I remember a trip I took to California to visit a relative. I was on the Atkins Diet at the time and had lost 40 lbs. I explained to someone (who had asked me about it) how according to nature, meat seemed the best thing for our body. Not to ignore other foods, but to focus on meat. She said “between that and Stem Cells, our generation may live forever”. I had never heard about Stem Cells - this was several years ago. It seemed to me my goal was not necessarily to live forever (a lot of religious issues interpose here that would make a different blog entry) but I thought it (and still think it) unlikely medicine is going to find a way for us to live “forever”. Much longer lives, sure - but forever?
I also remember an episode of Babylon Five (a series I really enjoyed, though I did not see all of it) where some alien had a technology that would make humans immortal - but in order to become immortal, each human would have to kill another human. One half of the human race would become immortal at the mortal expense of the other half. I am trying to remember if this alien was doing this out of some twisted motive because she wanted humans in chaos, but I don’t remember.
The argument about Stem Cell Research, before I even heard about stem cells, has never been about stem cells. The idea is that pure cells can be injected into a person’s body to replace damaged or corrupted cells (an oversimplification, but I believe accurate enough for all that). This seems to me innocent enough, and a technology that could really have some amazing effects on health.
Unfortunately, there are a few issues that cloud that clear concept. We search for the truth, being interested, and we are presented with stories that are actually about something else - this is not always the fault of the media (though sometimes I do blame them directly). People, who I believe are essentially afraid of presenting their honest truth or beliefs, have learned in order to get what they want they have to find something semi-related to what they want, something that people will get behind, push that very hard, and when they get a victory, proclaim that it automatically supports what they REALLY want.
Abortion is almost always the hidden topic, though homosexual issues are treated the same way.
Abortion advocates recognize that while most people start in the middle of the abortion debate. It’s easy to see how pregnancy not only dominates a woman’s life (and is quite often unplanned) but can be terrifying. There is no biological function which prevents a woman becoming pregnant because she’s not ready for the life change it produces. Before it is born, a baby is hidden from view (very fuzzy pictures from sonar technology aside). Just what it is or looks like is nearly impossible to conceive. Removing it, like a tumor or other growth, seems impersonal and logical enough. Just like most medical procedures, however, once it is looked into - once someone really takes the time to consider what is happening, an overwhelming majority will turn away from it.
That had to be the first victory in a long series of battles - advocates for abortion had to make it not only avoidable, but actually discouraged to educate people (especially the women who were making this huge decision) about abortions themselves. The overwhelming majority? Women. Women who see that we’re not talking about a tumor or a growth, but a tiny human being, a life-to-be, and that the procedure itself is frightening, disgusting, startling.
It’s interesting how many therapies we support, but there is so little focus on post-abortion syndromes. When a woman, who was discouraged from learning about what was going to happen, suddenly has HAD it happen, and has to deal with it.
The latest battle (and I am skipping the most famous of the battles, and so many in-between) is the so-called ban on Stem Cell Research.
The ridiculousness of the whole battle is that the premise itself is completely distorted and flawed. There is no ban on Stem Cell Research. Stem Cell Research is encouraged as a whole. One branch (and, it might be pointed out, the only branch that has shown absolutely zero results, while other branches have already cured diseases) is under attack: Embryonic Stem Cell Research. And it is only under attack, it is not even banned. There is absolutely no ban on the research itself. There is only a limit on the amount of government-supported research. A LIMIT, not even a BAN. So now, a LIMIT on government spending on ONE branch (and a sketchy one full of controversy) is now characterized as a BAN on the whole concept.
Why is this? Because abortion advocates have seen Stem Cell Research as their latest semi-related issue, a cause they believed they could present that people would accept - after all, who does NOT want to cure diseases, to improve health, to live longer lives? We love to solve mysteries, to overcome challenges, to see and do and experience more. Long, healthy lives are very conducive to that end. Abortion advocates have counted on two things: first, that we would be so interested in the ends, that we wouldn’t care about the means; second, that we would not be able to separate the various branches of the research - that they could characterize all successes in stem cell technology as coming directly from aborted babies.
We have seen many advances from Stem Cell Research. Some advances appear startlingly miraculous - revolutions in health. They have, to this point, ALL been the result of stem cells that came from the patient themselves. Adult stem cells - custom made by the body in question, and therefore perfect for that body - successes go unheralded because they do not advance abortion - and the focus on Stem Cell Research was begun by and is fanned by abortion advocates.
Now we hear that there is a new branch of Stem Cell Research based around birth (as opposed to abortion) that can produce cells nearly identical to embryos. The fluid in which an embryo develops (dare I say “lives”?) is a natural enough place to look for the building blocks of life and health.
I do not believe this issue will go away. Even if an insane proportion of advances in Stem Cells come from non-embryonic sources, and in the long run embryos are discounted as a reasonable place to find viable stem cells, just one victory - just one example of where an aborted embryo provides health to an adult - will be used to justify all abortions. Once that has been done, the abortion crowd will move on to another cause, leaving this industry alone to do better work.
Here’s the question: how much of this viable technology will be damaged and tainted by the struggle that has nothing to do with the core of its mission? How many people will feel uncomfortable using stem cells (even if they come from a source completely innocent of abortion implications - or even a source that encourages birth)? How many people will live with horrible guilt after stem cell treatment? Even worse: how many people will feel a twisted glee or euphoria at using them as though they have advanced their lives at the expense of another?
Move over Science Fiction. Babylon Five itself may not be floating in space, and aliens may not be trying to enrich themselves at the cost of half the population, but thanks to abortion advocates, we are forced to ask these very same questions.
So. Remember we’re not talking about combat, crime, or potential violence - you’re not asked to kill someone charging you with a knife, shooting at you with a gun, threatening to rape you, or even blow up buildings in your country - we’re talking about a life that has not threatened you in any way. Would YOU increase your own life span if it meant killing someone else?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Silver Lining?
Sigh. Good morning.
Actually, I'm only a very little bit glum.
Now, there is a silver lining, but I have to admit I was VERY wrong about the way the election was going to go.
The good thing is that conservatism won just about everywhere, but Republicans, who usually champion it, did not. It is difficult to explain to someone who isn't steeped in politics, but there are two elements I think fall into this.
First, and most easy to grasp, is that this was an election about Republicans. Democrats did not win (with a few exceptions) so much as Republicans lost. They lost when they did not listen to their voters. They did not secure our border, they did not protect the tax cuts, they did not take a firm stance on support in Iraq, they did not stand firm behind judges.
As a result, Republican voters have sent this message: "Unlike Democrats, who want their candidates in control no matter what, we will actually hand over control of the country to the opposition if you do not do exactly what you promised when we voted for you."
I believe firmly that we will re-elect Republicans in 2008, and another Republican president, and hopefully those politicians will know for certain that we mean what we say when we insist they do what we elected them to do.
One of the greatest illustrations of this is Joe Lieberman. His party loathed him for standing with the President on the issue of Iraq. Well, if this election was all about hating Bush and wanting to leave Iraq, Lieberman would have lost the general election too. He won handily. Even with the republican taking 10% of the vote away from him (because nobody thinks the Republicans would have voted for Lamont). Instead, it was about people who kept their word, who voted on what was important, and kept their campaign promises. Lieberman did all of these things and even Republicans supported him (though he often votes against our issues, he was at least intellectually honest and he GETS it about the War on Islamic Extremism).
Okay, here's the other thing, and it is harder to explain:
Ballot initiatives are when laws have to go to the voters instead of to individual state legislators. Many initiatives were on ballots all around the country. Conservative initiatives have won almost universally. TWENTY states passed bans on gay marriage, Arizona passed English as their official language, Colorado is denying illegal aliens access to citizen benefits, a whole lot of things.
So, how did all these conservative issues win, when all the Republicans lost? There are only two answers, and they can coincide. One, the country as a whole is conservative, even if it is split Rep/Dem. Two, lots of Republicans DID show up, but they didn't vote for the politicians who let them down in Washington.
I like the theory, but I loathe the practice.
It is wrong thinking. You don't hand power over to the opposition, you elect more conservative Republicans, so instead of a fight between liberals and conservatives, you have a fight between conservatives and moderates.
I'm actually more optimistic about 2008 than if we'd won AGAIN (after all, remember we won HUGE three elections in a row, so it was almost inevitable that we would take a step back). Historically, in 6th year mid-term elections, the party in the White House loses 40 seats in the house and 7 seats in the Senate. This was a loss, don't get me wrong, but it was better than average if you look at history.
Actually, I'm only a very little bit glum.
Now, there is a silver lining, but I have to admit I was VERY wrong about the way the election was going to go.
The good thing is that conservatism won just about everywhere, but Republicans, who usually champion it, did not. It is difficult to explain to someone who isn't steeped in politics, but there are two elements I think fall into this.
First, and most easy to grasp, is that this was an election about Republicans. Democrats did not win (with a few exceptions) so much as Republicans lost. They lost when they did not listen to their voters. They did not secure our border, they did not protect the tax cuts, they did not take a firm stance on support in Iraq, they did not stand firm behind judges.
As a result, Republican voters have sent this message: "Unlike Democrats, who want their candidates in control no matter what, we will actually hand over control of the country to the opposition if you do not do exactly what you promised when we voted for you."
I believe firmly that we will re-elect Republicans in 2008, and another Republican president, and hopefully those politicians will know for certain that we mean what we say when we insist they do what we elected them to do.
One of the greatest illustrations of this is Joe Lieberman. His party loathed him for standing with the President on the issue of Iraq. Well, if this election was all about hating Bush and wanting to leave Iraq, Lieberman would have lost the general election too. He won handily. Even with the republican taking 10% of the vote away from him (because nobody thinks the Republicans would have voted for Lamont). Instead, it was about people who kept their word, who voted on what was important, and kept their campaign promises. Lieberman did all of these things and even Republicans supported him (though he often votes against our issues, he was at least intellectually honest and he GETS it about the War on Islamic Extremism).
