I get a lot of my news from Drudge. There are several reasons for this. Drudge is thorough. Occasionally, he'll get a hot scoop before everyone else, but most times his site contains links to other sites, primarily newspapers and the like. In short, it's a good place to stop to get my news if I'm starved for time.
The other reason that I like Drudge, is that his site is simple. The stories are linked in black--sometimes the big stories are linked in red--against a white background. He might have a picture or two up, but for the most part it is significantly less sensationalized than say, Fox News or even CNN. Which is why I have been so disappointed with some of the stories he's been carrying lately.
Slightly more than a week ago, he had a story about Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Underneath was a story about Jennifer Aniston. Today, he has another story about Brad Pitt--he's in the hospital I think--and another one about Mariah Carey. Apparently Miss Carey's dress fell off during a performance. How news worthy.
Ever since I started paying attention to the news, I have noticed a disheartening trend. With ratings on the line, the important stories get bumped in place of celebrity fluff pieces. News organizations should take the repsonsibility that their name would apply and report the news. This goes way beyond the left/right bias in different media. Can we agree that no one should care all that much about Jen and Brad?
It just seems to be getting worse, too. Now, I don't exactly have any proof of this, but when Drudge is picking up on this drivel I'm a bit worried.
We've gotten to the point where we simply want to be entertained all the time. We idolize the wrong people. Jen and Brad may be good actors, but so what? The ability to hide behind a facade should not be a trait we wish to emulate.
For goodness sake, Ronald Reagan was voted the greatest American. I like Ronny, don't get me wrong, but come on. Greatest American? Was Thomas Paine even on the list? Michael Jackson, Madonna and and Tom Cruise were.
I don't have an answer here. Many of us seem to be quite content in wallowing in ignorance and ignoring the real news in exchange for feel-good stories. Education is a start, but the people in this land are free, and one cannot make people choose good over mediocrity.
And maybe that's all there is to it. News has become a part of pop culture, and pop culture is predominantly bad. Misguided people choose to care for things that don't matter. I'll climb down off of my soapbox long enough to admit that I am certainly part of the problem. We all are really. That's the problem, too: how does one fight back against this nonsense?
If I had the answer I wouldn't be wasting my time writing this.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
Core Values? Still Deciding
Quick question, which Democrat is most likely to make a liberal gush with pride?
Five will get you ten, someone says Barack Obama. Now, I don't have an opinion on the fellow. I dislike his politics--of course--but I didn't see that phenomenal speech he made. It was during the Democratic Convention, if memory serves me correctly, and by then I was thoroughly bored with the whole thing and did not watch.
Mr. Obama was in Eatonville campaigning for U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL. He's up against Katherine Harris. The crowds came out in force and were enthusiastic to see this up-and-comer.
There is a point in all this which I am finally getting to. Obama and Nelson took some questions during their appearance.
The most provocative question was the first.
"I see a Democratic Party afraid to say they're Democrats, who voted for the war in Iraq and voted for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Glenn Anderson of Orlando. "Why should I remain a Democrat?"
That is a good question, Glenn, and I will address it, but first, I'll let Mr. Obama have a stab at it.
"The Democrats at times have lost their way," conceded Obama. "We are trying to decide what our core values are."
The criterion for judging the party isn't whether it's to the left or right, "but are we true to our core values," he said. Nobody defined core values.
Good try Mr. Obama. You very cleverly eluded a potentially damaging question. You are a smart man though, if what I hear is at all correct. Surely you have some core values. You are a Senator from Illinois for goodness sake. I thought values were a pre-requisite.
Now the real reason that the Democrats cannot decide what their values are is that they are caught in a difficult position. The party is overwhelmingly anti-Iraq war. Yet even with all his seemingly contradictory statements, John Kerry lost the election largely because voters didn't think he was serious on security. Don't take it from me though. Here is former President Clinton with some valuable insight.
Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.
According to Clinton, in the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security.
"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.
The reality is, the Democrats cannot yet win running on an anti-taxes anti-war platform. This could change, but remember what happened to McGovern? He lost. Yet Bill Clinton won running on a campaign largely centered on tax cuts for the middle classes. Moderate Demorats can win, liberal ones can't. History spells that out quite clearly.
The Democrats need to find some values soon, before people like Glenn leave and take the liberal base with him. I've said numerous times that the elections at this point in history revolve around the Republican party and its conception of "core values".
It's nice to be vindicated. It's twice as nice when the all-star of the Democratic party is the one doing the vindicating. Thanks Obama.
Five will get you ten, someone says Barack Obama. Now, I don't have an opinion on the fellow. I dislike his politics--of course--but I didn't see that phenomenal speech he made. It was during the Democratic Convention, if memory serves me correctly, and by then I was thoroughly bored with the whole thing and did not watch.
Mr. Obama was in Eatonville campaigning for U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-FL. He's up against Katherine Harris. The crowds came out in force and were enthusiastic to see this up-and-comer.
There is a point in all this which I am finally getting to. Obama and Nelson took some questions during their appearance.
The most provocative question was the first.
