Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Brits pulling out of Iraq
So the recent news is that some British soldiers are being pulled out of Iraq. According to Tony Blair and President Bush this is a good thing, a sign of success in the region they were stationed.
According to certain politicians and pundits, however, this is actually bad for the President. They make hay of the irony of the British troops pulling out at the same time as Bush wants to send more American soldiers.
So which is it? Is it a positive thing that should make Bush look good or is it a negative thing that should make Bush look bad? I'll bet your answer to that question would be very easy to predict by anyone who knows you well, which leads me to make a couple of points.
First, why is everything viewed through the lens of politics? Why is it that when dealing with the facts of the British pulling out of Iraq the single most important thing on everyone's mind is how it reflects on Bush and his policies? Can't we just call a spade a spade sometimes?
Second, doesn't it trouble you that your answer to the question I posed would be so easy to predict? What does that tell you about yourself and the countless others (including me more often than I'd like) who don't seem to have the capability for original thought.
Finally, doesn't it bother you that we have two primary groups of pundits, politicians and people who have squared off against each other over the Iraq situation. The pro-war side is adamant about their position. To them there must be success in Iraq because that will prove that they were right. The anti-war side is equally adamant about their position. To them there must be failure in Iraq because that will prove that they were right. The one side can't afford to have us lose in Iraq and the other side can't afford to have us win. And what is the primary motivation behind both sides? You guessed it: politics. The winners (of the political game, not the war in Iraq) get all kinds of political points and the losers (of the political game, not the war in Iraq) get to hang their heads in shame. Long term issues like national security, what it means to be a good citizen of the world and, gasp, what's best for Iraq and other places like it don't seem to really matter much.
For an example of what we should be doing, by which I mean thoughtful, reasoned and civil debate, head over and check out a debate between Frank Gaffney and Tony Campolo on the campus of Eastern University. Just scroll down till you find the links from February 19 2007.
According to certain politicians and pundits, however, this is actually bad for the President. They make hay of the irony of the British troops pulling out at the same time as Bush wants to send more American soldiers.
So which is it? Is it a positive thing that should make Bush look good or is it a negative thing that should make Bush look bad? I'll bet your answer to that question would be very easy to predict by anyone who knows you well, which leads me to make a couple of points.
First, why is everything viewed through the lens of politics? Why is it that when dealing with the facts of the British pulling out of Iraq the single most important thing on everyone's mind is how it reflects on Bush and his policies? Can't we just call a spade a spade sometimes?
Second, doesn't it trouble you that your answer to the question I posed would be so easy to predict? What does that tell you about yourself and the countless others (including me more often than I'd like) who don't seem to have the capability for original thought.
Finally, doesn't it bother you that we have two primary groups of pundits, politicians and people who have squared off against each other over the Iraq situation. The pro-war side is adamant about their position. To them there must be success in Iraq because that will prove that they were right. The anti-war side is equally adamant about their position. To them there must be failure in Iraq because that will prove that they were right. The one side can't afford to have us lose in Iraq and the other side can't afford to have us win. And what is the primary motivation behind both sides? You guessed it: politics. The winners (of the political game, not the war in Iraq) get all kinds of political points and the losers (of the political game, not the war in Iraq) get to hang their heads in shame. Long term issues like national security, what it means to be a good citizen of the world and, gasp, what's best for Iraq and other places like it don't seem to really matter much.
For an example of what we should be doing, by which I mean thoughtful, reasoned and civil debate, head over and check out a debate between Frank Gaffney and Tony Campolo on the campus of Eastern University. Just scroll down till you find the links from February 19 2007.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Will the real democrats please stand up
I consider myself to be an independent conservative. However when it comes to big-oil, big-pharma, big-insurance and the like I'm probably a bit more populist. I was getting pretty tired of the business-as-usual Republican cronyism and even though I cringed at the thought of Democrats in power in these uncertain times I thought maybe there was a chance for some free thinking and populist change. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be on the agenda.
It looks to me like nothing much is really going to change. Oh, the Dems will pay some lip service here and there but ultimately money talks regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. Seems like they're pretty much a one-trick-pony at this point. It's pretty sad when failure in Iraq and the humiliation of Bush/Cheney is your sole reason for existence.
