is postponed to Friday due to inclement weather).
The US government has been using pop songs to "torture" detainees at Guantanamo through sleep deprivation and possibly offensive lyrics. However, as this technically constitutes public playing of the music, they owe licensing fees to ASCAP and BMI for their use of the songs. Of course, the government has not paid.
As comedian and filmmaker Paul Provenza said this week on the panel of the NPR news quiz/comedy show Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me! (of which I am a huge fan, you should all go check it out right away), "You know, the Constitution didn't seem to make a difference, but ASCAP is gonna come to the rescue here...There's something really poetic about that I think"
Loathe as I am to support ASCAP, I'll go with whatever brings down Guantanamo the fastest. You go ASCAP! Show 'em not to mess with your crack legal team.
The following is a (not thoroughly checked) list of songs claimed to be used as torture. (From a comment on the Freakonomics blog @ NYTimes Online-see comment #6 on link, originally sourced to imeem.com, an obligatory 1 minute search failed to retrieve the original source)
===
‘F**K Your God’ by Deicide
‘Die MF Die’ by Dope
‘Take Your Best Shot’ by Dope
‘White America’ by Eminem
‘Kim’ by Eminem
‘Barney Theme Song’
‘Bodies’ by Drowning Pool
‘Enter Sandman’ by Metallica
‘Meow Mix Jingle’
‘Sesame Street Theme Song’
‘Babylon’ by David Gray
‘Born in the USA’ by Bruce Springsteen
‘Shoot to Thrill’ by AC/DC
‘Hells Bells’ by AC/DC
‘Stayin Alive’ by The Bee Gees
‘All Eyes on Me’ by Tupac
‘Dirty’ by Christina Aguilera
‘America’ by Neil Diamond
‘Bulls on Parade’ by Rage Against the Machine
‘American Pie’ by Don McLean
‘Click Click Boom’ by Saliva
‘Cold’ by Matchbox 20
‘Swan Dive’ by Hed PE
‘Raspberry Beret’ by Prince
===
Most of the list is hilarious but BRING ME THE HEAD OF THE SOLDIER WHO SUGGESTED PLAYING AMERICAN PIE AS TORTURE!!!
The US government has been using pop songs to "torture" detainees at Guantanamo through sleep deprivation and possibly offensive lyrics. However, as this technically constitutes public playing of the music, they owe licensing fees to ASCAP and BMI for their use of the songs. Of course, the government has not paid.
As comedian and filmmaker Paul Provenza said this week on the panel of the NPR news quiz/comedy show Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me! (of which I am a huge fan, you should all go check it out right away), "You know, the Constitution didn't seem to make a difference, but ASCAP is gonna come to the rescue here...There's something really poetic about that I think"
Loathe as I am to support ASCAP, I'll go with whatever brings down Guantanamo the fastest. You go ASCAP! Show 'em not to mess with your crack legal team.
The following is a (not thoroughly checked) list of songs claimed to be used as torture. (From a comment on the Freakonomics blog @ NYTimes Online-see comment #6 on link, originally sourced to imeem.com, an obligatory 1 minute search failed to retrieve the original source)
===
‘F**K Your God’ by Deicide
‘Die MF Die’ by Dope
‘Take Your Best Shot’ by Dope
‘White America’ by Eminem
‘Kim’ by Eminem
‘Barney Theme Song’
‘Bodies’ by Drowning Pool
‘Enter Sandman’ by Metallica
‘Meow Mix Jingle’
‘Sesame Street Theme Song’
‘Babylon’ by David Gray
‘Born in the USA’ by Bruce Springsteen
‘Shoot to Thrill’ by AC/DC
‘Hells Bells’ by AC/DC
‘Stayin Alive’ by The Bee Gees
‘All Eyes on Me’ by Tupac
‘Dirty’ by Christina Aguilera
‘America’ by Neil Diamond
‘Bulls on Parade’ by Rage Against the Machine
‘American Pie’ by Don McLean
‘Click Click Boom’ by Saliva
‘Cold’ by Matchbox 20
‘Swan Dive’ by Hed PE
‘Raspberry Beret’ by Prince
===
Most of the list is hilarious but BRING ME THE HEAD OF THE SOLDIER WHO SUGGESTED PLAYING AMERICAN PIE AS TORTURE!!!
