Yes, there is going to be a lot of talk about Harry Potter in the nude. Daniel Radcliffe is starring in a play during which, apparently, he performs a “lengthy, nude sex scene”. Live.
Some quick background: this is a play which was put on stage in the 1970s and is returning. I don’t know where it played before but it will be in England this time (it is implied that was its venue last time). It has sold a great number of advance bookings, and was controversial in the past, too. I have not heard what the scene in question involves.
There are all the expected arguments on both the “for” and “against” sides. As expected, many parents are upset that Harry Potter’s star is going to do something like this, and the answer is “don’t take your kids to see it”. The typical pro-and-con argument about the appropriateness of this kind of material revolves around free speech (though I doubt there’s much actual dialog during the objectionable parts) vs. decency (though this is not being done in a public place - and is probably less graphic than what happens in R-rated movies). And lets face it. There are a lot of guys who would love to be in a position to have guaranteed sex that many times a week. And to get paid for it!
Radcliffe did not want to portray Harry Potter. He was a phenomenal child actor with a brilliant career ahead of him and didn’t want to be thought of for one single pop-culture role, nor be type-cast into those roles in the future. Other actors and actresses have gone through similar identity crises and come up with similar solutions (Victor Victoria and Julie Andrews, anyone? At least Radcliffe’s scene in this play is not gay...)
The fact is that pornographic movies are legal. What makes plays so different is the fact that, just like packaged meat in a supermarket shields us from the source product animal, seeing sex or nudity on a movie or television screen dehumanizes it. I think what many of us shy away from is that we actually do believe (or perhaps simply recognize) that seeing nudity on screen is less stimulating than it is in actual person - so seeing live pornography is obviously more stimulating than seeing a filmed version.
This play is going to be a hit or a failure on its own. The cliché “no publicity is bad publicity” applies, but what would be more interesting to me is to see just whom the audience is. Claiming a million pounds sterling (did I reference British currency correctly?) in pre-release sales is impressive has often seemed to me as clever as touting a movie’s gross ticket sales in dollars. How much does the ticket cost? How many people actually went to the movie compared to how many could have gone to the movie? By doing actual math on ticket sales we discover that a “blockbuster” movie reaches a surprisingly small audience. But who goes? Only those who could have been counted on? That’s fine. But don’t assume that everyone likes something simply because a certain, small sector of society does. (see my upcoming post: Megaphone Mathmatics)
All I ask is that people be prepared to pay the consequences of their actions. What you expose yourself to enters your thought. The thoughts you own thereafter are yours to be challenged with. How you project yourself to the rest of the world affects how they think about you. You can’t demand that people think differently, you have to accept that opinion is formed outside your control. You can try to influence it, but you can’t demand that everyone see things your way. Where they don’t, you have to be prepared for their reactions. Even if their reactions seem out of all reasonable proportion to you.
There are cultures where the exposition of any part of a woman besides her eyes - to anyone not her husband - can be punished by death. If you are going to be so alien to their way of thought that you are willing to not only show a woman, live, fully naked, performing lengthy sexual acts whether by herself, with a man, or even with her husband, you cannot be intellectually honest with yourself and be surprised when they believe your entire culture is deserving of death and damnation.
Does this mean you stop what you are doing, repress who you are? That is one answer, though it is not necessarily the answer I would choose (certainly not in all cases). Whatever your answer is, you had better be prepared for the revulsion, hatred, “misunderstanding”, and eventual violence you are going to engender.
And if you decide to continue “being who you are” or “exercising the right to express yourself in a free society” I don’t ever want to hear you tell me you want me to try to reach out and understand my enemy. Just be glad others like me are willing to fight this enemy you created because we believe in the freedoms we believe you are abusing.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
My Immigration Angle
From my perspective, there are two parts to The Immigration Issue.
First:
Cliché and annoying as it is coming from people who misuse this statement, this country was founded by so-called immigrants. Now, it is only a cliché, and as such it is provable wrong - there was no “country” to which to immigrate, we were actually refugees to begin with, pioneers with a vision, willing to risk everything including the wrath of the greatest superpower of the age in order to carve out a better life.
Please note: the country was not actually founded by those hearty, enterprising, desperate HARD WORKING people, but two hundred years later by people who had been born here, raised here, and lived most of their lives here (except for those who visited other places because we had made such a success of ourselves we could travel). There are no “Founding Immigrants”, it is the Founding Fathers. This is not to downplay immigrants. Why?