"I see a Democratic Party afraid to say they're Democrats, who voted for the war in Iraq and voted for tax cuts for the wealthy," said Glenn Anderson of Orlando. "Why should I remain a Democrat?"
That is a good question, Glenn, and I will address it, but first, I'll let Mr. Obama have a stab at it.
"The Democrats at times have lost their way," conceded Obama. "We are trying to decide what our core values are."
The criterion for judging the party isn't whether it's to the left or right, "but are we true to our core values," he said. Nobody defined core values.
Good try Mr. Obama. You very cleverly eluded a potentially damaging question. You are a smart man though, if what I hear is at all correct. Surely you have some core values. You are a Senator from Illinois for goodness sake. I thought values were a pre-requisite.
Now the real reason that the Democrats cannot decide what their values are is that they are caught in a difficult position. The party is overwhelmingly anti-Iraq war. Yet even with all his seemingly contradictory statements, John Kerry lost the election largely because voters didn't think he was serious on security. Don't take it from me though. Here is former President Clinton with some valuable insight.
Dissecting John Kerry's loss to President Bush last year, Clinton blamed the Democratic candidate's soft stand on security and the party's inability to reach out to rural, white America.
According to Clinton, in the final days of campaigning on Kerry's behalf, it was clear even Kerry's supporters weren't clear on the candidate's position on national security.
"I think, in the end, he lost in a close race because of the security issue," he said.
The reality is, the Democrats cannot yet win running on an anti-taxes anti-war platform. This could change, but remember what happened to McGovern? He lost. Yet Bill Clinton won running on a campaign largely centered on tax cuts for the middle classes. Moderate Demorats can win, liberal ones can't. History spells that out quite clearly.
The Democrats need to find some values soon, before people like Glenn leave and take the liberal base with him. I've said numerous times that the elections at this point in history revolve around the Republican party and its conception of "core values".
It's nice to be vindicated. It's twice as nice when the all-star of the Democratic party is the one doing the vindicating. Thanks Obama.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
Sex
This one concerns sex and what I view as an unhealthy attitute toward sex in society today. The text I quote will come from C.S. Lewis and his book, Mere Christianity.
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues.
And how.
There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this is so difficult and contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
Lewis--and I--feel our sexual instinct has gone wrong.
You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act, that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theater by bringing a covered plate onto the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?
Of course, but I'm sure some would feel that this is an unfair comparison. A social revolution was won by those who wanted to "make love, not war". The question is, has the sexual revolution really freed us from anything, save moral living?
One doesn't need to take the Catholic position on sex to realize something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. I laughed the first time I read this because Mr. Lewis had to define strip-tease. I don't think you could find a twelve year old in America who doesn't know what that is today. And I don't think that's a good thing.
I understand that it's ineffective and foolish to say that sex is evil. This has nothing to do with the morality involved in pre-marital sex, and everything to do with the fact that when something is taboo, it immediately becomes interesting. Sex is, in and of itself, quite interesting already. You do the math.
So then, what must be done? The relgious right would glady outlaw abortion. I would have no problems with that, but there is something better we can do. If we are to do away with rampant promiscuity, which leads to abortion, it would be best to try to demonstrate that abstinence is a good thing. This is easier said than done.
For instance, I could say that abstinence is working just fine for me. That is true, but it is certainly a difficult thing to do and our society has had just enough of difficult things thank you. I have no idea how we go about righting this Titanic.
It certainly is a problem of titanic proportions. It should be self-evident: from low birth rates to higher instances of rape and sexual abuse, to the gradual mainstreaming of pornography and the escalating instances of divorce, from children having children to the explosion in single parent families, something needs to be done.
It is impossibe to tell me that our sexual appetite is not a problem, and a big one at that. Man is a sexual being, but he is more than that. Until we realize that, we're going to continue to have problems.
Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues.
And how.
There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, "Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence." Now this is so difficult and contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong.
Lewis--and I--feel our sexual instinct has gone wrong.
You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act, that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theater by bringing a covered plate onto the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?
Of course, but I'm sure some would feel that this is an unfair comparison. A social revolution was won by those who wanted to "make love, not war". The question is, has the sexual revolution really freed us from anything, save moral living?
One doesn't need to take the Catholic position on sex to realize something has gone terribly, terribly wrong. I laughed the first time I read this because Mr. Lewis had to define strip-tease. I don't think you could find a twelve year old in America who doesn't know what that is today. And I don't think that's a good thing.
I understand that it's ineffective and foolish to say that sex is evil. This has nothing to do with the morality involved in pre-marital sex, and everything to do with the fact that when something is taboo, it immediately becomes interesting. Sex is, in and of itself, quite interesting already. You do the math.
So then, what must be done? The relgious right would glady outlaw abortion. I would have no problems with that, but there is something better we can do. If we are to do away with rampant promiscuity, which leads to abortion, it would be best to try to demonstrate that abstinence is a good thing. This is easier said than done.
For instance, I could say that abstinence is working just fine for me. That is true, but it is certainly a difficult thing to do and our society has had just enough of difficult things thank you. I have no idea how we go about righting this Titanic.