Darfur.2
Last week's ICC indictment against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir meant absolutely nothing. Even if the ICC had any legitimacy, even if Sudan had signed the Rome Statute which created the ICC, even if the court had the full backing of Europe and the United States (which are afraid of charges leveled against their own leaders), even if al-Bashir gave himself up or was kicked out by a coup, the legal process is far too slow to do anything to stop the genocide in Darfur. Did anyone think the indictment would do anything? The only way to bring him to justice is an invasion, which the West lacks the will and the stomach to carry out. By the time the ICC "investigates" the atrocities and far understates the crimes of the Sudanese government, thousands more Darfuris will be dead. And al-Bashir will still be in power.
This article highlights the hypocrisy the Sudanese government and its allies see and exploit in the efforts of the West to stop the killing. If the West is unwilling to put its own leaders under the jurisdiction of the ICC then why should Sudan? The United States isn't even party to the statute anymore. President Bush's statement "We'll see how that plays out." seems to make genocide a spectator sport for the US.
The investigation is happening even though humanitarian groups have already provided all the evidence you could ever need in a criminal prosecution. There is no question that the Sudanese regime is guilty of the massacre, and yet the investigation continues to crawl along toward the justice that will never be served in Darfur.
---
I will be in Washington D.C. tomorrow to visit, among other places, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, for a reminder of why we still say "Never Again". Afterward I will start working on letters to Congress and other influential leaders, as well as petitions and presentations, which I hope to release to the public in my local area as well as online.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Liberal Sensitivity
Myself being a liberal with a sense of humor, I see the point in this article but will have to refute its basic claims.
The difference between making fun of McCain's age, or his trigger-happiness, or even Secretary Rice's race; and Obama's religion-is that McCain is indeed old, and he has made statements like his infamous "bomb bomb bomb Iran", and Secretary Rice is indeed black, but in no way is Barack Obama a Muslim. However tasteless the McCain cartoon may be, it causes no harm to spread a rumor that McCain is old, if you hadn't noticed, he is in fact old. If you see the McCain cartoon, you'll just laugh and remember the good old days when President Reagan told stories about his dinners with Thomas Jefferson. It's a lot easier to make fun of a person's age, or a tough stance on hostile nations, or even burning the Constitution, and laugh at it. After years of Bush burning the Constitution, we've kind of gotten a little used to it. It also must be noted that the cartoon was a spoof of the original Obama cartoon.
However, continuing to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim, when a good portion of the electorate still believes that he is, is simply an outright untruth. To say that Obama is in league with Osama, that Michelle is a violent black supremacist bent on a killing spree, to say that Obama is a flag burner, those are not stretches of the truth. You couldn't even come up with the cartoon if you took the truth and stretched it to Pluto. They are outright lies.
Of course I understand that the cartoon (from the New Yorker) was satirizing the pitiful attempts of the right to label Obama as a Muslim and a terrorist supporter, but I know that he is indeed not a Muslim and has lived the American Dream as much as any of us. The 12% of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim may not.
And after being attacked for being part of a CHRISTIAN church with a hate-spewing pastor? It must have been hard to be a Muslim in the United Church of Christ. Must be why he left.