I would say ‘let us go back to one of the most robust stretches in American History’ but the fact is, part of my point is going to be there is only a short stretch of time that has NOT been robust. Let us analyze the role of immigrants, ignoring present day. First, it might come as a shock to Americans that immigration is not actually normal. There have been very few examples throughout history of people immigrating. There have been very few places worth immigrating TO. Always, it has been opportunity which has drawn the immigrant. The opportunity that only comes when one is free.
Immigrants came to this country with a clear goal in mind: to achieve. It wasn’t that every pair of feet that trod across Ellis Island dreamed of becoming famous or opulent. And it wasn’t the dream of opulence or fame that immigrants brought to us. We already had that in heady measure. What immigrants brought was the truth. The awful, gut-wrenching, heart-rending, shocking truth that in so many places in the world, there was not freedom. They came from places where they could NOT choose what they wanted to be when they grew up - they were TOLD. They could NOT save up for retirement, they weren’t PAID. They were part of a machine, a cog or a lever, a bolt or a hard piece of frame. The lucky few who escaped came to America filled with the energy and knowledge that now they could work for their own benefit - for the benefit of their children! Their efforts were not going to be stolen by some overlord, but they could actually save up! If they had a talent or a skill, they could pursue that instead of being forced into baking or blacksmithing or tanning. If they had a talent or skill for baking or blacksmithing or tanning, they could do it their way and excel!
Immigrants came and filled out this country with drive and determination. They came with the endless years and generations of enforced humility before them - the humbling recognition that sometimes you were part of a greater whole. If you were lucky, you got to choose what part, and the greater whole served you. If you were normal, you were forced into a place and shape and the greater whole served some remote, dangerous piece.
Today’s average American, if we are to believe the evidence paraded before us in the media (unfortunately, both old and new media), has lost sight of this. Today’s average American is not filled with the passion to achieve. We have gone from expecting to enjoy the fruits of our labors to expecting to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labors. We don’t need to see the slaves toiling away, the parts of the machine, we don’t need to force our neighbors to work for us, but we all want to be the overlord. The one who does not work, but only receives.
Then, tragedy of ironies, we flail around our space screaming out in idiotic pain and misery that our life has no meaning - and often chose the worst causes and meanings to which to attach ourselves. But that is another blog (wow I am now in the habit of figuring out my next blog posts by the tangents in my previous).
That is part one. The essential role of immigration and immigrants. I have known only one immigrant with certainty and closeness. He became an American Citizen before my very eyes. He was an immigrant from Lebanon, full of amazing stories told with almost fearful humility. He arrived at JFK Airport with eight dollars and a suitcase. He spoke English before he came. By the time I met him he had put himself through school, taught himself a skill (webmaster, before that was popular) and was perhaps the most technically knowledgeable amongst us. He had a Brazilian girlfriend and they seemed very good together. I will never forget the day he was sworn in as an American Citizen. The light and fire in his eyes overflowed until they were a part of me, too.
Second:
Discrimination. Yes, I will use that word. It used to be a good word, and some little bit of its intended meaning remain. When you tell someone, after eating a delightful food, viewing an amazing painting, or enjoying some other impressive luxury, they have discriminating taste, you are complimenting them. They chose wisely. To discriminate used to mean to choose wisely. Now it has been turned into an ugly word to suggest exactly the opposite.
We (again I mean to include conservatives, though liberals are welcome to exclude themselves) are not attempting to discriminate by race, by gender, or even by sexual practices (with some legal limits). But we do need to be more discriminating. How? What is the measure? What could this blogger actually mean?
Actually, I think there is a very simple line, though it is not one that is easy to see, and it is possible to dissemble your way across the line. The simple discrimination should be: do you wish to come to this country with the classic immigrant’s vision - that is, do you come here to work hard and be rewarded by yourself for yourself?
Unfortunately, too many people now cross the boarder to be provided for. They come here to be rewarded, but not by themselves, nor for themselves. They come without intention to build anything, nor to leave anything, but to consume - too often without contributing anything in return.
Yes, many people come here expecting to work. Many people do tough jobs that the elite in this country feel is beneath them. Those are the ones who get held up as the “normal” entrant to this country. Though it would be nice to pray that such is true, the fact is that they are still not the immigrants we seek.
Have you checked out Australia’s immigration policy?
I have.
First:
Cliché and annoying as it is coming from people who misuse this statement, this country was founded by so-called immigrants. Now, it is only a cliché, and as such it is provable wrong - there was no “country” to which to immigrate, we were actually refugees to begin with, pioneers with a vision, willing to risk everything including the wrath of the greatest superpower of the age in order to carve out a better life.
