Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Political Landscape
As a Republican I have to admit that there is some strategic value to losing the House and possibly Senate to the Democrats. Unlike the Republican Revolution in '94, the incoming class of Democrats do not have an overarching strategic or tactical plan akin to the Contract With America. Many candidates seem to have run on a platform of "at least I'm not George Bush", and it worked to disenchanted voters who had become contemptful of the power grubbing establishment. The thing is, I don't hear how any of them have any meaningful, credible plans to actually fix any problems. I suspect that the sunset provisions on Bush's tax cuts might now be allowed to expire without renewal. Few things give Democrats more ecstasy than raising taxes. So, in a couple years voters will be faced with no greater international leadership, a social security and medicare system that's just as broke, a continued healthcare crisis, conflict and debate over illegal immigration and even more deadlock between the two parties with the only change being higher taxes on the horizon. Again, this is the perfect storm setting the stage for an independent candidate to emerge who actually has a freakin' plan to freakin' fix something. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000137.html
This is a good blog article about last
night's elections and how we can respond.
Patrick
I'm so happy!!! I feel like doing my Howard Dean impression!!! It's awesome enough that the Democrat's won the House, may as well have the Senate (because even if they lose Virginia we all know Arlen Specter is basically a Democrat), BUT RUMSFELD QUIT! I actually stood up at work, at my desk, and did a few moves from River Dance!
Steve is right, the Dems don't really have a plan, but I'd rather them spend a while trying to figure it out than continue with the Bush plan of: Don't think! Make up a reason! Make up some evidence! Invade! Bomb! Kill! Torture the terrorists! AND WHILE we're at it: Let's condone a good old fashioned public hanging. It would be unconstitutional and barbaric in America, but since we're trying to "bring Democracy" to the Iraqi's let them kill Saddam after a show trial, instead of sending him to the Hague where he belonged.
My taxes may go up, but I don't care if it means we're actually going to start thinking before we just react with haste and lead this country out of a fear of "the enemy."
All I want in 2008 is:
Candidates who haven't sexually harassed anyone, much less a 16 year old page, haven't ever met good old Jack, who don't use racial slurs and then claim they didn't know what that word meant, who don't condone torture or hangings (or the death penalty period if possible), who has enough tools in the shed to speak English without humiliating the entire country, who isn't Hillary Clinton, and who would have enough self-respect to light his or her spouse's clothes on fire and throw them flaming out the window of the house (no matter what House it may be) in the event of adultery.
Barack Obama in 2008! The man is a Christian! The man is black! The man may actually care that millions of people are starving and dying from AIDS in Africa and put some of my precious tax dollars to feeding those people!
America has spoken!
Hey, did you hear that? I think it's Wall Street crying...
Rumsfeld resigned? Maybe he got tired of all the eggings...I think it's funny, he was actually well like by the public when we invaded Afghanistan, if people would bother to remember that far back.
I am not surprised that the Democrats took both the House and the Senate, but I am surprised that, at least with the Senate, it was by a very narrow margin. Maybe after the Democrats piss people off and remind them that they are no better than the Republicans, the voters will learn to vote less impulsively. Although, admittedly, there really wasn't anyone to vote 'for' as opposed to voting 'against'. Sometimes, I wonder representative republics really are better than any other system.
I really don't feel like arguing with you about things at the moment (stupid college work!) but your line of thought regarding how the administration operates is sadly cliche. Way to let ABC get under your skin ;).
I would vote Democrat, if a decent candidate (a true, honest to God Christian one) would show his/her face, but frankly, this Social Liberalism that the Democrats have to closely associated themselves with is a big turn off for me. I am also a bit dissapointed that in spite of how long he has been in office, Mr. Bush has done little to attempt to limit Roe vs. Wade. The fact that it is a matter that is hung up in that rediculous judicial system we have disgusts me further. The courts only cater to the minority, and it is unacceptable in a country where the majority rules. This election is the case in point. I think that we should be able to vote for Justices, the same way we vote for everything else.
"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing...after they have exhausted all other possibilities."
Sad, but true. Anonymous' link was most interesting. One does have to remember...the Republicans won the election that matters, which is the Presidential one...twice in a row. COme to think of it, I am still quite happy all Mr. Kerry is doing now is doing graduation speeches and fumbling lame jokes on TV. He could have been running the country instead. How scary would that have been? And to think we were almost there...
