iconoclasticism

2005-03-18T08:48:00.000-08:00

The Republican-controlled Senate health committee early Friday requested that Terri Schiavo and her husband, Michael, appear at a hearing March 28 on health care for "non-ambulatory persons." The move to include Terri Schiavo, who is in a coma, was meant to block the removal of her tube, now set for 1 p.m. ET, at least until the hearing is held.

In a press release, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, noted that federal law "protects witnesses called before official Congressional committee proceedings from anyone who may obstruct or impede a witness' attendance or testimony."

Brilliant.

What disturbs me is the fact that a judge may now decide who is to live or die. And increasingly, judges are erring on the side of killing the person in question, rather than in preserving his life. We get closer and closer to the Netherlands, where you can be killed by a doctor, without the consent of family members or friends....if the doctor deems your life unworthy, he can end it.

The limits of academic freedom

2005-02-03T17:02:00.000-08:00

University of Colorado has been the host of yet another controversy

I'm trying to decide my stance on this one. Obviously, the guy is a nutcase. I think the governor's involvement is justified because CU is a public university, funded by taxpayer dollars.

But what if it wasn't? Yes, the guy wrote something that is morally repugnant.

But he's a tenured professor. Momentarily disregarding the fact that he's paid with taxpayer funds, should a tenured professor be dismissed because he's voiced controversial views?

The crux of the issue: Currently, Judeo-Christian values hold sway with the vast majority of the populace. The public outcry over Churchill's statement proves that fact. However, it is clear that we are losing ground. What happens when the definition of "morally repugnant" is no longer in our hands? When espousing a biblical worldview becomes "immoral"?

Revitalization....soon

2005-01-15T08:10:00.000-08:00

I am attempting recovery from the college-application-filled month of December, and Michael is settling into dorm life at Patrick Henry College. We plan to update again soon, once everything gets back to some semblance of normalcy.

Pie Jesu

2004-12-02T21:45:00.000-08:00

A hospital in the Netherlands - the first nation to permit euthanasia - recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

Have mercy on us.

Darfur, humanitarianism and the UN

2004-11-16T00:08:00.000-08:00

I'm sick of it. I'm sick of all the pandering, and the talking, and the "international cooperation."

He said he had found clear evidence of violence against displaced people and
aid workers by the security forces.

Yeah. And we're surprised? I'm frankly disgusted that it's taken the world so long to get on top of this situation.

The UN....sheesh

The agency’s four staff in South Darfur have been restricted to the capital, Nyala, for three weeks following an incident when they and other UN aid workers intervened to stop villagers in the area from being forcibly moved, the UN High Commission for Refugees said in a statement.

Ladies and gentlemen, the UN is a joke. The crisis in Sudan has been going on for years. The UN has served no purpose, other than drawing publicity to an atrocity - and that was too long in coming. Aid workers, mostly Christian, have been operating in Sudan for decades.

The Sudan Tribune writes:

"The occupation encouraged Christian missions and left doors wide open to them. It changed the official holidays from Friday to Sunday and removed Islamic security forces from the south..."
"The occupation not only separated the Muslims of southern Sudan from their brothers in northern Sudan, it also removed them from everything which had to do with Islam. Even those with Arab names were forced to change their names and were forbidden to speak Arabic so as to encourage English. The British occupation was open-handed with Christian missions, allowing them to have free hand as far as education was concerned. Those missions started to spread their venomous propaganda against Islam and against the Arabs in the south."

Yeah. "Venomous propaganda."

Who makes the real difference? International political organizations who are more interested in lining their pockets and securing their bureaucracy [see Oil for Food] than in doing real good? or is it the NGO's, the people on the ground, working on incredibly tight budgets, but making change happen?

There was a difference when Guatemala was devastated by an earthquake in 1976. When Honduras was buried under hurricane Mitch in 1998. Yeah, international aid organizations came....and went. Who stayed? Not the U.N.

And as much as we bemoan the absence of the international church in the African AIDS crisis, who is it that is working to stem the spread of AIDS and care for those it decimates? The local church. Goodness knows that the UN hasn't been helping much. Distributing condoms at border crossings is not the way to stop an epidemic.

Scott Peterson and the Bloodthirst of America

2004-11-15T13:08:00.000-08:00

Did you watch the Scott Peterson verdict on TV? I did. I saw the masses, crowded outside the courtroom like groupies at a rock concert, waiting to hear the resolution of the drama they've been following like it was their favorite daytime soap opera. When the verdict was announced, they went nuts. People danced. People laughed. People talked on cell phones, grinning ear-to-ear. They were celebrating like it was their favorite holiday. Celebrating like their favorite sports team had won a championship. Celebrating like...an ordinary man, just like you and me, had killed his wife and child, and has now been condemned to death or life behind bars because of his crimes. Celebrating? Why weren't they weeping? Why weren't they paying silent tribute to the woman and child that lost their lives? Why weren't they doing ANYTHING but celebrating like it was Mardi Gras? The thirst for blood and the morbid desire to see a man sentanced to death shows me just how far we've fallen.

Pushing the rock

2004-11-04T14:58:00.001-08:00

On a lighter cultural note, we're almost through NBA opening week and I couldn't be more excited. This is a great year to be a basketball fan, with the balance of power much more even from previous years, and teams that once were stiffs now coming alive for some great basketball.