Please note: the country was not actually founded by those hearty, enterprising, desperate HARD WORKING people, but two hundred years later by people who had been born here, raised here, and lived most of their lives here (except for those who visited other places because we had made such a success of ourselves we could travel). There are no “Founding Immigrants”, it is the Founding Fathers. This is not to downplay immigrants. Why?
I would say ‘let us go back to one of the most robust stretches in American History’ but the fact is, part of my point is going to be there is only a short stretch of time that has NOT been robust. Let us analyze the role of immigrants, ignoring present day. First, it might come as a shock to Americans that immigration is not actually normal. There have been very few examples throughout history of people immigrating. There have been very few places worth immigrating TO. Always, it has been opportunity which has drawn the immigrant. The opportunity that only comes when one is free.
Immigrants came to this country with a clear goal in mind: to achieve. It wasn’t that every pair of feet that trod across Ellis Island dreamed of becoming famous or opulent. And it wasn’t the dream of opulence or fame that immigrants brought to us. We already had that in heady measure. What immigrants brought was the truth. The awful, gut-wrenching, heart-rending, shocking truth that in so many places in the world, there was not freedom. They came from places where they could NOT choose what they wanted to be when they grew up - they were TOLD. They could NOT save up for retirement, they weren’t PAID. They were part of a machine, a cog or a lever, a bolt or a hard piece of frame. The lucky few who escaped came to America filled with the energy and knowledge that now they could work for their own benefit - for the benefit of their children! Their efforts were not going to be stolen by some overlord, but they could actually save up! If they had a talent or a skill, they could pursue that instead of being forced into baking or blacksmithing or tanning. If they had a talent or skill for baking or blacksmithing or tanning, they could do it their way and excel!
Immigrants came and filled out this country with drive and determination. They came with the endless years and generations of enforced humility before them - the humbling recognition that sometimes you were part of a greater whole. If you were lucky, you got to choose what part, and the greater whole served you. If you were normal, you were forced into a place and shape and the greater whole served some remote, dangerous piece.
Today’s average American, if we are to believe the evidence paraded before us in the media (unfortunately, both old and new media), has lost sight of this. Today’s average American is not filled with the passion to achieve. We have gone from expecting to enjoy the fruits of our labors to expecting to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labors. We don’t need to see the slaves toiling away, the parts of the machine, we don’t need to force our neighbors to work for us, but we all want to be the overlord. The one who does not work, but only receives.
Then, tragedy of ironies, we flail around our space screaming out in idiotic pain and misery that our life has no meaning - and often chose the worst causes and meanings to which to attach ourselves. But that is another blog (wow I am now in the habit of figuring out my next blog posts by the tangents in my previous).
That is part one. The essential role of immigration and immigrants. I have known only one immigrant with certainty and closeness. He became an American Citizen before my very eyes. He was an immigrant from Lebanon, full of amazing stories told with almost fearful humility. He arrived at JFK Airport with eight dollars and a suitcase. He spoke English before he came. By the time I met him he had put himself through school, taught himself a skill (webmaster, before that was popular) and was perhaps the most technically knowledgeable amongst us. He had a Brazilian girlfriend and they seemed very good together. I will never forget the day he was sworn in as an American Citizen. The light and fire in his eyes overflowed until they were a part of me, too.
Second:
Discrimination. Yes, I will use that word. It used to be a good word, and some little bit of its intended meaning remain. When you tell someone, after eating a delightful food, viewing an amazing painting, or enjoying some other impressive luxury, they have discriminating taste, you are complimenting them. They chose wisely. To discriminate used to mean to choose wisely. Now it has been turned into an ugly word to suggest exactly the opposite.
We (again I mean to include conservatives, though liberals are welcome to exclude themselves) are not attempting to discriminate by race, by gender, or even by sexual practices (with some legal limits). But we do need to be more discriminating. How? What is the measure? What could this blogger actually mean?
Actually, I think there is a very simple line, though it is not one that is easy to see, and it is possible to dissemble your way across the line. The simple discrimination should be: do you wish to come to this country with the classic immigrant’s vision - that is, do you come here to work hard and be rewarded by yourself for yourself?
Unfortunately, too many people now cross the boarder to be provided for. They come here to be rewarded, but not by themselves, nor for themselves. They come without intention to build anything, nor to leave anything, but to consume - too often without contributing anything in return.
Yes, many people come here expecting to work. Many people do tough jobs that the elite in this country feel is beneath them. Those are the ones who get held up as the “normal” entrant to this country. Though it would be nice to pray that such is true, the fact is that they are still not the immigrants we seek.
Have you checked out Australia’s immigration policy?