And what, 2 years from now, the House will get recycled again. Eventually, the Senate, too. No, I'm really not all that upset. The other thing is that Bush still has the power of the veto. I'd like to see a tax hike get a (2/3?) vote through the Senate. Or even the House, for that matter.
At the very least, Bush is unlikely to try and pass any laws like, 'homosexuals are to be burned at the stake'.
So congratulations to the Democrats on winning the wrong battle a little too late :D
"The courts only cater to the minority, and it is unacceptable in a country where the majority rules. This election is the case in point. I think that we should be able to vote for Justices, the same way we vote for everything else." - David Hynes' above quote
My skin is actually crawling. I hope you are not a history major. See, there was this thing called slavery. The majority was ruling and decided that it would be a good idea to make all the minority people pick cotton, rape their women, and beat them when they got out of line. The majority has often felt that women shouldn't work or vote. The majority has also supported things like public hangings, cutting off peoples hands, and castration. MY POINT is that just because you are in the majority does not mean that you are right.
The whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect the rights of the minority when the majority would unfairly burden them.
Standing up for the unpopular minority is frequently looked down upon. That is why we do NOT and SHOULD NOT elect our Justices EVER. They would not be able to rule based on their conscience even when their conscience was unpopular. Their job is to analyze what truly is constitutional and what isn't. Therefore, just because the majority may think something is wrong, does not mean that it is and our judges cannot be elected because they would never side with our minorities even when it is right and decent to do so.
Our judges are voted for indirectly. The President nominates Justices. So by voting for the President of your choice, you are also voting for what kind of justice you would like. So it's in some kind of weird middle ground. You are trusting that the commander in chief will make a good choice.
Another problem I have with justices is that due to their indefinite time in office, they do not necessarily adjust to the overall change in the American public. Voting for new Justices every 6 years would be bad. Voting for them every decade, or every 20 years, or something like that, would be a good idea, I think.
Regarding slavery: You know, I always thought Lincoln (who helped to liberate slaves) was voted for by the public, but I guess I'm totally wrong on that one. Mybad.
And before you say, "well, he wasn't as hardcore anti-slavery as people make him out to be," well, of course he wasn't. It wasn't the politially correct thing to do, to be pro equal rights when slavery hadn't even been abolished yet. He would have never been elected if he had had such a strong equal rights stance. But I'd be willing to bet my last dime that he knew that once slavery was overcome...equal rights would follow.
Another thing: Sometimes (a lot of times), the minority IS wrong, and the judicial system has no right to make sweeping reforms and decisions over minor cases. Take abortion: How many pregnant women REALLY are in a life threatening situation where the child must ABSOLUTELY be killed in order to live? Probably very, very few. And yet, as a result of that small, small minority, abortions are legal. Yell and scream all you want about how a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. She DOES NOT have the right to make decisions bout her CHILD'S body, or ones about whether it should live or die, at the very least. My father may not like paying child support; that doesn't mean he gets to blow my brains out with a shotgun if he gets sick of it.
There are plenty of minorities in this country that are being catered to, or are having the opportunity to be catered to, that shouldn't be. Atheists who don't like the pledge of allegiance, for example. Two words: It's VO-LUN-TA-RY! You don't have to say it! You don't have to read it! So why are people on fire to mess with it?! No one is jamming it down your throat anymore.
There was a war memorial in a city that had a large crucifix on it. Some atheist dude wanted it removed because he found it offensive, and after a lawsuit, it was. Well, what about the hundreds, if not thousands of dead soldiers that just so happened to be Christian that that crucifix represented? Should one man's opinion shape the hallowed ground honoring thousands?If he was so concerned about equal representation, then why dind't he just make up some symbol for atheism and petition that Stars of David, the Islamic Cresent, and his own made up symbol for atheism be added to the memrial to balance things out?
Did you know that apparently, in the UK, flying their NATIONAL FLAG is looked down upon because it is insulting to muslims because a long long time ago, it used to be a crusader flag. WHO CARES!? It was hundreds of years ago since the last crusade, and calling it a crusader flag takes out of context the fact that no one even thinks of it as a symbol of the crusades anymore, except oversensitive muslims who can't adapt to the country they are immigrating to.