The difference between making fun of McCain's age, or his trigger-happiness, or even Secretary Rice's race; and Obama's religion-is that McCain is indeed old, and he has made statements like his infamous "bomb bomb bomb Iran", and Secretary Rice is indeed black, but in no way is Barack Obama a Muslim. However tasteless the McCain cartoon may be, it causes no harm to spread a rumor that McCain is old, if you hadn't noticed, he is in fact old. If you see the McCain cartoon, you'll just laugh and remember the good old days when President Reagan told stories about his dinners with Thomas Jefferson. It's a lot easier to make fun of a person's age, or a tough stance on hostile nations, or even burning the Constitution, and laugh at it. After years of Bush burning the Constitution, we've kind of gotten a little used to it. It also must be noted that the cartoon was a spoof of the original Obama cartoon.
However, continuing to insinuate that Obama is a Muslim, when a good portion of the electorate still believes that he is, is simply an outright untruth. To say that Obama is in league with Osama, that Michelle is a violent black supremacist bent on a killing spree, to say that Obama is a flag burner, those are not stretches of the truth. You couldn't even come up with the cartoon if you took the truth and stretched it to Pluto. They are outright lies.
Of course I understand that the cartoon (from the New Yorker) was satirizing the pitiful attempts of the right to label Obama as a Muslim and a terrorist supporter, but I know that he is indeed not a Muslim and has lived the American Dream as much as any of us. The 12% of Americans who think Obama is a Muslim may not.
And after being attacked for being part of a CHRISTIAN church with a hate-spewing pastor? It must have been hard to be a Muslim in the United Church of Christ. Must be why he left.
Evolution debate comment
I personally think the evolution debate is as ridiculous as the claims of flat-earthers, but for some reason, it is one scientific issue (along with global climate change) that has been hijacked by politics and ideology. Why isn't the church still arguing against Copernicus? Anyway, here is a repost of a comment I made on The Fray @ Slate.com, in response to a post by a person undecided on evolution, in response to an article about blind salamanders. (apparently we have not evolved enough to get rid of laziness, hence the incoherence of the previous sentence)
===From a post on The Fray @ Slate.com===
===From a post on The Fray @ Slate.com===
If you are saying that the salamanders in question once had eyes and then lost them during the course of their lives, you are mistaken. The salamander population as a whole gradually lost its eyes over many generations. When one individual changes a characteristic, such as a chameleon changing its color, a bird changing its nesting location in response to predators, a human building a house to have shelter, that is adaptation. When an entire population gradually changes its characteristics through the dying out of weaker individuals, that is evolution. You are not going to witness evolution except in bacteria that evolve extremely rapidly in response to antibiotics that kill off large portions of their population. Do you believe in atomic theory? Have you ever seen an atom? Do you believe that the Earth orbits the Sun? Have you been to a location where you can tell that is true? The scientific debate over evolution is no different than a debate over any other theory, yet it is the one issue on which nonscientists claim to have the correct view on. The scientific record supporting evolution is no less solid than that supporting other theories, yet we laypeople still doubt it. Science cannot be subordinated to ideology. Science is what our entire society is built on.
As far as the blind salamanders go, they have no use for eyes in the lightless environment in which they live, thus salamanders without eyes (or with incrementally less functional eyes) have to put less energy and resources into maintaining their eyes, thus are better equipped to survive. The chance to survive may only increase by tiny fractions of a percent, but again, the process occurs over many many generations. If people (not necessarily the original poster) can base creationism on pure faith, the leap of faith to believe in evolution is far smaller. Even for us commoners to trust in and partially understand the science is a smaller leap than to trust purely in the Bible.
By definition, science is based on logic. Scientific=logical. There is no way that anything involving even the slightest bit of faith can be completely logical. Note this doesn't contradict my previous statement, as the facts are all there to support evolution, it's just a lot of it is only accessible/comprehensible to scientists. The basic premise of any system involving a creator/designer is the existence of such a being, which can never be logically proven.A message to Senator Obama
At the end of this post is a message sent to Senator Obama via his website.