I have.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Children vs. Adults
I have had several disciplinary problems with my children lately. Perhaps other parents would consider me intolerant, because they’re not the kinds of problems that would even make the stereotyped parent’s radar. I had to take a toy away because they were using it to hurt each other emotionally.
I wondered why. I feel like I have been working constantly to get them to treat each other with respect, and to THINK before they do something. It has not happened. It’s like trying to hold back goo. It simply oozes around the barrier and continues on its merry way. Perhaps a little slower, but you can’t stop, you have to constantly scrape it back.
My definition of the difference between adults and children (or at least between adult behavior and childish behavior) became clear in a moment.
Childish behavior constantly tests the limits without regard for consequence.
Adult behavior knows where the limits are and the consequences for crossing over.
This doesn’t mean adults don’t push the limits, or even deliberately cross over, they just do it knowingly. They know they pay the consequence in one way or another and made that bargain.
It also doesn’t mean children push the limits and cross over them every time - they don’t know where the limits are and at the best of times have only a hazy concept of what the consequences are (much clearer is that they have survived to this point without much damage). Sometimes they fall short of the limits. Don’t worry, they’ll stand back up and charge headlong towards the line again.
This has little to do with a person’s age. It has a lot to do with their experience and wisdom. A lot of adults behave like children, and a few children behave like adults.
Where do parents fit in? They’re trying to define the limits for their children. Even the bad parents do this to dome degree, they just choose too few limits and those are generally poor examples of life’s limits. Parents are up against a dual, limited time-line. They have to teach these limits before their children move out, and they have to teach these limits before the children destroy themselves. Some of us feel the pressure.
I wondered why. I feel like I have been working constantly to get them to treat each other with respect, and to THINK before they do something. It has not happened. It’s like trying to hold back goo. It simply oozes around the barrier and continues on its merry way. Perhaps a little slower, but you can’t stop, you have to constantly scrape it back.
My definition of the difference between adults and children (or at least between adult behavior and childish behavior) became clear in a moment.
Childish behavior constantly tests the limits without regard for consequence.
Adult behavior knows where the limits are and the consequences for crossing over.
This doesn’t mean adults don’t push the limits, or even deliberately cross over, they just do it knowingly. They know they pay the consequence in one way or another and made that bargain.
It also doesn’t mean children push the limits and cross over them every time - they don’t know where the limits are and at the best of times have only a hazy concept of what the consequences are (much clearer is that they have survived to this point without much damage). Sometimes they fall short of the limits. Don’t worry, they’ll stand back up and charge headlong towards the line again.
This has little to do with a person’s age. It has a lot to do with their experience and wisdom. A lot of adults behave like children, and a few children behave like adults.
Where do parents fit in? They’re trying to define the limits for their children. Even the bad parents do this to dome degree, they just choose too few limits and those are generally poor examples of life’s limits. Parents are up against a dual, limited time-line. They have to teach these limits before their children move out, and they have to teach these limits before the children destroy themselves. Some of us feel the pressure.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Doing and Undoing
I think most of us (meaning the conservatives) are still grumbling about the lack of balls shown by our so-called leaders when we send them to Washington. The last election (as many have already said before me) was not about liberalism winning, it was about conservatism sending a message. It was only part one, however, and if conservatives don’t carry the day in 2008, the lesson will not only be lost, it will be mangled to the point of ruin.
But I digress.
Even before I get to my point.
I think what rankles me the most about the differences between conservative and liberal leadership is the boldness. Liberals spent a lot of time learning to be bold. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. Their ideology is sophomoric and impractical - fails every time it is tried and usually at staggering cost impossible to count fully (war on poverty? DDT?) - but they have arrogance and boldness. I’m not saying I want our leaders to be the asses their leaders are, but I do want SOME arrogance and boldness. Why?
What happens is that when liberals are given power (earned or not) they immediately set out to UNDO what was done before them. They actually have the audacity (being ironic here, because quite frankly I don’t blame them, nor do I think it is audacious) to undo policy they don’t like, based on the claim that they have been elected to enact their agenda.
GO FLIPPIN FIGURE.
So. Where are the conservative leaders who are willing to be this bold and arrogant? Have they learned at ALL from the lessons of 2006? They were weak, they were uninspiring, they did not lead, they did not advance their agenda.