It certainly is a problem of titanic proportions. It should be self-evident: from low birth rates to higher instances of rape and sexual abuse, to the gradual mainstreaming of pornography and the escalating instances of divorce, from children having children to the explosion in single parent families, something needs to be done.
It is impossibe to tell me that our sexual appetite is not a problem, and a big one at that. Man is a sexual being, but he is more than that. Until we realize that, we're going to continue to have problems.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Betrand Russell
I headed on over to the newly renovated Tech library to pick up some more to fill my cranium. I remembered that my friend Adam told me I should pick up "Why I am not a Christian" by Bertand Russell. My friend Evan, who is also an atheist had recommended it in the past, so I decided to finally quit procrastinating.
I haven't made it very far as of yet, but thus far it is certainly interesting. He seems to be quite bitter, but maybe that's just me. I think it's a terrible pity that he never got to meet Mother Teresa. If he had, he may have been able to add one more thing to the list that religion has done for the world. He mentions the calendar and Egyptians ability to chart and predict eclipses. I think religion has done a bit more for this world than he would admit.
My biggest complaint with him--so far--is his basic misunderstanding of human nature. In short, his belief in the possibility of utopia, a sort of heaven on earth. This belief is tragically misguided and not at all consistent with humans behaviours for the past several thousand years. Mr. Russell would claim that this is because we've always had religion. Until we set up an atheistic society, we may never know, although I am still quite sure that he is wrong.
If Christianity is wrong, this is at least one point is has gotten completely right. Plato's construction of a just society was a very noble concept, perhaps the noblest, but even if it was prefect, we cannot enact it. The Christian may be wrong that there is a heaven, but I've not seen a lick of evidence that there can be one on this earth.
First, to quote Mr. Russell:
"The second and more fundamental objection to the utilization of fear and hatred practised by the church is that these emotions can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. "
He then goes on to list various things that will need to be done, or rather not done.
"To save a child from hatred is a somewhat more elaborate business. Situations arousing jealousy must be very carefully avoided by means of scrupulous and exact justice as between different children. A child must feel himself the object of warm affection on the part of some at least of the adults with whom he has to do, and he must not be thwarted in his natural activities and curiosities except when danger to life or health is concerned. In particular, there must be no taboo on sex knowledge, or on conversation about matters which conventional people consider improper. If these simple precepts are observed from the start, the child will be fearless and friendly."
Ignoring the naivite which Mr. Russell brings to the issue, he is also quite guilty of hypocrisy. In order not to "arouse jealousy" and to "exact justice" is he not acting as a religious figure? How does he determine which moral code to use? How does one impose a moral standard, a religious doctrine if you will, without being relgious? And how will this result in a utopia?
As a Christian, injustice in this world is unpleasant and should be minimized if at all possible, but it is an intrinsic part of this world. I look to another world--perhaps foolishly--for a time when justice will reign. Maybe there is no other world, I certainly cannot prove my beliefs conclusively.
Mr. Russell is woefully pessimistic when it comes to religion and seemingly optimistic of the fate of mankind without religion. I shall continue reading because he has some answering to do. For an intellectually honest bright gentlemen, he surprising me for his lack of faith in a being greater than himself and his unreasonable faith in people just like himself.
Faith in God is reasonable. It may be wrong if there is no God, but it is only reasonable to believe in something bigger than oneself. Faith in man is absurd. Perhaps Mr. Russell's hatred and fear of Christians is causing him to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In short, don't blame God for His lousy followers
I haven't made it very far as of yet, but thus far it is certainly interesting. He seems to be quite bitter, but maybe that's just me. I think it's a terrible pity that he never got to meet Mother Teresa. If he had, he may have been able to add one more thing to the list that religion has done for the world. He mentions the calendar and Egyptians ability to chart and predict eclipses. I think religion has done a bit more for this world than he would admit.
My biggest complaint with him--so far--is his basic misunderstanding of human nature. In short, his belief in the possibility of utopia, a sort of heaven on earth. This belief is tragically misguided and not at all consistent with humans behaviours for the past several thousand years. Mr. Russell would claim that this is because we've always had religion. Until we set up an atheistic society, we may never know, although I am still quite sure that he is wrong.
If Christianity is wrong, this is at least one point is has gotten completely right. Plato's construction of a just society was a very noble concept, perhaps the noblest, but even if it was prefect, we cannot enact it. The Christian may be wrong that there is a heaven, but I've not seen a lick of evidence that there can be one on this earth.
First, to quote Mr. Russell:
"The second and more fundamental objection to the utilization of fear and hatred practised by the church is that these emotions can now be almost wholly eliminated from human nature by educational, economic, and political reforms. "
He then goes on to list various things that will need to be done, or rather not done.
"To save a child from hatred is a somewhat more elaborate business. Situations arousing jealousy must be very carefully avoided by means of scrupulous and exact justice as between different children. A child must feel himself the object of warm affection on the part of some at least of the adults with whom he has to do, and he must not be thwarted in his natural activities and curiosities except when danger to life or health is concerned. In particular, there must be no taboo on sex knowledge, or on conversation about matters which conventional people consider improper. If these simple precepts are observed from the start, the child will be fearless and friendly."