Feel free to copy the message and resend it if you want. It is a point I see over and over from conservative and some mainstream journalists-that McCain was right on the surge and Obama's "surrender tactics" would have led to an Iraq in chaos. I opposed the surge (as did many top commanders), and I was wrong. The circumstances at the time led me to the belief that things would not get better and it was time to cut our losses and leave Iraq, whatever the consequences. And I applaud Senator McCain's judgement.
However, the real issue is not the surge, as in an Obama presidency, we would never go to war without rigorous planning for the aftermath. Obama would listen to generals like Eric Shinseki who warned that we did not have enough troops. Yes, McCain probably would not have invaded Iraq if he had been president, he would have listened to the generals, and he was right on the surge, but the fact still remains that he still supports the initial invasion. He believes that the central fight against terror is Iraq, where al-Qaeda only went after we invaded and toppled Saddam.
We as a country have forgotten the crimes of the Bush administration that led us into war in the first place. I will repeat this until it is heard: John McCain was right on the surge, but Barack Obama was right on the war.
===a message to Senator Obama===
Senator McCain seems to have come up with an effective (for now) strategy regarding Iraq. A good portion of the American people still see him as a more capable commander in chief due to his military experience and his foresight in pushing for the troop surge. Those people that still trust Senator McCain over Senator Obama on Iraq are not those who are likely to be swayed by PM Nouri al-Maliki's "endorsement" of the Obama Iraq proposal.
The nation seems to have forgotten who was right on the bigger issue of going to war in the first place. The nation has forgotten the lies the Bush administration used to lead us into Iraq. And the nation has forgotten that John McCain still supports the initial decision to go to war. If Senator Obama had been president, he would never have had the chance to go wrong on the surge, because it would never have happened.
Senator Obama, if you wish to dispel John McCain's supposed superiority on the Iraq issue, you need to remind voters that you were right on the most important decision-the initial one. The recent successes in Iraq have made many people forget all the killing that has already happened. Don't let America forget that you were the one to oppose the war from the beginning.
Feel free to copy the message and resend it if you want. It is a point I see over and over from conservative and some mainstream journalists-that McCain was right on the surge and Obama's "surrender tactics" would have led to an Iraq in chaos. I opposed the surge (as did many top commanders), and I was wrong. The circumstances at the time led me to the belief that things would not get better and it was time to cut our losses and leave Iraq, whatever the consequences. And I applaud Senator McCain's judgement.
However, the real issue is not the surge, as in an Obama presidency, we would never go to war without rigorous planning for the aftermath. Obama would listen to generals like Eric Shinseki who warned that we did not have enough troops. Yes, McCain probably would not have invaded Iraq if he had been president, he would have listened to the generals, and he was right on the surge, but the fact still remains that he still supports the initial invasion. He believes that the central fight against terror is Iraq, where al-Qaeda only went after we invaded and toppled Saddam.
We as a country have forgotten the crimes of the Bush administration that led us into war in the first place. I will repeat this until it is heard: John McCain was right on the surge, but Barack Obama was right on the war.
===a message to Senator Obama===
Senator McCain seems to have come up with an effective (for now) strategy regarding Iraq. A good portion of the American people still see him as a more capable commander in chief due to his military experience and his foresight in pushing for the troop surge. Those people that still trust Senator McCain over Senator Obama on Iraq are not those who are likely to be swayed by PM Nouri al-Maliki's "endorsement" of the Obama Iraq proposal.
The nation seems to have forgotten who was right on the bigger issue of going to war in the first place. The nation has forgotten the lies the Bush administration used to lead us into Iraq. And the nation has forgotten that John McCain still supports the initial decision to go to war. If Senator Obama had been president, he would never have had the chance to go wrong on the surge, because it would never have happened.
Senator Obama, if you wish to dispel John McCain's supposed superiority on the Iraq issue, you need to remind voters that you were right on the most important decision-the initial one. The recent successes in Iraq have made many people forget all the killing that has already happened. Don't let America forget that you were the one to oppose the war from the beginning.
Is polling irrelevant?