Go with bold. Go with vision. Run on the platform that when you get to Washington you’re going to undo what the Democrats are attempting right now (with only President Bush, embattled by the very essence of empty boldness: the aptly named drive-by media, to stand against them). Be prepared to support the difficult (but by no means unpopular, despite the twisting of the mouthpiece) war. Overall and specific parts of the war. Be prepared to address the staggering immigration problem. Do we want immigrants? Yes. Do we need immigrants? YES - the kind that came and shaped this country to begin with. I will post about this in the future. Do we need an open border across which uncounted and unchecked people can cross? No. We do not. It would be NICE, but we do not. Speak truth to bold, arrogant idiots with nothing but loud volume on their side.
You will get elected.
UNDO what they have done, ADVANCE our agenda.
You will stay elected.
But I digress.
Even before I get to my point.
I think what rankles me the most about the differences between conservative and liberal leadership is the boldness. Liberals spent a lot of time learning to be bold. In fact, that’s all they’ve got. Their ideology is sophomoric and impractical - fails every time it is tried and usually at staggering cost impossible to count fully (war on poverty? DDT?) - but they have arrogance and boldness. I’m not saying I want our leaders to be the asses their leaders are, but I do want SOME arrogance and boldness. Why?
What happens is that when liberals are given power (earned or not) they immediately set out to UNDO what was done before them. They actually have the audacity (being ironic here, because quite frankly I don’t blame them, nor do I think it is audacious) to undo policy they don’t like, based on the claim that they have been elected to enact their agenda.
GO FLIPPIN FIGURE.
So. Where are the conservative leaders who are willing to be this bold and arrogant? Have they learned at ALL from the lessons of 2006? They were weak, they were uninspiring, they did not lead, they did not advance their agenda.
Go with bold. Go with vision. Run on the platform that when you get to Washington you’re going to undo what the Democrats are attempting right now (with only President Bush, embattled by the very essence of empty boldness: the aptly named drive-by media, to stand against them). Be prepared to support the difficult (but by no means unpopular, despite the twisting of the mouthpiece) war. Overall and specific parts of the war. Be prepared to address the staggering immigration problem. Do we want immigrants? Yes. Do we need immigrants? YES - the kind that came and shaped this country to begin with. I will post about this in the future. Do we need an open border across which uncounted and unchecked people can cross? No. We do not. It would be NICE, but we do not. Speak truth to bold, arrogant idiots with nothing but loud volume on their side.
You will get elected.
UNDO what they have done, ADVANCE our agenda.
You will stay elected.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Monday, January 15, 2007
Auto Mechanics, Lawyers, Computer-Guys, and Reporters.
I speak as a computer guy. I got into the industry back in the early 90s when they were revered - everyone wanted a computer guru and they were treated with respect. They did everything right, they learned their stuff, they did have some cool toys, but they didn’t abuse anyone’s trust and they were worth their weight in silicon chips.
Then, as happened with Mechanics and Lawyers before us, the industry went through a horrid change. Part of it could have been that because we were all making good money and were treated well within our respective companies the field was flooded with people who saw only the money and the respect. People didn’t see the work any more. They weren’t interested in making computers work right or help their clients, they were interested in an IT salary, a corner office, and a bunch of great toys connected to the internet.
Computer guys took on the connotation of cheating, sneaking, money-spending whirlpools who surfed for dirty pictures when we weren’t playing video games on company time and property. We couldn’t be bothered to show up to help our actual clients, and even at $50k salaries we couldn’t answer basic questions that your co-worker could have solved for you in seconds.
Computer guys are making a slow comeback, but at more realistic expectations. It has become the search for the right computer guy, not just any computer guy. Companies do treat excellent computer workers well, but they don’t give that respect and money away any more. Entry-level talent is put in entry-level positions. Competition has brought the average salary down realistically.
I don’t work in computers any more. But I am seeing the same cycle now attacking journalists. They are where computer guys were about five years ago. I can see it in myself - basically a news consumer of the first order. No longer do I go to the news just to find out what is going on in the world. I am forced to sift through news sources to find the one that presents that news in a me-friendly way. This (of course) pissess off my political opposites, just as I think they’re hopelessly misinformed by their own reporters. We are trying to consume the same news, but we’re more interested in shaping what we see to match what we already thought that the very consumption of news has become a competitive sport - the kind you hear about in the stands of Great Britain where the fans beat each other bloody and senseless.
I don’t know what the solution is. The accusations are the same on both sides. I will say what I feel and I bet that’s exactly what a liberal would say about me. I believe if they actually read the raw news, got real numbers - numbers that spoke the truth rather than being manipulated to an agenda - they would agree with me. I believe they speak with raw emotion - emotion that was shaped by someone else to play on nothing more than their guilt - ironically guilt they shouldn’t even have. Facts don’t seem to be important to them, only the story.
