^.^
This post could also be called "Dumb Peacenik Group Runs Out of Things to do,
and Therefore Farms Out Their Platform"...
See, SUFP, which stands for Shut Up F***ing Peaceniks, or "Stand Up For Peace" as
they like to be called, has been staging ineffective little protest rallies at a major corner
of two of the main streets that run through Laramie, WY. In these rallies, they hold
signs dissing the war in Iraq, attacking the Bush administration, and basically slamming
the soldiers who are defending the country and allow them to spout their "progressive"
*ack*liberal*cough* line.
Now however, SUFP has allowed itself to be hijacked by one of its members. See, there is going to be a showing of a recently-published film that bashes Wal Mart. Here is what the email from Mr. Thompson says:
"Everyone has seen Wal-Mart's lavish television commercials, but have you ever wondered why Wal-Mart spends so much money trying to convince you it cares about your family, your community, and even its own employees? What is it hiding? This film takes you behind the glitz and into the real lives of workers (and their families) and business owners (and their communities), in an extraordinary journey that will challenge the way you think, feel...and shop."
Now, I don't have a problem with anyone doing a film, or a book. I don't have a problem with anyone being pro-Wal Mart, or anti-Wal Mart, or whatever. However, when a peacenik group decides to go off the reservation and start complaining about Wal Mart, I have to ask what the subject has to do with war in Iraq.
Does Wal Mart support the war? Are they working with the evil vile Haliburton? Are they secretly working to construct internment camps in the wilds of the West?
Perhaps Mr. Thompson should come up with his own group, build his own website, and from there, he can spout his wrinkled gray animal-dung BS all he wants.
But unless SUFP is deciding to franxchise out anti-Wal Mart-ism from their anti-Iraq war normal garbage, such materials should be left out of the SUFP lists.
John B.
Blogger Guy
Monday, November 14, 2005
Sunday, October 30, 2005
The Bartlett Doctrine: Disproportional Response
^.^
"Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!"
"Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words ‘Civis Romanis’ I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris’ protection, or anyone else on that plane? Where is the retribution for the families and where is the warning to the rest of the world that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the clenched fist of the most mighty military force in the history of mankind comes crashing down on your house!?"
Quotes by President "Jed" Bartlett, "The West Wing"
"A Proportional Response" (Season 1, Episode 3)
---
Yes, I will admit, I have started watching "The West Wing", and I am beginning to like it...a little. Don't get me wrong...the show is still a liberal fantasy about a Democrat in the White House. That the show was first aired in 1999 tells me that the liberal Democrats knew they were losing the election in the next year, but here was something that they could console themselves with...a Hollywood left version of comfort food, so to speak.
And although it looks like the show's creators are about to recognize reality and a Republican is about to be put in the White House, the people playing the Republican contender are Alan Alda, and Jimmy Smits...both of whom are liberals. I guess the Democrats can only take so much Republicanism at one time. It doesn't help that the show has cast liberal bomb-thrower Janeane Garofalo as a media consultant.
So, am I likely to become a full-fledged fan? Probably not. However, as I have been putting down rental money to rent the DVDs from the show's first season, I find that I like bits and peices of the show.
For instance, no matter what his politics, Martin Sheen makes a good president. In some episodes, Sheen's character impacts the scene like thunder, like in the above quotes. In a later episode, President Bartlett is deeply troubled by a decision on whether to use his powers to intervene on the behalf of a death-row inmate after the Supreme Court refuses to stay the man's execution.
I'll admit, this is only a preliminary opinion, but so far, I find that I like the episode "A Proportional Response" the best. It shows President Bartlett thinking what I imagine any Persident must feel when American citizens are in harm's way. While the solution is typically liberal...the President decides to go with the measured response, I believe that the point is that ALL people have to respect the office and the powers of the President of the United States, including the President himself.
The thing is, I don't believe that no one, not the American people, nor the world, has ever seen what I will call, the Bartlett Doctrine, that is that every single American life is precious, and that if harm comes to ONE American, the perpetrator will be destroyed with extreme prejudice.
The last time America pursued anything like the Bartlett Doctrine was the Union during the US Civil War. General Sherman's march to the sea, from Tennessee to Savanah, Georgia was part of a massive policy designed to grievously injure the South and bring the war to a close.
I don't believe anything before or anything since really compares to Sherman's march, and I believe that it is because of this that Americans seem willing to accept kess than a total crushing victory in some of the problems we face today around the world.
Quite simply, the last two times we had a credible military victory before 2003 in Iraq were 1991, in the first Persian Gulf War, and 1945, when Germany and Japan fell. It's 2005, and I dare say that most people were not around for 1945, and quite a few people who are now reaching the age of adulthood were not forming coherent thoughts in 1991.
And no one alive today was around in the tail end of 1864.
But I do believe that Americans need the kind of protection that is outlined in the Bartlett Doctrine. I was listening to the BBC, and a reporter was talking to the Pakistani president, who said that most of the problems of Islam were caused by the United States, because we are the source of all of the extremism. Now, I don't believe I have met many muslims, and so I would like to know where I harmed Islam.
Talking to a college student later, he explained to me that it is our policies supporting globalism that aer seen in the muslim world as an attack upon their culture. So, I guess McDonalds is responsible for the muslim rage that led to the downing of the World Trade Center.
I replied that it is not the right of muslim extremists to use violence to push America out of their countries. If they don't want American businesses in their countries, they should pass laws keeping us out, then work to evict those companies that are there.
The idea here is that Americans should feel safe where-ever they are in the world, and they should know that if they are harmed, the government of this country will rain down fire and brimstone on the perpetrators.
Does this mean that the Bush administration should be doing things differently? Perhaps. How about an overwhelming presence of US troops in Iraq until there is no enemy left? How about making it clear that if you are an insurgent in Iraq, you had better not show your face in daylight if you want to stay alive. How about offering a year's salary for every confirmed insurgent that is brought in by the residents? How about plastering the airwaves and a non-stop message of what is going right in Iraq? How about a White House that doesn't pansy around on the leftist, defeat America slant that the press seems to like to throw to the American people...how about these morons get taken aside by a White House staffer ala Josh Lyman, who turns on them as soon as they are out of earshot and says "Look you STUPID morons..."
Quite frankly, while I support the Bush administration on our Iraq policy, I don't think we've gone nearly far enough. We should try to win the conflict in Iraq in one year, not ten, we should make it clear what our goals are going to be, and that once those goals are met, we are done, and that the best way for those that don't want us in Iraq to get their wish is if they and the rest of their Iraqi buddies cooperate with us.
We should make it clear that while we aer a benevolent superpower, we will not tolerate harm coming to our people, and if you harm us, our military will swarm in and turn your country into a parking lot. We should stress that we are all in favor of diversity, and we respect other people's opinions, but that tolerance stops when some whacko who doesn't like our Israel polciy picks up a gun.
And, by the way, someone needs to explain to the leader of Pakistan that we are not the source of all of the problems of his religion. Islam needs to look in the mirror and clean up its own mess before they start looking outward. I think that people in the United States would take Islam's grievances against our pro-Israel policies a bit more seriously if the dominating image that we see of them was not a bunch of Islamic Jihad terrorists marching around and telling anyone who will listen that they forced Israel out of the Gaza Strip.
I think that the Bartlett Doctrine could usher in a new Pax Americana.
John B.
Blog Guy
"Let the word ring forth from this time and this place, you kill an American, any American, we don’t come back with a proportional response, we come back with total disaster!"
"Did you know that two thousand years ago a Roman citizen could walk across the face of the known world free of the fear of molestation? He could walk across the earth unharmed, cloaked only in the words ‘Civis Romanis’ I am a Roman citizen. So great was the retribution of Rome, universally understood as certain, should any harm befall even one of its citizens. Where was Morris’ protection, or anyone else on that plane? Where is the retribution for the families and where is the warning to the rest of the world that Americans shall walk this earth unharmed, lest the clenched fist of the most mighty military force in the history of mankind comes crashing down on your house!?"