Okay, here's the other thing, and it is harder to explain:
Ballot initiatives are when laws have to go to the voters instead of to individual state legislators. Many initiatives were on ballots all around the country. Conservative initiatives have won almost universally. TWENTY states passed bans on gay marriage, Arizona passed English as their official language, Colorado is denying illegal aliens access to citizen benefits, a whole lot of things.
So, how did all these conservative issues win, when all the Republicans lost? There are only two answers, and they can coincide. One, the country as a whole is conservative, even if it is split Rep/Dem. Two, lots of Republicans DID show up, but they didn't vote for the politicians who let them down in Washington.
I like the theory, but I loathe the practice.
It is wrong thinking. You don't hand power over to the opposition, you elect more conservative Republicans, so instead of a fight between liberals and conservatives, you have a fight between conservatives and moderates.
I'm actually more optimistic about 2008 than if we'd won AGAIN (after all, remember we won HUGE three elections in a row, so it was almost inevitable that we would take a step back). Historically, in 6th year mid-term elections, the party in the White House loses 40 seats in the house and 7 seats in the Senate. This was a loss, don't get me wrong, but it was better than average if you look at history.
Friday, September 15, 2006
The Path to 9/11
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html
I highly encourage everyone to watch this movie. I was very impressed. Yes, there is partisan bickering over it, but personally I felt the movie aimed the proverbial "fan" at both administrations. If it seemed to focus more on one, I suggest to you that is only because one of the two administrations spent weeks highlighting the fallacy of the film, so you are searching to see what they found so objectionable. Also, one must consider that while the current administration did have several months of culpability (and even that time, being so critical, shows alarmingly well in this docu-drama) the previous administration had more time with the dropped ball rolling about their feet. Anyone would look bad under those circumstances.
This movie, to me, illustrates the incredible dedication of many people determined to protect their fellow citizens. It also shows the root of the problem: Red or Blue, politicians who put popularity and opinion polls (foreign and domestic) and their re-election chances ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.
It is a gripping story and well told.
I highly encourage everyone to watch this movie. I was very impressed. Yes, there is partisan bickering over it, but personally I felt the movie aimed the proverbial "fan" at both administrations. If it seemed to focus more on one, I suggest to you that is only because one of the two administrations spent weeks highlighting the fallacy of the film, so you are searching to see what they found so objectionable. Also, one must consider that while the current administration did have several months of culpability (and even that time, being so critical, shows alarmingly well in this docu-drama) the previous administration had more time with the dropped ball rolling about their feet. Anyone would look bad under those circumstances.
This movie, to me, illustrates the incredible dedication of many people determined to protect their fellow citizens. It also shows the root of the problem: Red or Blue, politicians who put popularity and opinion polls (foreign and domestic) and their re-election chances ahead of the safety of their fellow citizens.
It is a gripping story and well told.
Friday, September 08, 2006
The Path to 9/11
Why all the flap about “The Path to 9/11?”
Easy. This may be my shortest post.
In the battle between Liberalism and Conservatism, Liberals fired the biggest cannons they could dream of in the form of movies from Michael Moore and Al Gore. They had little effect, and it is arguable that they actually damaged Liberal causes.
Conservatives are about to air a movie. The reaction from Liberals is very like the reaction Conservatives had. Just as Conservatives were adding fuel to the Michael Moore / Al Gore fire, Liberals are now adding explosives to the possible explosion of “The Path to 9/11”.
The danger?
That despite this being a LIBERAL medium, Conservatives may be on the brink of using it to much greater effect.
I urge you to watch The Path to 9/11 and make up your own mind.
Easy. This may be my shortest post.
In the battle between Liberalism and Conservatism, Liberals fired the biggest cannons they could dream of in the form of movies from Michael Moore and Al Gore. They had little effect, and it is arguable that they actually damaged Liberal causes.
Conservatives are about to air a movie. The reaction from Liberals is very like the reaction Conservatives had. Just as Conservatives were adding fuel to the Michael Moore / Al Gore fire, Liberals are now adding explosives to the possible explosion of “The Path to 9/11”.
The danger?
That despite this being a LIBERAL medium, Conservatives may be on the brink of using it to much greater effect.
I urge you to watch The Path to 9/11 and make up your own mind.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
It’s official: we are losing.
It infuriates me, but then again, this is how any losing side feels. There is a war going on. It is not the so-called War on Terror (an unfortunate phrase, that isn’t accurate, but something was needed to satisfy paper-driven bureaucratic weenies). It is not the War in Iraq, or even between Israel and Hezbollah.
It is the War of Mind. A famous and spectacular thinker, shortly after another war (the “War between the states” here in the USA) predicted world wars one and two, calling them the war of chemistry, the war of physics, and predicted the war of mind.
Here it is, and quite frankly, we’re losing. Why? Because we don’t realize that’s the war we’re in, and that the sides are not drawn by country or nation, not even by ideology. This is a war for influence. A war for how things are to be done, and how they are to be perceived. It’s about the old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
That adage has been supported by many examples, all of them drawn with the instrument in question. I am here using that very instrument (though in digital form) to say that in the end, the sword is mightier than the pen, because the sword enforces the pen.
The greatest threat facing our nation, and therefore our very way of life (don’t believe for one second the rest of the world would let us live as we do if they could stop us, and believe they were bettering their lives by taking away what they perceive as our wealth), is misrepresentation.
Sides have been taken. Fortunately, there are a few small (but very strong) “pens” on my side. On the other side you have people who want to prove the pen is mightier than the sword simply for the sake of proving it. They have the misguided impression that, once they have taken the side of the underdog, the WRONG underdog, and once they have helped that underdog win against seemingly impossible odds, they will be able to use their pen in their own defense.
This is not what is going to happen. The holders of those pens, which are mighty, are going to be run through by the very swords they helped. For you see, powerful as it is, the pen is not almighty.
It is laudable to attempt to lessen violence and pain, misery and suffering in the world. It is worse than murder to use pens and words to twist the truth in an attempt to make the wrong side win.
These pens-for-hire are being used. They don’t even realize they are being used. Those who I consider my enemies have grown strong and crafty in the years and years of their defeat. They have learned to use a new weapon, and to wield it skillfully. The modern pen is so strong that it has even convinced the sword it is not as mighty. It has convinced the sword it cannot go where the pen will not allow. And it is succeeding.
Can we win this war with the pen? Yes, but only if we embrace it as strongly and with the same resources as our enemy. We find ourselves on the other side of the power struggle. Those of us who believe the sword is mightier have built massive armed forces and can project real power wherever and whenever we choose (don’t kid yourself, if we actually unleashed our eagle, there is not a bear anywhere that could withstand it). Those who can’t build swords to contend with ours have built up their armies - and they are much larger, more powerful, and better equipped than ours. Not necessarily better, but certainly overwhelming.
To win this war with the sword we are going to have to ignore the pen, no matter what color its ink or how fast it writes.
On the other hand, to win this war with the pen we are going to have to develop our own news agencies - agencies willing to investigate the actual truth and expose it, report it whether it is popular or not, and never cover it up. Right now the news that hurts the underdog is covered up. The news that helps the expected winner is covered up or twisted. Until it is exposed and honest, rational thought is shared, we are going to lose and go on losing this war.
I do not believe that limits to the First Amendment are required. I believe that the government has to spend as much money on truth as it does on gunpowder. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a strong military, and I believe ours is the best on earth. I just believe that too many people invest too much money lying about our efforts, or military, and our intentions. They are not even bothering to play fair. There are no Geneva Conventions covering war waged with pens.
It is the War of Mind. A famous and spectacular thinker, shortly after another war (the “War between the states” here in the USA) predicted world wars one and two, calling them the war of chemistry, the war of physics, and predicted the war of mind.
Here it is, and quite frankly, we’re losing. Why? Because we don’t realize that’s the war we’re in, and that the sides are not drawn by country or nation, not even by ideology. This is a war for influence. A war for how things are to be done, and how they are to be perceived. It’s about the old adage that the pen is mightier than the sword.
That adage has been supported by many examples, all of them drawn with the instrument in question. I am here using that very instrument (though in digital form) to say that in the end, the sword is mightier than the pen, because the sword enforces the pen.
The greatest threat facing our nation, and therefore our very way of life (don’t believe for one second the rest of the world would let us live as we do if they could stop us, and believe they were bettering their lives by taking away what they perceive as our wealth), is misrepresentation.
Sides have been taken. Fortunately, there are a few small (but very strong) “pens” on my side. On the other side you have people who want to prove the pen is mightier than the sword simply for the sake of proving it. They have the misguided impression that, once they have taken the side of the underdog, the WRONG underdog, and once they have helped that underdog win against seemingly impossible odds, they will be able to use their pen in their own defense.
This is not what is going to happen. The holders of those pens, which are mighty, are going to be run through by the very swords they helped. For you see, powerful as it is, the pen is not almighty.
It is laudable to attempt to lessen violence and pain, misery and suffering in the world. It is worse than murder to use pens and words to twist the truth in an attempt to make the wrong side win.
These pens-for-hire are being used. They don’t even realize they are being used. Those who I consider my enemies have grown strong and crafty in the years and years of their defeat. They have learned to use a new weapon, and to wield it skillfully. The modern pen is so strong that it has even convinced the sword it is not as mighty. It has convinced the sword it cannot go where the pen will not allow. And it is succeeding.