Ignoring the naivite which Mr. Russell brings to the issue, he is also quite guilty of hypocrisy. In order not to "arouse jealousy" and to "exact justice" is he not acting as a religious figure? How does he determine which moral code to use? How does one impose a moral standard, a religious doctrine if you will, without being relgious? And how will this result in a utopia?
As a Christian, injustice in this world is unpleasant and should be minimized if at all possible, but it is an intrinsic part of this world. I look to another world--perhaps foolishly--for a time when justice will reign. Maybe there is no other world, I certainly cannot prove my beliefs conclusively.
Mr. Russell is woefully pessimistic when it comes to religion and seemingly optimistic of the fate of mankind without religion. I shall continue reading because he has some answering to do. For an intellectually honest bright gentlemen, he surprising me for his lack of faith in a being greater than himself and his unreasonable faith in people just like himself.
Faith in God is reasonable. It may be wrong if there is no God, but it is only reasonable to believe in something bigger than oneself. Faith in man is absurd. Perhaps Mr. Russell's hatred and fear of Christians is causing him to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In short, don't blame God for His lousy followers
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Two Retirements Means Bigger Fight
The happenings of London are important, but the talking heads are doing their usual job of squeezing this story for every ratings point. Thus, I'll talk about something else.
First, Sandra Day O'Conner has already stepped down, and now Rhenquist may retire as well. Poor Bush is in a dreadful pickle.
"Adding to the tension is word from court sources that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over. "
The Republican base, at least the religious right, will not settle for anything less than two anti-abortion justices. The Democrats will never allow this if they can help it. Even Lincoln would have a tough time navigating this mess. It goes without saying that in regards to Bush, Abraham Lincoln he ain't.
Drudge is reporting that the often over-looked Democratic senator from New York is ready to play hardball.
"Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President’s nominee was: “It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!"
I don't know where Matt Drudge gets his sources, and it doesn't really matter to me. I'm buying this one because it fits. Schumer knows allowing Bush to nominate two conservative justices will not help the liberals legislate from the bench.
From what I'm hearing, Bush is set on Gonzales. Personally, I'm lukewarm to the fellow. I'd rather see a Scalia clone, but whether or not that's going to happen is another story.
Will the Democrats protest a Gonzales nomination? That remains to be seen. It would behoove Chuck and company to led Gonzales slide although, although my instinct tells me they won't.
"That would enable Bush to play this game: Name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues. Thus, the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the left just fine."
That's one theory anyway. Make no bones about it, the Democrats are going to run about Henny Penny like no matter who gets nominated. They smell fear in the Republican members of the so-called "gang of fourteen". Bush has to remember that no matter who he nominates, the left will start screaming, Dean-like, that the sky is falling.
Only a plactated base will help Bush at all. He needs to get the most conservative justices through that he can. The religious right doesn't always understand the politics of Washington and see compromise as weakness, which, it often is. If Bush nominates even one pro-choice judge as his father did, the religious base will not forgive this unpardonable sin.
This one is going to get old really fast. Bush will probably nominate Gonzales and a conservative in the Thomas/Scalia tradition and no one will be happy with him. This is not the first and it won't be the last time I do not envy him.
And we wonder why no one with intelligence and credibility wants to be president. Good luck Bush. You're going to need all the help you can get.
First, Sandra Day O'Conner has already stepped down, and now Rhenquist may retire as well. Poor Bush is in a dreadful pickle.
"Adding to the tension is word from court sources that ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist also will announce his retirement before the week is over. "
The Republican base, at least the religious right, will not settle for anything less than two anti-abortion justices. The Democrats will never allow this if they can help it. Even Lincoln would have a tough time navigating this mess. It goes without saying that in regards to Bush, Abraham Lincoln he ain't.
Drudge is reporting that the often over-looked Democratic senator from New York is ready to play hardball.
"Senate Judiciary Committee member Chuck Schumer got busy plotting away on the cellphone aboard a Washington, DC-New York Amtrak -- plotting Democrat strategy for the upcoming Supreme Court battle.
Schumer promised a fight over whoever the President’s nominee was: “It's not about an individual judge… It's about how it affects the overall makeup of the court.”
The chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee was overheard on a long cellphone conversation with an unknown political ally, and the DRUDGE REPORT was there!"
I don't know where Matt Drudge gets his sources, and it doesn't really matter to me. I'm buying this one because it fits. Schumer knows allowing Bush to nominate two conservative justices will not help the liberals legislate from the bench.
From what I'm hearing, Bush is set on Gonzales. Personally, I'm lukewarm to the fellow. I'd rather see a Scalia clone, but whether or not that's going to happen is another story.
Will the Democrats protest a Gonzales nomination? That remains to be seen. It would behoove Chuck and company to led Gonzales slide although, although my instinct tells me they won't.