Quotes by President "Jed" Bartlett, "The West Wing"
"A Proportional Response" (Season 1, Episode 3)
---
Yes, I will admit, I have started watching "The West Wing", and I am beginning to like it...a little. Don't get me wrong...the show is still a liberal fantasy about a Democrat in the White House. That the show was first aired in 1999 tells me that the liberal Democrats knew they were losing the election in the next year, but here was something that they could console themselves with...a Hollywood left version of comfort food, so to speak.
And although it looks like the show's creators are about to recognize reality and a Republican is about to be put in the White House, the people playing the Republican contender are Alan Alda, and Jimmy Smits...both of whom are liberals. I guess the Democrats can only take so much Republicanism at one time. It doesn't help that the show has cast liberal bomb-thrower Janeane Garofalo as a media consultant.
So, am I likely to become a full-fledged fan? Probably not. However, as I have been putting down rental money to rent the DVDs from the show's first season, I find that I like bits and peices of the show.
For instance, no matter what his politics, Martin Sheen makes a good president. In some episodes, Sheen's character impacts the scene like thunder, like in the above quotes. In a later episode, President Bartlett is deeply troubled by a decision on whether to use his powers to intervene on the behalf of a death-row inmate after the Supreme Court refuses to stay the man's execution.
I'll admit, this is only a preliminary opinion, but so far, I find that I like the episode "A Proportional Response" the best. It shows President Bartlett thinking what I imagine any Persident must feel when American citizens are in harm's way. While the solution is typically liberal...the President decides to go with the measured response, I believe that the point is that ALL people have to respect the office and the powers of the President of the United States, including the President himself.
The thing is, I don't believe that no one, not the American people, nor the world, has ever seen what I will call, the Bartlett Doctrine, that is that every single American life is precious, and that if harm comes to ONE American, the perpetrator will be destroyed with extreme prejudice.
The last time America pursued anything like the Bartlett Doctrine was the Union during the US Civil War. General Sherman's march to the sea, from Tennessee to Savanah, Georgia was part of a massive policy designed to grievously injure the South and bring the war to a close.
I don't believe anything before or anything since really compares to Sherman's march, and I believe that it is because of this that Americans seem willing to accept kess than a total crushing victory in some of the problems we face today around the world.
Quite simply, the last two times we had a credible military victory before 2003 in Iraq were 1991, in the first Persian Gulf War, and 1945, when Germany and Japan fell. It's 2005, and I dare say that most people were not around for 1945, and quite a few people who are now reaching the age of adulthood were not forming coherent thoughts in 1991.
And no one alive today was around in the tail end of 1864.
But I do believe that Americans need the kind of protection that is outlined in the Bartlett Doctrine. I was listening to the BBC, and a reporter was talking to the Pakistani president, who said that most of the problems of Islam were caused by the United States, because we are the source of all of the extremism. Now, I don't believe I have met many muslims, and so I would like to know where I harmed Islam.
Talking to a college student later, he explained to me that it is our policies supporting globalism that aer seen in the muslim world as an attack upon their culture. So, I guess McDonalds is responsible for the muslim rage that led to the downing of the World Trade Center.
I replied that it is not the right of muslim extremists to use violence to push America out of their countries. If they don't want American businesses in their countries, they should pass laws keeping us out, then work to evict those companies that are there.
The idea here is that Americans should feel safe where-ever they are in the world, and they should know that if they are harmed, the government of this country will rain down fire and brimstone on the perpetrators.
Does this mean that the Bush administration should be doing things differently? Perhaps. How about an overwhelming presence of US troops in Iraq until there is no enemy left? How about making it clear that if you are an insurgent in Iraq, you had better not show your face in daylight if you want to stay alive. How about offering a year's salary for every confirmed insurgent that is brought in by the residents? How about plastering the airwaves and a non-stop message of what is going right in Iraq? How about a White House that doesn't pansy around on the leftist, defeat America slant that the press seems to like to throw to the American people...how about these morons get taken aside by a White House staffer ala Josh Lyman, who turns on them as soon as they are out of earshot and says "Look you STUPID morons..."
Quite frankly, while I support the Bush administration on our Iraq policy, I don't think we've gone nearly far enough. We should try to win the conflict in Iraq in one year, not ten, we should make it clear what our goals are going to be, and that once those goals are met, we are done, and that the best way for those that don't want us in Iraq to get their wish is if they and the rest of their Iraqi buddies cooperate with us.
We should make it clear that while we aer a benevolent superpower, we will not tolerate harm coming to our people, and if you harm us, our military will swarm in and turn your country into a parking lot. We should stress that we are all in favor of diversity, and we respect other people's opinions, but that tolerance stops when some whacko who doesn't like our Israel polciy picks up a gun.
And, by the way, someone needs to explain to the leader of Pakistan that we are not the source of all of the problems of his religion. Islam needs to look in the mirror and clean up its own mess before they start looking outward. I think that people in the United States would take Islam's grievances against our pro-Israel policies a bit more seriously if the dominating image that we see of them was not a bunch of Islamic Jihad terrorists marching around and telling anyone who will listen that they forced Israel out of the Gaza Strip.
I think that the Bartlett Doctrine could usher in a new Pax Americana.
John B.
Blog Guy
Friday, September 23, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Does Not Speak for ALL Americans!
^.^
I'm going to amke this short, because I am not going to do all of the speaking on this article. I'm simply going to say the following:
CIndy Sheehan, the other peaceniks, including those that march outside my window each Friday afternoon, do NOT speak for the majority of the American people, who I believe support our troops as they do their duties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through their efforst, the world is being made a safer place, and the security of America, and the freedoms of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps other countries, will be secured with the hard work and bravery shown by our troops.
We'll see you all soon when you return home.
Now, to counter the Sheehan misfits, I am reprinting some of the quotes I have found from the website of Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, which can be found at:
http://www.unitedforourtroops.com/
From: Kerry & Dodi White, of Boschobel, WI:
"Our son is a Marine and is currently serving his second tour in Iraq. Although it is a day to day worry, we believe in what our son is doing! HE believes in what he is doing and we find it sad that there are Americans that don’t stand behind our son as he fights for the very Freedom that they enjoy!"
---
From: John Ellsworth:
"I am the Father of a United States Marine who was killed in action. I am so proud of what our son was doing. He was saving lives every day. I truly believe he was born for this and he died for this. What Cindy Sheehan and her merry band of followers are doing will only cost us more lives by giving the ENEMY more support.”
---
From: Thea Nutter, of Comano Island, WA:
“I just sometimes wonder how these protesters think they have their freedoms to protest if it wasn’t for all the generations of soldiers fighting and dieing for this freedom. I would also love to hear what Sheehan’s son would have to say about his mother’s actions.”
---
From: Shirley & Bob Hemenway:
“We are sick and tired of what Cindy Sheehan is doing. She is being used, she has a history of this, and it concerns us. (Our) son died in the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. He was never found. He was a husband and father of a two year old and a 10 month old. The evil mis-guided terrorists that are killing our people would just as soon kill you (Sheehan), (an infidel, according to them) as well as others that don’t prescribe to the terrorist’s convoluted ideas. They even kill other Muslims. ”
---
From: John Horrigan, of Austin, TX:
“My brother believed in the mission and knew that he was making our country safer here by defeating the terrorists there; He passionately believed in what he was doing, as did his fellow solders.”
---
There are more quotes from the families of REAL Americans at the website. These families have had the ultimate sacrifice happen to them, and they remain proud, they remain steadfast in their support for the troops, and their mission, and they are doing all of us proud!