Based on this article it is, and Obama is much more solid than polls would argue. The formula it mentions is dubious but a 14/15 accuracy is hard to argue with.
This time however, both of the candidates have an image of being a different breed of politician, though neither can truly claim to be that. McCain's maverick image still sticks from his failed 2000 bid, and his considerable Senate record does show many instances where he strays from party line, often to the wrath of Republican leaders. His strong stance against corruption and meaningless spending still separates him from the Republican establishment that the country has grown weary of. A McCain presidency would certainly ease the partisanship that has taken root in America.
Then again, on the most important issues-the economy, Iraq, dealing with hostile nations-McCain is simply an extension of Bush. He has admitted many times that he has little experience or knowledge of domestic affairs at a time when the state of our union has been weakened at home as well as abroad. I would hope that McCain would have the sense to surround himself with knowledgeable and competent advisors, but he is not known for having an open mind, and most likely would draw from the same group that made up the Bush administration. Phil Gramm may be banished to Belarus, but let it not be forgotten that McCain himself diagnosed the country with a mental recession.
Obama is in danger of losing the force that drove a young, African-American, freshman Senator from Illinois to become the Democratic presidential candidate. His recent rush to the center, although it doesn't bother me personally, has alienated many of his supporters on the left and caused many others to mistrust his intentions. He is only doing what any politician would do, only he does it in the midst of a campaign that is supposed to be about change.
Another problem is, yes, Obama's race. Of course race shouldn't be a factor at all, yet history begs to differ. Your average conscientious white person will tell you that "no, of course race will play no part in my decision". However, there are many historical examples (of which I am too lazy to dig up right now) that show black candidates leading in the polls prior to an election getting trounced on election day. In the voting booth, it's you and your biases, with no one around to confront you about them. No mainstream journalist dare mention race in this campaign, but it is a wild card that will always be lingering in the back of voters' minds.
This time however, both of the candidates have an image of being a different breed of politician, though neither can truly claim to be that. McCain's maverick image still sticks from his failed 2000 bid, and his considerable Senate record does show many instances where he strays from party line, often to the wrath of Republican leaders. His strong stance against corruption and meaningless spending still separates him from the Republican establishment that the country has grown weary of. A McCain presidency would certainly ease the partisanship that has taken root in America.
Then again, on the most important issues-the economy, Iraq, dealing with hostile nations-McCain is simply an extension of Bush. He has admitted many times that he has little experience or knowledge of domestic affairs at a time when the state of our union has been weakened at home as well as abroad. I would hope that McCain would have the sense to surround himself with knowledgeable and competent advisors, but he is not known for having an open mind, and most likely would draw from the same group that made up the Bush administration. Phil Gramm may be banished to Belarus, but let it not be forgotten that McCain himself diagnosed the country with a mental recession.
Obama is in danger of losing the force that drove a young, African-American, freshman Senator from Illinois to become the Democratic presidential candidate. His recent rush to the center, although it doesn't bother me personally, has alienated many of his supporters on the left and caused many others to mistrust his intentions. He is only doing what any politician would do, only he does it in the midst of a campaign that is supposed to be about change.
Another problem is, yes, Obama's race. Of course race shouldn't be a factor at all, yet history begs to differ. Your average conscientious white person will tell you that "no, of course race will play no part in my decision". However, there are many historical examples (of which I am too lazy to dig up right now) that show black candidates leading in the polls prior to an election getting trounced on election day. In the voting booth, it's you and your biases, with no one around to confront you about them. No mainstream journalist dare mention race in this campaign, but it is a wild card that will always be lingering in the back of voters' minds.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
6 Months Left
Yes, that is the light at the end of the tunnel. Just 6 more months until Barack Obama takes the oath of office and becomes the 44th President of the United States...hopefully.
I must give the Bush administration credit for some of its recent turns of policy. Although they do not erase the previous offenses, they are a sign that someone at the White House is thinking correctly. In fact it'd be easy for future historians to think the Obama presidency had already started at this point.
