Courtesy Drudge:
Here's a shocker: Al Gore says Bush governs from love of power.
Isn't that a little like the Pacific Ocean accusing Lake Tahoe of being all wet?
A Good News Story
3 hours ago
Monday, October 18, 2004
Answering Hewitt's Call
To answer Hugh Hewitt's call for reasons (in 250 words or less) why we should vote for Bush and not Kerry, I present a heavily edited version of a post I made last week (click here to read the original):
Like many others, I've been less than charmed with the idea that we have troops in Iraq... Unlike others, however, I support what the troops are doing and why they're doing it today... Looking into the future, our wars will have two prongs: Terrorism still commands the front page, but don't count the hard-line communist nations as down and out, either.
Unlike Kerry, I just don't see getting much support from Europe in shutting down these threats.
And, so, Bush is the man for the time. Domestically it was never even a close call. Kerry took care of that. Any man professing Catholic beliefs who isn't willing to fight for them will likely compromise other values to fit his political schema. Not a good mix.
Bush has already demonstrated to my satisfaction that he will stay the course against terrorists and other enemies of this nation and our freedoms. Kerry has demonstrated that he will act only if he thinks it will make him look good to the French and the Germans.
Bush still has shortcomings, to be sure. I am no fan of No Child Left Behind... Neither am I enchanted with this country's response to environmental problems, particularly global warming... I just don't see Bush taking the lead here. Still, I don't see Kerry as doing any better. The wastefulness of this country is just too entrenched for any one administration to make the needed corrections.
All that said, the balance still tips in favor of Bush. God protect him and us.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
CBS Explained
We've all lost precious time scratching our heads over this whole Rathergate affair. The answer to it all was just too obvious for our hard-wired blogbrains. Of course, it took a cartoonist to ferret out the answer.
*sigh*
Another mystery solved. Whatever shall we do now?
*sigh*
Another mystery solved. Whatever shall we do now?
Another Year Richer
It's Sunday, October 17, 2004. Tomorrow I turn forty-six. Forty-six is not typically a milestone year, and yet this has been a milestone year in many respects. Since Sundays are a favorite day for reflection in the Woody household, and since my tradition is to do a (sorta) yearly birthday essay, this seems to be as good a forum as I'm likely to get.
Birthday years that coincide with elections are always tough, because I have to temper my celebrations with upcoming opportunities to vote and speak my voting mind. This year is no exception and seems to be tempered even more by the rancor of this campaign season. Looking back, it's been a doozy. From the Democrat-du-jour primaries, to the conventions, to the debates, I'm certain that this election year will be forever seared -- seared into my memory.
In the meantime, I ain't getting any younger. Things that seemed incredibly important to me twenty years ago now only serve to remind me just how young I was back then. Twenty years ago I began working for Rockwell International in Palmdale, California, manufacturing B-1B bombers for Reagan's defense initiatives. That seemed incredibly important to me back then, although I sometimes wonder whether that was primarily because cancellation of the program would have meant a reciprocal cancellation of my paycheck. Still, out of a hundred planes built for Uncle Sam, I helped build seventy-five of them before leaving the division one step ahead of the layoffs.
I also find that theater, which once occupied a huge part of my psyche, is no longer something that consumes me. Truth is, in my adult life I have only averaged one production every four years. That's not a large number for someone as ostensibly talented as I profess to be. Still, I once considered that I could make a career out of theater. Then, in my last big production (Mozart's Magic Flute) I began to notice that lots of the kids I was working with were vain, shallow bits of talent of the kind that seem to appear on reality TV a lot these days, and I realized that theater will forever remain a casual hobby for me.
Music remains, I am happy to report, an important part of my self-definition. We had a discussion in Church today that impacted me greatly. The topic dealt with music as a prayer of the righteous, a concept well known to Latter-day Saints, but inconsistently practiced by them. In fact, judging from the comments by the brethren in attendance today, many of them still don't get it. If you surround yourself with music of a questionable nature ("I never listen to the words...") on a constant basis, you will be negatively impacted. I chewed on my tongue for this discussion. Had I dared raise my hand, I would have alienated nearly the entire Ward by going into Boyd K. Packer mode. Dad would have rolled over in his grave (again), and my next message from a dead relative would probably give me nightmares for weeks. I actually kept my opinion to myself for a change. Also, my voice is at the top of its game now, but, ironically, I have little time to indulge it outside of Ward Choir. One's voice rarely stays at the top of that game for very long, so we'll see.
Speaking of dead relatives, mine have been giving me fits ever since Dad passed away over four years ago. Let me clarify: I have never seen a ghost in my life. I do not hear voices in my head, unless I owe someone money. I know the dangers inherent to a Ouija board. But they bother me all the same. Family historians will know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll be looking at an entry for one of my more obscure (to me) antecedents, and suddenly it seems that this individual has become the most important person to occupy my soul aside from my sweet wife. I become obsessed with finding out exactly where this person was living at the time of the 1850 census. I must know if this is the same shoemaker that lived in New York in 1840. Yes! It is! The data matches! He leaves me alone, finally, and I am free for the next possession. Genealogy. Gotta love it.
I have also reached an age where I can finally compare myself favorably with my Dad. Really. I remember my Dad at age forty-six. I was almost sixteen. I think I was personally responsible for approximately sixty-five percent of his gray hairs that year. My brother put the other thirty-five percent there. From my sixteen year old perspective, Dad was huge. Not literally, although he was definitely a member of the Horizontal Tie Club, if you catch my drift. No, he was larger than life. "Imperious" would have been a good description of Dad, if I'd known that word when I was sixteen. One must attend school to learn words like "imperious," and that's about thirty percent of Dad's gray hair, right there. I never thought I would be like my Dad was when I got to be as ancient as he was.
Well, guess what? I'm there, and I see it. I didn't see it four years ago, but I see it now. Why? Because I understand what Dad was going through when he was that age. I know about kids and how they can both exasperate you, yet make you incredibly proud of them. I understand about financial stresses, and career worries, and personal health concerns. I know what it is to have a loving wife, brilliant kids, and a good career. My teeth are falling apart, but life is basically good. I get all of that now. I didn't get it thirty years ago. I'm sorry for that, Dad. But you already know that, don't you?
I am one who has sorely tested the Lord's patience throughout my entire life. I know that, because my own patience (mostly with myself) has been just as sorely tested. I heard a wise man say, just today, that I can't point at others in life and think that they've got everything going for them, because no sooner will I say that than one of those self-same "privileged" people will walk into his office and tell him things that break his heart. Everything is relative.
My good wife, who deserves several medals just for putting up with me, is my ground wire. She keeps me from shorting out and going haywire. She tells me that things will work out just at that moment when I think things can't possibly get worse. And she's always right. They always do work out. She's amazing.
So, such are the rambling thoughts of a still-young forty-six year old male. I've been through my mid-life crisis (crises?). I've got maybe half of my life still ahead of me.
Things couldn't be better.
Birthday years that coincide with elections are always tough, because I have to temper my celebrations with upcoming opportunities to vote and speak my voting mind. This year is no exception and seems to be tempered even more by the rancor of this campaign season. Looking back, it's been a doozy. From the Democrat-du-jour primaries, to the conventions, to the debates, I'm certain that this election year will be forever seared -- seared into my memory.
In the meantime, I ain't getting any younger. Things that seemed incredibly important to me twenty years ago now only serve to remind me just how young I was back then. Twenty years ago I began working for Rockwell International in Palmdale, California, manufacturing B-1B bombers for Reagan's defense initiatives. That seemed incredibly important to me back then, although I sometimes wonder whether that was primarily because cancellation of the program would have meant a reciprocal cancellation of my paycheck. Still, out of a hundred planes built for Uncle Sam, I helped build seventy-five of them before leaving the division one step ahead of the layoffs.
I also find that theater, which once occupied a huge part of my psyche, is no longer something that consumes me. Truth is, in my adult life I have only averaged one production every four years. That's not a large number for someone as ostensibly talented as I profess to be. Still, I once considered that I could make a career out of theater. Then, in my last big production (Mozart's Magic Flute) I began to notice that lots of the kids I was working with were vain, shallow bits of talent of the kind that seem to appear on reality TV a lot these days, and I realized that theater will forever remain a casual hobby for me.