One final quote, which I think sums up the feelings of these REAL Americans...
From: James Slaughter, of Zebulon, NC:
“Being a veteran, I’m very much in favor of protecting our way of life at any cost. If not us, who? If not now, when?”
---
Very well said!
John B.
Blogger Guy
I'm going to amke this short, because I am not going to do all of the speaking on this article. I'm simply going to say the following:
CIndy Sheehan, the other peaceniks, including those that march outside my window each Friday afternoon, do NOT speak for the majority of the American people, who I believe support our troops as they do their duties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Through their efforst, the world is being made a safer place, and the security of America, and the freedoms of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, and perhaps other countries, will be secured with the hard work and bravery shown by our troops.
We'll see you all soon when you return home.
Now, to counter the Sheehan misfits, I am reprinting some of the quotes I have found from the website of Families United for Our Troops and Their Mission, which can be found at:
http://www.unitedforourtroops.com/
From: Kerry & Dodi White, of Boschobel, WI:
"Our son is a Marine and is currently serving his second tour in Iraq. Although it is a day to day worry, we believe in what our son is doing! HE believes in what he is doing and we find it sad that there are Americans that don’t stand behind our son as he fights for the very Freedom that they enjoy!"
---
From: John Ellsworth:
"I am the Father of a United States Marine who was killed in action. I am so proud of what our son was doing. He was saving lives every day. I truly believe he was born for this and he died for this. What Cindy Sheehan and her merry band of followers are doing will only cost us more lives by giving the ENEMY more support.”
---
From: Thea Nutter, of Comano Island, WA:
“I just sometimes wonder how these protesters think they have their freedoms to protest if it wasn’t for all the generations of soldiers fighting and dieing for this freedom. I would also love to hear what Sheehan’s son would have to say about his mother’s actions.”
---
From: Shirley & Bob Hemenway:
“We are sick and tired of what Cindy Sheehan is doing. She is being used, she has a history of this, and it concerns us. (Our) son died in the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001. He was never found. He was a husband and father of a two year old and a 10 month old. The evil mis-guided terrorists that are killing our people would just as soon kill you (Sheehan), (an infidel, according to them) as well as others that don’t prescribe to the terrorist’s convoluted ideas. They even kill other Muslims. ”
---
From: John Horrigan, of Austin, TX:
“My brother believed in the mission and knew that he was making our country safer here by defeating the terrorists there; He passionately believed in what he was doing, as did his fellow solders.”
---
There are more quotes from the families of REAL Americans at the website. These families have had the ultimate sacrifice happen to them, and they remain proud, they remain steadfast in their support for the troops, and their mission, and they are doing all of us proud!
One final quote, which I think sums up the feelings of these REAL Americans...
From: James Slaughter, of Zebulon, NC:
“Being a veteran, I’m very much in favor of protecting our way of life at any cost. If not us, who? If not now, when?”
---
Very well said!
John B.
Blogger Guy
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
New Orleans - Stupidity Rises from the Chaos
^.^
I have had enough!
Let me start off by saying that what has happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is a horrendous and heart-rending story, and we need to come together and get as much assistance to the citizens of the city as quickly as possible. In fact, I am planning my own small help, which I hope to put into effect within the next few days.
However, I have also been amazed by the stupidity that has come out of this situation.
For one, we saw on TV, a woman asking why the government hadn't told them what to do. "If the government had told us what to do, we would have done it," she said.
Well, the problem here was that the government had been saying for days before the hurricane hit TO GET OUT OF NEW ORLEANS! The state governor made the warning, and in fact, is STILL saying that people need to be evacuating.
Now, I can understand and sympathize with the independent mentality that some people in this country have. "Don't go telling us what todo," one of the people who lives in my apartment complex said to me a day or so before the hurricane hit. "Who do they think they are?"
Uhm...they are the government, and they tend to know things like how to protect the public in the event of a life-threatening situation.
Given that, it is STUPID for people to blame the government from Washington on down for not telling them what to do when the government did what they could to warn the people. Because despite the popular fringe belief, the government can not come in and force people to leave their homes in the event of a natural disaster.
With the city devastated and with the police forces working to save people, civil order has broken down. In this situation, a level of looting is to be expected. People having to survive in this situation will raid the stores to get what food and water they need. And quite frankly, when you look at the situation, more supplies might be needed. If a person needs to get clothing to replace clothes ruined by the floodwaters, fine. If they happen to have a generator and need a TV or computer in order to get news or comminucate, fine. I can even see people needing to get guns to protect themselves and their meager possessions from thugs.
I said I understand the looting...not that I approve of it.
On the one hand, we have bands of thugs roaming the city, robbing people, shooting people, and committing whatever crimes come to their minds. Even in the Superdome, where you would think that the sheer mass of people would cut down crime, there was a reported half-dozen murders, and about six rapes.
On the other hand, there was a report on the radio that a man broke into the local school district, stole a bus, and loaded it up with people for a drive out of the flooded city. Good for him!
In another instance of stupidity, the mayor complained that the federal aid was not there yet. If he paid attention to the news, he would see that the US Navy is sending eight ships from the east coast, and the US Congress is budgeting billions of dollars for the recovery effort. Southwest Airlines has sent an airplane filled with national guardsmen to the city.
So, the aid is coming. The response of the federal government may have been stuttering in the beginning, but it is getting steadily better as we progress.
However, even that can not help if the people won't accept the assistance...and this is for STUPID reasons! One woman complained about food she received because it was not HOT!
The human story is monumental. The stories of courage and people bonding together to help each other and recover from the situation are stories that we should tell children about what America is about. When we are down, we come together and solve the problem.
These stories of strength and courage have to compete with the stories of absolute stupidity that come out at the same time. Here's one more...
A young boy was reduced to crying so hard that he vomitted. What happened?
Bad medication?
Did he drink dirty water?
Nope.
He was getting on a bus to leave town, and he had his dog with him. Before he could get on the bus, they told him that he could not take his dog with him. I saw the picture on TV of the dog being put off the bus. It was a small white poodle-looking dog that was simply let loose on what looked to be what used to be an interstate.
The dog kinda wandered away...
Absolutely stupid.
John B.
Blog Guy
I have had enough!
Let me start off by saying that what has happened in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is a horrendous and heart-rending story, and we need to come together and get as much assistance to the citizens of the city as quickly as possible. In fact, I am planning my own small help, which I hope to put into effect within the next few days.
However, I have also been amazed by the stupidity that has come out of this situation.
For one, we saw on TV, a woman asking why the government hadn't told them what to do. "If the government had told us what to do, we would have done it," she said.
Well, the problem here was that the government had been saying for days before the hurricane hit TO GET OUT OF NEW ORLEANS! The state governor made the warning, and in fact, is STILL saying that people need to be evacuating.
Now, I can understand and sympathize with the independent mentality that some people in this country have. "Don't go telling us what todo," one of the people who lives in my apartment complex said to me a day or so before the hurricane hit. "Who do they think they are?"
Uhm...they are the government, and they tend to know things like how to protect the public in the event of a life-threatening situation.
Given that, it is STUPID for people to blame the government from Washington on down for not telling them what to do when the government did what they could to warn the people. Because despite the popular fringe belief, the government can not come in and force people to leave their homes in the event of a natural disaster.
With the city devastated and with the police forces working to save people, civil order has broken down. In this situation, a level of looting is to be expected. People having to survive in this situation will raid the stores to get what food and water they need. And quite frankly, when you look at the situation, more supplies might be needed. If a person needs to get clothing to replace clothes ruined by the floodwaters, fine. If they happen to have a generator and need a TV or computer in order to get news or comminucate, fine. I can even see people needing to get guns to protect themselves and their meager possessions from thugs.
I said I understand the looting...not that I approve of it.