Can we win this war with the pen? Yes, but only if we embrace it as strongly and with the same resources as our enemy. We find ourselves on the other side of the power struggle. Those of us who believe the sword is mightier have built massive armed forces and can project real power wherever and whenever we choose (don’t kid yourself, if we actually unleashed our eagle, there is not a bear anywhere that could withstand it). Those who can’t build swords to contend with ours have built up their armies - and they are much larger, more powerful, and better equipped than ours. Not necessarily better, but certainly overwhelming.
To win this war with the sword we are going to have to ignore the pen, no matter what color its ink or how fast it writes.
On the other hand, to win this war with the pen we are going to have to develop our own news agencies - agencies willing to investigate the actual truth and expose it, report it whether it is popular or not, and never cover it up. Right now the news that hurts the underdog is covered up. The news that helps the expected winner is covered up or twisted. Until it is exposed and honest, rational thought is shared, we are going to lose and go on losing this war.
I do not believe that limits to the First Amendment are required. I believe that the government has to spend as much money on truth as it does on gunpowder. Don’t get me wrong, I believe in a strong military, and I believe ours is the best on earth. I just believe that too many people invest too much money lying about our efforts, or military, and our intentions. They are not even bothering to play fair. There are no Geneva Conventions covering war waged with pens.
Friday, July 21, 2006
War Panic and Reassurance
I heard a desperate mother calling in to a radio show, near tears about the need to stop war, afraid for her son who works in a daycare facility and sees children every day – she couldn’t imagine her boy or any of those children being asked to go to war and die.
The vast majority of the world wants peace. Most of us are non-aggressive. Look even locally, and you must be forced to admit that left to our own devices, we’re a peaceful race. When violent crime is measured in the “per 100,000 persons” category, it sounds much like “particles per million”. That is a very small percentage.
Unfortunately the very machines of war which limit our casualties (compare 2000 casualties in three years of Iraq with 91,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2) make it possible for those very small “particles per person” to cause very real damage amongst the rest of us.
I feel for the terrified mother. I am a father of three. I simply do not go down the road of emotion that would be called for should one of my children die – no matter what the circumstances. I would, however, try to soothe her fears by pointing out that we have an all volunteer military. While even amongst the volunteers there are those who feel they were pressured into it (though they usually feel strong enough to protest when faced with real danger) the overwhelming majority of our brave military want to be doing what they’re doing.
The only time a draft would be required, when the daycare specialist might be forced into the armed forces, would be if we did not act responsibly and proactively to limit the size and power of our enemies.
While this could ignite a conversation about the justification of projecting our will and power over others, that is not the thrust of this entry. This is merely to point out that the unreasoning, blank fear that is like a knee-jerk reaction for so many people can be met with calm reassurance.
The vast majority of the world wants peace. Most of us are non-aggressive. Look even locally, and you must be forced to admit that left to our own devices, we’re a peaceful race. When violent crime is measured in the “per 100,000 persons” category, it sounds much like “particles per million”. That is a very small percentage.
Unfortunately the very machines of war which limit our casualties (compare 2000 casualties in three years of Iraq with 91,000 casualties in the Pacific Theater of WW2) make it possible for those very small “particles per person” to cause very real damage amongst the rest of us.
I feel for the terrified mother. I am a father of three. I simply do not go down the road of emotion that would be called for should one of my children die – no matter what the circumstances. I would, however, try to soothe her fears by pointing out that we have an all volunteer military. While even amongst the volunteers there are those who feel they were pressured into it (though they usually feel strong enough to protest when faced with real danger) the overwhelming majority of our brave military want to be doing what they’re doing.
The only time a draft would be required, when the daycare specialist might be forced into the armed forces, would be if we did not act responsibly and proactively to limit the size and power of our enemies.
While this could ignite a conversation about the justification of projecting our will and power over others, that is not the thrust of this entry. This is merely to point out that the unreasoning, blank fear that is like a knee-jerk reaction for so many people can be met with calm reassurance.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Archdukes and the Internet: Amateurs at War
As I sat here, like many people (knowing the names or not) making (hopefully unsuccessful) parallels between the Israeli soldier captured/kidnapped in Gaza and Archduke Ferdinand, I thought about stories and accounts of how captured sailors in the Napoleonic Wars (and immediately conjured more parallels between England and France, Israel and fill-in-the-neighbor) often became friends across the battlefield, how captains of ships entertained their enemies and treated them with an almost competitive respect.
Fear not, I shall attempt to keep my sentences shorter for the rest of this entry. Though, think of it spoken aloud in a musing sort of voice rather than typed into a rather persnickety keyboard.
I came to wonder about the brutality with which prisoners are treated in war today. Let us not fool ourselves. A clean cell, religious literature, three square meals a day, access to lawyers and human rights activists does not constitute brutal treatment of enemy combatants. Brutality is beheading, dismemberment, dragging of mutilated bodies through muddy streets.
I could go off on a tangent here and wonder what news stories would be reported about brutality and humane treatment if the war, instead of being fought in Iraq, were fought on the streets of the Eastern Seaboard. However, I shan’t sport with your intelligence.
It occurred to me (and here is where I introduce one last seemingly random thread before producing my organized braid) that there is another related parallel to the outcry that many feel about the onset of the Internet and the apparent anarchy and freedom to information it provides. The outcry comes from professionals who fear for their jobs, or at least for the influence and power that is being eroded away. I do not blame them, it is only natural to feel this way. However, I am not going to stop my freedoms and liberties so they may experience a feeling of control over my destiny. They claim that it is unlikely the average Joe (by whom I assume they mean me, and though I take that as a compliment, I doubt they intend to flatter) will be able to sift through the seemingly limitless information and recognize what is information and what is opinion.
The problem is that we do that all too well, and that’s why we are turning to the Internet now, dopes.
Does use of the word “dopes” brand me as an illiterate and dangerous, unprofessional blogger? Well, I certainly don’t get paid for this outlet.
How do I tie this all together? Archdukes and captured Israeli soldiers, the loss of dignity and decency in the way enemies are treated, and the almost anarchistic influence the Internet has on global society? With the sentence I wished to write all by itself, without this lengthy blog entry to support and explain it (though laying out ones thought process is somehow gratifying).
Terrorism is what one gets when amateurs are given the professional tools of war.
Fear not, I shall attempt to keep my sentences shorter for the rest of this entry. Though, think of it spoken aloud in a musing sort of voice rather than typed into a rather persnickety keyboard.
I came to wonder about the brutality with which prisoners are treated in war today. Let us not fool ourselves. A clean cell, religious literature, three square meals a day, access to lawyers and human rights activists does not constitute brutal treatment of enemy combatants. Brutality is beheading, dismemberment, dragging of mutilated bodies through muddy streets.
I could go off on a tangent here and wonder what news stories would be reported about brutality and humane treatment if the war, instead of being fought in Iraq, were fought on the streets of the Eastern Seaboard. However, I shan’t sport with your intelligence.
It occurred to me (and here is where I introduce one last seemingly random thread before producing my organized braid) that there is another related parallel to the outcry that many feel about the onset of the Internet and the apparent anarchy and freedom to information it provides. The outcry comes from professionals who fear for their jobs, or at least for the influence and power that is being eroded away. I do not blame them, it is only natural to feel this way. However, I am not going to stop my freedoms and liberties so they may experience a feeling of control over my destiny. They claim that it is unlikely the average Joe (by whom I assume they mean me, and though I take that as a compliment, I doubt they intend to flatter) will be able to sift through the seemingly limitless information and recognize what is information and what is opinion.
The problem is that we do that all too well, and that’s why we are turning to the Internet now, dopes.
Does use of the word “dopes” brand me as an illiterate and dangerous, unprofessional blogger? Well, I certainly don’t get paid for this outlet.
How do I tie this all together? Archdukes and captured Israeli soldiers, the loss of dignity and decency in the way enemies are treated, and the almost anarchistic influence the Internet has on global society? With the sentence I wished to write all by itself, without this lengthy blog entry to support and explain it (though laying out ones thought process is somehow gratifying).
Terrorism is what one gets when amateurs are given the professional tools of war.
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Ends and Means of our War for Oil
I will try to say this as succinctly as possible, rather than explaining every nuance. Hopefully it will come across very shortly:
Are the wars that we pay attention to today (and there are many we simply ignore, much to the frustration of some of our hottest Hollywood celebrities) in fact wars for oil?
I believe they are. Not in the traditional way that most critics of the current administration say President Bush and his oil cronies are trying to make a buck, but because we here in the United States have allowed ourselves to become less than self-sufficient. Wherever you are dependant on others, there is leverage to be used against you. When you are dependant on friends, your bonds become stronger and you work closer together. When enemies or hostiles supply your dependencies, what you need becomes leverage to make you do what they want.
The bitter fighting in the holy lands (middle east, if you can’t stomach the other term) demands the attention of the United States because we have blocked ourselves from providing the energy we need to drive our cars, watch our televisions, light and cool our buildings, cook our food.
This is a war fought not over the oil under the sands of Iraq or Iran, but over the oil here in our own country that we will not drill. Though it may be sad to say, if we were providing for our own energy consumption, we could ignore what is going on in and around the holy lands the same way we ignore what goes on in great stretches of Africa.
It’s not that I don’t believe “unalienable rights” really do belong to all people, but I don’t believe that most people in this country are up to the massive effort it would take in order to provide those rights to all people: namely, to actually take over the world and deliver those rights. The main argument that seems to be put forth every time a section of the world is freed is that it won’t work, that Arabs or Persians cannot handle freedom, that Islam is incompatible with it.
By that argument, not only would Japan and Germany be inexplicable, but the frighteningly parallel brand of Catholicism embraced only a few hundred years ago would have made our present circumstances impossible. After all, it is not the Republic of Heaven that is spoken of in Christianity’s Koran.