Before I get into the NBA at large, though, I have to be a loyal fan and say a few words about my hometown Sacramento Kings. With mostly low-level acquisitions, the Kings flew under the radar during this offseason, but I think that when you look at the acquisitions they made, and how they plug little holes and problems in Sacramento's gameplay from last season, I think the improvements are fairly significant. Obviously, the Kings are already one of the best scoring teams in the Association. The problems they have are a leaky defense, and a lack of speed and altheticism. Defense was addressed primarily in the free-agent signing of Greg Ostertag. Alot of people criticized this move, saying Ostertag can do nothing with the ball in his hands, and will never be able to pass from the post the way Vlade Divac did. The problem with this is that Ostertag was never really meant to be a replacement for Divac. Sacramento doesn't need another passing, shooting center, they have that in Brad Miller. Ostertag's sole role on the team is to set picks, clog the lane, and block shots. The Kings haven't had a lane-clogging, shot-blocking 7-footer in a long time, and I think it fills a need that they have. Atheticism and quickness was addressed by the underrated first-round draft pick of Kevin Martin. People forget that this kid was ranked 2nd in scoring nationwide in college, with 24.9 ppg, and that he once dropped 46 points on Coastal Carolina. He's a superb athlete, and looked great in the preseason, exhibiting some nice hops and speed, and just as importantly, defense. With Doug Christie out for the preseason, Kevin Martin recieved a baptism by fire, drawing the assignments of guarding T-Mac, Jason Richardson, and Kobe in his first 4 NBA games. Also notable was the signing of former Clippers small forward and Sacramento native Matt Barnes, who brings speed and intensity off the bench.

I won't spend alot of time on what was obviously the most talked-about move of the off-season, which was the trade of Shaquille O'Neal to the Miami Heat for Lamar Odom, Caron Butler, and Brian Grant. Really, what it boils down to is that Shaq will wreck absolute havok on the centers of the eastern conference. Short of the other O'Neal and Ben Wallace, there's no big men in the East that can even begin to put a body on Shaq. I'm looking forward to watching the slimmed-down O'Neal wiping the floor with the likes of Eddy Curry, Kelvin Cato, and Samuel Dalembert. Of course, the Western Conference, now minus Shaq, is still packed tightly with big men who are absolute beasts in the post, with the likes of Brad Miller, Yao Ming, Elton Brand, Tim Duncan, and Kevin Garnett, just to name a few.

Of course, the other blockbuster move of the offseason was the much-heralded arrival of Tracy McGrady to the western conference, which sent Steve Francis packing his bags for Orlando, where he'll again earn his nickname of Franchise. It remains to be seen how well the T-Mac/Yao tandem will work out under Jeff Van Gundy's halfcourt system. My initial reaction is that McGrady likes the ball too much, and Yao doesn't demand it enough. Watching Houston play, you'd think Van Gundy is trying to duplicate the isolation plays that were run for McGrady all last season in Orlando. Rarely have we seen McGrady, who is arguably the most un-guardable player in the NBA, use his dribble penetration skills to feed Yao in the low post.

There are going to be so many all-star worthy forwards in the Western conference that won't make the cut for this year's All-Star game. Consider: Elton Brand, Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic, Corey Maggette, last year's MIP Zach Randolph, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Cleveland's Public Enemy no. 1, Amare Stoudemire, Lamar Odom, Rashard Lewis, Andrei Kirilenko, Kenyon Martin, Shawn Marion, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Michael Finley, Dirk Nowitzki, and Pau Gasol. whew. ::deep breath::

I am so excited to see the Phoenix Suns play this year, especially since they've decided to go small ball, with a starting lineup of Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Q-Rich, and The Matrix. They're 4-1 as of this writing, and averaging over 106 ppg. I'm all for team-basketball, Detroit Pistons style, but I like to see fast-break teams running the floor and actually taking open shots once in a while. The Suns appear to be the team to watch this year, if you want to see some fun basketball.

Predictions:

MVP: Kevin Garnett
Rookie of the Year: Luol Deng
Most Improved Player: Dwayne Wade (28.8 p and 8 assists per game!)
Defensive Player of the Year: Ben Wallace
Finals: Sacramento Kings over Miami Heat in 6 games

And on a final note, this seems to be the season of the inspiring comeback. Congradulations to Grant Hill and Alonzo Mourning for showing us that it really can be done.

whew.

2004-11-03T09:31:00.000-08:00

My election day began at 5 a.m., when I dragged myself out of bed to head over to the polling place. It was still dark when I arrived, and 351 ballots later, it was dark when I left.

As an election judge, I came expecting to deal with angry activists, grumpy voters peeved about long lines, and, in general, a highly cantankerous constituancy.

Instead, what I saw was everyday Americans, excited, enthusiastic, and grateful to get the chance to participate in the act which symbolizes democracy itself. Party lines were veiled behind anomynity, and we were all simply American.

I will be the first person to admit that I tend to be rather cynical about the general American populace. What I tend to forget is that, every four years, I get a reminder that things aren't really as bad as they seem.

Dun dun DUN!

2004-11-01T14:39:00.000-08:00

Message of the day [and it's oh, so surprising]:

Vote.

That is all.

How the mighty have fallen!

2004-10-29T10:04:00.000-07:00

The fall of the NAACP:

The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the NAACP's tax-exempt status because the civil rights group's chairman, Julian Bond, "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush" during a speech this summer, according to documents the group provided yesterday.

The NAACP, which is based in Baltimore and is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization, is incorporated under a tax-code section that prohibits participation in a political campaign. The group has long had a strained relationship with the Bush administration.
"The NAACP has always been nonpartisan, but that doesn't mean we're noncritical," he said. "As long as we've existed, whether Democrats or Republicans have occupied the White House, we've spoken truth to power." He said Republicans "practice racial division" but also criticized Democrats, saying that "when one party is shameless, the other party cannot afford to be spineless."

Social contract?

2004-10-22T16:30:00.000-07:00

Kerry, beginning the day in Pennsylvania before moving on to Ohio, renewed his claim that Bush had put Social Security on "a dangerous road."
"He's asking you for another four years so that he can privatize the program and undo the social contract with our seniors," Kerry said, slamming Bush's record of job losses and growing budget deficits

Being a Lincoln-Douglas debater, I just couldn't let this slide. Breaking the social contract with our seniors? Wow.

Social contract theory of government has been forwarded by political philosophers from Hobbes to Rousseau, and more. In its most basic form, the social contract argues men join together and form societies [and governments] by giving up some of their rights in exchange for protection of their person and property. Most social contract theorists say that before there were governments or societies, man lived in a "State of Nature," in which each man had [mostly] complete liberty. The drawbacks of the state of nature eventually motivate men to get together, give up some liberty, and gain strength, security and protection.