On the one hand, we have bands of thugs roaming the city, robbing people, shooting people, and committing whatever crimes come to their minds. Even in the Superdome, where you would think that the sheer mass of people would cut down crime, there was a reported half-dozen murders, and about six rapes.
On the other hand, there was a report on the radio that a man broke into the local school district, stole a bus, and loaded it up with people for a drive out of the flooded city. Good for him!
In another instance of stupidity, the mayor complained that the federal aid was not there yet. If he paid attention to the news, he would see that the US Navy is sending eight ships from the east coast, and the US Congress is budgeting billions of dollars for the recovery effort. Southwest Airlines has sent an airplane filled with national guardsmen to the city.
So, the aid is coming. The response of the federal government may have been stuttering in the beginning, but it is getting steadily better as we progress.
However, even that can not help if the people won't accept the assistance...and this is for STUPID reasons! One woman complained about food she received because it was not HOT!
The human story is monumental. The stories of courage and people bonding together to help each other and recover from the situation are stories that we should tell children about what America is about. When we are down, we come together and solve the problem.
These stories of strength and courage have to compete with the stories of absolute stupidity that come out at the same time. Here's one more...
A young boy was reduced to crying so hard that he vomitted. What happened?
Bad medication?
Did he drink dirty water?
Nope.
He was getting on a bus to leave town, and he had his dog with him. Before he could get on the bus, they told him that he could not take his dog with him. I saw the picture on TV of the dog being put off the bus. It was a small white poodle-looking dog that was simply let loose on what looked to be what used to be an interstate.
The dog kinda wandered away...
Absolutely stupid.
John B.
Blog Guy
Monday, August 08, 2005
Affirmative Action - Mission Accomplished
^.^
While listening to NPR this morning, I heard the story of Gerrard College, which has become a success story in the history of affirmative action in the United States.
Founded 175 years ago, Gerrard College was established in Philadelphia by the namesake of the college, who was once the richest person in the United States. At some point, he set up a trust account for the founding of a school that would take in young white orphaned boys, and this is how Gerrard College got its start. For most of its history, Gerrard College was able to stick to its exclusive recruitment practices due to the nature of the Gerrard trust account.
However, during the 1960s, with equal rights a hot topic in the nation's conscience, a Supreme Court case was decided against Gerrard College, and the school was forced to open its doors to blacks for the first time. Four black students were the first to enroll in Gerrard College, and they endured some racism from other students and teachers, but they endured that and went on to graduate.
While listening to this story, my beliefs on affirmative action were reinforced. Affirmative action has done its job, and should now be thrown away, because with few exceptions, our society is as fair to African-Americans as it's going to get. My belief was bolstered not by the part of the story of Gerrard College that you have read to this point, but by what happened in the 80s and onward.
By the 1980s, Gerrard was teeming with African-Americans. In fact, during the mid 70s, an African-American ran against a popular white student in the race for student body president, and was elected by a plurality of all of the students, black or white. By 1980, Gerrard had accepted its first female student.
The NPR story goes on to say that nowdays, Gerrard College has the opposite problem than it did up until 1968. African-Americans now dominate the college's populace, shifting the white student population to virtual non-existence. The president of the college has openly stated that diversity remains a challenge for the college. This seems to indicate that the president of the college believes that the school has become too dominated by its black student body, and he said in his remarks that blacks are fully-capable of exclusionary or racist tendencies on their own.
When people begin to talk seriously about the fact that there is bigotry and racism against white people in the United States, I believe we can say that affirmative action in this country has accomplished its objectives, and is no longer needed.
Affirmative action was set up to allow people of all nationalities equal access to opportunities in this country, and it has been codified into law. Things such as the equal opportunities policies that organizations adopt, or the equal employment policies that companies must adhere to are examples of affirmative action success.
This is not to say that reverse discrimination must be evident before something like affirmative action is a definate success, but the fact that the student body of Gerrard College is over 90% black tells me that affirmative action has accomplished what it was supposed to do. Anything more pushes the pendulum in the opposite direction and damages the rest of society.
John B.
Blog Guy
While listening to NPR this morning, I heard the story of Gerrard College, which has become a success story in the history of affirmative action in the United States.
Founded 175 years ago, Gerrard College was established in Philadelphia by the namesake of the college, who was once the richest person in the United States. At some point, he set up a trust account for the founding of a school that would take in young white orphaned boys, and this is how Gerrard College got its start. For most of its history, Gerrard College was able to stick to its exclusive recruitment practices due to the nature of the Gerrard trust account.
However, during the 1960s, with equal rights a hot topic in the nation's conscience, a Supreme Court case was decided against Gerrard College, and the school was forced to open its doors to blacks for the first time. Four black students were the first to enroll in Gerrard College, and they endured some racism from other students and teachers, but they endured that and went on to graduate.
While listening to this story, my beliefs on affirmative action were reinforced. Affirmative action has done its job, and should now be thrown away, because with few exceptions, our society is as fair to African-Americans as it's going to get. My belief was bolstered not by the part of the story of Gerrard College that you have read to this point, but by what happened in the 80s and onward.
By the 1980s, Gerrard was teeming with African-Americans. In fact, during the mid 70s, an African-American ran against a popular white student in the race for student body president, and was elected by a plurality of all of the students, black or white. By 1980, Gerrard had accepted its first female student.
The NPR story goes on to say that nowdays, Gerrard College has the opposite problem than it did up until 1968. African-Americans now dominate the college's populace, shifting the white student population to virtual non-existence. The president of the college has openly stated that diversity remains a challenge for the college. This seems to indicate that the president of the college believes that the school has become too dominated by its black student body, and he said in his remarks that blacks are fully-capable of exclusionary or racist tendencies on their own.
When people begin to talk seriously about the fact that there is bigotry and racism against white people in the United States, I believe we can say that affirmative action in this country has accomplished its objectives, and is no longer needed.
Affirmative action was set up to allow people of all nationalities equal access to opportunities in this country, and it has been codified into law. Things such as the equal opportunities policies that organizations adopt, or the equal employment policies that companies must adhere to are examples of affirmative action success.
This is not to say that reverse discrimination must be evident before something like affirmative action is a definate success, but the fact that the student body of Gerrard College is over 90% black tells me that affirmative action has accomplished what it was supposed to do. Anything more pushes the pendulum in the opposite direction and damages the rest of society.
John B.
Blog Guy
Celebration of the Bomb
^.^
Saturday morning, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Japanese gathered in Hiroshima's Peace Park, where they commemorated the exactmoment on August 6, 1945 that the first atomic bomb was dropped.
And the peaceniks gathered there as well, and they called for the complete banning of nuclear weapons. At least they were not calling for the United States to apologize for the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as has happened on previous anniversaries of this event.
However, let's look at both issues for a second...
One problem I often have with protestors or peaceniks is that they come up with aims and demands that are unrealistic. A complete banning of nuclear weapons is simply not going to happen. For example, the entire crisis in North Korea centers around that country's quest to gain nuclear weapons technology. The European Union is negotiating with Iran on how to curtail that country's nuclear ambitions.
As long as countries such as North Korea and Iran are looking to gain nuclear weapons technology, no responsible nation on the face of the planet will agree to getting rid of what might become an integral part of their defense.
So for the peaceniks to rant against nuclear weapons is akin to me or you shouting at the sky. It does nothing and it is a complete waste of time.
The Japanese issue is multi-faceted. For one thing, there is a movement to come up with a new constitution, and this is due to the realization that there are threats to the nation's security, and perhaps more can be done at home to defend the Japanese islands...if they remove the shackles that have bound the armed forces since 1945.
The situation is different in 2005 than it was at the end of WWII. Japan is faced with a resurgent and possibly hostile China, and North Korea has proven that they can hit Japan with long-range missiles.