Music remains, I am happy to report, an important part of my self-definition. We had a discussion in Church today that impacted me greatly. The topic dealt with music as a prayer of the righteous, a concept well known to Latter-day Saints, but inconsistently practiced by them. In fact, judging from the comments by the brethren in attendance today, many of them still don't get it. If you surround yourself with music of a questionable nature ("I never listen to the words...") on a constant basis, you will be negatively impacted. I chewed on my tongue for this discussion. Had I dared raise my hand, I would have alienated nearly the entire Ward by going into Boyd K. Packer mode. Dad would have rolled over in his grave (again), and my next message from a dead relative would probably give me nightmares for weeks. I actually kept my opinion to myself for a change. Also, my voice is at the top of its game now, but, ironically, I have little time to indulge it outside of Ward Choir. One's voice rarely stays at the top of that game for very long, so we'll see.
Speaking of dead relatives, mine have been giving me fits ever since Dad passed away over four years ago. Let me clarify: I have never seen a ghost in my life. I do not hear voices in my head, unless I owe someone money. I know the dangers inherent to a Ouija board. But they bother me all the same. Family historians will know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll be looking at an entry for one of my more obscure (to me) antecedents, and suddenly it seems that this individual has become the most important person to occupy my soul aside from my sweet wife. I become obsessed with finding out exactly where this person was living at the time of the 1850 census. I must know if this is the same shoemaker that lived in New York in 1840. Yes! It is! The data matches! He leaves me alone, finally, and I am free for the next possession. Genealogy. Gotta love it.
I have also reached an age where I can finally compare myself favorably with my Dad. Really. I remember my Dad at age forty-six. I was almost sixteen. I think I was personally responsible for approximately sixty-five percent of his gray hairs that year. My brother put the other thirty-five percent there. From my sixteen year old perspective, Dad was huge. Not literally, although he was definitely a member of the Horizontal Tie Club, if you catch my drift. No, he was larger than life. "Imperious" would have been a good description of Dad, if I'd known that word when I was sixteen. One must attend school to learn words like "imperious," and that's about thirty percent of Dad's gray hair, right there. I never thought I would be like my Dad was when I got to be as ancient as he was.
Well, guess what? I'm there, and I see it. I didn't see it four years ago, but I see it now. Why? Because I understand what Dad was going through when he was that age. I know about kids and how they can both exasperate you, yet make you incredibly proud of them. I understand about financial stresses, and career worries, and personal health concerns. I know what it is to have a loving wife, brilliant kids, and a good career. My teeth are falling apart, but life is basically good. I get all of that now. I didn't get it thirty years ago. I'm sorry for that, Dad. But you already know that, don't you?
I am one who has sorely tested the Lord's patience throughout my entire life. I know that, because my own patience (mostly with myself) has been just as sorely tested. I heard a wise man say, just today, that I can't point at others in life and think that they've got everything going for them, because no sooner will I say that than one of those self-same "privileged" people will walk into his office and tell him things that break his heart. Everything is relative.
My good wife, who deserves several medals just for putting up with me, is my ground wire. She keeps me from shorting out and going haywire. She tells me that things will work out just at that moment when I think things can't possibly get worse. And she's always right. They always do work out. She's amazing.
So, such are the rambling thoughts of a still-young forty-six year old male. I've been through my mid-life crisis (crises?). I've got maybe half of my life still ahead of me.
Things couldn't be better.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Representative Judgement
Edmund Burke was one of the great orators in Parliament during the constitutional crisis fomented by King George III. He it was who attempted to voice a rational and reasonable argument against the King's violations of the "spirit" of the constitution. The King was trying desperately to anchor more power in the crown, something the previous Georges had been unsuccessful in doing.
Burke presented a speech to the Electors of Bristol outlining his own views of what it meant to be a representative of the people. His remarks stand, even today, as a hallmark from which Congress would be well instructed.
Consider this sentence:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
This line was paraphrased in the movie "1776" by Dr. Lyman Hall of Georgia as he decided to swing his vote in favor of independence. When explaining his decision to John Adams, he quotes this line of Burke's. It is, for me, the actual climax of the movie. It shows the triumph of duty and reason over political considerations. Earlier in the movie, when asked what his views on independence might be he responds that "Georgia seems to be split down the middle on this issue. I am for it and the people are against it!"
Whether the incident is true I've not been able to ascertain. Biographical information related to Dr. Hall is sketchy at best, although he is one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently had his mansions in Georgia burned during the British occupation. He also served as Governor of Georgia.
To capture the true context of the Burke quote, of course, one should read the entire paragraph:
"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Given the current tenor of Kerry's defense of abortion in this country, it is evident that he either has never read this quote, or, if he has, does not understand it. In fact, I rather suspect he would have stopped reading after the second sentence. Taken out of context, it would appear that, to that point, Burke was stating that ceding to his constituents' wishes was the whole duty of the representative. That would explain Kerry's entire career in a nutshell.
Let's assume for a moment that he actually has read something besides "International Politics for Dummies - How to Get France and Germany to Love You." He would appear to have misinterpreted the "sacrifice" of "his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions" to mean that his religious beliefs should never be "legislated" against the people's will.
One of the primary purposes of religion, however, is to provide man with the ability to make righteous judgements. These judgements, or reasonings, if you will, have always been meant to guide our actions as well as our thoughts. For example, the law that prohibits us from shedding blood except of those who are themselves guilty of that crime has long been based on ancient religious law. We are enjoined from murdering our fellow man except in defense of our homes and liberties. I do not commit murder only partly because it is against the laws of the United States. However, my primary reason for not murdering is because to do so would mean separating myself eternally from my God. I wouldn't do it even if it were legal to do so in this country.
Abortion is abhorred by anyone who earnestly studies the judeo-christian laws. Given that life is precious, each life must be given its chance. Selective abortion denies that chance, usually for selfish reasons. Even when we make the caveat that abortion should only be considered under extreme conditions, we should also bear in mind that there have been women who would rather die themselves than deny their baby the chance to live.
I confess that I am not, and never would be in a position to determine the moral limits of abortion. However, I do not equivocate in stating that abortion solely to "erase" a selfish mistake can never be justified, no matter how legal we make it.
Most self-professed Christians would, if paying attention to scripture, agree. Which is why Kerry's arguments that his faith should never be "legislated" ring particularly hollow. According to Burke's thinking, by bending or (worse yet) denying his religious faith merely to satisfy political ambition, he has sacrificed his judgement to the opinions of those he would serve. His fear of offending women's rights supporters, gays, or athiests blinds him to the very things he supposedly learned as an Altar Boy in the Catholic church. He betrays his "trust from Providence." His abuse of that judgement will hold him "deeply answerable," and I don't just mean to the electorate.
In heaven, there is no separation of Church and state.
Burke presented a speech to the Electors of Bristol outlining his own views of what it meant to be a representative of the people. His remarks stand, even today, as a hallmark from which Congress would be well instructed.
Consider this sentence:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
This line was paraphrased in the movie "1776" by Dr. Lyman Hall of Georgia as he decided to swing his vote in favor of independence. When explaining his decision to John Adams, he quotes this line of Burke's. It is, for me, the actual climax of the movie. It shows the triumph of duty and reason over political considerations. Earlier in the movie, when asked what his views on independence might be he responds that "Georgia seems to be split down the middle on this issue. I am for it and the people are against it!"
Whether the incident is true I've not been able to ascertain. Biographical information related to Dr. Hall is sketchy at best, although he is one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and subsequently had his mansions in Georgia burned during the British occupation. He also served as Governor of Georgia.
To capture the true context of the Burke quote, of course, one should read the entire paragraph:
"Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Given the current tenor of Kerry's defense of abortion in this country, it is evident that he either has never read this quote, or, if he has, does not understand it. In fact, I rather suspect he would have stopped reading after the second sentence. Taken out of context, it would appear that, to that point, Burke was stating that ceding to his constituents' wishes was the whole duty of the representative. That would explain Kerry's entire career in a nutshell.
Let's assume for a moment that he actually has read something besides "International Politics for Dummies - How to Get France and Germany to Love You." He would appear to have misinterpreted the "sacrifice" of "his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions" to mean that his religious beliefs should never be "legislated" against the people's will.
One of the primary purposes of religion, however, is to provide man with the ability to make righteous judgements. These judgements, or reasonings, if you will, have always been meant to guide our actions as well as our thoughts. For example, the law that prohibits us from shedding blood except of those who are themselves guilty of that crime has long been based on ancient religious law. We are enjoined from murdering our fellow man except in defense of our homes and liberties. I do not commit murder only partly because it is against the laws of the United States. However, my primary reason for not murdering is because to do so would mean separating myself eternally from my God. I wouldn't do it even if it were legal to do so in this country.