So all of this to try and understand Mr. Kerry's seemingly unintelligible comment on the social contract.

Really, truly and honestly, I fail to understand Mr. Kerry's point. People enter society in order to get social security checks? If social security is privatized, somehow all of society will collapse because the social contract has been violated? Huh? Social Security is very new, in the grand scheme of things. What about seniors before social security was implemented? Were they missing out on the true nature of the social contract? Poor things. They never should have put up with it.

Please. In addition to being scare tactics, these are lousy ones. I really hope that Mr. Kerry doesn't understand what he implied. Please, people....for the sake of my philosophical soul, don't elect a man who can so badly mangle the founding principles of western society.

If we break the social contract, does that gives seniors the right to leave society? Watch out, people, Florida is going to secede.

Teddy

2004-10-20T08:03:00.000-07:00

The voice of the people is not always the voice of God; and when it happens to be the voice of the devil, then it is a man's clear duty to deft its behests.

[A good citizen] should beware how he becomes a critic of the actions of others, rather than a doer of deeds himself; and in so far as he does act as a critic (and of course the critic hasgreat and necessary function) he must beware of indescriminate censure even more than of indiscriminate praise. The screaming vulgarity of the foolish spread-eagle orator who is continually yelling defiance at Europe, praising everythiing American, good and bad, and resenting the introduction of any reform because it has been previously tried successfully abroad, is offensive and contemptable to the last degree; but after alll it is scarcely as harmful as the peevish, fretful, sneering, and continual faultfinding of the refined, well-educated man, who is always attacking good and bad alike, wo genuinely distrusts America, and in the true spirit of servile colonialism considers us inferior to the people across the water.

-Theodore Roosevelt, "The Duties of American Citizenship"
Buffalo, New York, January 26, 1883

Bush Bounce

2004-10-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

Kerry simply cannot run a domestic campaign. The climate of the country won't allow him to, not matter how much he wants to.

Brendan Miniter writes:

A recent AP poll shows that 55% of Americans rank national security as paramount in this election, up from 43% in April. If this election were a referendum on jobs, health care or education, Mr. Kerry would probably be in better shape. So it is not good news for the Democrat that as voters have started paying more attention to this race over the past couple of months, they've increasingly come to see it as a referendum on national security policy.

Kerry is losing momentum, not a good sign at the point in the campaign. He hasn't gained much from the post-debate spin, and in fact has been negatively affected by some of his comments. The global test, Mary Cheney....

The Kerry - Edwards campaign is running out of steam. Not a good place to be two weeks before the election, especially with Bush hitting "swing" states, like New Jersey, Minnesota and Oregon.

And, as an aside, I'll be walking precincts friday through monday and poll watching on tuesday.

[Go sign up, people. You'll get a free t-shirt.]

I find it oh, so amusing that main stream media now have their own blogs.

And, if you're confused about where to place your vote, The Guardian wants to help!

The letters of response to the article have been hilarious, albeit with a good amount of vulgarity in the mix. Here's the best:

My dear, beloved Brits,
I understand the Guardian is sponsoring a service where British citizens write to Americans to advise them on how to vote. Thank heavens! I was adrift in a sea of confusion and you are my beacon of hope!

Feel free to respond to this email with your advice. Please keep in mind that I am something of an anglophile, so this is not confrontational. Please remember, too, that I am merely an American. That means I am not very bright. It means I have no culture or sense of history. It also means that I am barely literate, so please don't use big, fancy words.

Set me straight, folks!
Dayton, Ohio

Playing politics with family pain

2004-10-17T18:38:00.000-07:00

Manipulation of familial situations by the Kerry - Edwards campaign has been horrible, of late. In addition to Edwards' abuse of Christopher Reeve's death, we have a candidate who now tries to use Vice President Cheney's daughter, Mary, against President Bush, and in reality against her own father. It doesn't address the issue, and it's simply underhanded.

James Taranto of Opinion Journal is picking up on it.

Dr. John Mark Reynolds writes,

We also recognize that not all Americans have reasonable views about sexuality. They are make errors of judgment and do things that are wrong and self-destructive. If they are our children, we still love them and live with their problems. This is painful, but eventually families find ways of dealing with such pain. You agree to disagree.

This family pain is deeply personal. It has no place in politics. It tells us nothing about Cheney. It tells us nothing about the social policy regarding gay marriage.
The Cheney family has two daughters. One is always forgotten. Kerry and Edwards focus on only one. Why? They are playing politics with family pain.

=================================================================

I must admit, I am getting frustrated with the economic conservatives that seem to be taking over the republican party. [Witness the RNC] Traditional social conservatives are being sidelined. Part of me is tempted to say that it's an election year. And that may be the case. To be honest, we're still immensely separate from the left on social issues [Kerry's push for unlimited funding of stem cell research, government funding of abortion and support for gay marriage.] The president is slowly undermining the case for Roe v. Wade, and we can only hope that he has the chance to appoint a justice to the supreme court in the next four years. Through healthcare legislation, the banning of partial birth abortion and additional government funding for stem cell research and Lacy and Connor's law, the president is making slow but steady progress on pro-life issues.

I wish it were more.

Dr. Reynolds again writes:

Dear Libertine Republicans,

For years we have suffered from having you say that the "religious right" costs the GOP votes. Turns of that the religious right controls several hundred electoral votes. Secularists, libertarians, and others make up about ten percent of the population. You cannot win an election with Western Washington, Western Oregon, and a few other areas. Your organizations have little money and no "moms in sneakers" doing the hard work of campaigns. What you have had is a smarmy sense of academic superiority unjustified by actual arguments.

We are now about to win an election without you. You have turned on Bush, worried about him. We love him and are about to turn out eighty percent of our millions for him. When Bush wins, it will be the cultural issues which have pulled him through in places like West Virginia and Ohio. If we had listened to you, then Bush would have lost, big time. In fact, your sensible economic views are only heard, because the academic portion of the religious right takes you seriously.