"That would enable Bush to play this game: Name one justice no less conservative than Rehnquist, and name Gonzales, whose past record suggests he would replicate retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on abortion and possibly other social issues. Thus, the present ideological orientation of the court would be unchanged, which would suit the left just fine."
That's one theory anyway. Make no bones about it, the Democrats are going to run about Henny Penny like no matter who gets nominated. They smell fear in the Republican members of the so-called "gang of fourteen". Bush has to remember that no matter who he nominates, the left will start screaming, Dean-like, that the sky is falling.
Only a plactated base will help Bush at all. He needs to get the most conservative justices through that he can. The religious right doesn't always understand the politics of Washington and see compromise as weakness, which, it often is. If Bush nominates even one pro-choice judge as his father did, the religious base will not forgive this unpardonable sin.
This one is going to get old really fast. Bush will probably nominate Gonzales and a conservative in the Thomas/Scalia tradition and no one will be happy with him. This is not the first and it won't be the last time I do not envy him.
And we wonder why no one with intelligence and credibility wants to be president. Good luck Bush. You're going to need all the help you can get.
Orange Alerts and Other Ineffectual Measures
I suppose everyone now knows about the tradgey in London.
I'm not going to go into detail about this one, because we all have our own sources and unless one has been in a hole for the last day or so, knows what happened.
Briefly, "At least 37 people have been killed and 700 injured in a series of terror attacks on London."
I glanced at this story this morning when I awoke making a mental note to check into it more thoroughly later. I came back from my morning classes and grabbed a bowl of cereal and parked myself in front of the television. I usually avoid television like the plague, but it proved to be informative.
I caught the beginning of some fellow from the Department of Homeland Security telling everyone what we knew he would. He raised the terror alert on trains and such to orange. I don't have the exact quote because I frankly don't care what color the alert is. Partially, it's because I live in Houghton, but it's also because we are so bad at trying to fight terrorism.
First, if the terrorists were going to hit us, they're not going to give us time to raise our alert. I see all these bumber stickers that tell me never to forget. Forget what? That by the time we knew what happened it was too late? I remember that. I keep forgetting though what colors have to do with fighting terrorism.
Second, if the terrorists are going to hit us several hours or days later--which they won't but if they did--they wouldn't hit the thing that we're watching. Bush and company are caught in a game of capture the flag where we keep guarding where our flag used to be. The terrorists may be fools and cowards, but it wouldn't take much more than the IQ of a food processor to out-think our national defense team. No offense to the intelligent people involved, but could you try a little harder maybe?
We will get hit again by terrorist. Iraq will not change this in the least. The nature of our enemey is such that they will use terrorism again and the nature of our society is such that we will again fail to prevent it.
Many people, such as myself, offer criticisms about our war and terror, especially liberals. For those who have problems with what we are doing, what would you do better? Prove that Republican rhetoric on this point is shallow, and give me some ideas.
The way I see it, we can do one of two things. First, we could allow Bush to become a tyrant. Eliminating civil liberities may actually save us from terrorism. Still, I just don't think it's worth the cost.
Secondly, we could return to an isolationist foreign policy. We could wrap things up in Iraq and then start to bring troops home from around the globe. One reason that the terroists hate us--no it's not our freedom--is that we do stick our nose into other people's business quite often. Pulling out of the Middle East isn't going to get Osama to sing our praises, but it might assuage just a little bit of the animosity they have towards us.
This is the policy I support. In addition, the troops we have recalled can be placed at our borders and at our nations ports. This will not eliminate illegal immigration, but it will curtail it. Furthermore, I would like to see an Operation Wetback II. The first one undertaken by Eisenhower and we are in much need of another one. We don't need to toss our every illegal, but the ones with felonies can find a new place to live I think. Furthermore, we can either give amnesty and citizenship to the productive ones, making them full members of society with all the priveledges that entails, or find alternative residences for those who only leech off the system.
Then we can have a debate about our nation's immigration policy and try to allow in as many immigrants as our economy will support. Also, we should be able to scrap that dreaded Patriot Act. This plan is not perfect of course, but I see that it has more benefits than drawbacks. We may get hit again, but we can try to prepare without taking away civil liberties and resorting to different color schemes that are completetely ineffectual.
Don't like my idea? Fine. Let's hear yours. I'll be waiting.
I'm not going to go into detail about this one, because we all have our own sources and unless one has been in a hole for the last day or so, knows what happened.
Briefly, "At least 37 people have been killed and 700 injured in a series of terror attacks on London."
I glanced at this story this morning when I awoke making a mental note to check into it more thoroughly later. I came back from my morning classes and grabbed a bowl of cereal and parked myself in front of the television. I usually avoid television like the plague, but it proved to be informative.
I caught the beginning of some fellow from the Department of Homeland Security telling everyone what we knew he would. He raised the terror alert on trains and such to orange. I don't have the exact quote because I frankly don't care what color the alert is. Partially, it's because I live in Houghton, but it's also because we are so bad at trying to fight terrorism.
First, if the terrorists were going to hit us, they're not going to give us time to raise our alert. I see all these bumber stickers that tell me never to forget. Forget what? That by the time we knew what happened it was too late? I remember that. I keep forgetting though what colors have to do with fighting terrorism.