Some politicians would love to pull out of Iraq now. What if that minority were catered to? What kind of an unstable mess would we leave behind then? What kind of impression would it leave on our soldiers, to betray our trust in them? I just got done watching an inerview of two soldiers, one of whom has been nominated for the Medal of Honor. He, and his compatriot, both said that what they and other soldiers want more than anything else right now is the support of the politicians and the American people; to do less than that is to suggest that they are incapable of doing their jobs. Judgning by the fact that we have one of the most professional armies in the world, with no draft fodder chumps like me to mess things up, I would say that they are capable, and that seems to be the opinion of the people who are actually doing the work. It is personal with them (or, at least with the Marine Corps, it is), and they want to finish the job.
Another notable thing is to lok at 'the minority' this way. 49% of the vote is considered a minority if the other 51% votes for the other guy. 49% is still a hell of a lot of people. Anti-slavery had a hell of a lot of people behind it. The Feminist movement had a hell of a lot of people behind it. So did the equal rights movement. Abandoning 49% of the population is not smart. BUT, since when has a good cause been backed by, say, 1%, or 5%, or perhaps even 10% of the population? With the exception of some Native American movements, such as the Alcatraz Red Power movement (which was constantly messed with by the gov't, just like the other equal rights movements), very few.
There are a few notable occasions in which the minority was right. There are many, many, many more in which the minority is wrong. Yet they are catered to. And THAT, my friends, is what has got my panties in a bunch. The majoity can be wrong. And if a large group of people can be incorrect, how much more so the scattered smaller ones? That's why we haven't legalized cocaine or heroin, folks. Minorities that have things straight are like diamonds in the rough- sometimes, you have to look REAL hard to find them.
Our judges are voted for indirectly via a presidential appointment, however the lack of direct election keeps their decision making ability unclouded. That is necessary. There is also no evidence that they don’t adjust to the change in the American public nor is there a need for evidence that they do as the overall change in American public may not be correct and is clearly subjective. Please see my prior discussion about not being biased.
Sure the minority is wrong a lot, but so is the majority. It’s just that when the majority is wrong, not that many people care or will say otherwise, so that the minority persecution continues.
Your analysis on abortion and religious symbols is also completely off base with what the Judges said and wrote. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have absolutely nothing to do with a woman in a life threatening situation. I would also never argue that an abortion is not a murder because it is ridiculous that anyone would argue that life does not begin when a child is in the womb. The judges aren’t saying abortion isn’t murder. They are saying that a woman has the individual right to choose if she wants to be a murderer or if she wants to give birth to a child she does not want. They are giving her the right to choose her devil and live with her decision. God gave us a similar choice when He said, “Here is the apple.” Was God wrong when He gave us choice?
As to the religious symbols issue, that is an extremely complicated area of Con Law, but I would direct your attention to the Free Exercise Clause and Lemon Test tend to sum it up. Basically the court doesn’t have an objection to a Crucifix or copy of the Ten Commandments being on something; the court considers it an issue if that is advancing Christianity over all other religions. If the local courthouse sets a gigantic Nativity scene next to a large flaming Star of David and an eight foot tall Kwanza candle, that is completely Constitutional. The Court says you just can’t advance one religion over all others, especially as the Court system and other public services assist individuals who may be non-Christians and who deserve the same treatment in our system of government as Christians. Just because the majority (myself included) support advancing Christianity doesn’t mean that everyone else does and flagrantly throwing a fit about such things doesn’t draw Seekers any closer to the Faith.
On the UK’s flag, well, I am actually offended by the State of South Carolina having the Confederate Flag as their state flag. It reminds me of the awful things my ancestors did, fills me with feelings of ancestral guilt, and essentially makes me feel like trailer trash and like I come from a culture I should be ashamed of. I don’t think the Muslims being upset over being slaughtered is really something we should get onto them over even if it happened years ago. We don’t preach to the Jews to get over the Holocaust. I see though, it’s ok to be mad the Muslims because they are the Muslims.
I also don’t think we should pull out of Iraq now. I think we should admit that entering Iraq was a mistake and that the administration which led us to believe it was a good idea is fault.
AND FINALLY…
“Minorities that have things straight are like diamonds in the rough- sometimes, you have to look REAL hard to find them.”