Abortion is abhorred by anyone who earnestly studies the judeo-christian laws. Given that life is precious, each life must be given its chance. Selective abortion denies that chance, usually for selfish reasons. Even when we make the caveat that abortion should only be considered under extreme conditions, we should also bear in mind that there have been women who would rather die themselves than deny their baby the chance to live.
I confess that I am not, and never would be in a position to determine the moral limits of abortion. However, I do not equivocate in stating that abortion solely to "erase" a selfish mistake can never be justified, no matter how legal we make it.
Most self-professed Christians would, if paying attention to scripture, agree. Which is why Kerry's arguments that his faith should never be "legislated" ring particularly hollow. According to Burke's thinking, by bending or (worse yet) denying his religious faith merely to satisfy political ambition, he has sacrificed his judgement to the opinions of those he would serve. His fear of offending women's rights supporters, gays, or athiests blinds him to the very things he supposedly learned as an Altar Boy in the Catholic church. He betrays his "trust from Providence." His abuse of that judgement will hold him "deeply answerable," and I don't just mean to the electorate.
In heaven, there is no separation of Church and state.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Getting in Touch With Your Inner Reality
As big a shock as I know it must be for you, Bush and Kerry are spending their last precious campaign days accusing each other of being out of touch with reality. Quel surprise.
One of the most laughable parts of this (or, really, any other) campaign is the idea that either candidate could possibly understand what, exactly, constitutes reality. Based on what I've seen through the past year, I would say that they both tend to define reality by what they've seen on TV. Kerry seems to prefer the Big Brother approach, while Bush favors Survivor.
I admit to a little wistfulness that neither candidate has tried to fumble their way through a definition of what constitutes the "common man." This, I feel, would be the most entertaining event of the entire campaign. I'm certain it's largely because their handlers won't let them: The stakes are just too high. They already between them do plenty to insult our collective intelligence, but not enough, apparently, to scare us completely away from the ballot box. Yet.
And so they are reduced to complaining that the other fellow is out of touch. The heck of it is, they're both right.
Neither Bush nor Kerry understands the reality of the average voter. They can't, because their wealth and political successes of the past automatically separate them from those voters. Let's take a look at what "average" voters define as their reality:
1. When was the last time either candidate had to deal with making ends meet? Based on the way they manage our tax dollars, I'm forced to conclude that they've never seen a checkbook in their entire adult lives. In my house we occasionally rely on food storage to get us to the next paycheck. At least we get a paycheck. Friends of mine are not as lucky.
2. Honestly, when was the last time either candidate had to worry about whether their HMO plan at work was going to cost them 55% more a month in the coming year? For that matter, when was the last time either one of them held an honest job?
3. Not to complain, Mr. Politician, but have you driven your own federal highway "system" lately? Care to come to Los Angeles without your chauffer? I didn't think so. Some of us get to spend between 10 and 20 hours a week on those highways. Got a plan? (What am I asking? Of course they have a plan. Maybe someday Kerry will actually tell us what his is. Bush is still trying to remember what a highway is. Highways are in short supply in Crawford. Nader will only tell me that they're unsafe at any speed. Gee, thanks.)
4. Two words: "Self-serve." Your reality? No? Just asking.
I had a friend call me the other day that I haven't been in contact with for several years. He moved to the other side of the country just about the time my wife and I were getting married. He asked if we were still a DINK or a SITCOM?
Huh?
His explanation, which I admit I'd not heard before: DINK stands for Dual Income, No Kids. SITCOM stands for Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage.
Direct hit.
No, Mr. Politician, you're not in touch with reality. Not mine, anyway.
One of the most laughable parts of this (or, really, any other) campaign is the idea that either candidate could possibly understand what, exactly, constitutes reality. Based on what I've seen through the past year, I would say that they both tend to define reality by what they've seen on TV. Kerry seems to prefer the Big Brother approach, while Bush favors Survivor.
I admit to a little wistfulness that neither candidate has tried to fumble their way through a definition of what constitutes the "common man." This, I feel, would be the most entertaining event of the entire campaign. I'm certain it's largely because their handlers won't let them: The stakes are just too high. They already between them do plenty to insult our collective intelligence, but not enough, apparently, to scare us completely away from the ballot box. Yet.
And so they are reduced to complaining that the other fellow is out of touch. The heck of it is, they're both right.
Neither Bush nor Kerry understands the reality of the average voter. They can't, because their wealth and political successes of the past automatically separate them from those voters. Let's take a look at what "average" voters define as their reality:
1. When was the last time either candidate had to deal with making ends meet? Based on the way they manage our tax dollars, I'm forced to conclude that they've never seen a checkbook in their entire adult lives. In my house we occasionally rely on food storage to get us to the next paycheck. At least we get a paycheck. Friends of mine are not as lucky.
2. Honestly, when was the last time either candidate had to worry about whether their HMO plan at work was going to cost them 55% more a month in the coming year? For that matter, when was the last time either one of them held an honest job?
3. Not to complain, Mr. Politician, but have you driven your own federal highway "system" lately? Care to come to Los Angeles without your chauffer? I didn't think so. Some of us get to spend between 10 and 20 hours a week on those highways. Got a plan? (What am I asking? Of course they have a plan. Maybe someday Kerry will actually tell us what his is. Bush is still trying to remember what a highway is. Highways are in short supply in Crawford. Nader will only tell me that they're unsafe at any speed. Gee, thanks.)
4. Two words: "Self-serve." Your reality? No? Just asking.
I had a friend call me the other day that I haven't been in contact with for several years. He moved to the other side of the country just about the time my wife and I were getting married. He asked if we were still a DINK or a SITCOM?
Huh?
His explanation, which I admit I'd not heard before: DINK stands for Dual Income, No Kids. SITCOM stands for Single Income, Two Children, Oppressive Mortgage.
Direct hit.
No, Mr. Politician, you're not in touch with reality. Not mine, anyway.
One Good Thing About Kerry!
Finally, it can be reported that we can say something nice about John Kerry! Really!
American Digest (a well crafted blog and highly recommended read) has posted Kerry's accomplishments in the Senate over his twenty year career, and I must say they are impressive. I, like countless others during this campaign, have wondered why Kerry always looks so tired. You know... old before his time. In my naivete I assumed it was all those manly outdoorsy activities that did it. I mean, one can only make lateral passes from between one's legs for just so many years before one begins to look like a used vacuum cleaner bag.
Gerard comes through, though, with a listing of all of Kerry's actual accomplishments as a Senator. I must say I sleep better at night knowing how hard Kerry is working for the good of his state and, ultimately, my country.
Read the post at the Digest. It's very instructive.
As I say, this speaks well of the good Senator. With an average of one bill every four years, and one resolution every five years (no wonder the man is exhausted!), that means that even if he served two terms as President, we would only be subjected to, what, two or three new laws of his own devising over eight years.
I could live with that.
(Hope I won't have to, though!)
American Digest (a well crafted blog and highly recommended read) has posted Kerry's accomplishments in the Senate over his twenty year career, and I must say they are impressive. I, like countless others during this campaign, have wondered why Kerry always looks so tired. You know... old before his time. In my naivete I assumed it was all those manly outdoorsy activities that did it. I mean, one can only make lateral passes from between one's legs for just so many years before one begins to look like a used vacuum cleaner bag.
Gerard comes through, though, with a listing of all of Kerry's actual accomplishments as a Senator. I must say I sleep better at night knowing how hard Kerry is working for the good of his state and, ultimately, my country.
Read the post at the Digest. It's very instructive.
As I say, this speaks well of the good Senator. With an average of one bill every four years, and one resolution every five years (no wonder the man is exhausted!), that means that even if he served two terms as President, we would only be subjected to, what, two or three new laws of his own devising over eight years.
I could live with that.
(Hope I won't have to, though!)
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Ready to Vote!
Having listened to or read about these bozos for the past year or so, I find myself ready to vote. Nationally, that is. Locally I am in a deep, deep, pea-soup fog. But that's another post.
In a very real sense, my vote has already been cast. Not literally, mind, but in personal terms the election was decided the moment Kerry floated up to the top of the Democrats' short list. You may have presumed, from other posts, that I would have been a Bush "ringer" from the get-go. Not necessarily.
Like many others, I've been less than charmed with the idea that we have troops in Iraq. In my heart of hearts I suspect we were led there under false (or, at least, grossly misunderstood) pretenses. Unlike others, however, I support what the troops are doing and why they're doing it today. The war has become more defined in terms of global terrorism, rather than merely the toppling of one or more idealogues. Looking into the future, our wars will have two prongs: Terrorism still commands the front page, but don't count the hard-line communist nations as down and out, either. We still have North Korea to keep a wary eye on, and Cuba still hates our capitalistic guts, too. Iran straddles the border by harboring both terrorist organizations and its own blossoming nuclear proliferation.