Understand me, and those who think like me, for a change. Our frustration comes not from our perception of your unwillingness to defend our nation or the oppressed around the world, nor from the desire to find alternative ways to fuel our economy. Our frustration comes from policies that cause the problem in the first place, then refuse to allow the mess to be cleaned up, and finally to tout a desire to defend the worst, most wild aspects of our culture – AND to presumably help the oppressed around the world – while in actuality putting up every possible block to achieve those very aims.
Yes. This is a war. This is a war for oil. This is a war for OUR oil, the oil that can be found under Colorado, Alaska, within or near our shores.
But for some this is a war for the ballot box, pure and simple. It is a war to recover power for power’s sake. It is an example of ends and means. We want the ends, such as actual, viable, lasting peace; or even just a handle on our own needs – a feeling of confidence that we can get from place to place, eat a hot meal, see the latest fad TV show; while others want the means: whatever it takes to make sure it is done THEIR way, or by THEIR leader, whether it works or not.
Are the wars that we pay attention to today (and there are many we simply ignore, much to the frustration of some of our hottest Hollywood celebrities) in fact wars for oil?
I believe they are. Not in the traditional way that most critics of the current administration say President Bush and his oil cronies are trying to make a buck, but because we here in the United States have allowed ourselves to become less than self-sufficient. Wherever you are dependant on others, there is leverage to be used against you. When you are dependant on friends, your bonds become stronger and you work closer together. When enemies or hostiles supply your dependencies, what you need becomes leverage to make you do what they want.
The bitter fighting in the holy lands (middle east, if you can’t stomach the other term) demands the attention of the United States because we have blocked ourselves from providing the energy we need to drive our cars, watch our televisions, light and cool our buildings, cook our food.
This is a war fought not over the oil under the sands of Iraq or Iran, but over the oil here in our own country that we will not drill. Though it may be sad to say, if we were providing for our own energy consumption, we could ignore what is going on in and around the holy lands the same way we ignore what goes on in great stretches of Africa.
It’s not that I don’t believe “unalienable rights” really do belong to all people, but I don’t believe that most people in this country are up to the massive effort it would take in order to provide those rights to all people: namely, to actually take over the world and deliver those rights. The main argument that seems to be put forth every time a section of the world is freed is that it won’t work, that Arabs or Persians cannot handle freedom, that Islam is incompatible with it.
By that argument, not only would Japan and Germany be inexplicable, but the frighteningly parallel brand of Catholicism embraced only a few hundred years ago would have made our present circumstances impossible. After all, it is not the Republic of Heaven that is spoken of in Christianity’s Koran.
Understand me, and those who think like me, for a change. Our frustration comes not from our perception of your unwillingness to defend our nation or the oppressed around the world, nor from the desire to find alternative ways to fuel our economy. Our frustration comes from policies that cause the problem in the first place, then refuse to allow the mess to be cleaned up, and finally to tout a desire to defend the worst, most wild aspects of our culture – AND to presumably help the oppressed around the world – while in actuality putting up every possible block to achieve those very aims.
Yes. This is a war. This is a war for oil. This is a war for OUR oil, the oil that can be found under Colorado, Alaska, within or near our shores.
But for some this is a war for the ballot box, pure and simple. It is a war to recover power for power’s sake. It is an example of ends and means. We want the ends, such as actual, viable, lasting peace; or even just a handle on our own needs – a feeling of confidence that we can get from place to place, eat a hot meal, see the latest fad TV show; while others want the means: whatever it takes to make sure it is done THEIR way, or by THEIR leader, whether it works or not.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Don’t lose sight of the problem: the senate.
President Bush, who has weathered every storm thrown at him and managed to come out looking better, is set to do it again. He has picked his second nominee for the Supreme Court, and it is suspected he will have the opportunity to pick a third, or even fourth.
I don’t know Harriet Miers. I suspect she’ll be great on the court. I don’t have a problem with President Bush picking her over anyone else. I don’t even have a problem with the fact that a conservative icon was not picked. I’d love to see the showdown that finally nukes the left, but even that can wait. I don’t mind the slow meltdown they’re in now (especially as they can’t see it).
Here’s what I have a problem with, and it was mentioned on more than one blog, radio show, and article. I believe, even if President Bush felt Miers was his first pick, there were a lot of candidates that withdrew, or that he didn’t consider, because the candidates nor the President wanted to go to war with this senate as their army.
The Republicans have a majority in the senate. It’s 55-44-1 (the independent always votes with the democrats, so it is basically 55-45). However, they constantly waffle, they constantly give in, they don’t have the will or strength in them to challenge their opponents. They cave in at the least hint of nasty news, and even turn on their fellows when they sniff blood in the water.
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to rely on this senate for anything, even though I like my two senators. If President Bush approached me to sit on the Supreme Court (pretending, for a moment, that I was a somewhat known public figure with a history of conservatism) I would look at what has gone on and say “no thanks”. Not because I don’t trust our President, but because I have NO faith in the Republicans in the Senate to stand up for me.
Thank the Senate for this current predicament. I am not concerned in the least about our ideological movement, or our current hold on government (which I see dominating for the next 30 years at least). I only hope that people realize every election matters, not just the President. Pay attention to who represents you. They affect more than you realize.
I don’t know Harriet Miers. I suspect she’ll be great on the court. I don’t have a problem with President Bush picking her over anyone else. I don’t even have a problem with the fact that a conservative icon was not picked. I’d love to see the showdown that finally nukes the left, but even that can wait. I don’t mind the slow meltdown they’re in now (especially as they can’t see it).
Here’s what I have a problem with, and it was mentioned on more than one blog, radio show, and article. I believe, even if President Bush felt Miers was his first pick, there were a lot of candidates that withdrew, or that he didn’t consider, because the candidates nor the President wanted to go to war with this senate as their army.
The Republicans have a majority in the senate. It’s 55-44-1 (the independent always votes with the democrats, so it is basically 55-45). However, they constantly waffle, they constantly give in, they don’t have the will or strength in them to challenge their opponents. They cave in at the least hint of nasty news, and even turn on their fellows when they sniff blood in the water.
Quite frankly, I wouldn’t want to rely on this senate for anything, even though I like my two senators. If President Bush approached me to sit on the Supreme Court (pretending, for a moment, that I was a somewhat known public figure with a history of conservatism) I would look at what has gone on and say “no thanks”. Not because I don’t trust our President, but because I have NO faith in the Republicans in the Senate to stand up for me.
Thank the Senate for this current predicament. I am not concerned in the least about our ideological movement, or our current hold on government (which I see dominating for the next 30 years at least). I only hope that people realize every election matters, not just the President. Pay attention to who represents you. They affect more than you realize.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Corruption? Yeah. But what do I *really* want?
In a perfect world, a utopia come true, there would be no “corruption” in government. But then, we wouldn’t have to work hard, we would have all the time and pleasures we wanted, and we wouldn’t affect the environment doing it.
We live in a practical, pragmatic world. There has been a lot of talk about corruption in our government. I believe it is corrupt. I don’t believe all politicians are corrupt, but I do believe congress has passed out pet projects (called pork) to their constituents. Money that didn’t absolutely need to be spent is still pulled from taxes and given to local projects.
This is a fact of politics. It’s stupid, because those people who think they are benefiting because their senator or representative brought a lucrative project to their area are still paying taxes for all the other projects going to all the other areas. If it’s not their turn this year, it will be next, to pay the bill for someone else’s project. However, it’s a fact of politics. If you want people to vote for you, you have to be ready to use your influence to “help” them. If you don’t help your constituents, they are not going to elect you again.
I am not asking for an end to corruption. What I am asking for is strength of leadership, of backbone and integrity. Don’t bother denying what you are doing, don’t try to hide it, but don’t roll over and slink away when someone who is every bit as corrupt as you points a finger and starts to yell. I am sick and tired of my elected leaders (all of whom are from my party) letting the media and the so-called “opposition” party win every petty round of mud-slinging scream-fests.
Let’s see how corrupt it USED to be! Let’s see how many pork projects and misdirected millions can be found in the bills when the “opposition” party was in power! Fire back damn you! We own the arena of ideas. We own the right ideas. We don’t have to let THEM own the ability to label us and manipulate the media.
I don’t need an end to all corruption, I need a start of leadership! Play “hard-ball” you wimps!
We live in a practical, pragmatic world. There has been a lot of talk about corruption in our government. I believe it is corrupt. I don’t believe all politicians are corrupt, but I do believe congress has passed out pet projects (called pork) to their constituents. Money that didn’t absolutely need to be spent is still pulled from taxes and given to local projects.
This is a fact of politics. It’s stupid, because those people who think they are benefiting because their senator or representative brought a lucrative project to their area are still paying taxes for all the other projects going to all the other areas. If it’s not their turn this year, it will be next, to pay the bill for someone else’s project. However, it’s a fact of politics. If you want people to vote for you, you have to be ready to use your influence to “help” them. If you don’t help your constituents, they are not going to elect you again.
I am not asking for an end to corruption. What I am asking for is strength of leadership, of backbone and integrity. Don’t bother denying what you are doing, don’t try to hide it, but don’t roll over and slink away when someone who is every bit as corrupt as you points a finger and starts to yell. I am sick and tired of my elected leaders (all of whom are from my party) letting the media and the so-called “opposition” party win every petty round of mud-slinging scream-fests.
Let’s see how corrupt it USED to be! Let’s see how many pork projects and misdirected millions can be found in the bills when the “opposition” party was in power! Fire back damn you! We own the arena of ideas. We own the right ideas. We don’t have to let THEM own the ability to label us and manipulate the media.
I don’t need an end to all corruption, I need a start of leadership! Play “hard-ball” you wimps!