Second, if the terrorists are going to hit us several hours or days later--which they won't but if they did--they wouldn't hit the thing that we're watching. Bush and company are caught in a game of capture the flag where we keep guarding where our flag used to be. The terrorists may be fools and cowards, but it wouldn't take much more than the IQ of a food processor to out-think our national defense team. No offense to the intelligent people involved, but could you try a little harder maybe?
We will get hit again by terrorist. Iraq will not change this in the least. The nature of our enemey is such that they will use terrorism again and the nature of our society is such that we will again fail to prevent it.
Many people, such as myself, offer criticisms about our war and terror, especially liberals. For those who have problems with what we are doing, what would you do better? Prove that Republican rhetoric on this point is shallow, and give me some ideas.
The way I see it, we can do one of two things. First, we could allow Bush to become a tyrant. Eliminating civil liberities may actually save us from terrorism. Still, I just don't think it's worth the cost.
Secondly, we could return to an isolationist foreign policy. We could wrap things up in Iraq and then start to bring troops home from around the globe. One reason that the terroists hate us--no it's not our freedom--is that we do stick our nose into other people's business quite often. Pulling out of the Middle East isn't going to get Osama to sing our praises, but it might assuage just a little bit of the animosity they have towards us.
This is the policy I support. In addition, the troops we have recalled can be placed at our borders and at our nations ports. This will not eliminate illegal immigration, but it will curtail it. Furthermore, I would like to see an Operation Wetback II. The first one undertaken by Eisenhower and we are in much need of another one. We don't need to toss our every illegal, but the ones with felonies can find a new place to live I think. Furthermore, we can either give amnesty and citizenship to the productive ones, making them full members of society with all the priveledges that entails, or find alternative residences for those who only leech off the system.
Then we can have a debate about our nation's immigration policy and try to allow in as many immigrants as our economy will support. Also, we should be able to scrap that dreaded Patriot Act. This plan is not perfect of course, but I see that it has more benefits than drawbacks. We may get hit again, but we can try to prepare without taking away civil liberties and resorting to different color schemes that are completetely ineffectual.
Don't like my idea? Fine. Let's hear yours. I'll be waiting.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Theological Suicide
The United Church of Christ has just approved a resolution giving the stamp of approval to gay unions. They revised the resolution and, as far as I understand it, it is not yet law. Although even that is a slippery term.
"UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the leadership does not create policy for its more than 5,700 congregations."
Forgive a simple Catholic but I don't get it. So basically it's a P.R. move? What's the point of a resolution if it's not enforced? The UCC must be taking a page from the U.N. playbook.
"Still, members of the committee acknowledged Sunday that some congregations could leave the church entirely if the resolution is approved as written."
You mean that Christians want their churches to follow His teacings? What a novel idea.
"The wording was revised Sunday, however, to include the "recognition that this resolution may not reflect the views or current understanding of all bodies within the gathered church.""
Again, then why have a resolution at all. A resolution, by definition takes resolve, something that is obviously lacking here. The UCC may as well resolve that the sky is blue. That would be much more correct, and just as ineffective.
"Some argued the same-sex resolution contradicts Biblical instructions.
"UCC churches are autonomous, meaning the leadership does not create policy for its more than 5,700 congregations."
Forgive a simple Catholic but I don't get it. So basically it's a P.R. move? What's the point of a resolution if it's not enforced? The UCC must be taking a page from the U.N. playbook.
"Still, members of the committee acknowledged Sunday that some congregations could leave the church entirely if the resolution is approved as written."
You mean that Christians want their churches to follow His teacings? What a novel idea.
"The wording was revised Sunday, however, to include the "recognition that this resolution may not reflect the views or current understanding of all bodies within the gathered church.""
Again, then why have a resolution at all. A resolution, by definition takes resolve, something that is obviously lacking here. The UCC may as well resolve that the sky is blue. That would be much more correct, and just as ineffective.
"Some argued the same-sex resolution contradicts Biblical instructions.
"Throughout the Scriptures, marriage is always defined as being between one man and one woman," said the Rev. Brett Becker, pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cibolo, Texas."
Brett gets it. Religion is supposed to be something that makes us better, not something that lowers standards to the political winds of the day. This move is obviously done, not for doctrinal reasons, but to pacify the homosexual lobby. This is not only immoral, but ineffective.
I have discussed at length the Biblical reasons that homosexuality is immoral, so I will not delve back into it. However, is it effective from a theological perspective to toss aside Christ's doctrine?
It is my contention that it is not. Many may disagree with the Catholic Church's dogma and that is fine, but one must admire her consistent stand for truth. In short, her dogma may be wrong, but she has a dogma. The UCC appears to have no dogma and therefore isn't even trying to get at truth.
Obviously this is going to raise objections. To my detractors I have but one question: does the biblical tradition of Christianity support homosexuality?
I say no. The UCC is making a grave mistake. If one does not like Christ's message, toss Him aside if you will. There are other religions to follow if one is so inclined. Don't water down His teachings to conform to your viewpoints.