Unlike Kerry, I just don't see getting much support from Europe in shutting down these threats.
And, so, Bush is the man for the time. Domestically it was never even a close call. Kerry took care of that. Any man professing Catholic beliefs who isn't willing to fight for them will likely compromise other values to fit his political schema. Not a good mix.
I can forgive human foibles to a degree. This is why the whole Vietnam/National Guard meme just didn't resonate with me. Whether or not Kerry really did what he says he did in Vietnam didn't really concern me. I found it far more bothersome that he came home and immediately began making a political hash of the war for his own gain. At the expense of those who served honorably. Bush may have capitalized on opportunities created for him, but he hasn't denigrated those who served with him, either.
Bush has already demonstrated to my satisfaction that he will stay the course against terrorists and other enemies of this nation and our freedoms. Kerry has demonstrated that he will act only if he thinks it will make him look good to the French and the Germans.
Bush still has shortcomings, to be sure. I am no fan of No Child Left Behind. It's a poorly designed program that puts undue pressure on kids to perform at levels that many will not be prepared for at any given age. One size of education does not now, nor ever will fit all kids. Give it a rest and create a program that really works.
Neither am I enchanted with this country's response to environmental problems, particularly global warming. I suspect this one will catch this country (and many others) with its collective pants down. The fix will be enormously expensive, but could be softened by planning for it now. I just don't see Bush taking the lead here. Still, I don't see Kerry as doing any better. The wastefulness of this country is just too entrenched for any one administration to make the needed corrections.
All that said, the balance still tips in favor of Bush. God protect him and us.
In a very real sense, my vote has already been cast. Not literally, mind, but in personal terms the election was decided the moment Kerry floated up to the top of the Democrats' short list. You may have presumed, from other posts, that I would have been a Bush "ringer" from the get-go. Not necessarily.
Like many others, I've been less than charmed with the idea that we have troops in Iraq. In my heart of hearts I suspect we were led there under false (or, at least, grossly misunderstood) pretenses. Unlike others, however, I support what the troops are doing and why they're doing it today. The war has become more defined in terms of global terrorism, rather than merely the toppling of one or more idealogues. Looking into the future, our wars will have two prongs: Terrorism still commands the front page, but don't count the hard-line communist nations as down and out, either. We still have North Korea to keep a wary eye on, and Cuba still hates our capitalistic guts, too. Iran straddles the border by harboring both terrorist organizations and its own blossoming nuclear proliferation.
Unlike Kerry, I just don't see getting much support from Europe in shutting down these threats.
And, so, Bush is the man for the time. Domestically it was never even a close call. Kerry took care of that. Any man professing Catholic beliefs who isn't willing to fight for them will likely compromise other values to fit his political schema. Not a good mix.
I can forgive human foibles to a degree. This is why the whole Vietnam/National Guard meme just didn't resonate with me. Whether or not Kerry really did what he says he did in Vietnam didn't really concern me. I found it far more bothersome that he came home and immediately began making a political hash of the war for his own gain. At the expense of those who served honorably. Bush may have capitalized on opportunities created for him, but he hasn't denigrated those who served with him, either.
Bush has already demonstrated to my satisfaction that he will stay the course against terrorists and other enemies of this nation and our freedoms. Kerry has demonstrated that he will act only if he thinks it will make him look good to the French and the Germans.
Bush still has shortcomings, to be sure. I am no fan of No Child Left Behind. It's a poorly designed program that puts undue pressure on kids to perform at levels that many will not be prepared for at any given age. One size of education does not now, nor ever will fit all kids. Give it a rest and create a program that really works.
Neither am I enchanted with this country's response to environmental problems, particularly global warming. I suspect this one will catch this country (and many others) with its collective pants down. The fix will be enormously expensive, but could be softened by planning for it now. I just don't see Bush taking the lead here. Still, I don't see Kerry as doing any better. The wastefulness of this country is just too entrenched for any one administration to make the needed corrections.
All that said, the balance still tips in favor of Bush. God protect him and us.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Political Jihad
The scenes are disturbingly familiar. In one city, car windows are smashed. In others around the country, campaign offices are stormed and at least one staffer is injured. Anonymous death threats are made to candidates running against incumbents, one such threat even made while hanging a sign out of a car and then zooming off before an indentity can be established.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing these incidents out. I've been reading elsewhere about campaign signs being stolen (this is a frequent occurrence), mutilated, or set ablaze. The symbol of the swastika is burned on at least one lawn.
From my perspective, it matters little whether these acts were committed by democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, blondes or brunettes. They are, in fact, the acts of desperate, cowardly people who must use intimidation (or worse) to make their point because they are utterly incapable of articulating it in open debate.
Elsewhere around the world are reports of car bombs, resorts destroyed, hostages taken, tortured, and beheaded. We live in a world where we must now constantly look over our shoulders, lest we become the next 9/11 victims. Terrorists win when they strike fear in our hearts - hence their name. Terror prevents otherwise rational beings from living ordered and productive lives. It causes paranoia that paralyzes people and causes them to withdraw into a shelter - real or imagined - in order to escape. When others refuse to back down and hide, the terror increases.
It may well be a huge stretch to call acts of intimidation as practiced by political extremists in this country "terrorism." But not to me.
No, I think "terrorist" perfectly describes anyone who would "storm" a campaign office and even unintentionally (which they, of course, claim) inflict bodily harm on another person. Only a terrorist, acting under the motivation of cowardice, would make death threats against someone who is exercising his or her right to run for public office.
Political extremists in this country do not understand the real effects of their actions. Terrorists bred in other parts of the world are blinded to those effects by their zealotry. Terrorism itself, wherever and however practiced, only stiffens the resolve of all but those who are, for their part, more cowardly than the perpetrators.
Think about it: Is President Bush likely to back away from the global war on terrorism simply because more hostages are taken or attacks are stepped up? No. The war will continue until the terrorists are either wiped out, or no longer have the means to carry out their jihad. Is President Bush any more likely to agree that overtime laws must change simply because union members ransack campaign offices? Of course not.
There's an old parable about the wind and the sun having a discussion to decide who was the mightier. After bragging back and forth, a man walked by wearing a coat. It was decided that whoever could force the man to take off his coat would be declared the mightiest. The wind tried first, and blew with all his might. (Of course these were men. Can't you feel the testosterone?) However, the harder the wind blew, the more tightly the man wrapped that coat around himself. When the sun tried, he gently warmed the man until, shortly, the man removed the coat and the sun was declared the winner. The moral, of course, is that gentle persuasion may succeed where force cannot.
I realize that someone will try to apply that parable to the war in Iraq. My response is that we've spent decades trying the gentle approach, and the foolish terrorists didn't take the hint. This war is a consequence of that stubbornness. The real application of the parable makes more sense when applied to this election. If you feel the only way to get my attention is to ruin someone's car, you've already lost your argument. You can only stiffen my resolve and make me wrap my coat tighter around me. If, on the other hand, you engage me in a rational debate without histrionics, I can at least agree to see if a compromise can be reached.
The gentle art of politics. That would be a beginning.
UPDATE: Score one for the terrorists. A senator closes his office and skips town.
UPDATE II: Michelle's column goes into greater depth on this disturbing trend.
Thanks to Michelle Malkin for pointing these incidents out. I've been reading elsewhere about campaign signs being stolen (this is a frequent occurrence), mutilated, or set ablaze. The symbol of the swastika is burned on at least one lawn.
From my perspective, it matters little whether these acts were committed by democrats or republicans, liberals or conservatives, blondes or brunettes. They are, in fact, the acts of desperate, cowardly people who must use intimidation (or worse) to make their point because they are utterly incapable of articulating it in open debate.
Elsewhere around the world are reports of car bombs, resorts destroyed, hostages taken, tortured, and beheaded. We live in a world where we must now constantly look over our shoulders, lest we become the next 9/11 victims. Terrorists win when they strike fear in our hearts - hence their name. Terror prevents otherwise rational beings from living ordered and productive lives. It causes paranoia that paralyzes people and causes them to withdraw into a shelter - real or imagined - in order to escape. When others refuse to back down and hide, the terror increases.
It may well be a huge stretch to call acts of intimidation as practiced by political extremists in this country "terrorism." But not to me.
No, I think "terrorist" perfectly describes anyone who would "storm" a campaign office and even unintentionally (which they, of course, claim) inflict bodily harm on another person. Only a terrorist, acting under the motivation of cowardice, would make death threats against someone who is exercising his or her right to run for public office.