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Commitment and Majorities
I am obviously biased. I am conservative. If you read my blog you know this. I have been wrestling with my concepts of liberalism, trying to figure out just why it is that we contradict each other: the very things I would say about a liberal, they could say about me. We would both be right in our own minds because we would be looking at each others behavior, seeing what we felt were inconsistencies.
How do we reconcile those inconsistencies for ourselves? I know that I prefer law and government in certain circumstances, and not in others. It is almost exactly opposite to when a liberal prefers law and government. I believe each branch of the government has certain duties, responsibilities, and certain powers it should not exercise. Those are almost exactly opposite to what a liberal expects.
I live my life being cautious in certain places, adhering to certain traditions, discarding others. I commit to certain things, I avoid commitment to others.
How do my choices make me conservative instead of liberal?
Liberals commit themselves only to the temporary. Commitment is good, but how committed are you if you know you can abort what you’ve started any time you want? It feels like a refusal to believe a part of you might be meant to serve others. Sometimes you must carry something through despite the fact that it is going to take from you and seems to give nothing back. The value may be for someone else, and you may not always be capable of discerning that value.
From what I can tell, liberals believe in mob rules, not majority rules. Mob rules are much more centralized. The loud voice, surrounded by angry people, focused on a mutual target that is often not only innocent of the charges levied upon it, but may be exactly what the larger majority wants. But the mob is not capable of understanding that. Instead of converting more to its cause, it tries to subvert.
How do we reconcile those inconsistencies for ourselves? I know that I prefer law and government in certain circumstances, and not in others. It is almost exactly opposite to when a liberal prefers law and government. I believe each branch of the government has certain duties, responsibilities, and certain powers it should not exercise. Those are almost exactly opposite to what a liberal expects.
I live my life being cautious in certain places, adhering to certain traditions, discarding others. I commit to certain things, I avoid commitment to others.
How do my choices make me conservative instead of liberal?
Liberals commit themselves only to the temporary. Commitment is good, but how committed are you if you know you can abort what you’ve started any time you want? It feels like a refusal to believe a part of you might be meant to serve others. Sometimes you must carry something through despite the fact that it is going to take from you and seems to give nothing back. The value may be for someone else, and you may not always be capable of discerning that value.
From what I can tell, liberals believe in mob rules, not majority rules. Mob rules are much more centralized. The loud voice, surrounded by angry people, focused on a mutual target that is often not only innocent of the charges levied upon it, but may be exactly what the larger majority wants. But the mob is not capable of understanding that. Instead of converting more to its cause, it tries to subvert.
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Who can best defeat…
Articles ran rampant during the 2004 election season, especially as the Democrats zeroed in on their candidate (which happened very fast). It was all about “who could beat Bush?” There were two huge challenges that beset the Democrats. First, they didn’t have much of a selection. It’s just the kind of thing that happens. Some years your candidates are stronger than the other side, sometimes the other side is stronger. Democrats underestimated President Bush and overestimated Senator Kerry. It was probably their best choice, but it was just not enough. How many times did we hear that Democrats were not excited about their candidate? I would venture to guess that the vast majority of elections go to the party that is more excited about their candidate. If your “guy” is boring, you’re going to lose. If he’s boring and trying to fake being excited, you’re still going to lose.
The second issue is something that is really going to come into play in the next election. There is a candidate on the Democrats’ side that excites them. Hillary Clinton. She’s far from boring. The challenge will be for the Republicans to be excited about their candidate. Most of the names being floated are simply not exciting. Except Condoleezza Rice. She excites Republicans. She’s the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. She’s strong, smart, female, and has a political resume that has not only seen her in the Oval Office, but could put her behind the desk.
Therefore, the issue is going to be broad appeal. We have seen Senator Clinton making great strides to try to appeal nationwide. She’s moved far center of her typical position, presumably to set herself up to represent the whole nation rather than just her party. The question is, will it work? Both candidates, especially if it comes down to these two, are going to have to answer that one.
The second issue boils down to this: will your candidate actually inspire the other side to come out in opposition? Certainly there was a lot of that in the 2004 election. So you’ve got the positive, neutral, and negative takes on the two issues: Excitement for your candidate and determination to defeat the opposition.
My opinion (since this is my blog) is that in a Clinton/Rice race, Democrats will be excited about their candidate, but not enough of them determined to defeat Rice (in fact they will have to worry about her broad appeal taking away one of their big voting blocks), but Republicans will be both excited about their candidate and determined to defeat Clinton. Not a HUGE win, but at least four more years in the White House. I think many Democrats have figured this out. While according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Rice has a 59% favorable rating nationwide, and Clinton only polled 40% among Democrats for the candidacy in ’08. There’s a LONG way to go, but I believe it’s something to watch.
For the Democrats it’s no longer just about getting your people to the poll. Not only in this same poll do 56% of the people in this nation (all parties) approve of the Republican party, but only 46% approve of the Democrats (47% disapprove), but there are more registered Republicans than Democrats now. They also have to find a way to keep the Republicans from going to the polls.
Good luck…
The second issue is something that is really going to come into play in the next election. There is a candidate on the Democrats’ side that excites them. Hillary Clinton. She’s far from boring. The challenge will be for the Republicans to be excited about their candidate. Most of the names being floated are simply not exciting. Except Condoleezza Rice. She excites Republicans. She’s the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. She’s strong, smart, female, and has a political resume that has not only seen her in the Oval Office, but could put her behind the desk.
Therefore, the issue is going to be broad appeal. We have seen Senator Clinton making great strides to try to appeal nationwide. She’s moved far center of her typical position, presumably to set herself up to represent the whole nation rather than just her party. The question is, will it work? Both candidates, especially if it comes down to these two, are going to have to answer that one.
The second issue boils down to this: will your candidate actually inspire the other side to come out in opposition? Certainly there was a lot of that in the 2004 election. So you’ve got the positive, neutral, and negative takes on the two issues: Excitement for your candidate and determination to defeat the opposition.
My opinion (since this is my blog) is that in a Clinton/Rice race, Democrats will be excited about their candidate, but not enough of them determined to defeat Rice (in fact they will have to worry about her broad appeal taking away one of their big voting blocks), but Republicans will be both excited about their candidate and determined to defeat Clinton. Not a HUGE win, but at least four more years in the White House. I think many Democrats have figured this out. While according to the latest USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll, Rice has a 59% favorable rating nationwide, and Clinton only polled 40% among Democrats for the candidacy in ’08. There’s a LONG way to go, but I believe it’s something to watch.
For the Democrats it’s no longer just about getting your people to the poll. Not only in this same poll do 56% of the people in this nation (all parties) approve of the Republican party, but only 46% approve of the Democrats (47% disapprove), but there are more registered Republicans than Democrats now. They also have to find a way to keep the Republicans from going to the polls.
Good luck…
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Twenty, Twelve, Ten, Eight, Six, Four...
I love role-play. I love fantasy. My real website is www.dragontayl.com. My stories are there. It’s also where I host role-playing games on Neverwinter Nights (nwn.bioware.com). Role-playing is my main hobby, almost to the exclusion of all others.
Role-play comes in many flavors. There’s the “I wonder what I would be like if I were ninety pounds of tempered elf amazingly incredible with bow and daggers, who could cast spells, couldn’t eat grains, had five nose rings, and was named Flibertygibbit Greballion of the Green Leaf.” You ‘go out’ with a bunch of friends, laugh, show your superiority over impressive monsters (or die trying), find the best punch lines, and just have a blast.
There’s the “If I were transposed into a fantasy character, what would I want to be? How would I act? What could I do?” You create an alter ego, typically the best of what you have to offer, wrestling with the dark inner secrets you don’t expose to just anyone, and write a tragic tale (though it can have a good ending, it is rarely comedy) with epic battles both within and without.
There’s the “I would like to try something a little different, see how well I can role play this kind of personality and this kind of adventurer.” You put together a party of friends and delve deep into mystery (often wonderful comedy) and explore how you think that kind of person would react.
For me, if you play sports, I end up with the “goalie” position in role-play. I’m not coordinated enough to play even goalies in real sports, though I love to play ice hockey (the term play is used very loosely here) and I enjoy playing softball-baseball, just stay with the concept here and don’t drag me off topic. I am the game master (in the classic grand pooh-bah of role-playing games, Dungeons & Dragons, this is known as the Dungeon Master). Not only do I run the game, I create the games before hand. It’s a great challenge and a lot of fun. I am basically writing a storyline without the main characters – only the challenges and mysteries, and my friends come in and complete the story as they go by being the heroes (and often the plucky comic relief).
It is difficult to run the right balance – the challenges that should give people a few tense moments but not be so overwhelming that they feel fatalistic. It’s no fun if they are constantly saved by some higher power. The point of the game is to overcome challenges, perhaps down to your last resources, but to be able to do it in the end. But it’s a challenge I love. I can’t wait to see what my friends are going to do when they get to a certain place. I can’t wait to see their reaction when they come to a particularly interesting area – hopefully something they have never seen before, something that is fun and new and exciting.
So grab some Doritos, some thick, rich, sweet, frozen coffee (or if you prefer Mt. Dew or Dr. Pepper are more acceptable norms for this genre), pull out a fresh, blank sheet of lined paper. Buy yourself a set of wicked-cool looking dice of all different shapes. Sharpen your pencil and prepare to open your mind. I think I hear the clash of steel and the neighing of a warhorse. Surely it must be just over that grassy ridge you thought was the back of your couch.
Role-play comes in many flavors. There’s the “I wonder what I would be like if I were ninety pounds of tempered elf amazingly incredible with bow and daggers, who could cast spells, couldn’t eat grains, had five nose rings, and was named Flibertygibbit Greballion of the Green Leaf.” You ‘go out’ with a bunch of friends, laugh, show your superiority over impressive monsters (or die trying), find the best punch lines, and just have a blast.