We can translate them to the folks in Kansas and Utah, because we are the people of Kansas and Utah. You went to college and decided you were better than you parents. You moved to Cambridge and forgot home. We went to college and decided to serve our families. We live and work in places you fly over. You need us or Kansas will be lost.

What about the future? Television, made by aging vets of the sexual revolution, has deceived you about what the young want. Your fantasy that the young are with you is part of your cultural blind spot.

How many kids, on average, do your friends have? One or two? Millions of kids are homeschooled. How many do you know? Many Mexican kids are being educated today in California schools. How many support partial birth abortion and unnatural marriages? Give me Saint Joseph's Sunday School and you can have the Women's Studies Program at State U.

Anglos are not having many babies. We will grant you the "perfect," stressed out, designer baby of Buffy and Biff in the suburbs (all one of them), if you keep ignoring the kids in CYO and AWANA. (Google them to see what you are missing.) Check out the average number of kids per household in your demographic groups. The future is ours.

Here is the good news. We may not be libertines, but we have a strong libertarian streak. We want to make government smaller, more compassionate, and we believe in a culture of life. We will let you do what you want in the privacy of your home as long as you don't defraud our kids or ask for our blessing. If you can get over forcing your sexual views on the rest of us, allow us to protect babies, and move on to other things, we will have much common cause.

God gave you the right to sin. He is the judge. We won't take that away from the Andrew Sullivans of the world. That is where American Christians differ from the Bin Ladens. We are happy to work with you, but you have to realize that we are on to you. Best reason and best experience are on our side. We are glad you are in our party, but it will always be pro-life, pro-family, and for God and country. That turns out to be the majority position. We are happy to help you with your economic goals.

Your friendly traditional Republican.

And because this wouldn't be a Lauren post without a quotation to end it, I leave you with Aristotle's Ethics:

Therefore virute lies on our power and similarly so does vice; because where it is in our power to act, it is also in our power not to act, and where we can refuse we can also comply. So if it is in our power to do something when it is right, it is also within our power not to do it when it is wrong...And if it is in our power to do right and wrong, and similarly not to do them, and if doing right and wrong is the essence of being good or bad, it follows that it is in our power to be decent or worthless.

Liveblogging the third debate

2004-10-13T18:00:00.000-07:00

6:01
We have a CBS anchor moderating the debate. There's good PR for you.

6:02
"Look how cute he is!"
-my mother, about President Bush

6:04
Kerry is asked if we'll ever live in a safe world. This seems a question loaded in Kerry's favor, since it plays off his campaign tactic of attacking President Bush's remarks that we cannot win the war on terror. For the third debate in a row, Kerry gives the exact same laundry list of facts and statistics about how unsafe we are. Bush responds with his "the best defense is a strong offense" philosophy, and accuses Kerry of having a lack of perspective on terrorism. These candidates don't just have a disagreement on how to deal with terrorism, they disagree on the nature of terrorism itself.

6:09
Bush is asked about the shortage of flu vaccines. President Bush has a solid response to this, he explains that we did the right thing by not allowing the contaminated vaccine from England into the country, and he urges healthy Americans to not get flu shots. He closes with a call for tort reform. Kerry's response: blame the healthcare system. "5 million people have lost their health insurance" are the first words out of his mouth. Nice response to the question about flu shot shortages, Senator. He says litigation isn't the problem (no explanation why), and pushes for his insurance program. Bush comes back, calling this an empty promise and telling us that Kerry can't fund his own plan, and gives us specific numbers. Very nice

6:14
Kerry is asked about economic security and how he can promise that he won't raise taxes, while at the same time pay for all his programs. His response: pay-as-you-go legislation, where lawmakers have to show funding sources for any laws they wish to pass. He also attacks Bush's spending and tax cuts. Bush comes back by attacking Kerry's record, like in the past two debates, and tells us that the middle class will end up with the largest financial burden of Kerry's programs. "Kerry is a Massachusetts Liberal" insinuation count: 1.

6:18
Bush is now talking about how we'll keep the economy growing, and he emphasizes high educational standards as the best way to keep jobs in America. Kerry responds, completely missing the point (maybe purposefully so), and accuses the President of ignoring the question about jobs. At this point, he drops a pop-culture reference, to show us that he is oh-so hip and edgy.

6:21
Kerry acknowledges that outsourcing is a fact of life. He advocates a level playing field, and "fair trade." ::sigh:: I hate it when Bush opens his responses with "whoo!" Again, Bush comes back to Kerry's record. "Kerry is a Massachusetts Liberal" insinuation count: 2.

6:27
"Is homosexuality a choice?" Bush: "I don't know. I just don't know." Weak opening, but he continues on strong, railing against judicial activism. He dodges the issue of homosexuality, explaining that he wants the constitutional amendment restricting marriage in order to restrict activist judges. Kerry response...by talking about Dick Cheney's daughter? That's really, really low, Senator.

6:30
Kerry is confronted with Catholics opposing his views. This is the cue to begin the religious pandering, while spewing moral relativism and hypocrisy. He says he fights for justice and liberty and equality because of his faith, but somehow, his faith isn't applicable when it comes to abortion of legislation. Bush comes back with a weak response...I really wish he would take a firmer stance on this. Instead of talking about how abortion is murder, and the taking of an innocent life, he discusses "working together to reduce abortions." ::sigh::

6:34
Why are health insurance costs so high? Bush says it's because there aren't enough market forces involved. Kerry comes back, blaming the President for the lack of drugs from Canada, nevermind the fact that it wasn't the President that blocked it, it was congress. Bush has never vetoed legislation, remember Senator? Second use of the "I came to Washington to solve problems!" line from Bush.

6:39
Moderator: where are you going to get the money for your healthcare plan? Kerry: my plan is all about choice! Bush responded, completely blowing his intro for the...you know, I've already lost count.

6:44
Social security question. Bush advocates freedom for young workers to put portions of their social security into savings accounts in order to get greater returns. Kerry responds with findings from the CBO, saying that Bush's plan will result in cutting benefits for current retirees. Kerry talks about spending, deficits, breaking with the democratic party, and sounds awfully like he's wishing he was a republican.