Political extremists in this country do not understand the real effects of their actions. Terrorists bred in other parts of the world are blinded to those effects by their zealotry. Terrorism itself, wherever and however practiced, only stiffens the resolve of all but those who are, for their part, more cowardly than the perpetrators.
Think about it: Is President Bush likely to back away from the global war on terrorism simply because more hostages are taken or attacks are stepped up? No. The war will continue until the terrorists are either wiped out, or no longer have the means to carry out their jihad. Is President Bush any more likely to agree that overtime laws must change simply because union members ransack campaign offices? Of course not.
There's an old parable about the wind and the sun having a discussion to decide who was the mightier. After bragging back and forth, a man walked by wearing a coat. It was decided that whoever could force the man to take off his coat would be declared the mightiest. The wind tried first, and blew with all his might. (Of course these were men. Can't you feel the testosterone?) However, the harder the wind blew, the more tightly the man wrapped that coat around himself. When the sun tried, he gently warmed the man until, shortly, the man removed the coat and the sun was declared the winner. The moral, of course, is that gentle persuasion may succeed where force cannot.
I realize that someone will try to apply that parable to the war in Iraq. My response is that we've spent decades trying the gentle approach, and the foolish terrorists didn't take the hint. This war is a consequence of that stubbornness. The real application of the parable makes more sense when applied to this election. If you feel the only way to get my attention is to ruin someone's car, you've already lost your argument. You can only stiffen my resolve and make me wrap my coat tighter around me. If, on the other hand, you engage me in a rational debate without histrionics, I can at least agree to see if a compromise can be reached.
The gentle art of politics. That would be a beginning.
UPDATE: Score one for the terrorists. A senator closes his office and skips town.
UPDATE II: Michelle's column goes into greater depth on this disturbing trend.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
All of a Sunday
I love Sunday. Aside from the chance to recharge my spiritual batteries (which take horrific poundings during election season), it gives me an opportunity to observe my family from a different perspective. Also, once meetings are done, I don't necessarily have to lift a finger.
We belong to a church that encourages lay participation. In fact, the entire program of the Church is staffed by volunteers with varying levels of ability, talent, and desire. It is a highly participatory religion. Kids are encouraged from preschool age to give prayers and talks in their meetings, which can be, if memory serves, a terrifying experience.
My girls, bless their hearts, are painfully shy. They get this from their Mommy and - wouldn't you know it? - my Mommy. The over-large porcine skeletal remnant (read: ham bone) I know they've inherited from me hasn't kicked in just yet. Outside of the house, at any rate. Around people they only see once a week or less, they clam up faster than Kerry does when asked for a press conference.
This morning was a prime example. My younger daughter, age (nearly) five, had been asked to give a prayer in Sharing Time this morning. All week long, Mommy and I had been asking her if she was ready to give the prayer. "Uh huh!" was her generally enthusiastic response. So, predictably, as we got closer to the Moment of Truth this morning, she became our Little Cling-On. I sensed what was happening when, about halfway through Sacrament Meeting, she disappeared from my side and latched herself onto Mommy using her Kindergarten Death Grip. As soon as the meeting was over, we ascertained that her giving a prayer this morning was about as likely as Kerry ever revealing his actual plan for anything before the election. (Note how I cleverly intersperse political ranting even while writing an allegedly family-oriented post!)
Here's the neat part, though. My seven-and-a-half year old daughter is every bit as lion-hearted as her sister. We asked her if she would be willing to fill in for her sister and say the prayer. She agreed, if Daddy would help.
It was one of those chest-swelling parental moments when you realize that your children, goofy as they are, will turn out all right. Petrified as she undoubtedly was, my older daughter was willing to help her sister, for which her sister bestowed upon her a very large teary-eyed hug.
As it turned out, they ended up asking another child in my younger daughter's class to fill the assignment, so my older girl was spared as well. But I made sure I whispered to her that Daddy was very proud of her, and what a good girl she was. Maybe she'll remember that when Daddy starts asking her politely but firmly to turn down that noise you call music! But that probably won't happen on Sunday.
We belong to a church that encourages lay participation. In fact, the entire program of the Church is staffed by volunteers with varying levels of ability, talent, and desire. It is a highly participatory religion. Kids are encouraged from preschool age to give prayers and talks in their meetings, which can be, if memory serves, a terrifying experience.
My girls, bless their hearts, are painfully shy. They get this from their Mommy and - wouldn't you know it? - my Mommy. The over-large porcine skeletal remnant (read: ham bone) I know they've inherited from me hasn't kicked in just yet. Outside of the house, at any rate. Around people they only see once a week or less, they clam up faster than Kerry does when asked for a press conference.
This morning was a prime example. My younger daughter, age (nearly) five, had been asked to give a prayer in Sharing Time this morning. All week long, Mommy and I had been asking her if she was ready to give the prayer. "Uh huh!" was her generally enthusiastic response. So, predictably, as we got closer to the Moment of Truth this morning, she became our Little Cling-On. I sensed what was happening when, about halfway through Sacrament Meeting, she disappeared from my side and latched herself onto Mommy using her Kindergarten Death Grip. As soon as the meeting was over, we ascertained that her giving a prayer this morning was about as likely as Kerry ever revealing his actual plan for anything before the election. (Note how I cleverly intersperse political ranting even while writing an allegedly family-oriented post!)
Here's the neat part, though. My seven-and-a-half year old daughter is every bit as lion-hearted as her sister. We asked her if she would be willing to fill in for her sister and say the prayer. She agreed, if Daddy would help.
It was one of those chest-swelling parental moments when you realize that your children, goofy as they are, will turn out all right. Petrified as she undoubtedly was, my older daughter was willing to help her sister, for which her sister bestowed upon her a very large teary-eyed hug.
As it turned out, they ended up asking another child in my younger daughter's class to fill the assignment, so my older girl was spared as well. But I made sure I whispered to her that Daddy was very proud of her, and what a good girl she was. Maybe she'll remember that when Daddy starts asking her politely but firmly to turn down that noise you call music! But that probably won't happen on Sunday.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Republican v. Conservative
I am a registered Republican. I may not always be enchanted with the party, but of all the parties extant in American politics today, it comes closest to what I believe. I'm also a conservative. The two are not synonymous.
Via Orson Scott Card's site, I found a conservative who voices better than I ever could why I am a conservative first, and Republican second. Don't know anything about him, but his name is Sean Holliday, and I approve this message.
Via Orson Scott Card's site, I found a conservative who voices better than I ever could why I am a conservative first, and Republican second. Don't know anything about him, but his name is Sean Holliday, and I approve this message.
Coulter Strikes Again
The more I read Ann Coulter, the more I enjoy her writing. In this week's column she lambastes John Edwards' performance in the VP debate, even suggesting that he keep those "girlish hands down." Love that.
Here's my favorite quote, though:
Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe there's a place for trial lawyers in America today. They're busy stoking the fires down there in preparation for their arrival.
Just (sorta) kidding. I do happen to be acquainted with trial lawyers who are not only good at what they do, but do it with integrity and are genuinely nice people. They tend not to stay in the business very long.
But I digress. What tickled me about Ann's statement was this campaign ad that popped into my fevered over-campaigned brain immediately after I read it:
Note to BC04 campaign strategists: Feel free to use the idea. In fact, don't tell anyone where you got it and I may even donate $5.00 to the campaign this year. That's a %500 percent increase over my previous donations.
Here's my favorite quote, though:
In his rousing closing statement – about himself again – Edwards said, "Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America." (Technically, it was the not-such-bright-lights who sit on juries that turned Edwards into a multimillionaire trial lawyer.)
Don't get me wrong. I firmly believe there's a place for trial lawyers in America today. They're busy stoking the fires down there in preparation for their arrival.
Just (sorta) kidding. I do happen to be acquainted with trial lawyers who are not only good at what they do, but do it with integrity and are genuinely nice people. They tend not to stay in the business very long.
But I digress. What tickled me about Ann's statement was this campaign ad that popped into my fevered over-campaigned brain immediately after I read it:
John Edwards. Made his millions 12 people at a time. It's time to think outside of the (jury) box. Vote Bush/Cheney.
Note to BC04 campaign strategists: Feel free to use the idea. In fact, don't tell anyone where you got it and I may even donate $5.00 to the campaign this year. That's a %500 percent increase over my previous donations.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Debate This...
I find myself disinclined to worry about who may have "won" any given debate. The reason for this is that it's virtually impossible to be completely objective about your analysis, assuming you have any level of political preference.