There’s the “If I were transposed into a fantasy character, what would I want to be? How would I act? What could I do?” You create an alter ego, typically the best of what you have to offer, wrestling with the dark inner secrets you don’t expose to just anyone, and write a tragic tale (though it can have a good ending, it is rarely comedy) with epic battles both within and without.
There’s the “I would like to try something a little different, see how well I can role play this kind of personality and this kind of adventurer.” You put together a party of friends and delve deep into mystery (often wonderful comedy) and explore how you think that kind of person would react.
For me, if you play sports, I end up with the “goalie” position in role-play. I’m not coordinated enough to play even goalies in real sports, though I love to play ice hockey (the term play is used very loosely here) and I enjoy playing softball-baseball, just stay with the concept here and don’t drag me off topic. I am the game master (in the classic grand pooh-bah of role-playing games, Dungeons & Dragons, this is known as the Dungeon Master). Not only do I run the game, I create the games before hand. It’s a great challenge and a lot of fun. I am basically writing a storyline without the main characters – only the challenges and mysteries, and my friends come in and complete the story as they go by being the heroes (and often the plucky comic relief).
It is difficult to run the right balance – the challenges that should give people a few tense moments but not be so overwhelming that they feel fatalistic. It’s no fun if they are constantly saved by some higher power. The point of the game is to overcome challenges, perhaps down to your last resources, but to be able to do it in the end. But it’s a challenge I love. I can’t wait to see what my friends are going to do when they get to a certain place. I can’t wait to see their reaction when they come to a particularly interesting area – hopefully something they have never seen before, something that is fun and new and exciting.
So grab some Doritos, some thick, rich, sweet, frozen coffee (or if you prefer Mt. Dew or Dr. Pepper are more acceptable norms for this genre), pull out a fresh, blank sheet of lined paper. Buy yourself a set of wicked-cool looking dice of all different shapes. Sharpen your pencil and prepare to open your mind. I think I hear the clash of steel and the neighing of a warhorse. Surely it must be just over that grassy ridge you thought was the back of your couch.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
The Electoral College.
There are few parts of our representative government that are as misunderstood as the Electoral College. When I was taught about this part of the process, I was told the Electoral College existed for two reasons. First, that there were too few people who understood issues back then, so you elected someone to go vote for you. Second, that communication and technology was not what it is, so a procedure for covering the miles needed to be adopted. These reasons are ludicrous when you get right down to it: this is the same era that turned out or founding fathers. Simply assuming that an ancestor is not as smart or capable as you is arrogant. Considering what they accomplished and the means they had it seems to me that as a whole they were more resourceful, more determined, more capable, and more impressive. Additionally, it can be presumed, whoever went to vote in the Electoral College, using whatever technology and transportation was available, could have simply brought the results of the state-wide election to the capitol.
We see a few states (Nevada, Maine, and soon Colorado I think) who have decided (or are deciding) that they should not have their electoral votes go “whole to one side or the other” but rather to split those votes based on the votes in their states. This is a watering down of the intent of the college, which I think is wrong (and I will explain it below) but it does not eliminate its effectiveness wholely.
So, why do I think the Electoral College is so important?
Our country is a whole nation. It is based on a diverse population, diverse politics, perspective, and industry. A great many of us know all too well the issues associated with life in a city. We know daily jobs, we know supermarkets, crime, police, sanitation, etc. A very few of us know any of the issues associated with farming. Or ranching. Or mining. Or providing this nation with wood. All we know is that the food ends up in the supermarket, is usually more expensive than we’d like, and someone else handles the details (including making sure that it meets certain standards). Most of these professions, crucial one might say, to the survival of our country, take up a great deal of space. That precludes the ability to set up a large city in those areas.
What this means is that the large cities are well represented in population, but they may not be well represented in essential professions. Who can claim we do not need food? Or wood? Or metal? Especially if you’re from the city?
The Electoral College gives a voice proportionate more to the true diversity of our nation than to the simple population of our nation. If only those issues that deal with the city were represented, the very support systems that allow those megalopolises to exist would collapse.
Additionally, the Electoral College performs another vital function: it inhibits the ability to brainwash concentrated populations so that pure numbers dictate your policies. We all understand market economics. Where there’s a market, there are people to buy things. Where there’s a bigger market, there are more people. A big city is full of people who are under the constant bombardment of today’s media – print, broadcast, or otherwise. Expression of ideas (right or wrong) there will simply have greater exposure. Manipulation of minds through misrepresented issues is therefore more feasible, and requires fewer resources or effort.
I know that it is purely politics when Senators (who themselves exist in a body designed to give voices disproportionate to population) claim they want to do away with the Electoral College. If the vote is split: popular goes one way, EC the other, partisans are going to be split based on how well that suited their hoped-for outcome. It is ironic that the so-called party of “diversity” is arguing against diversity in a body of the government that underscores diversity. I hope they never do away with this important institution. The fact is there are too many states who rely on it, and for the very good reasons I outlined above.
In the end it isn’t just about the number of voices, it’s about the diversity of our whole nation. Not just diversity in one neighborhood or one city or one state, but the whole nation. Just because you don’t do, or know how to do, or understand the issues revolving around a thing doesn’t mean that thing is unimportant. It could be the different between having a home filled with nice things (and food) and being killed by a neighbor because suddenly there are not enough resources to go around.
We see a few states (Nevada, Maine, and soon Colorado I think) who have decided (or are deciding) that they should not have their electoral votes go “whole to one side or the other” but rather to split those votes based on the votes in their states. This is a watering down of the intent of the college, which I think is wrong (and I will explain it below) but it does not eliminate its effectiveness wholely.
So, why do I think the Electoral College is so important?
Our country is a whole nation. It is based on a diverse population, diverse politics, perspective, and industry. A great many of us know all too well the issues associated with life in a city. We know daily jobs, we know supermarkets, crime, police, sanitation, etc. A very few of us know any of the issues associated with farming. Or ranching. Or mining. Or providing this nation with wood. All we know is that the food ends up in the supermarket, is usually more expensive than we’d like, and someone else handles the details (including making sure that it meets certain standards). Most of these professions, crucial one might say, to the survival of our country, take up a great deal of space. That precludes the ability to set up a large city in those areas.
What this means is that the large cities are well represented in population, but they may not be well represented in essential professions. Who can claim we do not need food? Or wood? Or metal? Especially if you’re from the city?
The Electoral College gives a voice proportionate more to the true diversity of our nation than to the simple population of our nation. If only those issues that deal with the city were represented, the very support systems that allow those megalopolises to exist would collapse.
Additionally, the Electoral College performs another vital function: it inhibits the ability to brainwash concentrated populations so that pure numbers dictate your policies. We all understand market economics. Where there’s a market, there are people to buy things. Where there’s a bigger market, there are more people. A big city is full of people who are under the constant bombardment of today’s media – print, broadcast, or otherwise. Expression of ideas (right or wrong) there will simply have greater exposure. Manipulation of minds through misrepresented issues is therefore more feasible, and requires fewer resources or effort.
I know that it is purely politics when Senators (who themselves exist in a body designed to give voices disproportionate to population) claim they want to do away with the Electoral College. If the vote is split: popular goes one way, EC the other, partisans are going to be split based on how well that suited their hoped-for outcome. It is ironic that the so-called party of “diversity” is arguing against diversity in a body of the government that underscores diversity. I hope they never do away with this important institution. The fact is there are too many states who rely on it, and for the very good reasons I outlined above.
In the end it isn’t just about the number of voices, it’s about the diversity of our whole nation. Not just diversity in one neighborhood or one city or one state, but the whole nation. Just because you don’t do, or know how to do, or understand the issues revolving around a thing doesn’t mean that thing is unimportant. It could be the different between having a home filled with nice things (and food) and being killed by a neighbor because suddenly there are not enough resources to go around.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Creative Politics
No, I’m not talking about how some politicians either take both sides of the issue to be covered on all bases, or to make their single decision sound like it encompasses all people, I’m talking about something more sinister.
I am growing more and more convinced that, for their own ends, people have taken issues that hopped along quietly in the background without controversy and turned them into political hot-button debates designed to split the public into “red” and “blue”.
My theory is that big cities, especially high profile cities like New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles (Boston’s population isn’t huge, but it clings tenaciously to the perception that it’s one of the foremost cities in the nation – it is one of my favorite cities for sure, but its own illusionary preeminence could stand to be ripped down a peg or four), are targets for these groups or people. After all, where you have millions of people (again, Boston special case) you are going to find hundreds if not thousands of people who are either 100% malleable or who actually feel strongly that ONLY Peruvian hemp should be used in ropes and any other kind of material is dangerous to the world’s ecology, threatening a complete destruction of all life on the planet.
Thus, in order to gain special interest money, or to hamper efforts of normal citizens attempting to continue our country’s success, they create a special interest group. Some groups have solid facts. Some groups represent ideas that really do make a difference. Most groups are either completely based on junk science or have created controversy over an issue that was not controversial until they stuck their noses in it for their own reasons.
There are many problems with this system, but I think perhaps the gravest, and the one about which I am blogging, is that when you shine the light on these issues, these background “non-controversies”, eventually the fact that your issue is TERRIBLY minor, and supported (or at least tolerated) by perhaps 5% to 15% of the population, causes legislation and restriction to be put into place that decides very much against what you wanted. You end up with LESS freedom and MORE restriction rather than legitimizing your cause.