6:48
::michael's attention span slumps for Kerry's statement::
Bush responds by supporting his tax cuts, and appealing to the American middle class to consider the benefits they reaped from his tax cut.

6:52
Immigration question. (at this point, my dad bellows). Bush advocates a temporary worker card, saying this will increase border security. He says this will ensure benefits for both the immigrants, the employers, and will ease the burden on border guards. He also attacks amnesty, saying that we should not excuse violation of the law. Kerry says we also need to crack down on illegal hiring, and that we should create an earned immigration program. He does not respond to the issue of amnesty.

6:57
Is it time to raise the minimum wage? Kerry says yes. Bush says he also supports increasing the minimum wage, and suddenly swerves over to education, defending the No Child Left Behind act. (?) Never mentions the minimum wage again. Shame, Mr. President.

7:01
Bush says: no litmus tests for judges. Kerry says: I will not appoint a pro-choice judge, then says "let me go a step further." This is the cue for a second completely inexplicable swerve into the topic of education. After that, it's time for "Kerry is a Massachusetts Liberal" insinuation count: 3.

7:05
Question regarding the so-called "backdoor draft". Kerry discusses strategies for troop deployment, including doubling our special forces, and brings it back to diplomacy, and forming alliances. Bush comes back to the global test thing. again. ::sigh::

7:09
Bush, why didn't you do anything to extend the assult weapons ban? Bush says solution is to prosecute people who commit crimes with guns. Kerry says: He respects second amendment, won't tamper with it, but assult weapons make things too dangerous for law enforcement officers. Solid answer

7:13
Affirmative action question. Kerry says people still feel effects of racism, and we need to fix that. Also, Bush has never met with the black congressional congress, and shows no effort to reaching out to minorities. Bush is unfortunately repetitive with his answer, bringing it back to education for like the 5th time already. Why doesn't he point out the fact that that his Secretary of State is Colin Power? That Condoleeza Rice is his Secretary of Defense? That he appointed Miguel Estrada to the supreme court, and that it was the democrats that shut him down! He's dropping the ball on these responses.

7:16
Bush is asked about his faith. He talks about prayer and how important it is to him, and that he stands on principles, and gives a generic talk about how God wants us all to be free. So-so response. Kerry comes up and drips relativism again, displaying a complete misunderstanding of the commandment to love one's neighbor.

7:20
Kerry talks about unity after 9-11, how we've strayed from it, and how it's all the President's fault. These questions irritate me...they tell me nothing about the policies of either canidate, and "unity" is something every one can agree on. Nothing informative here.

7:24
Last question. The canidates are asked what they have learned from their wives. Give me a break. See previous question.

7:27
Kerry's closing statement: he waxes poetic. "Calms the waters of a troubled world"

7:29
Bush's closing statement: Reaganesque optimism.

Soapbox

2004-10-12T20:08:00.000-07:00

This is the beautiful thing about blogs: it gives everyone a soapbox.

This is the horrible thing about blogs: it gives everyone a soapbox.

If you only talk to those who agree with you, you're not likely to get the whole story. [But it is funny.]

This is also my chance to plug your local elections. Most of the important decisions that affect your daily life are decided at the state level. Most people vote a straight ticket, or vote for the dude who had the most signs, or the coolest logo.

Take the chance to research your local election. Campaign for a candidate that supports your views. In a small election, one person can do alot.

And because I'm a republican, go volunteer for the 72-hour campaign.

[In Colorado, it's the 96 hour campaign. But that's just because we're specialer. ]

Now I get off my soapbox to go finish calculus homework.

I bet Carter could fix it.

2004-10-11T13:55:00.000-07:00

So, it's happened. The first democratic election to come out of the United State's military action in the middle east was a dud. The canidates are boycotting, the ink is bad, and the donkeys carrying the ballot boxes are really, really slow.

So is this a forteller of doom for Iraqi elections? Well, not really.

For one thing, how can you call something a failure when, for once, both the UN and the US agree that it went well?

Really, though, a fault in the ink used to protect against repeat voters isn't something that spells failure for elections in this kind of situation. This is no more worse than what happened in Florida in 2000. No, the Iraq election will provide it's own set of challenges. I think they'll be worrying more about suicide bombers and uprisings on election day than about ink or hanging chads.

While it may not have any bearing whatsoever on Iraq's elections, the lack of any attacks by Taliban remnant forces during the Afgahnistan election was certainly welcome news.

Don't blow the Afgahnistan election difficulties out of proportion. If you expected a formerlly theocratic Islamic regime to conduct it's first fully open democratic elections without a single hit, well, then your name is probably Jimmy Carter.

Elsewhere...

2004-10-11T08:04:00.000-07:00

Candidates display anatomical as well as philosophical differences.

And let's not forget about the Senate Races...

Coors and Salazar....sheesh. This is why I campaigned for Bob Schaffer.

Let's just hope the Colorado population doesn't watch Meet the Press.

Kerry's Character

2004-10-09T22:39:00.000-07:00

Talking with other debaters around the country, I find many disillusioned with the format and tone of the recent debates. "I wish they'd stick to issues," or "I can't stand the ad hominems." As debaters, we're trained to avoid ad homs like the plague, to debate the policy and leave the person alone. However, when electing a president, we're not electing a policy. We're electing a person.

As Mr. Clinton adequately proved, character counts in an executive. I think we'd all agree that President Bush has adequately proved [or disproved, depending on your persuasion,] his character over the past four years.

Our attention turns, then, to Mr. Kerry. Thursday's exchange with the press was a unique opportunity to observe Mr. Kerry in action.

To be honest, I'm confused by the Kerry campaign. I really don't think he's stupid, but alot of what he's saying really doesn't make sense.

What I'll tell you is, I have a plan. I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working. And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do.

Um...alright. This is characteristic of the Kerry campaign. We have the promise, "I have a plan!" But I've been hearing this for months. It's not like Mr. Kerry has been short on time to develop a plan, so I have to wonder at either Mr. Kerry's indecision, or his cowardice. I can't see a whole lot of strategy in holding back a major part of your platform until the last few weeks before an election, but maybe I'm naive.