Finding others to validate your own opinion isn't all that hard. Pollsters, bless their little hard-wired brains, are like accountants. Give twenty pollsters the same questions and they'll return twenty (or more?) results, sampling errors included. All you need to do is pick the poll that best supports your position and stick with it. Bloggers need only turn to others of their particular slant to find all the support they need (or want) for their position.
Indeed, for political debates, the question of who won is only truly important to a) the campaigns of the candidates involved, and b) people who are too clueless to decide for themselves and need others to tell them who won. As if we weren't capable of deciding for ourselves.
This is the true point of any debate. It gives the voters a(nother) chance to listen to the candidates and decide which candidate best supports the voters' requirements for an elected official. Period. It has nothing to do with whether or not your favorite Talking Head tells you who the "winner" was. The Talking Head is merely voicing the fact that they've made their choice, and would really like you to agree.
Shamelessly I admit that I once again avoided last night's debate. I prefer to read a variety of takes on who said what the next morning. Then, if one alleged statement or misstatement stands out, I'll dig deeper to see what the candidate's track record on that topic is. Information-wise, debates are cheap. Candidates can and often do say things that they didn't really mean to say because they mistakenly believe it scores points. Or because they're just plain stupid. Either way, I'd rather see what they've said in the past before I validate anything they've said in a too-tightly-controlled debate.
As a conservative I give the advantage last night to (surprise!) Cheney. I didn't watch but a snippet or two of post-debate soundbites, so I'm not in a position to tell you that Cheney looked "grumpy" or Edwards' yellow pad was all over the desk. So what? Cheney continued to sound the themes that I find important, and Edwards (from what I've read) continued to dance around the idea that he and his boss still have no coherent or cohesive plan for the war on terror.
Let me provide a public service here, since that's the kind of service-oriented guy I am. I will predict for you the results of the next two debates between Bush and Kerry.
Bush, who is not a brilliant debater and knows it, will continue to assure me that he will carry the fight against terror to the terrorists regardless of whether we have international support. He will continue to fight against things like abortion and gay marriage. He will try to stimulate the economy.
Kerry, who is not as brilliant a debater as he thinks he is, will continue to harp on "this President" not having a "plan for peace in Iraq." He will not support efforts to protect marriage in America despite "believing" that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because gays will hate him if he does. He will not defend the lives of innocent unborn children because some women will hate him if he does. He will raise our taxes.
Wild projections, I know, but I'm also certain (call me visionary if you must) that both sides will loudly trumpet victory for up to forty-eight hours after each debate.
My vote will not have changed.
Can't wait to miss the next one!
Finding others to validate your own opinion isn't all that hard. Pollsters, bless their little hard-wired brains, are like accountants. Give twenty pollsters the same questions and they'll return twenty (or more?) results, sampling errors included. All you need to do is pick the poll that best supports your position and stick with it. Bloggers need only turn to others of their particular slant to find all the support they need (or want) for their position.
Indeed, for political debates, the question of who won is only truly important to a) the campaigns of the candidates involved, and b) people who are too clueless to decide for themselves and need others to tell them who won. As if we weren't capable of deciding for ourselves.
This is the true point of any debate. It gives the voters a(nother) chance to listen to the candidates and decide which candidate best supports the voters' requirements for an elected official. Period. It has nothing to do with whether or not your favorite Talking Head tells you who the "winner" was. The Talking Head is merely voicing the fact that they've made their choice, and would really like you to agree.
Shamelessly I admit that I once again avoided last night's debate. I prefer to read a variety of takes on who said what the next morning. Then, if one alleged statement or misstatement stands out, I'll dig deeper to see what the candidate's track record on that topic is. Information-wise, debates are cheap. Candidates can and often do say things that they didn't really mean to say because they mistakenly believe it scores points. Or because they're just plain stupid. Either way, I'd rather see what they've said in the past before I validate anything they've said in a too-tightly-controlled debate.
As a conservative I give the advantage last night to (surprise!) Cheney. I didn't watch but a snippet or two of post-debate soundbites, so I'm not in a position to tell you that Cheney looked "grumpy" or Edwards' yellow pad was all over the desk. So what? Cheney continued to sound the themes that I find important, and Edwards (from what I've read) continued to dance around the idea that he and his boss still have no coherent or cohesive plan for the war on terror.
Let me provide a public service here, since that's the kind of service-oriented guy I am. I will predict for you the results of the next two debates between Bush and Kerry.
Bush, who is not a brilliant debater and knows it, will continue to assure me that he will carry the fight against terror to the terrorists regardless of whether we have international support. He will continue to fight against things like abortion and gay marriage. He will try to stimulate the economy.
Kerry, who is not as brilliant a debater as he thinks he is, will continue to harp on "this President" not having a "plan for peace in Iraq." He will not support efforts to protect marriage in America despite "believing" that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because gays will hate him if he does. He will not defend the lives of innocent unborn children because some women will hate him if he does. He will raise our taxes.
Wild projections, I know, but I'm also certain (call me visionary if you must) that both sides will loudly trumpet victory for up to forty-eight hours after each debate.
My vote will not have changed.
Can't wait to miss the next one!
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Reminds Me of the Joke...
I've spent an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out which joke best reminds me of this election. I think I've finally hit on it. I'm sure you've all heard this one, but doesn't it just echo this campaign so eloquently?
Where do you stand on abortion?
Bush: I believe that abortion is morally wrong, except where the life of the mother is in danger.
Kerry [after checking over both shoulders and lowering his voice]: Where would you like me to stand?
Sound Bite Politics
Given my hastily prepared riposte of the situation in South Brunswick yesterday, you'd think I'd learn not to base entire posts on mere sound bites.
You'd be wrong.
The entire 2004 election, for me, has boiled down to one phrase, uttered at some stump speech, and broadcast last night on "Nightline." I found this via Drudge (so what's new?):
John, John, John. So, Mr. Trial Lawyer, which part exactly makes me lose my mind? Living in the United States, or voting for President Bush?
Both, you say?
If he really means what he says (and who am I to doubt his personal integrity?), then John-Boy is half-way to crazy along with that half of the electorate he's duped into voting for his ticket, as opposed to Bush/Cheney.
Had Edwards merely said that to vote for Mr. Bush meant I'd lost my mind, I'd never have paid notice. Such remarks are commonplace during any election, and Edwards is no rhetorical genius. Just the same spittle-laced political profanities I'd expect when trying to denigrate one's opponent.
But.
Edwards implies that at least part of my problem is that I live in the United States. This brings up two questions for the VP-wannabe:
1. Are we taking you out of context again (I know, I know... we do that a lot)? If so, please set us straight!
2. Are you saying that any citizens living abroad who vote for Bush haven't lost their minds? We have to live in, say, France to be considered sane enough to vote for Bush? (Note dripping irony with franco reference)
As a relatively right-winged conservative, not to mention being Mormon, I really don't mind being thought of as a loon by the left side of the column. Truly I don't. If I constantly worried about people who thought I was a space cadet, I'd never get on stage again. My personal ham bone just runs too deep to care.
Still, call me crazy for living in this country that was designed specifically so that people could live together despite their incredibly polarized opinions, and I'm likely to get a tad testy.
Bottom line: If, Mr. Edwards, you want to convince me that it's somehow wrong for me to vote for Mr. Bush, you'd better come up with more compelling arguments than implying that my citizenship in this country makes me crazy.
Although I do feel much better since the lobotomy.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin chimes in.
UPDATE: Thank you to American Digest for linking to this one. And a thanks to my Bro for telling me about it! Blood thicker than water, and all that...
'NOTHER UPDATE: Another thank you to Van der Leun of American Digest. He somehow mistakenly thought he could "balance" me and my bro. Nice thought... ;-)
You'd be wrong.
The entire 2004 election, for me, has boiled down to one phrase, uttered at some stump speech, and broadcast last night on "Nightline." I found this via Drudge (so what's new?):
SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) (clip of a speech): "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."
John, John, John. So, Mr. Trial Lawyer, which part exactly makes me lose my mind? Living in the United States, or voting for President Bush?
Both, you say?
If he really means what he says (and who am I to doubt his personal integrity?), then John-Boy is half-way to crazy along with that half of the electorate he's duped into voting for his ticket, as opposed to Bush/Cheney.
Had Edwards merely said that to vote for Mr. Bush meant I'd lost my mind, I'd never have paid notice. Such remarks are commonplace during any election, and Edwards is no rhetorical genius. Just the same spittle-laced political profanities I'd expect when trying to denigrate one's opponent.
But.