Moral cowardice is a poor way to win converts.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Hollywood
Hollywood just doesn't get it. Despite The War of the Worlds, Hollywood is in the midst of a nineteen week slump. There are reasons for this, which I will now lay out.
First, ticket prices are outrageous. It costs me $8.50 to go see a mediocre movie with bad acting, poor dialogue, and no originality. Prices are higher in some markets, lower in others, but the point is, Americans have decided--at least for the past five months--that it's just not worth it anymore.
And don't even get me started on concessions. I haven't bought something at a movie in so long, the high prices have almost escaped me. For the not-so-tight-fisted-American, blowing fifteen bucks on a movie and some munchies has become a bad bargain.
Second, as pointed to earlier, the quality in Hollywood is just plain lacking. I went to see two movies of my own volition this summer. I allowed myself to be dragged to another one because it cost a buck, and even I'm not so cheap that I could say no. I went and saw and Revenge of the Sith and Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. No other movie honestly interested me.
Revenge was absolutely dull. Lucas cannot write a script. I can quote huge fragments of the origianl trilogy, but if I ever have to sit through any of the new ones again, I think I'll scream. Hitchiker's was pretty good, but one decent flick in two months is not going to cut it.
I realize I may be complaining unneccesarily. I am but one soul, and in truth, I've never liked to go to the movies. The older flicks are simply much better. Still, the numbers don't lie, and America, may, for once, agree with me.
Tell a good story and people will come. Sex and special effects get old oh so fast.
Lastly, Hollywood's elites need to shut up, to put it nicely. Yes, a majority of Americans no longer support this war, but bashing it at every turn is last Tuesday. Actors are entertainers, and they should act--and be treated--as such. Baseball and football are not watched by armchair presidents trying to to get commentary on U.S. foreign policy, they are watched by armchair quarterbacks who want to out in their two cents on what the team should have called on third and short. The masses wish to be entertained.
I can handle an anti-war message from Anti-Flag; they're a pop punk band who has made anti imperialist policy a staple. Likewise, Michael Moore's message may bother me, but I can handle one of his propoganda films telling we where we've gone wrong. Part of the entertainment of both ententies is their politics. I get this.
What I don't get is why some actor or actress's opinion is worth two farlings. If they wish to make a statement, make a movie. That's what Moore does. If Bruce Springsteen doesn't think we should be in this war, he can write a song about it. I can live with that.
The American people is, hopefully, sick of being lectured to by entertainers. If they could actually do their job in the first place, we might give them the benefit of the doubt. Until they learn to keep quiet and just deliver, Americans may just stay at home.That's what I plan on doing.
Happy 4th of July to all my fellow Americans, movie-going and otherwise.
First, ticket prices are outrageous. It costs me $8.50 to go see a mediocre movie with bad acting, poor dialogue, and no originality. Prices are higher in some markets, lower in others, but the point is, Americans have decided--at least for the past five months--that it's just not worth it anymore.
And don't even get me started on concessions. I haven't bought something at a movie in so long, the high prices have almost escaped me. For the not-so-tight-fisted-American, blowing fifteen bucks on a movie and some munchies has become a bad bargain.
Second, as pointed to earlier, the quality in Hollywood is just plain lacking. I went to see two movies of my own volition this summer. I allowed myself to be dragged to another one because it cost a buck, and even I'm not so cheap that I could say no. I went and saw and Revenge of the Sith and Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. No other movie honestly interested me.
Revenge was absolutely dull. Lucas cannot write a script. I can quote huge fragments of the origianl trilogy, but if I ever have to sit through any of the new ones again, I think I'll scream. Hitchiker's was pretty good, but one decent flick in two months is not going to cut it.
I realize I may be complaining unneccesarily. I am but one soul, and in truth, I've never liked to go to the movies. The older flicks are simply much better. Still, the numbers don't lie, and America, may, for once, agree with me.
Tell a good story and people will come. Sex and special effects get old oh so fast.
Lastly, Hollywood's elites need to shut up, to put it nicely. Yes, a majority of Americans no longer support this war, but bashing it at every turn is last Tuesday. Actors are entertainers, and they should act--and be treated--as such. Baseball and football are not watched by armchair presidents trying to to get commentary on U.S. foreign policy, they are watched by armchair quarterbacks who want to out in their two cents on what the team should have called on third and short. The masses wish to be entertained.
I can handle an anti-war message from Anti-Flag; they're a pop punk band who has made anti imperialist policy a staple. Likewise, Michael Moore's message may bother me, but I can handle one of his propoganda films telling we where we've gone wrong. Part of the entertainment of both ententies is their politics. I get this.
What I don't get is why some actor or actress's opinion is worth two farlings. If they wish to make a statement, make a movie. That's what Moore does. If Bruce Springsteen doesn't think we should be in this war, he can write a song about it. I can live with that.
The American people is, hopefully, sick of being lectured to by entertainers. If they could actually do their job in the first place, we might give them the benefit of the doubt. Until they learn to keep quiet and just deliver, Americans may just stay at home.That's what I plan on doing.