Yet, under the current Japanese constitution, the armed forces are strictly limited. Japan needs to, wants to, and should contribute its fair share to its own national defense. This would allow Amreican forces to reduce their presence in places like Okinawa. So, Japan should be supported in its efforts to modernize its constitution to allow for a proper armed forces capability.
On the other hand, the Japanese need to grow a thick skin, and drop the whiney little pleas for an apology whenever someone so much as sneezes wrong in their direction. The Japanese rampaged across Asia and the Pacific from 1931 to1945, they were responsible for the rape of Nanking, death camps and forced marches in the Phillipines, the abuses of "comfort women" in Korea, and other atrocities. Where are the apologies from the Japanese government for these acts of inhumanity?
People have said a number of things about war, and the people who wage it. War is Hell. The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. All of these are right, and that's why I don't expect an apology from Japan for anything that they did...because War is Hell, and because I know that war is something to be avoided because of the human suffering that ensues.
However, going back to my argument about nuclear weapons, perhaps Japan should issue an apology for the atrocities that were committed in WWII. As it is now, some nations see Japan as an irresponsbile nation that once again wishes to re-arm. Perhaps the leaders on Beijing or other countries in the area have nightmares about a recreated Japanese Empire. An apology from Tokyo will be a first step toward telling the world that a return to imperialism is not what is happening in this case, rather that a responsible nation is going to contribute more to its own defense.
John B.
Blog Guy
Saturday morning, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Japanese gathered in Hiroshima's Peace Park, where they commemorated the exactmoment on August 6, 1945 that the first atomic bomb was dropped.
And the peaceniks gathered there as well, and they called for the complete banning of nuclear weapons. At least they were not calling for the United States to apologize for the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as has happened on previous anniversaries of this event.
However, let's look at both issues for a second...
One problem I often have with protestors or peaceniks is that they come up with aims and demands that are unrealistic. A complete banning of nuclear weapons is simply not going to happen. For example, the entire crisis in North Korea centers around that country's quest to gain nuclear weapons technology. The European Union is negotiating with Iran on how to curtail that country's nuclear ambitions.
As long as countries such as North Korea and Iran are looking to gain nuclear weapons technology, no responsible nation on the face of the planet will agree to getting rid of what might become an integral part of their defense.
So for the peaceniks to rant against nuclear weapons is akin to me or you shouting at the sky. It does nothing and it is a complete waste of time.
The Japanese issue is multi-faceted. For one thing, there is a movement to come up with a new constitution, and this is due to the realization that there are threats to the nation's security, and perhaps more can be done at home to defend the Japanese islands...if they remove the shackles that have bound the armed forces since 1945.
The situation is different in 2005 than it was at the end of WWII. Japan is faced with a resurgent and possibly hostile China, and North Korea has proven that they can hit Japan with long-range missiles.
Yet, under the current Japanese constitution, the armed forces are strictly limited. Japan needs to, wants to, and should contribute its fair share to its own national defense. This would allow Amreican forces to reduce their presence in places like Okinawa. So, Japan should be supported in its efforts to modernize its constitution to allow for a proper armed forces capability.
On the other hand, the Japanese need to grow a thick skin, and drop the whiney little pleas for an apology whenever someone so much as sneezes wrong in their direction. The Japanese rampaged across Asia and the Pacific from 1931 to1945, they were responsible for the rape of Nanking, death camps and forced marches in the Phillipines, the abuses of "comfort women" in Korea, and other atrocities. Where are the apologies from the Japanese government for these acts of inhumanity?
People have said a number of things about war, and the people who wage it. War is Hell. The purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. All of these are right, and that's why I don't expect an apology from Japan for anything that they did...because War is Hell, and because I know that war is something to be avoided because of the human suffering that ensues.
However, going back to my argument about nuclear weapons, perhaps Japan should issue an apology for the atrocities that were committed in WWII. As it is now, some nations see Japan as an irresponsbile nation that once again wishes to re-arm. Perhaps the leaders on Beijing or other countries in the area have nightmares about a recreated Japanese Empire. An apology from Tokyo will be a first step toward telling the world that a return to imperialism is not what is happening in this case, rather that a responsible nation is going to contribute more to its own defense.
John B.
Blog Guy
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Judith Miller Should Take One for the Team
^.^
Judith Miller is a writer/reporter for the New York Times, she is well-written, and she is one of the lead writers for what is probably the most well-known newspaper in the United States.
She is also at the center of a special prosecution investigation into the "outing" of a CIA operative. Apparently the information was leaked to columnist Robert Novak, who then reported it to the public.
Miller appeared on the Commonwealth Club's broadcast this last Sunday on NPR, and while there, she went on and on about her case. She may very well end up serving 180 or so days in jail for contempt of court, because she is believed to know the identity of the person who leaked the information on the CIA operative to Mr. Novak. Miller said on the Commonwealth Club that not only does she not have the information that the special prosecutor is looking for, she didn't even write a story on the case.
However, Miller continued by commenting on how cruel the system is, how secrecy shrouds everything, how journalists and journalism is threatened by George Bush, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror...that if the government was able to restrain journalists, we would never have found out the "truth" behind the WMDs, or Abu Graib, or the other abuse scandals.
And Miller defends anonymous sources...it was an anonymous source that led to that brilliant piece of journalistic reporting about the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Never mind that the resulting protests led to about 15 people being killed in riots...never mind the rather sheepish way that Newsweek withdrew the story...anonymous sources MUST be able to keep their secrecy.
Secrecy sounds a lot better when it serves YOUR cause, right Ms. Miller?
Quite frankly, my argument on this subject is not about Ms. Miller's views on anonymous sources, but with how she is acting in the face of 180 days in jail. She spent 30 minutes on public radio whining and crying about what a burden this is going to be on her family if she goes to jail, at the same time she will not cooperate with the special prosecutor, she won't reveal her source, and she won't sign a confidentiality waiver...she says any of these things would damage her ability to be a journalist.
And to an extent, I can see her point. But you can not have your cake and eat it too.
If Judith Miller does not want to cooperate with the special prosecutor, fine...but she should then stop whining and serve the jail time...and through the lawyers she'll have, and through the lawyers of the New York Times, they can play up the injustice of the whole thing and scream about how the government is SO unfair.
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his principles, because he KNEW he was right, and he was willing to endure jail because of that.
What is Judith Miller ready to endure for her beliefs?
John B.
Blog Guy
Judith Miller is a writer/reporter for the New York Times, she is well-written, and she is one of the lead writers for what is probably the most well-known newspaper in the United States.
She is also at the center of a special prosecution investigation into the "outing" of a CIA operative. Apparently the information was leaked to columnist Robert Novak, who then reported it to the public.
Miller appeared on the Commonwealth Club's broadcast this last Sunday on NPR, and while there, she went on and on about her case. She may very well end up serving 180 or so days in jail for contempt of court, because she is believed to know the identity of the person who leaked the information on the CIA operative to Mr. Novak. Miller said on the Commonwealth Club that not only does she not have the information that the special prosecutor is looking for, she didn't even write a story on the case.
However, Miller continued by commenting on how cruel the system is, how secrecy shrouds everything, how journalists and journalism is threatened by George Bush, the Patriot Act, and the War on Terror...that if the government was able to restrain journalists, we would never have found out the "truth" behind the WMDs, or Abu Graib, or the other abuse scandals.
And Miller defends anonymous sources...it was an anonymous source that led to that brilliant piece of journalistic reporting about the Koran being flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. Never mind that the resulting protests led to about 15 people being killed in riots...never mind the rather sheepish way that Newsweek withdrew the story...anonymous sources MUST be able to keep their secrecy.
Secrecy sounds a lot better when it serves YOUR cause, right Ms. Miller?