The next exchange knocks my socks off:

Q. Duelfer also said that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons of mass destruction program because he felt that the sanctions were just going to fritter away. A. But we wouldn't let them just fritter away. That's the point. Folks! If You've got a guy who's dangerous, you've got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don't lift the sanctions, that's the fruits of good diplomacy. This Administration...I beg your pardon?
Q. You just said [Bush] fictionalized him [Saddam] as an enemy. Now you just said he's dangerous?

Mmhmm...There we have it. You can't get it both ways, Mr. Kerry. It seems to me that he's so desperate to attack Bush that he abandons all reason. Now, I can see if a politician changes his mind based on new information - if he didn't, I'd be concerned. But contradicting yourself from one sentence to the next seems slightly obsessive.

A. No. What I said. I said it all the time. Consistently I have said Saddam Hussein presented a threat. I voted for the authorization, because he presented a threat. There are all kinds of threats in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries? 35 to 40 countries had the same --more-- capability of creating weapons, nuclear weapons, at the time the president invaded Iraq than Iraq did. Are we invading all 35 to 40 of them? Did we invade Russia? Did we invade China?

I find this interesting in light of Kerry's bluster during last night's preseidential debate. "If we have to get tough with Iran, we will get tough!" Right. Okay. I hear more nebulous "plans" from Mr. Kerry than you can shake a stick at. In fact, the standard Kerry line, which we heard over and over again last night, is "Look at all the mistakes this president has made...look how I kept telling him he was wrong...and I have a plan!" It gets old after awhile.

The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a president to deal with threats and I consistently laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein, who was a threat. If I'd been president, I'd have wanted the same threat of force.

Excuse me, sir, how many times do you want to utilize that "threat" of force? Isn't that what the U.N. was? A threat of force? For 12 years? I really don't get it.

But as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand iin this campaign, there was a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. The president did it the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, against my warnings and other people's warnings.

"Without a plan to win the peace. " We've heard this over and over again in recent days, but I remain unclear as to it's actual meaning. Last night it was, "The military wins the war, the President wins the peace." Huh?

I have a hard time with Mr. Kerry's "allies" policy, which I think is what he's referencing in this statement. Even last night, he denegrated our allies because of their size. I loved the president's response to the anti-americanism question. "I don't think you want a president who tries to be popular, and makes the wrong decision."

So, all this leads us to the illustration of Mr. Kerry's character.
From what I can make out, he's arrogant, elitist, and a sleazy politician.

You see, I could say that he is deluded, that he think he's made himself clear, but I'd like to give him more credit for intelligence than that. I think he knows exactly what's he told us. And I think it gives a picture of what he's like.

You see, Mr. Kerry vastly underestimates the intelligence of the average American. He thinks we don't get it when he fudges verbage to cover up contradictory statements. "I made a mistake in how I talked about the war, he made a mistake in going to war." I really don't think I'm the only one who notices that this doesn't answer the question of his inconsistency on funding the troops. Please. If he thinks we're so dumb, he's in for a surprise on November 2nd.
Again, Kerry's view off allies strikes me as elitist. In a war that involves thirty countries, he keeps plugging the "unilateral action" line. In last night's debate, he implied that our allies aren't important, because they're small. Who would we have to get for the senator to be happy? It's a horrid mindset - you aren't good enough. No, I don't want your help. Not a way to win friends and influence people, Mr. Senator.

Maybe I'm naive, but Mr. Kerry comes off as unctuous in the extreme. He tries so hard to grab people on all sides of an issue, all the while going out of his way to demean the president in every possible way - it simply doesn't work. Instead, he alienates voters on both sides.

Aish. I keep holding out hope that I'm really misjudging this guy. I'd like for someone who's been in public office for 20 years to be a nice guy [even though he's wrong]. I just don't see it.

Sometimes I wish politics wasn't so political. All this pandering, and saying what they think we want to hear...drives me nuts. To quote Ryan, "I wish they would stop trying to appeal to my demographic. I've looked all over...I have a brain, logic and reason, but for the life of me, I can't find a demographic."

Perhaps the exchange in Pride and Prejudice is fitting:

"May I ask to what these questions tend?"
"Merely to the illustration of your character. I'm trying to make it out."
"And what is your sucess?"
"I do not get on at all. I hear such different accounts of you as puzzle me exceedingly"
"I could wish, Miss Bennet, that you were not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear the the performance would reflect no credit on either."
"But if I do not take your likeness now, I may never have another opportunity...."

Indeed. It's a shame that my opinion of any public figure must be based on publicity. I fear it does no credit to either of us.

Reaction

2004-10-08T20:07:00.000-07:00

I'm off to prep for the wonderful and glorious SAT tomorrow [oh joy and wonderment], and will probably have something to say on the debate tomorrow. Until then, I leave you borrowed brilliance and half developed thoughts:

Hugh Hewitt calls a Bush win.

Polipundit calls it for Bush

Liveblogging from Powerline

First blush calls a Bush win...but I'm always biased. I was thrilled that Bush finally clarified the tunnel vision on terrorism: "The war on terrorism is not the war on Osama Bin Laden." It's about time. I have a hard time believing Kerry's tough talk on North Korea and Iran.

"Naive and Dangerous" is a good line.

Kerry's condecention on the issue of stem cells and abortion is pathetic. "I respect your morality." Please.

It was reassuring to hear Bush take a strongly pro-life stance. I doubt it will be a major issue in the campaign, but it's good to hear, nonetheless.

It's clear now that the Veep debate was meant to set up this one, and I think Cheney did a good job of giving Bush the advantage. Bush came off slightly beligerent at times, but he felt more sincere, to me. Audience questions were tough and to the point. Very nice.

I thought Gibson was slightly egotistical. He wanted to play interviewer rather than moderator. Step aside, sir. This isn't about you.

The president thrives in this forum. Domestic and foreign policy issues were both a home run for Bush. Of course, the spin machine will take this debate a run with it...so we'll see what happens. The campaign is ramping up...Let's hang on for the ride.