I believe this is done intentionally and maliciously by those who would undermine our country (and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there are well funded groups out there who can afford to spend a little money here or there to get these special interests started). I believe they are successful because what they end up doing is besmirching those who are simply trying to run the country in a sane, logical manner. I believe their theory is that each one of us has a special interest (and if you don’t, God love you, FIND ONE!) and that eventually they will have turned us all against the voice of reason.
That is why it is creative politics. They are creating issues in order to destroy their political adversaries. Next time someone tries to start up a movement to raise awareness about your special interest I hope you give them a swift kick in the ass and point them to the border. They aren’t out for your special interest. They’re out to manipulate you through fear-based anger.
I am growing more and more convinced that, for their own ends, people have taken issues that hopped along quietly in the background without controversy and turned them into political hot-button debates designed to split the public into “red” and “blue”.
My theory is that big cities, especially high profile cities like New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles (Boston’s population isn’t huge, but it clings tenaciously to the perception that it’s one of the foremost cities in the nation – it is one of my favorite cities for sure, but its own illusionary preeminence could stand to be ripped down a peg or four), are targets for these groups or people. After all, where you have millions of people (again, Boston special case) you are going to find hundreds if not thousands of people who are either 100% malleable or who actually feel strongly that ONLY Peruvian hemp should be used in ropes and any other kind of material is dangerous to the world’s ecology, threatening a complete destruction of all life on the planet.
Thus, in order to gain special interest money, or to hamper efforts of normal citizens attempting to continue our country’s success, they create a special interest group. Some groups have solid facts. Some groups represent ideas that really do make a difference. Most groups are either completely based on junk science or have created controversy over an issue that was not controversial until they stuck their noses in it for their own reasons.
There are many problems with this system, but I think perhaps the gravest, and the one about which I am blogging, is that when you shine the light on these issues, these background “non-controversies”, eventually the fact that your issue is TERRIBLY minor, and supported (or at least tolerated) by perhaps 5% to 15% of the population, causes legislation and restriction to be put into place that decides very much against what you wanted. You end up with LESS freedom and MORE restriction rather than legitimizing your cause.
I believe this is done intentionally and maliciously by those who would undermine our country (and you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe there are well funded groups out there who can afford to spend a little money here or there to get these special interests started). I believe they are successful because what they end up doing is besmirching those who are simply trying to run the country in a sane, logical manner. I believe their theory is that each one of us has a special interest (and if you don’t, God love you, FIND ONE!) and that eventually they will have turned us all against the voice of reason.
That is why it is creative politics. They are creating issues in order to destroy their political adversaries. Next time someone tries to start up a movement to raise awareness about your special interest I hope you give them a swift kick in the ass and point them to the border. They aren’t out for your special interest. They’re out to manipulate you through fear-based anger.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
The REAL Vietnam Myth.
I am in serious danger of temper unlike any I have ever known.
If you took all of American History and looked for the darkest “event”, the thing that people around the world beat us over the head with more than anything else, would it not be the Vietnam War? If you took every conflict the United States has participated in and drew a picture of the soldier involved, is not that the ONLY war that people draw a negative image? Here at home, have we not completely bought into the concept that this war was an atrocity, a “quagmire”, produced the worst in human nature, exposed normal young men to hell and brought them back as sub-human demons?
I have been developing, since the junior senator from Massechusetts (my birth state, alas) brought Vietnam up again, a surer and surer impression that everything we’ve been told, though history and movies and stories, and all other media from “so-called” news to “so-called” entertainment, is FALSE.
A few very well placed stories, though they were even refuted at their time, allowed a group of people who so desperately WANTED it to be hell and to have something to blame Americans for (some of them, it must be admitted, were Americans, but I do suspect they were cleverly manipulated through encouragement by foreigners who had a vested interest in doing us harm) to build an image on lies.
The truth is at last coming out, and lies are dying the most amazing self-defeating death: because someone got away with it in the past, they are convinced they can get away with it again.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp
These people have, time and again, committed the TRUE worst attrocities. They have materially damaged this country, tarnished our image around the world by fueling our enemies with falsities and outright lies. Done unintentionally or on good faith this is called being a "patsy". Done intentionally or even willfully, it is treason.
Those who would carry the torch to illuminate freedom, and I believe the press is the most powerful of these forces, have an awesome responsibility to seek the TRUTH whether they like what they find or not, not to pass off what they WANT to be as the TRUTH.
I am sickened, and though I do not wish long-term ill on anyone, I would rejoice in the complete implosion of CBS news and it's utter destruction as a news service. Nothing short of this will be a sufficient lesson to the rest. They want the total removal of Enron? So be it. Let us have equality.
If you took all of American History and looked for the darkest “event”, the thing that people around the world beat us over the head with more than anything else, would it not be the Vietnam War? If you took every conflict the United States has participated in and drew a picture of the soldier involved, is not that the ONLY war that people draw a negative image? Here at home, have we not completely bought into the concept that this war was an atrocity, a “quagmire”, produced the worst in human nature, exposed normal young men to hell and brought them back as sub-human demons?
I have been developing, since the junior senator from Massechusetts (my birth state, alas) brought Vietnam up again, a surer and surer impression that everything we’ve been told, though history and movies and stories, and all other media from “so-called” news to “so-called” entertainment, is FALSE.
A few very well placed stories, though they were even refuted at their time, allowed a group of people who so desperately WANTED it to be hell and to have something to blame Americans for (some of them, it must be admitted, were Americans, but I do suspect they were cleverly manipulated through encouragement by foreigners who had a vested interest in doing us harm) to build an image on lies.
The truth is at last coming out, and lies are dying the most amazing self-defeating death: because someone got away with it in the past, they are convinced they can get away with it again.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp
These people have, time and again, committed the TRUE worst attrocities. They have materially damaged this country, tarnished our image around the world by fueling our enemies with falsities and outright lies. Done unintentionally or on good faith this is called being a "patsy". Done intentionally or even willfully, it is treason.
Those who would carry the torch to illuminate freedom, and I believe the press is the most powerful of these forces, have an awesome responsibility to seek the TRUTH whether they like what they find or not, not to pass off what they WANT to be as the TRUTH.
I am sickened, and though I do not wish long-term ill on anyone, I would rejoice in the complete implosion of CBS news and it's utter destruction as a news service. Nothing short of this will be a sufficient lesson to the rest. They want the total removal of Enron? So be it. Let us have equality.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Distinct Tones
No, I'm not talking about cell phones (as distinctive as they are becoming). I'm talking about the opening of the RNC compared to the DNC. As I've maintained on these boards, politics IS my spectator sport of choice. I watched as much coverage of the DNC as I could find, and I'm doing the same with the RNC looking for differences.
The first, obvious difference was the kick-off. The DNC started with Al Gore (who was not only not televised, he was not quoted or talked about afterwards) and with a very somber, down-dragging opening about 9-11 (which, ironically, they said republicans had better not talk about) and Amazing Grace played well but mournfully on a fiddle. The RNC started like Jay Leno, was upbeat and jazzed throughout. We will see how it goes.
This article is by Oliver North about John Kerry. I wanted to put it in before too much time passed. It's pretty much self-explanatory:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml
The first, obvious difference was the kick-off. The DNC started with Al Gore (who was not only not televised, he was not quoted or talked about afterwards) and with a very somber, down-dragging opening about 9-11 (which, ironically, they said republicans had better not talk about) and Amazing Grace played well but mournfully on a fiddle. The RNC started like Jay Leno, was upbeat and jazzed throughout. We will see how it goes.
This article is by Oliver North about John Kerry. I wanted to put it in before too much time passed. It's pretty much self-explanatory:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20040827.shtml
Monday, August 30, 2004
Thank you, Greece.
Greece, I am damned proud to share this planet with you. What a spectacular Olympics. The great country of China must actually be opening its eyes wide in wonder how they, despite their size and volume, can follow one of the most amazing games ever put on. I was so enraptured I hardly blogged.
Greece, you should stand up and be proud. You should feel great today (not just because you have your country back after two and a half weeks of eager stampede) and for as long as you dare, I hope you keep that national pride and realize what you have done.
The games were peaceful, they were probably the least scandalous I can recall, they were beautiful, full of stories about SPORTS (what a concept) and I salute you.
I will NOT support your communism, and hope that you awaken from that nightmare (though you may not be communist, your communist party gets too much press and too many votes). I will NOT support China’s communism, though I can’t wait to see the rich culture of their games (and can’t imagine a more secure location for the games than a country of that size and xenophobia). I am sorry you chose to reject the presence of one of our most outstanding, peace-loving citizens though massive protests (of only your communist party, but they were what got worldwide news). But I must in all candor salute your magnificent games. That woman (I can’t pronounce her name, let alone spell it) who made your games possible despite the incredible disarray she inherited so close to the games themselves, should be your national hero.
Greece, you should stand up and be proud. You should feel great today (not just because you have your country back after two and a half weeks of eager stampede) and for as long as you dare, I hope you keep that national pride and realize what you have done.
The games were peaceful, they were probably the least scandalous I can recall, they were beautiful, full of stories about SPORTS (what a concept) and I salute you.
I will NOT support your communism, and hope that you awaken from that nightmare (though you may not be communist, your communist party gets too much press and too many votes). I will NOT support China’s communism, though I can’t wait to see the rich culture of their games (and can’t imagine a more secure location for the games than a country of that size and xenophobia). I am sorry you chose to reject the presence of one of our most outstanding, peace-loving citizens though massive protests (of only your communist party, but they were what got worldwide news). But I must in all candor salute your magnificent games. That woman (I can’t pronounce her name, let alone spell it) who made your games possible despite the incredible disarray she inherited so close to the games themselves, should be your national hero.