Where does this come from? Is it some insidious plan? Is it the leftovers of an Anti-American organization that was defeated but its momentum still rolls on (such as the KGB, which may make a horrid comeback)? Or is it actually greed - a news organization that twists facts into the most sensational headline it can in order to suck people in and make them read (so that they have numbers to show their advertisers)?
I don’t know, but the bottom line is that, like Car Mechanics, Lawyers, and Computer Guys before them, the field of Journalism is sinking and has still not hit its low point.
Then, as happened with Mechanics and Lawyers before us, the industry went through a horrid change. Part of it could have been that because we were all making good money and were treated well within our respective companies the field was flooded with people who saw only the money and the respect. People didn’t see the work any more. They weren’t interested in making computers work right or help their clients, they were interested in an IT salary, a corner office, and a bunch of great toys connected to the internet.
Computer guys took on the connotation of cheating, sneaking, money-spending whirlpools who surfed for dirty pictures when we weren’t playing video games on company time and property. We couldn’t be bothered to show up to help our actual clients, and even at $50k salaries we couldn’t answer basic questions that your co-worker could have solved for you in seconds.
Computer guys are making a slow comeback, but at more realistic expectations. It has become the search for the right computer guy, not just any computer guy. Companies do treat excellent computer workers well, but they don’t give that respect and money away any more. Entry-level talent is put in entry-level positions. Competition has brought the average salary down realistically.
I don’t work in computers any more. But I am seeing the same cycle now attacking journalists. They are where computer guys were about five years ago. I can see it in myself - basically a news consumer of the first order. No longer do I go to the news just to find out what is going on in the world. I am forced to sift through news sources to find the one that presents that news in a me-friendly way. This (of course) pissess off my political opposites, just as I think they’re hopelessly misinformed by their own reporters. We are trying to consume the same news, but we’re more interested in shaping what we see to match what we already thought that the very consumption of news has become a competitive sport - the kind you hear about in the stands of Great Britain where the fans beat each other bloody and senseless.
I don’t know what the solution is. The accusations are the same on both sides. I will say what I feel and I bet that’s exactly what a liberal would say about me. I believe if they actually read the raw news, got real numbers - numbers that spoke the truth rather than being manipulated to an agenda - they would agree with me. I believe they speak with raw emotion - emotion that was shaped by someone else to play on nothing more than their guilt - ironically guilt they shouldn’t even have. Facts don’t seem to be important to them, only the story.
Where does this come from? Is it some insidious plan? Is it the leftovers of an Anti-American organization that was defeated but its momentum still rolls on (such as the KGB, which may make a horrid comeback)? Or is it actually greed - a news organization that twists facts into the most sensational headline it can in order to suck people in and make them read (so that they have numbers to show their advertisers)?
I don’t know, but the bottom line is that, like Car Mechanics, Lawyers, and Computer Guys before them, the field of Journalism is sinking and has still not hit its low point.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Bulls, Dogs, and China Shops
This post was almost called:
Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and a book called Exile.
But I believe we can all agree that was too clunky. Don't know if my current title is any better.
You know, we Americans have been compared to many things. Sometimes we’re the teenagers on the block. Sometimes we’re the gigantic, well-meaning dog with the huge, sweeping tail (or bull in a china shop if you prefer). Sometimes we’re so repressed that we try to enforce our “Puritan Values” on others. Sometimes we’re such degenerate consumers that our products are a vile plague designed to corrupt civilization. The world continues to try to understand us.
That’s okay. We’re likewise trying to understand the rest of the world.
I read this book called Exile, a fascinating story about an American Jew caught up in a Palestinian terrorist assassination. Over and over again I found a compelling theme: characters in the story would try to explain their plight to this American, explain their position and their hatred (which was usually portrayed not so much as hatred as determination, but it was hatred when applied). Over and over again the American would ask a counter-question or even offer an immediate solution. One that, to me (an American of course), made perfect sense. The characters in the story would even say that the American didn’t get it - that it would never work.
I could see, though this was not a comedy, that the American wanted to pause, eyes to the side, hands stuffed in pockets, realizing that there was going to be no mutual answer because a mutual answer was not wanted.
I can understand that the world is frustrated with America and Americans. While our own country is not perfect (and I can get in major trouble stating from where I believe the biggest problems come) we do believe in finding mutual answers - not necessarily compromises, but answers. We believe that it is possible not so much to sacrifice as to change.