Despite all the accurate, worthwhile things you just said in there about percentages and the Native Americans, this would be the point where I cease to take notes, say “Your Honor, I rest my case.” Sit down and shut up. Go tell a minority that finding one who has stuff straight is something you have to look hard to find and see what happens. Do you realize how racist that sounds? What shocks me is that you put it under your own name and clearly meant it.
"Sit down and shut up."
Well, I'm happy to see you've decided to keep your argument nice and mature. At least I try, even if I may or may not think things you say are stupid.
"Go tell a minority that finding one who has stuff straight is something you have to look hard to find and see what happens. Do you realize how racist that sounds?"
It's racist to criticize a minority, but not to criticize a majority? There are plenty of blacks who are racist against whites, as a simplistic example. Racism is a two way street. Disagreeing with a minority does not make me a racist. Furthermore, do not limit yourself to simple racial comparisons. I am going beyond racial interactions to social ideas and such. In these modern times, there are a lot of ideas. This blog, and others, is an example of the extreme fracturing of ideas.
There is ultimate truth in life; it's like a math problem. There's only one right answer or series of answers. There's a whole hell of a lot of wrong ones.
Take 2+x=4. You can say x in anything from -infinity to infinity. It's a variable, you're allowed to do that. There is only one solution, however: 2. Well, I am saying that there's a lot of people saying 2 is the answer, and there's also a whole hell of a lot of people saying the answer is 3, and 4.764, and 1,000,000. This is a pretty simple example, life is just a tad more complicated than that, but I think you get the point.
Another example of what a 'minority' is: 35%, 29%, and 36%. Technically, the 36% is the majority...but the minorities outnumber the majority in total. Which blurs the line between what is truly a minority and what is not.
"The judges aren’t saying abortion isn’t murder."
In a country where even the most basic laws saying murder is unacceptable, this blatant overlooking of this fact is unacceptable.
"God gave us a similar choice when He said, “Here is the apple.” Was God wrong when He gave us choice?"
First of all, we are not God. Second, it is obvious that we DO NOT leave people total free choice regarding their actions. To do otherwise is to create anarchy. Society relies on rules. A woman, whether abortion is legal or not, can still choose to abort her child. A murderer can still choose to murder, and a rapist can still choose to rape. Suicidal people can still commit suicide. It is NOT the state's job to facilitate that decision,or make it any easier. Ignoring the fact that abortion is no less than ending a life without consulting it about the matter is an abomination.
"The Court says you just can’t advance one religion over all others, especially as the Court system and other public services assist individuals who may be non-Christians and who deserve the same treatment in our system of government as Christians."
Fair enough, and I understand that. But now who is being catered to? The atheist. There is nothing there now. Is it (the memorial) really equivalently representative of religion now? I think not. The lack of religious representation at all is in and of itself a representation of a belief that there is no God.
"On the UK’s flag, well, I am actually offended by the State of South Carolina having the Confederate Flag as their state flag. It reminds me of the awful things my ancestors did, fills me with feelings of ancestral guilt, and essentially makes me feel like trailer trash and like I come from a culture I should be ashamed of. I don’t think the Muslims being upset over being slaughtered is really something we should get onto them over even if it happened years ago. We don’t preach to the Jews to get over the Holocaust. I see though, it’s ok to be mad the Muslims because they are the Muslims."
I am not always sure what context the southern cross flag is used, but I was under the impression that that flag is used to generally represent the south. Also, if that is a state flag, wouldn't it have existed BEFORE the civil war? Or did state flags change over time, too? That you think it represents trailer trash is funny coming from someone who shakes a finger at ME for being a 'racist'.
And if anyone is taking the meaning of a flag out of context, it IS the Muslims complaining about the British flag. How long ago did the crusades occur? And for what cause? Muslims love to draw parallels between Western intervention now and the Crusades of old, but they do not seem to grasp the concept of 'separation of church and state'. Another thing is that more Muslims have killed each other than we have by now in Iraq, which I am sure they see as a renewed Crusade. If that is so, then why are we being so politically sensitive about attacking mosques, and why didn't we just annex the whole damn thing and started sucking out oil like some people think we are?
I suppose that if Germany decided to change their flag back to the Nazi colors it might be rather disquieting, being a Jew myself. Actions speak louder than words or flags, however. If they REALLY wanted to do that, fine. They should probably have a REALLY good explanation for it, too. The greater the horror behind the flag, the greater the explanation.