Edwards implies that at least part of my problem is that I live in the United States. This brings up two questions for the VP-wannabe:
1. Are we taking you out of context again (I know, I know... we do that a lot)? If so, please set us straight!
2. Are you saying that any citizens living abroad who vote for Bush haven't lost their minds? We have to live in, say, France to be considered sane enough to vote for Bush? (Note dripping irony with franco reference)
As a relatively right-winged conservative, not to mention being Mormon, I really don't mind being thought of as a loon by the left side of the column. Truly I don't. If I constantly worried about people who thought I was a space cadet, I'd never get on stage again. My personal ham bone just runs too deep to care.
Still, call me crazy for living in this country that was designed specifically so that people could live together despite their incredibly polarized opinions, and I'm likely to get a tad testy.
Bottom line: If, Mr. Edwards, you want to convince me that it's somehow wrong for me to vote for Mr. Bush, you'd better come up with more compelling arguments than implying that my citizenship in this country makes me crazy.
Although I do feel much better since the lobotomy.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin chimes in.
UPDATE: Thank you to American Digest for linking to this one. And a thanks to my Bro for telling me about it! Blood thicker than water, and all that...
'NOTHER UPDATE: Another thank you to Van der Leun of American Digest. He somehow mistakenly thought he could "balance" me and my bro. Nice thought... ;-)
I'm Sorry. Really.
I feel somehow that I must apologize to Orange County motorists today.
You see, I just got back from vacation. Driving on vacation is vastly different from driving every day to and from work. Driving on vacation means having license to hold back; not go quite so fast. Work driving means driving at speeds designed to make the nice men who occupy the black-and-whites somewhat annoyed.
Let me illustrate:
For the past two weeks, I have not had to drive the 22 miles each way to my office. I live in Anaheim, and my office is in Huntington Beach, perhaps 5 miles from the nearest beach. I drive the entire length of the notorious 22 freeway, but I manage to drive against the main flow at either end of the day, so the traffic never really gets that bad.
There are three lanes on this freeway. In the morning, the right lane, typically the slow lane on any freeway, averages between 60 and 62 miles per hour out of a 65 limit. Totally unacceptable to anyone but bobtail truck drivers and those who want desperately not to be noticed because they haven't had insurance on their vehicles since Carter was in office. In Georgia.
The center lane can typically reach 70 miles per hour. This is the invisible speed. The speed that cops don't notice even if you're driving right behind them, because they themselves are doing at least 70. In fact, chances are that if you're in front of a highway patrolman and are doing 70, the patrolman will pass you because you're slowing him down. He's gotta catch up to those idiots in the fast lane.
The fast (left) lane of this freeway, between 5:30 and 6:30 in the morning, reaches speeds of 80 miles per hour. It's as though these drivers woke up that morning and had this heart-pounding fear that their office was destroyed by arson the night before, so they must reach it immediately lest they miss the chance to watch it burn. This is the lane I typically drive, and I blush to admit that I frequently manage about 75 on average during the morning commute. This makes the 80-plus crowd angry like you wouldn't believe. My problem is that if I stay in the middle (70) lane for any length of time, I'm likely to wind up behind the one individual in all of Orange County who simply must, for holier-than-thou reasons, drive 65 in the middle lane. This same individual will at times do, say, 58, just for emphasis.
After a few weeks of this, my wife begins to fear getting in the same vehicle with me. She will gently remind me that while I do, technically, live in Orange County, she just knows in her heart of hearts that I am not an Orange County driver. I just have to behave myself at that point.
On vacation, though, everything is different. I generally don't have a schedule to keep while on the road, even for the longer hauls, so speed is no longer a concern. Which is just as well because we went north on this trip, and going north out of Southern California requires passing through the "Grapevine." The "Grapevine" is a steep sloping section of freeway that requires such things as "Out of Control Truck Ramps" that allow truckers to ditch their rigs after plowing into what appears to be the side of a cliff. However, since we begin our trip at more or less sea level, that means we need to climb upwards of 4000 feet of mountain before beginning this descent.
You ever try to go up a hill in a '97 Saturn SL-1, fully loaded? I hate it when Yugos pass me like that.
Anyway, my point is that I always try to keep a constant speed of no more than 5 mph over the posted limit. Once clear of LA County, the posted speed is 70, which means that I can cruise at 75 without fear of reprisal. This also means that I must stay in the right lane, because heaven forbid I should do 75 in the fast lane and get run over by a minimum of 72,831 SUVs out to prove that this baby can do 90 without breaking a sweat! Not that I'm bitter.
So there I sit, doing 75 all the way up the interstate, occasionally passing trucks and generally acting like a responsible motorist. It can be very addicting. After a week or more of this behavior, coming back to the real world can be quite a culture shock.
Which brings me to my apology.
I can't tell you how many times during the course of a week I sneer, snarl, and bark at other drivers on the freeway because they just can't go fast enough to stay out of my way. My 21 year old Honda, I growl, can idle faster than you're going, for Pete's sake! Get a move on! So how fast was I going this morning?
70 in a 65 zone. Shameful, I realize, but I plead lack of detox time from my vacation. I did manage to stay in the middle lane, though, so I felt somewhat justified. Still, I could feel the Resentment Rays emanating from passing motorists that came up behind me and felt obligated to veer into one of the other lanes to show just how pathetically slow I was going this morning.
So I apologize. I didn't mean to slow you down this morning. I really didn't. I just sorta got used to driving in a rational manner.
Oh, well. I suppose it's possible that soon (probably sooner than I'd like) I'll be back to my old habits, staring down my opponents and trying to jockey for prime freeway real estate.
In the meantime, I'll try to hold onto this new cruising speed for awhile. See how long I can keep it going. Maybe keep my sanity that much longer.
You see, I just got back from vacation. Driving on vacation is vastly different from driving every day to and from work. Driving on vacation means having license to hold back; not go quite so fast. Work driving means driving at speeds designed to make the nice men who occupy the black-and-whites somewhat annoyed.
Let me illustrate:
For the past two weeks, I have not had to drive the 22 miles each way to my office. I live in Anaheim, and my office is in Huntington Beach, perhaps 5 miles from the nearest beach. I drive the entire length of the notorious 22 freeway, but I manage to drive against the main flow at either end of the day, so the traffic never really gets that bad.
There are three lanes on this freeway. In the morning, the right lane, typically the slow lane on any freeway, averages between 60 and 62 miles per hour out of a 65 limit. Totally unacceptable to anyone but bobtail truck drivers and those who want desperately not to be noticed because they haven't had insurance on their vehicles since Carter was in office. In Georgia.
The center lane can typically reach 70 miles per hour. This is the invisible speed. The speed that cops don't notice even if you're driving right behind them, because they themselves are doing at least 70. In fact, chances are that if you're in front of a highway patrolman and are doing 70, the patrolman will pass you because you're slowing him down. He's gotta catch up to those idiots in the fast lane.
The fast (left) lane of this freeway, between 5:30 and 6:30 in the morning, reaches speeds of 80 miles per hour. It's as though these drivers woke up that morning and had this heart-pounding fear that their office was destroyed by arson the night before, so they must reach it immediately lest they miss the chance to watch it burn. This is the lane I typically drive, and I blush to admit that I frequently manage about 75 on average during the morning commute. This makes the 80-plus crowd angry like you wouldn't believe. My problem is that if I stay in the middle (70) lane for any length of time, I'm likely to wind up behind the one individual in all of Orange County who simply must, for holier-than-thou reasons, drive 65 in the middle lane. This same individual will at times do, say, 58, just for emphasis.
After a few weeks of this, my wife begins to fear getting in the same vehicle with me. She will gently remind me that while I do, technically, live in Orange County, she just knows in her heart of hearts that I am not an Orange County driver. I just have to behave myself at that point.
On vacation, though, everything is different. I generally don't have a schedule to keep while on the road, even for the longer hauls, so speed is no longer a concern. Which is just as well because we went north on this trip, and going north out of Southern California requires passing through the "Grapevine." The "Grapevine" is a steep sloping section of freeway that requires such things as "Out of Control Truck Ramps" that allow truckers to ditch their rigs after plowing into what appears to be the side of a cliff. However, since we begin our trip at more or less sea level, that means we need to climb upwards of 4000 feet of mountain before beginning this descent.
You ever try to go up a hill in a '97 Saturn SL-1, fully loaded? I hate it when Yugos pass me like that.
Anyway, my point is that I always try to keep a constant speed of no more than 5 mph over the posted limit. Once clear of LA County, the posted speed is 70, which means that I can cruise at 75 without fear of reprisal. This also means that I must stay in the right lane, because heaven forbid I should do 75 in the fast lane and get run over by a minimum of 72,831 SUVs out to prove that this baby can do 90 without breaking a sweat! Not that I'm bitter.