Americans are not only free to change, they are encouraged to do so. We have the liberty to uproot ourselves and start somewhere else. We actually spiritualize things into thoughts, or concepts. That is to say, we take the time (often short enough, I will grant you) to think about what we really want - what it represents, not what it physically is - and find a way to achieve or acquire the qualities we’re looking for. We see many solutions, many goals.
In American phraseology, the problem more or less comes down to our classic argument about means and ends. To the ends justify the means or do the means justify the ends? This gets to the core about what frustrates us about the world, and what frustrates the world with us.
In general, I would say that Americans put means ahead of ends. We certainly have our goals, or ends, that we wish to reach, and we strive for them, but the ends do not justify the means - the means have to be acceptable as well. In fact, the end may be redefined along the journey. In general, it seems that the strife or conflict that confuses us are those issues where the participants believe not only that the ends are fixed, unchangeable, but that they must be reached by specific means, which can be ends in and of themselves.
Yes, our solutions seem oversimplified to others. Their problems seem over-complex to us.
In the end... which would you rather have?
Israelis, Palestinians, Americans, and a book called Exile.
But I believe we can all agree that was too clunky. Don't know if my current title is any better.
You know, we Americans have been compared to many things. Sometimes we’re the teenagers on the block. Sometimes we’re the gigantic, well-meaning dog with the huge, sweeping tail (or bull in a china shop if you prefer). Sometimes we’re so repressed that we try to enforce our “Puritan Values” on others. Sometimes we’re such degenerate consumers that our products are a vile plague designed to corrupt civilization. The world continues to try to understand us.
That’s okay. We’re likewise trying to understand the rest of the world.
I read this book called Exile, a fascinating story about an American Jew caught up in a Palestinian terrorist assassination. Over and over again I found a compelling theme: characters in the story would try to explain their plight to this American, explain their position and their hatred (which was usually portrayed not so much as hatred as determination, but it was hatred when applied). Over and over again the American would ask a counter-question or even offer an immediate solution. One that, to me (an American of course), made perfect sense. The characters in the story would even say that the American didn’t get it - that it would never work.
I could see, though this was not a comedy, that the American wanted to pause, eyes to the side, hands stuffed in pockets, realizing that there was going to be no mutual answer because a mutual answer was not wanted.
I can understand that the world is frustrated with America and Americans. While our own country is not perfect (and I can get in major trouble stating from where I believe the biggest problems come) we do believe in finding mutual answers - not necessarily compromises, but answers. We believe that it is possible not so much to sacrifice as to change.
Americans are not only free to change, they are encouraged to do so. We have the liberty to uproot ourselves and start somewhere else. We actually spiritualize things into thoughts, or concepts. That is to say, we take the time (often short enough, I will grant you) to think about what we really want - what it represents, not what it physically is - and find a way to achieve or acquire the qualities we’re looking for. We see many solutions, many goals.
In American phraseology, the problem more or less comes down to our classic argument about means and ends. To the ends justify the means or do the means justify the ends? This gets to the core about what frustrates us about the world, and what frustrates the world with us.
In general, I would say that Americans put means ahead of ends. We certainly have our goals, or ends, that we wish to reach, and we strive for them, but the ends do not justify the means - the means have to be acceptable as well. In fact, the end may be redefined along the journey. In general, it seems that the strife or conflict that confuses us are those issues where the participants believe not only that the ends are fixed, unchangeable, but that they must be reached by specific means, which can be ends in and of themselves.
Yes, our solutions seem oversimplified to others. Their problems seem over-complex to us.
In the end... which would you rather have?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Mogadishu Moments
Americans may not be the ones to win the War on Terror.
Paying attention to Somalia?
Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, and the episode known as “Black Hawk Down” was not recognized at the time by the world at large as a turning point in the War on Terror - where terrorists learned how to fight the Mighty United States. This admission came later.
Mogadishu is once again in the news, and may very well represent another turning point in the War on Terror.
Let’s clear something up:
While I do believe that the United States is one of the biggest targets for terror (our only rival for that dubious distinction is probably Israel) we are by no means the ONLY target for terror, and because we are not only separated from the hot spots of the world by massive oceans and tremendous distance but we are actually very effectively protected (I must grudgingly admit) by politicians who have no desire to see us wiped out (they only desire to be in power so they can claim the victory and vision, thus perpetuating their power), we are a very difficult target.
Thus (if you could untangle that paragraph) there are other targets for terrorism worldwide. The fact is that most terrorism uses Islam as one of its rallying cries, but I don’t believe terrorism has anything to do with Islam - it is merely using that religion as many religions (including Judaism and Christianity) have been used to inflame people who would otherwise shrug. Terrorism has to do with political power, oppression, and tyranny.