Quite frankly, my argument on this subject is not about Ms. Miller's views on anonymous sources, but with how she is acting in the face of 180 days in jail. She spent 30 minutes on public radio whining and crying about what a burden this is going to be on her family if she goes to jail, at the same time she will not cooperate with the special prosecutor, she won't reveal her source, and she won't sign a confidentiality waiver...she says any of these things would damage her ability to be a journalist.
And to an extent, I can see her point. But you can not have your cake and eat it too.
If Judith Miller does not want to cooperate with the special prosecutor, fine...but she should then stop whining and serve the jail time...and through the lawyers she'll have, and through the lawyers of the New York Times, they can play up the injustice of the whole thing and scream about how the government is SO unfair.
Martin Luther King was willing to go to jail for his principles, because he KNEW he was right, and he was willing to endure jail because of that.
What is Judith Miller ready to endure for her beliefs?
John B.
Blog Guy
Saturday, May 21, 2005
The Nuking of the Senate
Democrats in the US Senate are whining again, this time over the possibility of losing the ability to filibuster the approval of federal court nominees.
Please note the fact that I'm specifying the federal court appointees...it's important.
Democrats have said that if the filibuster is voted down in what is called the "nuclear option", the rights of the minority in the US Senate will become nonexistant.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check ontheir power," said Senator Harry Reid, D-NV. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."
Well, there are three things wrong with this whole debate...or at least the way the Liberals are framing it...
The first is that while Reid and other liberals are complaining that the nuclear option will destroy the historic traditions of the US Senate, in reality, the right to use the filibuster has been abolished in certain cases. For example, the filibuster can not be used to block use of force measures in foreign policy, they can not filibuster budget bills, and they can not block reconciliation bills...where the two houses of Congress introduce compromise bills when both houses have passed bills on the same issue.
The thing is, the filibuster was not originally in the Constitution, and originally it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. In the 1970s, this was changed to 60. Originally, the filibuster meant that you stood in the Senate chamber with a telephone book or dictionary and spoke about anything under the sun until you stopped. Ifyou did, even to go to the bathroom, the filibuster stopped.
That is not how things work nowdays.
So, not only is the filibuster not a part of the US Constitution, but the filibuster has been limited in the past, both in what can be filibustered, and how many votes are needed to break one once it gets started.
The second problem I have with this present collectionof whining from the Democrats is that they are obviously trying to imply that the entire universe will be doomed if the Republicans are allowed to get their way.
Senator Reid said that the nuclear option will mean that Republicans will be able to almost automatically get their way on "the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."
This is patently false. The nuclear option is framed by the parameters of the debate. This means that the rules change is specifically on the nomination of appointees to the Courts. The President's nomination to the Director of the FDA won't be affected by the nuclear option, and except for the exceptions I noted above: use of force measures, reconciliation bills, or budget bills, filibusters can still be used against legislation.
I can tell that Harry Reid is trying to frighten the American people because he specifically mentioned Social Security...a very testy issue, especially with the nation's senior citizens. The fact that the Liberals can't oppose an issue without trying to frighten the American people is pathetic, to be honest.
The third problem I have is that filibustering judicial nominees steps outside the Senate's role in the process. According to the Constitution, the Senate is supposed to "advise and consent" on the topic of judicial nominees. This is fulfilled in the committee level, where nominees are reported out of the committee with a recommendation. The recommendation is either to aprove the nominee, to not approve the nominee, or the committee can send the nominee to the floor of the Senate with no recommendation...and this is generally thought to be a mark of disapproval.
But the person in question gets to the Senate floor for a vote.
Let me tell you something. I don't care if the nominees are the most radical people on the face of the planet, right or left. The President's nominees deserve an up or down vote. If they are too radical, than gather the votes to defeat them in a fair vote, and if the nominee is indeed radical, that should not be too hard a task.
I could respect the filibuster more if they actually DID a real filibuster. Nowdays however, filibusters are no real big deal...the person doing the filibuster is not inconvenienced at all.
As it is, the filibuster needs to be nuked.
Democrats have warned that the Republicans will rue the day that Democrats are in power and have majorities in the Senate.
The Liberals are missing the point. This is a matterof principle, and good principles deserve a vigorous defense.
Please note the fact that I'm specifying the federal court appointees...it's important.
Democrats have said that if the filibuster is voted down in what is called the "nuclear option", the rights of the minority in the US Senate will become nonexistant.
"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check ontheir power," said Senator Harry Reid, D-NV. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."
Well, there are three things wrong with this whole debate...or at least the way the Liberals are framing it...
The first is that while Reid and other liberals are complaining that the nuclear option will destroy the historic traditions of the US Senate, in reality, the right to use the filibuster has been abolished in certain cases. For example, the filibuster can not be used to block use of force measures in foreign policy, they can not filibuster budget bills, and they can not block reconciliation bills...where the two houses of Congress introduce compromise bills when both houses have passed bills on the same issue.
The thing is, the filibuster was not originally in the Constitution, and originally it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. In the 1970s, this was changed to 60. Originally, the filibuster meant that you stood in the Senate chamber with a telephone book or dictionary and spoke about anything under the sun until you stopped. Ifyou did, even to go to the bathroom, the filibuster stopped.
That is not how things work nowdays.
So, not only is the filibuster not a part of the US Constitution, but the filibuster has been limited in the past, both in what can be filibustered, and how many votes are needed to break one once it gets started.
The second problem I have with this present collectionof whining from the Democrats is that they are obviously trying to imply that the entire universe will be doomed if the Republicans are allowed to get their way.
Senator Reid said that the nuclear option will mean that Republicans will be able to almost automatically get their way on "the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."
This is patently false. The nuclear option is framed by the parameters of the debate. This means that the rules change is specifically on the nomination of appointees to the Courts. The President's nomination to the Director of the FDA won't be affected by the nuclear option, and except for the exceptions I noted above: use of force measures, reconciliation bills, or budget bills, filibusters can still be used against legislation.
I can tell that Harry Reid is trying to frighten the American people because he specifically mentioned Social Security...a very testy issue, especially with the nation's senior citizens. The fact that the Liberals can't oppose an issue without trying to frighten the American people is pathetic, to be honest.
The third problem I have is that filibustering judicial nominees steps outside the Senate's role in the process. According to the Constitution, the Senate is supposed to "advise and consent" on the topic of judicial nominees. This is fulfilled in the committee level, where nominees are reported out of the committee with a recommendation. The recommendation is either to aprove the nominee, to not approve the nominee, or the committee can send the nominee to the floor of the Senate with no recommendation...and this is generally thought to be a mark of disapproval.
But the person in question gets to the Senate floor for a vote.
Let me tell you something. I don't care if the nominees are the most radical people on the face of the planet, right or left. The President's nominees deserve an up or down vote. If they are too radical, than gather the votes to defeat them in a fair vote, and if the nominee is indeed radical, that should not be too hard a task.
I could respect the filibuster more if they actually DID a real filibuster. Nowdays however, filibusters are no real big deal...the person doing the filibuster is not inconvenienced at all.
As it is, the filibuster needs to be nuked.
Democrats have warned that the Republicans will rue the day that Democrats are in power and have majorities in the Senate.
The Liberals are missing the point. This is a matterof principle, and good principles deserve a vigorous defense.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
The Schiavo Case: Why It Matters to You
It's interesting to hear what some people ares aying about the Terri Schiavo case.
Rush Limbaugh says that this is an issue about the right to life, that if her right to live is critical, that if she is allowed to be killed because she is "inconvenient", what happens when you or I become inconvenient?
George Nory on Coast to Coast AM says that he believes that good will prevail, and he challenges Michael Schiavo to take a lie detector test. If he passes, George says he'll back off and stop talking about the case. If Michael fails the lie detector test, he should turn guardianship of Terri to her parents. (I actually think this is a good idea...)