I'm willing to be convinced that the Democrats have more to offer than hoping and plotting for failure. Sure, maybe we are destined to fail in Iraq. It is, after all, not completely up to us. The Iraqi's do have a say in the matter as well. But playing politics with the lives of the Iraqi's and the lives of our soldiers is pretty pathetic. Show me some leadership. Show me some original thinking. Show me that you really are interested in seeing this world become a better place for all humanity and that you have the patience and strength to truly fight for the underdog no matter how difficult, painful and time consuming the fight may be.
Some of the inspiration for this little tirade came from here.
It looks to me like nothing much is really going to change. Oh, the Dems will pay some lip service here and there but ultimately money talks regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. Seems like they're pretty much a one-trick-pony at this point. It's pretty sad when failure in Iraq and the humiliation of Bush/Cheney is your sole reason for existence.
I'm willing to be convinced that the Democrats have more to offer than hoping and plotting for failure. Sure, maybe we are destined to fail in Iraq. It is, after all, not completely up to us. The Iraqi's do have a say in the matter as well. But playing politics with the lives of the Iraqi's and the lives of our soldiers is pretty pathetic. Show me some leadership. Show me some original thinking. Show me that you really are interested in seeing this world become a better place for all humanity and that you have the patience and strength to truly fight for the underdog no matter how difficult, painful and time consuming the fight may be.
Some of the inspiration for this little tirade came from here.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Betcha this gets your attention...
A news story today about a premature baby 22 weeks of age being born and surviving got me to thinking. I'm not going to go the predictable route of using this as an argument against abortion. I'm instead going to use this opportunity to make a different point.
I'm going to imagine that there are two people reading this post. One is a committed Christian right-to-life advocate. The other is a committed Progressive right-to-choose advocate. I am going to pose two positions and I want your honest opinion.
1. To the lefty: given that a baby born at 22 weeks can survive outside of the womb aren't you compelled to change your stance on the issue of Abortion? Isn't it true that its getting a lot harder to maintain that abortion is not the taking of a human life?
2. To the righty: be honest, if your 14 year old daughter was raped and became pregnant could you actually look me in the eye and tell me that you'd force her to carry that baby to full term and then either keep it or give it up for adoption?
These are honest questions, and if you are intellectually honest you each have to admit that there is a conflict raging inside you when you give the answer that your belief system forces you to give. But, you will obviously give the answer your belief system forces you to give. You have to don't you?
Now look at each other. You aren't so different after all. You're each making decisions that your strongly held beliefs force you to make. Kinda makes you think doesn't it? Maybe the Christian isn't the only one with "Religious" beliefs. Maybe the Christian isn't the only one being a "fundamentalist", towing the party line and subscribing to "group think".
As for the choice perspective, I'm pretty sure you're not taking that side because you want to see babies killed. I'm pretty sure you really believe that you're advocating for the greatest good to society and humanity.
I'd just like to ask you both to be open minded and when faced with advances in science don't shrink in fear behind the barricades of your agenda's and your groups. Whether that science seems to challenge creationism or whether it seems to challenge the practice of abortion don't be afraid of it. Because after all, the truth can withstand any amount of scrutiny.
I'm going to imagine that there are two people reading this post. One is a committed Christian right-to-life advocate. The other is a committed Progressive right-to-choose advocate. I am going to pose two positions and I want your honest opinion.
1. To the lefty: given that a baby born at 22 weeks can survive outside of the womb aren't you compelled to change your stance on the issue of Abortion? Isn't it true that its getting a lot harder to maintain that abortion is not the taking of a human life?
2. To the righty: be honest, if your 14 year old daughter was raped and became pregnant could you actually look me in the eye and tell me that you'd force her to carry that baby to full term and then either keep it or give it up for adoption?
These are honest questions, and if you are intellectually honest you each have to admit that there is a conflict raging inside you when you give the answer that your belief system forces you to give. But, you will obviously give the answer your belief system forces you to give. You have to don't you?