One more word on the crusades: both Christians AND Muslims were attacked and killed in various offensives and counter offensives. The Holocaust was a one sided slaughter.
"What shocks me is that you put it under your own name and clearly meant it."
At least I have the stones to do so, and take responsibility for it by putting it below my name, for better or worse.
I am actually really proud that you did put your name on this. It’s just that most people I know who say “finding a minority who has their stuff straight is hard” also tend to run around in white sheets at night. They also tend to spend a lot of time near the cross, granted the cross is on fire, but they’re still spending time there.
In fact, the last person I know of who said something like that around me is now serving time in Georgia for “Terrorism” charges. I never praised God so much for Homeland Security.
I see your point though. You didn’t mean that as a racist statement, you were meaning “minority” in terms of viewpoint, not in terms of social class. It took your explanation though. Don’t ever go below the Virginia state line and say something like that. We’ve worked for a good century to weed statements like that out of our dialogue.
I forget a lot that Northerners don’t really understand this kind of thing. Similar to how you don’t understand what the flag means in the Southern states. (By the way, it is used to generally represent the South, but the Southern cross symbolizes the Confederacy and the time when we wanted to break from the North. It is deeply rooted in slavery. I forget that individuals not from here don’t really get how offensive it actually is and brush it off.) Like once when I lived in Delaware, I was at Brandywine, (which I loved by the way, no one light my car on fire or think I’m talking crap about Brandywine) and we did this thing where we went outside, wrote a confessional on a piece of paper, and tossed it into a fire lit bucket before a large wooden cross. It was a beautiful idea in theory, but I was so uncomfortable and about to run for my car it was almost unbelievable. I was really amazed at the cultural difference in how no one else even seemed to notice. In the South, someone surely would have called the cops. It’s a cultural thing: We don’t mix crosses and fire and we don’t say senseless things like, “Well, blacks are racists too!”
Steve will be the first one to tell you that math is not my strong point nor do I work well when you try to make me think in terms of percentages, so I’ll stay away from your math idea. However, I can’t buy into the idea that there is only one right answer and LOTS of wrong ones. I do think there are shades of gray of in life and just can’t budge on that one.
As for your abortion argument, you’re right we’re not God. I have no problem with anyone wanting to oppose the killing of anything. Although, the idea that our country thinks murder is unacceptable is simply not true. We kill things via the death penalty and war every day. I understand the argument that follows that is “children are innocent murderers are not.” However, do you know what group is frequently being killed in Iraq by accident right now? Children. Oh I see, it’s an accident so it isn’t a murder. Ok. We also think the death penalty is ok because 1) they are guilty (and we’ve proven in several cases on point that innocent people have been killed after a post-death penalty verdict) and 2) they are murderers. So it’s ok to kill a murderer if they’ve killed someone else. That isn’t hypocritical at all.
Make Pro-Life arguments all you want, I will be the last one to oppose the argument that it is ok to kill, but before you begin speaking about how our judiciary is wrong and rattling off why based on abortion verdicts, read the abortion verdicts and know what you are talking about. Most people are largely surprised once they read the whole thing in context. I know that I was. Then, if you want to disagree, by all means, disagree. I am horrified by the current verdict in ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION, which states that it is ok to have child pornography as long as the child in question is not a real child but is a realistic claymation child. The Justices aren’t perfect, but just because we disagree with them, doesn’t mean they aren’t working the way they were designed to work.
We also are not catering to atheists. In fact, the overwhelming majority (oh! I used your word in a sentence!) of Americans find atheists to be morons. That is why Wal-Mart is now bringing “Christmas” back to the shelves as quickly as possible. No one shopped there when they did something stupid like take “Christmas” out. Sometimes when we let the atheists throw their fits and get their way, it teaches everyone else how foolish they actually are. It’s a reverse psychology that is overwhelmingly effective and which is the very root of the First Amendment. Let people see someone else’s opinion, and make their own judgment on whether or not it is stupid. Because Atheists have thrown a fit, more people want to see religious symbols than ever before. We’ve stopped taking the Nativity for granted the way we once would have. I say: Go Atheists! Keep rattling off because you’re having a wonderful impact on society via your expression of thought.
Post a Comment