Media Melee

2004-10-08T17:53:00.000-07:00

Hmm. I wonder if they think we won't notice,

Debate Domesticity

2004-10-07T19:03:00.000-07:00

Michael got all the fun stuff. ;)

Just, however, to put in my two cents...I think Cheney was fantastic on foreign policy. He took Edwards to task on the area that the senator most wanted to win. Beautiful, say I.

Wonderfully entertaining, yet mostly irrelevant quips:

"Mr. Vice President, I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience."

Gee, Mr. Edwards. How many times did you practice that zinger?

A flashback to the good ol' days.
A Real Ballot. *Gasp*
Hey! How come he gets published?

John Mark Reynolds posts this:

Opie Leaves Home: The Debate as Sit Com

Sadly, we saw what happened to Opie tonight. He grew up, went to college, and forgot all the home town values he learned in Mayberry. He became a trial lawyer and took fifty percent of poor people's money to get rich. Then he exploited stories from his childhood, making his family look pathetic, to win votes.

Tonight Opie debated Andy. It was sad to see. Andy was wise. He communicated clearly and with the wisdom learned in his small town roots.

Opie had memorized a lot of big words and facts. Sadly, he has never done much work in his life, just talked a great deal. Words without substance. Words. Words. Words. Flash for cash.

Andy tried to explain to Opie how the world works. How years of public service had taught him about men and women and how to keep the peace. How people like Barney talked big, but the time would finally come for the real men to go into the tough place and do the work.

Sadly, Opie could not understand. The big lights of the city have caused him to forget all he learned. Carolina values? Gone. Small time toughness? Gone. Family values? Gone. Gone. Gone.

Poor Opie. He is a cute little man, reduced to trying to look like the prom King at fifty years of age. Sadly, he has little mind under his plastered, perfect hair and his mind is as light and airy as the spray that keeps the receding line he so fears for a short time from public view. You can't dislike the boy, just wonder why he turned out so badly. Sounds like his folks raised him better.

Now down to the nitty gritty.

To be honest, I thought Edwards revived in this half of the debate. He clearly feels that domestic issues are "his turf."

The discussion turned first to the economy and job creation. Edwards [and this somewhat encapsulates my overall frustration with the Kerry/Edwards cmapaign] harped over and over again on the "mistakes" and "poor judgement" of the administration, but provided no real solution for change. Eventually, Edwards admitted that the Kerry plan for economic revival included recinding tax cuts for the upper bracket. Meh. Aren't we surprised.

I found Cheney's response interesting.

They talk about the top bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket. Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate, and about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket. That's not smart because seven out 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses.

How many of the small businesses paying taxes under personal income taxes are actually providing new jobs? I dunno. But I have a hard time blaming the president for a post-9/11 recession.

Cheney's response to the gay marriage issue was puzzling to me. Yet, Edwards' rebuttal raised my hackles. "Oh, I'm so glad to hear that you love your daughter." What? So you expected differently? Sheesh.

Edwards gives what Hugh Hewitt calls "a treacly answer."

Tort reform. Edwards paints the traditional picture: Cheney wants to get rid of malpractice suits altoghter. He wants to rob injured children of justice! Horrors and gasp. Vote for the democrat. We love everybody.

Edwards FINALLY gets to talk about healthcare.

To little avail. Regardless of your view on the prescription drug plan, you must admit that it was a brilliant political strategy. Bush stole the thunder from a traditional democratic issue and won over the AARP. Brilliant, I tell you.

Edwards tries to whine about Medicare premiums increasing...not much oomph. Cheney quickly points out that Bush has done what the democrats have never been able to, in passing a prescription drug bill. *pow* Knockout punch.

Experience was a key issue of the night. Edwards argued that "a long resume doesn't mean good judgement." Cheney pointed out that in Kerry's thirty years of experience, he's been consistently wrong on defense. I was very impressed with Cheney's response to the question of Edwards' experience. He could have taken the opportunity to blast Edwards in every possible way, but instead responded with much class. Kudos.

I found Cheney's analysis of the differences between himself and Mr. Edwards fascinating. Again, very classy. Edwards' inability to free himself from his running mate was amusing.

Senator Edwards' attempt to take flip-flopping on the offensive was puny and unconvincing.

As a side note, I thought the closing statements were a clear contrast between the two candidates, and the traditional differences between the parties.

[Am I the only one that found Edwards' description of his father's math learning habits amusing?]

Concluding notes:

Experience was the buzzword of the evening. Cheney has it, Edwards doesn't.

Kerry and Edwards want to run a domestic campaign, but they can't. Foreign policy is going to be vitally important, and the Bush campaign has it on their side.

The winner on domestic issues is largely up to your preconceived opinions. I thought Cheney comported himself admirably, yet didn't score any mega-points. Edwards' analysis of the economy may have convinced some.

Ultimately, this debate is of minor importance. Tomorrow, the presidential debate will steal all the thunder from the veep candidates, and well it should.

A final thought from Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan:

"Men who have a strong opinion of their own wisdom in matter of government are disposed to ambition, because without public employment the honour of their wisdom is lost. And therefore eloquent speakers are inclined to ambition, for eloquence seemeth wisdom, both to themselves and others."

Showdown at the Case Western Corral - Foreign policy edition

2004-10-06T11:10:00.000-07:00

After watching the vice-presidential debate last night, and then taking my notes and putting them under my pillow as I slept (just kidding) a few things come to mind. Before the details are examined, though, you need to keep in mind what goals the canidates entered the debate with. Senator Edwards, throughout the debate, seemed to be focused on maintaining credibility and simply defending the stance that Senator Kerry put forth in the Thursday night presidential debate. Vice-President Cheney, however, had a decidedly offensive mindset. His goal for this debate was to attack; not Edwards, but Kerry. My perception was that both debaters accomplished their goals.