Negotiations with Iran? During the Bush administration? No way. Tough talk from the G8 on Zimbabwe? Climate change? North Korea? What has happened to the Bush presidency? It's a shame no one is paying attention. With the Big Three following Obama across the globe, the good news that is finally coming out of the Bush White House is going unnoticed. And John McCain's Straight-Talk Express is getting quite lonely.
I must give the Bush administration credit for some of its recent turns of policy. Although they do not erase the previous offenses, they are a sign that someone at the White House is thinking correctly. In fact it'd be easy for future historians to think the Obama presidency had already started at this point.
Negotiations with Iran? During the Bush administration? No way. Tough talk from the G8 on Zimbabwe? Climate change? North Korea? What has happened to the Bush presidency? It's a shame no one is paying attention. With the Big Three following Obama across the globe, the good news that is finally coming out of the Bush White House is going unnoticed. And John McCain's Straight-Talk Express is getting quite lonely.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Guantanamo Video
(see post below for link to video)
The released Guantanamo video clip (full 7 hours will be released Tuesday) isn't anything terribly shocking. No torture or even intense questioning is shown, just a crying kid sitting in a room with a questioner. We've seen far worse, with the Abu-Ghraib photos and countless allegations of torture by other detainees. We know nothing more now than we did yesterday, these videos do nothing but add to the heap of evidence we already have.
But this video is different. Khadr's lawyers are relying on the fact that any video of a crying teenager being questioned, even nonviolently, will hit the public like a sledgehammer and force the government into action through public outrage. The video ties the whole mess together, and puts the face of Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen, on the debacle. You can't watch the video and tell yourself "oh, we may go to extremes sometimes but the people locked up at Gitmo are hardened terrorists who want to kill us". The video may wind up not only saving Mr. Khadr, now 21 and facing multiple terrorism charges and the prospect of life imprisonment, but also be the straw that tips Gitmo's existence over the cliff.
Unfortunately, Canadian PM Stephen Harper has refused to demand Khadr's extradition back to Canada. Since Khadr is a Canadian citizen, you would expect Canada to rush to his defense, but he has fallen into the same legal black hole that the rest of the detainees are in. Canada's government has the obligation to protect its citizens, and although Khadr could be easily returned to Canada, he remains in Guantanamo.
The released Guantanamo video clip (full 7 hours will be released Tuesday) isn't anything terribly shocking. No torture or even intense questioning is shown, just a crying kid sitting in a room with a questioner. We've seen far worse, with the Abu-Ghraib photos and countless allegations of torture by other detainees. We know nothing more now than we did yesterday, these videos do nothing but add to the heap of evidence we already have.
But this video is different. Khadr's lawyers are relying on the fact that any video of a crying teenager being questioned, even nonviolently, will hit the public like a sledgehammer and force the government into action through public outrage. The video ties the whole mess together, and puts the face of Omar Khadr, Canadian citizen, on the debacle. You can't watch the video and tell yourself "oh, we may go to extremes sometimes but the people locked up at Gitmo are hardened terrorists who want to kill us". The video may wind up not only saving Mr. Khadr, now 21 and facing multiple terrorism charges and the prospect of life imprisonment, but also be the straw that tips Gitmo's existence over the cliff.
Unfortunately, Canadian PM Stephen Harper has refused to demand Khadr's extradition back to Canada. Since Khadr is a Canadian citizen, you would expect Canada to rush to his defense, but he has fallen into the same legal black hole that the rest of the detainees are in. Canada's government has the obligation to protect its citizens, and although Khadr could be easily returned to Canada, he remains in Guantanamo.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Commentary on Iraq
Original article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/wehner/15801
===
So Obama was wrong about the surge. His predictions about it were wrong. Ok, we got that straight.