Now look at each other. You aren't so different after all. You're each making decisions that your strongly held beliefs force you to make. Kinda makes you think doesn't it? Maybe the Christian isn't the only one with "Religious" beliefs. Maybe the Christian isn't the only one being a "fundamentalist", towing the party line and subscribing to "group think".
As for the choice perspective, I'm pretty sure you're not taking that side because you want to see babies killed. I'm pretty sure you really believe that you're advocating for the greatest good to society and humanity.
I'd just like to ask you both to be open minded and when faced with advances in science don't shrink in fear behind the barricades of your agenda's and your groups. Whether that science seems to challenge creationism or whether it seems to challenge the practice of abortion don't be afraid of it. Because after all, the truth can withstand any amount of scrutiny.
Righties With Attitude
Maybe this is old news, but it sure got me going. I am referring to Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) as defined by a researcher named Robert Altemeyer. The blog entry which introduced me to this was obviously written by an ardent fan of old Bob. The blogger proceeds to use the RWA ideas to gleefully paint everyone outside of the enlightened left as psychopaths or worse.
Admittedly this is pretty scary stuff and if it were legitimate we might have real cause for concern. I'm no psychologist, but I bet I could craft a survey that painted the left in an equally bad light.
Left or right taken to an extreme pretty much ends up at the same place. Ultimately it comes down to applying the "final solution" and eliminating those pesky elements of society that stand against what is "obviously" the correct path. Whether you are a Marxist, an Anarchist or a Fascist doesn't much matter when your movement gains the critical mass and those standing in the way have to be dealt with.
So come down from your snobby ivory towers and admit one thing. The constitution and bill-of-rights laid down by the founding fathers of the United States was brilliant in recognizing the dangers of any group, right or left, gaining too much power or thinking too highly of themselves. The dangers inherent in human beings are inherent in ALL human beings regardless of political persuasion (and yes that includes YOU). History proves that point quite nicely.
Finally, a couple of pieces I found that counter the RWA premise are here and here.
Admittedly this is pretty scary stuff and if it were legitimate we might have real cause for concern. I'm no psychologist, but I bet I could craft a survey that painted the left in an equally bad light.
Left or right taken to an extreme pretty much ends up at the same place. Ultimately it comes down to applying the "final solution" and eliminating those pesky elements of society that stand against what is "obviously" the correct path. Whether you are a Marxist, an Anarchist or a Fascist doesn't much matter when your movement gains the critical mass and those standing in the way have to be dealt with.
So come down from your snobby ivory towers and admit one thing. The constitution and bill-of-rights laid down by the founding fathers of the United States was brilliant in recognizing the dangers of any group, right or left, gaining too much power or thinking too highly of themselves. The dangers inherent in human beings are inherent in ALL human beings regardless of political persuasion (and yes that includes YOU). History proves that point quite nicely.
Finally, a couple of pieces I found that counter the RWA premise are here and here.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Iraq - some history
The Iraq war is, admittedly, a bit of a quagmire. I am personally upset with the actions of Congress lately who seem to see the Iraq situation as a blank check for propping up their political careers.
Somehow cutting and running just seems wrong, but on the other hand what will happen if we stay the course? Do the American people have the stomach for sticking it out as long as it takes? Fed a steady diet of demoralization from the Media and the leaders in Congress it doesn't seem likely.
All I seem to hear, on both sides of the issue, are sound bites. Emotional appeals are completely trumping an honest examination of the situation. I guess that's the society we live in. Give it to me in 5 minutes or don't bother me. Guess that goes for Iraq as well.
Enough whining, let's dig a little. How about a little Iraq history lesson for starters. And you might be surprised at the conclusion given what you think you know about me.
Somehow cutting and running just seems wrong, but on the other hand what will happen if we stay the course? Do the American people have the stomach for sticking it out as long as it takes? Fed a steady diet of demoralization from the Media and the leaders in Congress it doesn't seem likely.
All I seem to hear, on both sides of the issue, are sound bites. Emotional appeals are completely trumping an honest examination of the situation. I guess that's the society we live in. Give it to me in 5 minutes or don't bother me. Guess that goes for Iraq as well.
Enough whining, let's dig a little. How about a little Iraq history lesson for starters. And you might be surprised at the conclusion given what you think you know about me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