Stylistically, they could not have been more different. Cheney was deadpan, straightforward, and completely unflappable. Edwards layed it on thick, telling stories, smiling, and appearing very, very eager and enthusiastic, sometimes approaching what could be called "bubbly." Which of these styles is "better" is an issue of personal taste, but I prefer Cheney's. Edwards, however, is definitely the better politician of the two. As a side note, Cheney seems to have some of the bad speaking habits that I struggle with, including looking down and averting one's eyes while talking, and talking with ones hands in front of one's mouth. I can sympathize, Mr. Vice President.

Now, onto the issues.

I counted six references to Haliburton by Edwards throughout the debate, as was expected. The senator attacked the no-bid contract Cheney's former company recieved, which, by the way, is by no means a unique occurance. Immediately after the debate, the fact-checkers at ABC reported that the only reason Haliburton recieved the contract was simply because Haliburton was the only company sufficiently equipped to do the work neccessary.

On the issue of Iraq, Edwards simply continued Kerry's strategy of relentlessly trying to seperate the war on Iraq from the war on terror in the public mind. It seems to me that in order to accomplish this goal, the Kerry campaign has redefined "war on terror" to mean "war on Al-Qaeda." They have done this because while the link between Osama Bin Laden and Iraq is tenuous at best, the link between Iraq and other terrorist movements, including Hezbollah, which is suspected to have cells operating in the United States, has been accepted as a fact. This is an example of the dangerous mindset that Al-Qaeda has a monopoly on terrorism. The fact of the matter is, in the democrat volcabulary, "Al-Qaeda" now equals "terrorism." This mindset creates a tunnelvision on the issue of terrorism that I consider highly dangerous to our national security. Al-Qaeda is not the only terrorism threat in the world, and it is the height of foolish to make the assumption that capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden will make us safe from terrorism.

I found the Vice President's response to the gay marriage question to be an interesting one. I'm pretty sure that his noncommital lack of a clear stance on that issue is not the approach the republican party wishes to take, and I can be pretty sure that many higher-ups in the GOP were unhappy with his seeming evasiveness on that matter.

I was also interested by Cheney's lack of a clear response to Edward's attempts to turn the charge of flip-flopping against his opponent. Especially apparent was Cheney's silence in response to Edward's charge that this administration cut the combat pay of the troops during the Iraq offensive. I was impressed, however, with Cheney's quietly vicious attack on Edwards for discounting the casualties of the Iraqies themselves. It's something I've noticed before...this democratic ticket is all talk when it comes to multilateralism, and they're very good at making it the focal point of their foreign policy, but there are many, many times when an underlying ethnocentrism seems to slip through the cracks.

Final notes:

- 44 million Americans tuned into the Veep debate, as opposed to 62 million for the presidential debate, and 29 million for Cheney's debate against Senator Lieberman in 2000.

- For the second debate in a row, the networks broke the established rules by showing the candidate's reaction shots during their opponent's statements.

- This entire format bugs me. The speeches are far too short to allow for any meaningful discussion of the pertinent issues. This essentially makes the debates a soundbyte factory, and forces the candidates into zingers, one-liners, and memorable catchphrases, instead of in-depth defenses of their positions, and attacks on those of their opponents.

post-debate media reaction

2004-10-04T22:50:00.000-07:00

I think we can stand to learn alot from what the news media in foreign nations has to say about our political process. That said, the Lebanese media seems to think that the first Bush-Kerry debate avoided the real issues, and was more rhetoric than reality.

The American editorial media seems to agree that the debate was more show than go, however, they rush to declare a winner while simultaneously proclaiming the debate's irrelevance.

On the statistical front, it seems that whatever advantage the President recieved from his strong post-convention bounce has been negated by the debate, as polls have gone from a Bush lead to a dead heat. To fight back, the President's campaign is attempting to make the most of the Senator's "global test" remark in the first debate. The senator responded scathingly to this tactic, calling the President's use of a single catchphrase "pathetic" scare tactics. Many editorialists are claiming that this remark of the Senator's doesn't mean what we think it means.

All this fun, of course, sets the stage for tomorrow night's clash between Mr. Haliburton and People Magazine's Sexiest Politician of 2000. This columnist thinks we shouldn't consider the Vice-Presidential debate as a side-show to the main event.

That's the signal for the "undisclosed location" jokes to begin.

Intellectual Honesty

2004-10-01T13:46:00.001-07:00

The community college is a fascinating dumping ground of political views and varying ideologies, some more cogent than others. I'm taking a philosophy of religion class this semester, which brings out all the beautiful logic of 20 year old junior college students.

We're currently working through theistic arguments on the existence of God. Cosmological, ontological, teleological, and any other "logicals" you can think of. All of the above can be both supported and refuted effectively. It bothers me that "refutation" in this class comes down to "well, that doesn't prove anything!"

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't mind differing viewpoints. I don't mind disagreements. I do mind dogma, in all its forms. "Because I say so," or "because Locke says so" or "because Marx says so" doesn't count as logical argument.

Do us all a favor, and be honest. As you point out flaws in the opinion of another, admit the places where your own needs strengthening. Admitting weakness does not mean admitting defeat. We're so afraid of losing our point, we're so afraid of being pounced on by "the other side" that we end up clinging to ridiculously untenable positions. It doesn't make you look any stronger, or any smarter. You can go to all sorts of logically absurd ends to avoid an admission that you're wrong, but all it does it make you look absurd.

We have brilliant examples of intelligent stupidity permiating our culture. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are just as ridiculous as Michael Moore and Al Franken.

Intellectual honesty is the pre-requisite for intelligent discussion. Bombastic blustering does nothing but enrage others and inflate your own ego. Let's not stoop that low.

Welcome Lauren

2004-09-30T22:52:00.000-07:00

Everyone, wave hi to Lauren. She's smarter than me, and she'll post her highly informed opinions. Soak it up, kids.

So how is this different from my xanga?

2004-09-22T13:52:00.000-07:00

It's because I care deeply about my customers and want them to recieve the best service possible.

actually, yeah.

My xanga is less a blog and more a emotional dumping ground slash soapbox. Anyways, this will be more of a blog in the "I wish I was a pundit on CNN but I'm really just some talentless hack" sense of the word.

So there you go.