So there I sit, doing 75 all the way up the interstate, occasionally passing trucks and generally acting like a responsible motorist. It can be very addicting. After a week or more of this behavior, coming back to the real world can be quite a culture shock.
Which brings me to my apology.
I can't tell you how many times during the course of a week I sneer, snarl, and bark at other drivers on the freeway because they just can't go fast enough to stay out of my way. My 21 year old Honda, I growl, can idle faster than you're going, for Pete's sake! Get a move on! So how fast was I going this morning?
70 in a 65 zone. Shameful, I realize, but I plead lack of detox time from my vacation. I did manage to stay in the middle lane, though, so I felt somewhat justified. Still, I could feel the Resentment Rays emanating from passing motorists that came up behind me and felt obligated to veer into one of the other lanes to show just how pathetically slow I was going this morning.
So I apologize. I didn't mean to slow you down this morning. I really didn't. I just sorta got used to driving in a rational manner.
Oh, well. I suppose it's possible that soon (probably sooner than I'd like) I'll be back to my old habits, staring down my opponents and trying to jockey for prime freeway real estate.
In the meantime, I'll try to hold onto this new cruising speed for awhile. See how long I can keep it going. Maybe keep my sanity that much longer.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Even the Office Gets No Respect
CAVEAT EMPTOR: Occasionally, the lure of the blogosphere hastens one into judgement before all the facts are known. In this case, the school district has sounded off with its version of the story, saying, in essence, there is no story. Not the one found in the newspaper, at any rate. So...
Given the idea that the parties named hereinafter may or may not be guilty of the offenses listed, take the following as a lesson in civics and leave it at that. Whether or not the parents in South Brunswick deserved the tirade, the sentiment behind it is still valid: We need to respect the office of the President, even if we despise the guy in the suit.
Read on:
I've been following this one for a few days now. My desire not to blog over the weekend was a sincere one, however, so I had to wait for the first available opportunity today to let fly on this story. Way Off Bass comments and links to Joanne Jacobs. Michelle Malkin also caught hold of this.
The basic setup is: A middle school teacher in South Brunswick, New Jersey posted a publicity photo of President and Mrs. Bush next to posters of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It's been in the classroom since the beginning of the school year.
At least one kid questioned the teacher about it by asking why she had it and stating that Bush has "killed people." Wonder where the charming child learned that one.
Through this point, the Assistant Principal of the school "had no problem" with the presence of the photo in the classroom, but suggested the teacher answer the kids' questions. However, during last week's back-to-school night, parents jumped into the fray. The teacher was asked why the photo was in the room. The question was framed, according to the teacher, in a way that sounded like a "political assault." More parents joined the debate and one mother stormed out.
You can guess what happened next.
The next morning, the teacher was told by the Assistant Principal to take the photo down "if you care about your job." The Principal tore into her and ended with, "Get out." She got out. She then met with the District and a union rep, who both told her she has basically already lost the fight. Her future - in South Brunswick at least - is unsure. I can speculate where this will end up, but I'd rather not.
Setting aside the obvious partisanship that permeates this entire episode, one thing about this whole episode really bothers me. Why did no one (besides the local Republican party, which I would have expected anyway) in any part of this debate remember that Civics 101 demands at least a respect for the office of the President of the United States?
First of all, the teacher herself should have used this argument. My own response would have been, "Listen, whether or not we agree with the man, George W. Bush is the current President of the United States of America, and we need to respect that office. There's no politics involved here. It's simply a recognition of who holds that office today. Or would you rather that your children not understand that?" Actually, I may not have added that last question vocally. But I would have been thinking it.
She may still have lost the argument, but at least that draws out the partisanship on the part of the parents and the administrators.
Now, you can argue all you want to about freedom of speech, denying the teacher the ability to, as she put it, "lead the discussion" in her classroom, or any other side issue you wish to name. To me, the problem is much more basic than that. A whole school full of parents in New Jersey have completely forgotten their civic responsibilities by angrily allowing their political bias to blind them to the respect demanded by the office of the President. Notice I don't say "owed to the President." Especially in an election year we understand that there will always be people who think the man holding the office should be drawn and quartered. Fine. But that man is, today, your Commander in Chief, and the elected executive of your country. Get over it and show at least that much respect. If you can vote him out of office, more power to you. If I have to respect John Kerry in that office come next January, rest assured that I will. I will certainly not ask any teacher to remove his photo from a classroom.
But also rest assured that I'll do everything in my power to make sure he gets voted out in the next election.
UPDATE: Hmm. He said, she said. Better go pop some corn...
Given the idea that the parties named hereinafter may or may not be guilty of the offenses listed, take the following as a lesson in civics and leave it at that. Whether or not the parents in South Brunswick deserved the tirade, the sentiment behind it is still valid: We need to respect the office of the President, even if we despise the guy in the suit.
Read on:
I've been following this one for a few days now. My desire not to blog over the weekend was a sincere one, however, so I had to wait for the first available opportunity today to let fly on this story. Way Off Bass comments and links to Joanne Jacobs. Michelle Malkin also caught hold of this.
The basic setup is: A middle school teacher in South Brunswick, New Jersey posted a publicity photo of President and Mrs. Bush next to posters of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It's been in the classroom since the beginning of the school year.
At least one kid questioned the teacher about it by asking why she had it and stating that Bush has "killed people." Wonder where the charming child learned that one.
Through this point, the Assistant Principal of the school "had no problem" with the presence of the photo in the classroom, but suggested the teacher answer the kids' questions. However, during last week's back-to-school night, parents jumped into the fray. The teacher was asked why the photo was in the room. The question was framed, according to the teacher, in a way that sounded like a "political assault." More parents joined the debate and one mother stormed out.
You can guess what happened next.
The next morning, the teacher was told by the Assistant Principal to take the photo down "if you care about your job." The Principal tore into her and ended with, "Get out." She got out. She then met with the District and a union rep, who both told her she has basically already lost the fight. Her future - in South Brunswick at least - is unsure. I can speculate where this will end up, but I'd rather not.
Setting aside the obvious partisanship that permeates this entire episode, one thing about this whole episode really bothers me. Why did no one (besides the local Republican party, which I would have expected anyway) in any part of this debate remember that Civics 101 demands at least a respect for the office of the President of the United States?
First of all, the teacher herself should have used this argument. My own response would have been, "Listen, whether or not we agree with the man, George W. Bush is the current President of the United States of America, and we need to respect that office. There's no politics involved here. It's simply a recognition of who holds that office today. Or would you rather that your children not understand that?" Actually, I may not have added that last question vocally. But I would have been thinking it.
She may still have lost the argument, but at least that draws out the partisanship on the part of the parents and the administrators.
Now, you can argue all you want to about freedom of speech, denying the teacher the ability to, as she put it, "lead the discussion" in her classroom, or any other side issue you wish to name. To me, the problem is much more basic than that. A whole school full of parents in New Jersey have completely forgotten their civic responsibilities by angrily allowing their political bias to blind them to the respect demanded by the office of the President. Notice I don't say "owed to the President." Especially in an election year we understand that there will always be people who think the man holding the office should be drawn and quartered. Fine. But that man is, today, your Commander in Chief, and the elected executive of your country. Get over it and show at least that much respect. If you can vote him out of office, more power to you. If I have to respect John Kerry in that office come next January, rest assured that I will. I will certainly not ask any teacher to remove his photo from a classroom.
But also rest assured that I'll do everything in my power to make sure he gets voted out in the next election.
UPDATE: Hmm. He said, she said. Better go pop some corn...
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Conference Hiatus
There is much anger in the world. Much anger here at home, and much of that related to the war of the election.
Headlines around the world are grim with little relief in sight.
I choose to ignore it all for the weekend as we in the LDS Church tune in to watch our leaders give us counsel and guidance for our troubled time.
These wars and conflicts were seen and foretold to us long before they ever occured. Today and tomorrow I'm taking the opportunity to listen to modern day prophets tell us not only what to expect, but how to deal with it.
A little battery recharge, then back into the fray.
See you Monday.
Headlines around the world are grim with little relief in sight.
I choose to ignore it all for the weekend as we in the LDS Church tune in to watch our leaders give us counsel and guidance for our troubled time.
These wars and conflicts were seen and foretold to us long before they ever occured. Today and tomorrow I'm taking the opportunity to listen to modern day prophets tell us not only what to expect, but how to deal with it.
A little battery recharge, then back into the fray.
See you Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