Happy 4th of July to all my fellow Americans, movie-going and otherwise.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Judicial Review: a Rock and a Hard Place
I have just finished reading Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark decision in Marbury vs. Madison setting the precedent for judicial review. In the America of today, it is almost unbelievable to think that the Supreme Court is not the highest law in the land, yet it was not always so.
I don't believe I've come down on one side or the other of judicial review, at least explicitly. I have certainly been aprehensive of the growing power of the court, but in truth, I do not know what to do about judicial review.
Marshall wrote, "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it."
And this seems to be the whole crux of the issue. It would be great if the legislature simply followed the constitution. If they did that, we would not have need for the supreme court at all, or as Madison puts it in Federalist no. 51, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
So then, someone must keep Congress and the President in line. Without judicial review, there is nothing to stop the government from treading the constitution under foot. Yet has judicial review helped to preserve our constitution? It seems to me the contrary is true. The Patriot Act has yet to be over-turned, we still interned the Japanese, and the court has used an implied a "right to privacy" to render the 10th amendment all but useless.
I have no answer here, and this bothers me. It seems the problem is in mankind. And for that we have no fix. We are set with two six-sided dice and told to roll a thirteen. We cannot get more dice and we cannot get new ones with more sides. Still we roll.
Even if we could, scrapping judicial review probably wouldn't do anything. Instead of having the Supreme Court ruin everything, we'd have the Congress or the President do so. It makes no difference, republics are untenable at least in the long run.
Now I'm not saying it's all going down right now, only that it will. Nominating a strict constructionist in the place of O'Connor may slow down the impending tide, but the waves will crash into this wonderful human experiment.
What lessons can we learn to provide to the next people who try to run a republic? Can we embue them with some of our wisdom--the little we have--in the hope that they can last just a little bit longer?
It seems we shouldn't ask "who guards the guards?" but rather, who can possibly do so?
I don't believe I've come down on one side or the other of judicial review, at least explicitly. I have certainly been aprehensive of the growing power of the court, but in truth, I do not know what to do about judicial review.
Marshall wrote, "The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it."
And this seems to be the whole crux of the issue. It would be great if the legislature simply followed the constitution. If they did that, we would not have need for the supreme court at all, or as Madison puts it in Federalist no. 51, " If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
So then, someone must keep Congress and the President in line. Without judicial review, there is nothing to stop the government from treading the constitution under foot. Yet has judicial review helped to preserve our constitution? It seems to me the contrary is true. The Patriot Act has yet to be over-turned, we still interned the Japanese, and the court has used an implied a "right to privacy" to render the 10th amendment all but useless.
I have no answer here, and this bothers me. It seems the problem is in mankind. And for that we have no fix. We are set with two six-sided dice and told to roll a thirteen. We cannot get more dice and we cannot get new ones with more sides. Still we roll.
Even if we could, scrapping judicial review probably wouldn't do anything. Instead of having the Supreme Court ruin everything, we'd have the Congress or the President do so. It makes no difference, republics are untenable at least in the long run.
Now I'm not saying it's all going down right now, only that it will. Nominating a strict constructionist in the place of O'Connor may slow down the impending tide, but the waves will crash into this wonderful human experiment.
What lessons can we learn to provide to the next people who try to run a republic? Can we embue them with some of our wisdom--the little we have--in the hope that they can last just a little bit longer?
It seems we shouldn't ask "who guards the guards?" but rather, who can possibly do so?
Live8
I have to admit that I did watch some of Live8. I don't know if that makes me hypocritical--for what I'm about to say--or if I just get labelled as critical again.
Come on, the prospect of seeing Pink Floyd was too much to pass up. I think you can watch it over at aol. I'm not sure what the link is, but it's there somewhere.
Anyway, I think Live8 is a pretty neat idea. I also think it will be quite ineffective.
I hate to tow the party line, I really do. I wish that the words I am about to say couldn't have come straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Still, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Not that Rush is a blind squirrel, he's more of a monolithic egomaniacal one. Now that would be cool.
Here's the rub: all the money in the world won't matter unless we fix the corrupt governments. I wouldn't say it if I saw it another way.
Africa is unfortunately one big mess. Bono should be golf-clapped for trying to do something, but the solution just isn't that simple.
I'm done, and I'm afraid so is Africa.
Come on, the prospect of seeing Pink Floyd was too much to pass up. I think you can watch it over at aol. I'm not sure what the link is, but it's there somewhere.
Anyway, I think Live8 is a pretty neat idea. I also think it will be quite ineffective.
I hate to tow the party line, I really do. I wish that the words I am about to say couldn't have come straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. Still, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Not that Rush is a blind squirrel, he's more of a monolithic egomaniacal one. Now that would be cool.
Here's the rub: all the money in the world won't matter unless we fix the corrupt governments. I wouldn't say it if I saw it another way.
Africa is unfortunately one big mess. Bono should be golf-clapped for trying to do something, but the solution just isn't that simple.
I'm done, and I'm afraid so is Africa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)