The United States can be a leader in the War on Terror - but we cannot win it. Why? Because the essential ingredients to winning the War on Terror are the same as were required for the war in Vietnam. Terrorists must be denied a hiding place, and they must be un-made. These two things can be done in America - but only on a limited scale. Why? Because we have only a limited terrorist problem. Oh, we have terrorists right here (blowing up SUV dealers, shooting abortion doctors, causing race riots, etc.) but they are amateurs and peons compared to terrorists who take down office buildings, bomb embassies, cause genocide.
Terror as a concept cannot be defeated by normal, material means - the ultimate elimination of terror ca only be a spiritual struggle. However, the kind of terror we’re talking about when we say the War on Terror can be defeated - but it must be defeated where THAT kind of terrorist can find hiding places and where those terrorists can be un-made.
Such an example is happening before our eyes - Ethiopia (and you had better examine your own stereotypes or assumptions about that country, because I guarantee it is nothing like it was in the 80s) has gone into Somalia and ousted terrorists - or at least is fighting them effectively.
We cannot go into every nook and cranny and root out terrorists. The world must do this. Our efforts may seem the loudest, most controversial, most visible, and may be perceived as the most effective, and we may have to be the (often maligned) leader in this cause, but the fact is that the WAR is going to be won by dozens of countries fighting their own little battles against the forces in their neighborhood. It is going to be won by the people of towns, cities, and villages kicking out or healing the violent in their midst.
If the Viet Cong had found no villages in which to hide, Vietnam would not have gone down the way it did.
The problem is, and I believe it is a natural, big problem, that it takes courage to stand up to the violent. Whether they are violent with weapons, or violent with words, it is not easy to stand against them. The War will be won when enough people find that local courage.
Paying attention to Somalia?
Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia, and the episode known as “Black Hawk Down” was not recognized at the time by the world at large as a turning point in the War on Terror - where terrorists learned how to fight the Mighty United States. This admission came later.
Mogadishu is once again in the news, and may very well represent another turning point in the War on Terror.
Let’s clear something up:
While I do believe that the United States is one of the biggest targets for terror (our only rival for that dubious distinction is probably Israel) we are by no means the ONLY target for terror, and because we are not only separated from the hot spots of the world by massive oceans and tremendous distance but we are actually very effectively protected (I must grudgingly admit) by politicians who have no desire to see us wiped out (they only desire to be in power so they can claim the victory and vision, thus perpetuating their power), we are a very difficult target.
Thus (if you could untangle that paragraph) there are other targets for terrorism worldwide. The fact is that most terrorism uses Islam as one of its rallying cries, but I don’t believe terrorism has anything to do with Islam - it is merely using that religion as many religions (including Judaism and Christianity) have been used to inflame people who would otherwise shrug. Terrorism has to do with political power, oppression, and tyranny.
The United States can be a leader in the War on Terror - but we cannot win it. Why? Because the essential ingredients to winning the War on Terror are the same as were required for the war in Vietnam. Terrorists must be denied a hiding place, and they must be un-made. These two things can be done in America - but only on a limited scale. Why? Because we have only a limited terrorist problem. Oh, we have terrorists right here (blowing up SUV dealers, shooting abortion doctors, causing race riots, etc.) but they are amateurs and peons compared to terrorists who take down office buildings, bomb embassies, cause genocide.
Terror as a concept cannot be defeated by normal, material means - the ultimate elimination of terror ca only be a spiritual struggle. However, the kind of terror we’re talking about when we say the War on Terror can be defeated - but it must be defeated where THAT kind of terrorist can find hiding places and where those terrorists can be un-made.
Such an example is happening before our eyes - Ethiopia (and you had better examine your own stereotypes or assumptions about that country, because I guarantee it is nothing like it was in the 80s) has gone into Somalia and ousted terrorists - or at least is fighting them effectively.
We cannot go into every nook and cranny and root out terrorists. The world must do this. Our efforts may seem the loudest, most controversial, most visible, and may be perceived as the most effective, and we may have to be the (often maligned) leader in this cause, but the fact is that the WAR is going to be won by dozens of countries fighting their own little battles against the forces in their neighborhood. It is going to be won by the people of towns, cities, and villages kicking out or healing the violent in their midst.
If the Viet Cong had found no villages in which to hide, Vietnam would not have gone down the way it did.
The problem is, and I believe it is a natural, big problem, that it takes courage to stand up to the violent. Whether they are violent with weapons, or violent with words, it is not easy to stand against them. The War will be won when enough people find that local courage.
Amniotic stem cells and Babylon Five
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?
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?
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…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)