Various people, from the religious, to the frantic have spoken up, asking for various government officials or judges to intervene on Terri's behalf. Meanwhile, themore radical among these people have written protest signs and internet posts saying that Judge George Greer, Michael Schiavo, Florida governor Jeb Bush, and President George Bush should be shot, or have their feeding tubes removed. This morning there are news reports of a man from Illinois being arrested for breaking into a sporting goods store. He wanted to steal a gun to "rescue" Terri Schiavo.
"The red states should have their feeding tubes removed," one internet post read. The response to this was quick: "The red states feed the blue states, you moron!"
It got so bad that in the speech announcing the state's latest evidence in the case, Florida governor Jeb Bush asked that people supporting the Schindlers act peacefully and without violence.
I find it interesting that the people who are are all for putting the feeding tube back into Terri Schiavo don't blink an eye when people start talking about shooting people on the other side.
Dr. Dean Adell has a radio show on the local radio station on weekday mornings. He addressed the religious angle when a woman called into the show and accused Michael Schiavo basically of murdering Terri and that God would want her to keep living.
Adell countered first by saying that not everyone believes in one God, in this case the caller's God...whatever version of God that is. He pointed out that people in other parts of the world have differing views on God and their religious beliefs, and we don't impose our beliefs on them.
Finally, Adell ended his comments by saying that most religious people believe in miracles, so why not now? Remove the feeding tubes, and pray that God provides a miracle that allows Terri Schiavo to feed herself.
The reason this case concerns me is because of the precedents that the congressional intervention *does* set. It says that you may not have the right to decide how you check out of this world.
And let's be clear about something here. No one heard of Terri Schiavo much before this latest round of court battles. Outside of the malpractice money that Michael Schiavo won, the family is not rich by any means...so the only reason this is in the news is because of the government's interest.
By overriding the judicial branch of the state of Florida, which had said that Michael Schiavo had the right to have his wife's feeding tube removed, the federal government provided the legal precedent for interfering with any other case of a persistent vegetative state that comes down the pike.
The decision on how I will live, or IF I will live in some sort of injured state is up to me to decide. Quite simply, while Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, they have no business whatsoever intruding themselves in a matter that families all across this country have to deal with each day...whether to allow a family member to be released from a torturous life.
As of the latest news report from the radio, the Schindlers and the state of Florida are going back to the Court of Appeals with their latest allegation saying that Terri is suffering from abuse, and asking that the courts allow the state to take custody of Terri Schiavo.
I hope the court case falls flat, as the most recent court cases have done. I am not hoping that Terri Schiavo dies sooner rather than later. I am however a supporter of state's rights, and I am a person who advocates that the federal government stay out of places where it has no business being.
I must say that I have scored points with my liberal friends for my opinion. They expected me to agree with Rush because I agree with Rush on most things. However, just because I agree with Rush on most issues does not mean I agree with him 100% on everything. When my guys are wrong, I say it, and I stand up for my opinions.
However, I am not taking my position based on whether TerriSchiavo should live or die, and I don't care whether I am scoring points with my liberal friends. My opinion is based on the fact that I would not want the federal government to be interfering in that kind of decision if *I* had to make it. It's none of my business how you make that decision should it come to that, and you have no right butting into my decision should I have to make it...and according to the polls, the majority of Americans agree with me on this.
It is interesting to see my "guys" being so wrong on this issue.The people who are usually for the rights of the individual, the people who are usually against federal control, and the people who are suspicious of congressional action are the ones supporting federal power being involved in the case of whether a person should be allowed to die as they wanted to.
While the Republicans have been accused of bringing their morality into this issue and forcing God down our throats in all of their speeches on this subject, the congressional Democrats have been accused of being overly concerned about the legalities. YES! Exactly! In the meantime, today we've heard that Jeb Bush nearly called out the troops and had them march to the hospice, but was stopped by Judge Greer. I am not sure whether that actually happened...I doubt it, but I would not be surprised.
Not only that, but the US Congress, Jeb Bush, Rush Limbaugh, George Nory, and the Schindlers have all been ignoring the fact that in Quinlan case, in the Finn case, and in other cases of people in the same state as Terri Schiavo, whose circumstances were brought before the US courts, the courts have sided with the right for a wife or family to remove feeding tubes from patients. If people want to get this changed, they need to pass a law that prohibits the removal of feeding tubes from people who are disabled in some way...but the US Congress has not done that up until now, and they did not do it in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Meanwhile, on CNN, one person said that if illegal action is required to save Terri Schiavo, and if it creates a constitutional crisis in Florida, so be it.
Rush Limbaugh says that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of courts, and he is right...but which side is abusing the court system in this matter? I don't see Michael Schiavo repeatedly filing petitions to everyone up to the Supreme Court.
I don't see Michael Schiavo robbing a sporting goods store to get a gun so he can "rescue" Terri Schiavo. I don't see him pleading with the governor of the state to use strongarm tactics if necessary to force the insertion of her feeding tube.
All Michael Schiavo wants to do is let his wife die in peace.
---
John B.
Rush Limbaugh says that this is an issue about the right to life, that if her right to live is critical, that if she is allowed to be killed because she is "inconvenient", what happens when you or I become inconvenient?
George Nory on Coast to Coast AM says that he believes that good will prevail, and he challenges Michael Schiavo to take a lie detector test. If he passes, George says he'll back off and stop talking about the case. If Michael fails the lie detector test, he should turn guardianship of Terri to her parents. (I actually think this is a good idea...)
Various people, from the religious, to the frantic have spoken up, asking for various government officials or judges to intervene on Terri's behalf. Meanwhile, themore radical among these people have written protest signs and internet posts saying that Judge George Greer, Michael Schiavo, Florida governor Jeb Bush, and President George Bush should be shot, or have their feeding tubes removed. This morning there are news reports of a man from Illinois being arrested for breaking into a sporting goods store. He wanted to steal a gun to "rescue" Terri Schiavo.
"The red states should have their feeding tubes removed," one internet post read. The response to this was quick: "The red states feed the blue states, you moron!"
It got so bad that in the speech announcing the state's latest evidence in the case, Florida governor Jeb Bush asked that people supporting the Schindlers act peacefully and without violence.
I find it interesting that the people who are are all for putting the feeding tube back into Terri Schiavo don't blink an eye when people start talking about shooting people on the other side.
Dr. Dean Adell has a radio show on the local radio station on weekday mornings. He addressed the religious angle when a woman called into the show and accused Michael Schiavo basically of murdering Terri and that God would want her to keep living.
Adell countered first by saying that not everyone believes in one God, in this case the caller's God...whatever version of God that is. He pointed out that people in other parts of the world have differing views on God and their religious beliefs, and we don't impose our beliefs on them.
Finally, Adell ended his comments by saying that most religious people believe in miracles, so why not now? Remove the feeding tubes, and pray that God provides a miracle that allows Terri Schiavo to feed herself.
The reason this case concerns me is because of the precedents that the congressional intervention *does* set. It says that you may not have the right to decide how you check out of this world.
And let's be clear about something here. No one heard of Terri Schiavo much before this latest round of court battles. Outside of the malpractice money that Michael Schiavo won, the family is not rich by any means...so the only reason this is in the news is because of the government's interest.
By overriding the judicial branch of the state of Florida, which had said that Michael Schiavo had the right to have his wife's feeding tube removed, the federal government provided the legal precedent for interfering with any other case of a persistent vegetative state that comes down the pike.
The decision on how I will live, or IF I will live in some sort of injured state is up to me to decide. Quite simply, while Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts, they have no business whatsoever intruding themselves in a matter that families all across this country have to deal with each day...whether to allow a family member to be released from a torturous life.