Why have we stopped talking about how we got into the war in the first place? Remember the reason stated by the Bush administration was to get rid of their WMDs. It has been revealed by numerous nonpartisan studies including the Iraq Study Group that the “evidence” and “intelligence” cited by the administration was a sham. The British report about Nigerien uranium was not, as claimed, given to us as solid evidence.
So then, after that was exposed, Bush tried to tie them to 9/11. Again, deliberate misleading of the American people. No connection at all. Al Qaeda was based in…oh, Afghanistan? That’s a whole Iran away from Iraq. The meeting between that Iraqi official and Al Qaeda operatives in the Czech Republic? Sham. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the war. Saddam (fiercely secular) would have had nothing to do with fundamentalist Islamists. Fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq so we don’t have to fight them here? How about fighting them in Afghanistan (instead of telling our Afghan allies to let Osama escape at Tora Bora) so we don’t have to fight them anywhere?
And once we wise up to the lack of Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, you’d think Bush would have run out of tricks but no, we’re “bringing freedom to the Iraqis”. Oh the Iraqis are overjoyed by their newfound freedom, so happy that they give us these things that explode and kill our troops!
The idea that because we’re already in Iraq, we might as well act like it wasn’t Bush’s fault and criticize Obama for making a wrong judgement regarding the war (he’s not even a military expert for crying out loud, how are we supposed to hold him to the same standards as a president who has countless generals to help him make him decisions?), is completely ridiculous. Unlike Bush, whose administration ostracized generals like Eric Shinseki for giving realistic estimates of several hundred thousand troops needed in Iraq, Obama by his “flip-flop” in fact shows a willingness to listen to commanders on the ground and an ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Call it what you will, but he has done what McCain challenged him to do, go to Iraq and speak with commanders. Obama has done exactly that, and now is being criticized for “flip-flopping” when what he did was exactly what a president would have to do-seek advice from commanders before making decisions.
Again, the argument that the Iraq War has led to a defeat for Al Qaeda is terribly misleading. There would have been no Al Qaeda in Iraq to defeat if we had not invaded and provided 140,000 targets for budding jihadists to shoot at. If we had sent a ground force into Afghanistan when we had Osama holed up in Tora Bora instead of dropping bombs that couldn’t reach the entrenched terrorists, our troops may have returned home triumphantly from Afghanistan having completed their mission of annihilating the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.
I give John McCain credit for having the wisdom to see that the initial phases of the war were a complete disaster, and that more troops would be needed to quell the violence. I honor his wartime service as a pilot and his suffering as a PoW. But I still cannot reconcile myself to his support for an unjustified war in the first place.
Obama may have been wrong about the surge (implemented years after Shinseki’s original recommendations of much higher troop levels), but he was right about the most important decision-the one that landed us in war in the first place. To suggest that a wrong stance on the surge is more damning than misleading the country into war in the first place, that is blindness to reality. And to erase President Bush’s previous blunders because he implemented a plan that worked after years of failure? That is blindness to reality.
===
It may certainly have benefited much of the Iraqi population to get rid of Saddam. In fact, if we manage to keep things going the way they are and leave Iraq a stable democracy (which I, a Democrat and Obama supporter, sincerely hope we do, we may look back years from now and see the Iraq War as having positive long term effects after all. I sincerely hope that is true.
However, no amount of good news from Iraq can erase the fact that Bush simply lied us into war. Let me remind you that our stated purpose was not to remove Saddam from power and free the Iraqis, it was to find WMDs that our administration told us were in Iraq, when they knew they had no evidence to back it up. If Bill Clinton can get impeached for lying about an affair (which really only directly affected three people-he, Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary Clinton), then why does Bush get off the hook for lying about a war that has caused the deaths of upwards of 4,000 brave American troops, several thousand more wounded and psychologically traumatized, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis? I challenge anyone who supported the Clinton impeachment as well as President Bush to think that through and come up with a valid response. Please email me or comment on my blog, this post will be there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)