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
The few Bad Apples
I suppose I really should back off “the media” once in a while. It’s really about a few bad apples. I was watching the Olympics again last night (4 of 26 days done?) and have a few comments:
I absolutely loathe the self-congratulatory, influence-the-judge-or-at-least-the-crowd, presumptuous nature of the fencing “artists” who pump their fists and scream and prance about not when the touch was clear, but when they think they may have lost the point and want to make it look like they’re smarter than everyone else in the room (which backfires, the judges don’t give them the point based on their stupid antics).
However, my point had more to do with the nature of the commentators. We watched fencing, beach volleyball (whoever included that sport should be promoted to demi-god and be given free beer for life), swimming, and gymnastics. All told that means about 10 commentators. Eight of them were reasonable, smart people with a love of their sport, the games, or at least a sense of professionalism. Two of them felt it was their solemn duty to point out every loser and frame every bout as though “look at the disappointment on those faces, to have come so far, to have tried so hard, and to have gotten only Silver.”
Freakin’ bozos. Now, while it is admirable to want to be the best, and to strive for gold, and I AM sure that people recognize the little things they did wrong meant the ultimate goal went to someone else, not only is it the height of rudeness to point out someone else’s suffering, but is it really your job to make the SPECTATORS feel miserable TOO? Aren’t we supposed to be enjoying the games, congratulating the winners, feeling great about the efforts, and appreciating those who actually DID the best job, regardless of where they’re from? I cheer for the home team (and a few personal favorites from other places) and YES I want our guys and gals to come home decorated with gold, but I know my indignation is pure because I didn’t want **** smeared all over our faces by the commentators any more than I wanted derision extolled because WE beat the Aussies in the pool. It didn’t ruin our victory for me, but it took away some of the savor because I had to be embarrassed that these ***holes represent us behind the microphone. How pathetic.
If someone lost with poor grace, that would be one thing. If, however, someone is experiencing a moment of pain because they know their effort was 0.1 seconds too slow, or it was so close the tiny hop-step they took on their dismount meant silver instead of gold, how about letting them feel that pain, letting us sympathize with them, but not trying to out-snide David Spade (which nobody can do anyway) and find the most colorful way to brag to the world that you know what gross thoughts are going through someone else’s mind. They’re out on the floor, ****weed, you’re a loser has-been who is so pathetic as a color commentator nobody can tell why the scores are handed out the way they are and you survive only by making EVERYONE feel miserable. Explain the SPORT ****off, we can ALL see the intensity, the gravity, the emotion on the athletes’ faces. THAT part we understand. The fact that they have to hold a specific position for a certain amount of time, or how their legs are supposed to move, or why a judge might take off a point here or there, or perhaps BOTHER to tell us the starting difficulty score so we understand the final score better.
Blog-rant. Sigh. I may have to turn the sound off next time I watch. I wish there was a "no bozo announcers" channel.
I absolutely loathe the self-congratulatory, influence-the-judge-or-at-least-the-crowd, presumptuous nature of the fencing “artists” who pump their fists and scream and prance about not when the touch was clear, but when they think they may have lost the point and want to make it look like they’re smarter than everyone else in the room (which backfires, the judges don’t give them the point based on their stupid antics).
However, my point had more to do with the nature of the commentators. We watched fencing, beach volleyball (whoever included that sport should be promoted to demi-god and be given free beer for life), swimming, and gymnastics. All told that means about 10 commentators. Eight of them were reasonable, smart people with a love of their sport, the games, or at least a sense of professionalism. Two of them felt it was their solemn duty to point out every loser and frame every bout as though “look at the disappointment on those faces, to have come so far, to have tried so hard, and to have gotten only Silver.”
Freakin’ bozos. Now, while it is admirable to want to be the best, and to strive for gold, and I AM sure that people recognize the little things they did wrong meant the ultimate goal went to someone else, not only is it the height of rudeness to point out someone else’s suffering, but is it really your job to make the SPECTATORS feel miserable TOO? Aren’t we supposed to be enjoying the games, congratulating the winners, feeling great about the efforts, and appreciating those who actually DID the best job, regardless of where they’re from? I cheer for the home team (and a few personal favorites from other places) and YES I want our guys and gals to come home decorated with gold, but I know my indignation is pure because I didn’t want **** smeared all over our faces by the commentators any more than I wanted derision extolled because WE beat the Aussies in the pool. It didn’t ruin our victory for me, but it took away some of the savor because I had to be embarrassed that these ***holes represent us behind the microphone. How pathetic.
If someone lost with poor grace, that would be one thing. If, however, someone is experiencing a moment of pain because they know their effort was 0.1 seconds too slow, or it was so close the tiny hop-step they took on their dismount meant silver instead of gold, how about letting them feel that pain, letting us sympathize with them, but not trying to out-snide David Spade (which nobody can do anyway) and find the most colorful way to brag to the world that you know what gross thoughts are going through someone else’s mind. They’re out on the floor, ****weed, you’re a loser has-been who is so pathetic as a color commentator nobody can tell why the scores are handed out the way they are and you survive only by making EVERYONE feel miserable. Explain the SPORT ****off, we can ALL see the intensity, the gravity, the emotion on the athletes’ faces. THAT part we understand. The fact that they have to hold a specific position for a certain amount of time, or how their legs are supposed to move, or why a judge might take off a point here or there, or perhaps BOTHER to tell us the starting difficulty score so we understand the final score better.
Blog-rant. Sigh. I may have to turn the sound off next time I watch. I wish there was a "no bozo announcers" channel.
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
The Olympics
Since the games that were credited in ancient Greece as the First Olympics way back before numbering years itself is creditable, politics have been a part of the Olympics. In those games, the star athlete, as I recall, was killed because the King had suspicions he was getting too celebratory with the Princess. I may have some of my games messed up, but they were originally put on for political expedience (choosing the best, that sort of thing) and even when they restarted in the “modern” era, politics have played almost their own venue at the games. One country boycotting one set of games, another using them as proof of their racial superiority, world wars keeping them from being held at all, bidding wars escalating over who is going to be able to host them, athletes taking the podium and making a political statement in their clothing, attitude or gestures.
I must say, with the notable exception of my own personal Enemy Number One (big-money media) these games have been remarkably a-political as far as the Olympics go. Now, we’re only two full days into the games, so a lot can happen, but my thanks to the countries and athletes participating that the games themselves have been competitive, thrilling to watch, and yet without headline-making scandal.
Yes, two Greek athletes were kicked from the games for what the Olympic Officials call (to my endless amusement) “doping”, and one Iranian refused to play in the games because he drew an Israeli as his first opponent (which, ironically, gives the win to Israel). And yes, though they were stunningly beautiful and an outstanding credit to Greece, the opening ceremony was about 14,527 hours too long. And yes, Bob Costas (who I actually like tolerably well as far as sports casters go) managed to slip in his own personal brand of anti-Americanism (during those very opening ceremonies) because the crowd refused to do so for him. We were, in fact, cheered lustily as we joined the Parade of Nations, but he refused to take it with good grace and attempted to put forward the concept that while Greeks love American athletes, they detest Americans and their political policies, so therefore were proving THEIR superiority by cheering us in stead of booing us because, ostensibly, they can separate politics and games.
This against a backdrop where Hitler used the Olympics to prove their superiority (the first televised games ever, indeed I was taught it the first ever major broadcast of any kind), Palestine took the opportunity of one games to blow up Israeli athletes, first “Western” then “Soviet” countries boycotted each other’s games altogether, black athletes chose to use the Gold and Silver platform for a political statement during the national anthem, I think we can say that (so far, anyway) these games have been all about the sports themselves.
Great rivalries (such as Thorp/Phelps in the pool) and new powers (USA men’s gymnastics first team medal in 20 years – only their second since 1932) are making these games interesting and fun to watch. NBC (though some of the shows they’re trying to advertise are abysmal) has kept its partisan mouth shut (for the most part) and is showing a TON of good coverage, and Greece has been an amazing backdrop.
I look forward to more.
I must say, with the notable exception of my own personal Enemy Number One (big-money media) these games have been remarkably a-political as far as the Olympics go. Now, we’re only two full days into the games, so a lot can happen, but my thanks to the countries and athletes participating that the games themselves have been competitive, thrilling to watch, and yet without headline-making scandal.
Yes, two Greek athletes were kicked from the games for what the Olympic Officials call (to my endless amusement) “doping”, and one Iranian refused to play in the games because he drew an Israeli as his first opponent (which, ironically, gives the win to Israel). And yes, though they were stunningly beautiful and an outstanding credit to Greece, the opening ceremony was about 14,527 hours too long. And yes, Bob Costas (who I actually like tolerably well as far as sports casters go) managed to slip in his own personal brand of anti-Americanism (during those very opening ceremonies) because the crowd refused to do so for him. We were, in fact, cheered lustily as we joined the Parade of Nations, but he refused to take it with good grace and attempted to put forward the concept that while Greeks love American athletes, they detest Americans and their political policies, so therefore were proving THEIR superiority by cheering us in stead of booing us because, ostensibly, they can separate politics and games.
This against a backdrop where Hitler used the Olympics to prove their superiority (the first televised games ever, indeed I was taught it the first ever major broadcast of any kind), Palestine took the opportunity of one games to blow up Israeli athletes, first “Western” then “Soviet” countries boycotted each other’s games altogether, black athletes chose to use the Gold and Silver platform for a political statement during the national anthem, I think we can say that (so far, anyway) these games have been all about the sports themselves.
Great rivalries (such as Thorp/Phelps in the pool) and new powers (USA men’s gymnastics first team medal in 20 years – only their second since 1932) are making these games interesting and fun to watch. NBC (though some of the shows they’re trying to advertise are abysmal) has kept its partisan mouth shut (for the most part) and is showing a TON of good coverage, and Greece has been an amazing backdrop.
I look forward to more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)