As of the latest news report from the radio, the Schindlers and the state of Florida are going back to the Court of Appeals with their latest allegation saying that Terri is suffering from abuse, and asking that the courts allow the state to take custody of Terri Schiavo.
I hope the court case falls flat, as the most recent court cases have done. I am not hoping that Terri Schiavo dies sooner rather than later. I am however a supporter of state's rights, and I am a person who advocates that the federal government stay out of places where it has no business being.
I must say that I have scored points with my liberal friends for my opinion. They expected me to agree with Rush because I agree with Rush on most things. However, just because I agree with Rush on most issues does not mean I agree with him 100% on everything. When my guys are wrong, I say it, and I stand up for my opinions.
However, I am not taking my position based on whether TerriSchiavo should live or die, and I don't care whether I am scoring points with my liberal friends. My opinion is based on the fact that I would not want the federal government to be interfering in that kind of decision if *I* had to make it. It's none of my business how you make that decision should it come to that, and you have no right butting into my decision should I have to make it...and according to the polls, the majority of Americans agree with me on this.
It is interesting to see my "guys" being so wrong on this issue.The people who are usually for the rights of the individual, the people who are usually against federal control, and the people who are suspicious of congressional action are the ones supporting federal power being involved in the case of whether a person should be allowed to die as they wanted to.
While the Republicans have been accused of bringing their morality into this issue and forcing God down our throats in all of their speeches on this subject, the congressional Democrats have been accused of being overly concerned about the legalities. YES! Exactly! In the meantime, today we've heard that Jeb Bush nearly called out the troops and had them march to the hospice, but was stopped by Judge Greer. I am not sure whether that actually happened...I doubt it, but I would not be surprised.
Not only that, but the US Congress, Jeb Bush, Rush Limbaugh, George Nory, and the Schindlers have all been ignoring the fact that in Quinlan case, in the Finn case, and in other cases of people in the same state as Terri Schiavo, whose circumstances were brought before the US courts, the courts have sided with the right for a wife or family to remove feeding tubes from patients. If people want to get this changed, they need to pass a law that prohibits the removal of feeding tubes from people who are disabled in some way...but the US Congress has not done that up until now, and they did not do it in the case of Terri Schiavo.
Meanwhile, on CNN, one person said that if illegal action is required to save Terri Schiavo, and if it creates a constitutional crisis in Florida, so be it.
Rush Limbaugh says that we are a nation of laws, not a nation of courts, and he is right...but which side is abusing the court system in this matter? I don't see Michael Schiavo repeatedly filing petitions to everyone up to the Supreme Court.
I don't see Michael Schiavo robbing a sporting goods store to get a gun so he can "rescue" Terri Schiavo. I don't see him pleading with the governor of the state to use strongarm tactics if necessary to force the insertion of her feeding tube.
All Michael Schiavo wants to do is let his wife die in peace.
---
John B.
The Terri Schiavo Case is Over
It appears quite certain that Terri Schiavo will finally be allowed to die...this after a fifteen-year ordeal where she has been in a persistent vegetative state. This case has been at various times in the spotlight of the national news and the center of the nation's attention ever since Terri Schiavosuffered a heart attack that kept her brain deprived of oxygen for several minutes.
Let me be clear on this.
If there was any way at all that Terri Schiavo could be fully restored to a vibrant life with little or no ill-effect, I would have it done,and I assume that a vast majority of the people in this country would as well. If Terri Schiavo could be restored to say...75%, or maybe even 50% of what constitutes as normal function, I would support that, and I am sure that most other people in this country would as well.
The case of Terri Schiavo is unfortunate, and I would be hard-pressed to wish such a fate on my worst enemies.
However, something has happened in this case.The Republican conservatives have started to act like liberal Democrats, and liberals actually make sense on this matter. I found myself agreeing with the syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer, which was scary, when you consider that she is usually a shill for the Liberal Left.
There are a number of myths in this case that need to be addressed:
MYTH: Terri Schiavo is NOT in a persistent vegetativestate...she is "minimally conscious".
This latest opinion was offered by a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, who spent less than one hour viewing VIDEO of Terri Schiavo. He did not visit her, and he did not do a medical examination. Thus, Judge George Greer told the state and the Schindler family that there was no new evidence to go on that would allow for a case to be made.
Quite frankly, for all of the zeal that the governor of Florida has displayed in this case, you would think that if he was going to put forward this new "evidence", he would have made sure it was done RIGHT. The fact that no medical exam was done was just plain stupid. The state should have went in and did a full medical examination. This would have provided a fresh view on the condition of Terri Schiavo. It would have actually constituted new evidence had the results indicated a state of minimal consciousness, and it would have indicated any effects of the removal of the feeding tube.
However, when faced with the numerous opinions of the doctors who have been on this case for the past fifteen years, the state did a quick-and-dirty job, and it showed in the decision handed down by Judge George Greer.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli and therefore is not in a persistent vegetative state.
The problem here is that the Schindler family and the protestors who have been demonstrating outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is being cared for are taking their wishes, their hopes, and their fantasies, and they are projecting them onto Terri simply because she happens to move.
However, medical science does not take wishes, hopes, or fantasies into consideration when determining the state of a patient. Medical science also recognizes that even a person in a persistent vegetative state may move, they may blink their eyes, they may speak nothingness. Rather than being any sort of coherent response to her surroundings, these are simply Terri's reflexes reacting. The accident that put her into the state she is in took away any higher brain functioning.
Terri Schiavo no longer thinks, and she no longer feels...anything. This means that even with the feeding tube removed, Terri Schiavo is not feeling anything. She is not feeling the euphoria that some doctors say happens with starvation, and she is not feeling the pain that the Schindlers and their supporters say she feels.
MYTH: The Schiavo case did not set legal precedent when the US Congress took up the issue.
In fact, ANYTHING brought up in Congress can serve as a precedent. All one would have to do is say "Remember what we did in the Schiavo bill..." and the precedent would be referenced.
Now, did Congress have the power and authority to allow the Schiavo case to move to the federal level? Yes. Congress has the constitutional right to decide where the federal courts have jurisdiction. However, for them to say that they are limiting the law to Terri Schiavo so that it is not a precedent is ludicrous.
There are precedents in this topic. Karen Ann Quinlan overdosed on drugs and ended up in a persistent vegetative state. At that time, there were no laws on the books governing who has authority to guide treatment when the patient could not do so. The family went to court and asked that they be given permission to remove the feeding tube from Karen Ann Quinlan. The courts agreed, and the precedent that we have operated under up until now was laid down.
An associated myth is that the US Congress passed a law demanding that the Schiavo case be reheard from the beginning. Nope! Congress does NOT have that right. They can say that a certain case can be heard in federal courts, but the US Congress can not come in and dictate court action.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo has had her rights violated, or has not had her day in court.
Actually, the Schiavo case has lasted basically over the past fifteen years, from the case of malpractice against the doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that led to her injury, to all of the fights over her care...this is the third time that her feeding tube hasbeen removed. There are over 22 cases in local, district, or federal court. She has had three petitions to the Supreme Court on her behalf. (As of Saturday, March 26, there have been at least 26 seperate court cases filed with the various courts, and that may not be counting the decisions handed down today.)
MYTH: We really don't know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this situation because we only have Michael Schiavo to tell us.
Actually, the reason the case was upheld in the court of Judge George Greer was because Terri Schiavo not only told her husband, but two other friends.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die.
I believe that people on both sides, both the Schindlers, and Michael Schiavo, the politicians of both political stripes, and even the people on talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh and George Nory are operating in amoral way. I believe that they are doing what they think is morally right.
However, just because people believe they are doing the right thing, this does not mean that they are correct.
MYTH: People were arrested because they were trying to bring water toTerri Schiavo.
Wrong. The hospice and the surrounding grounds are private property. The protestors were arrested because the hospice did not want them near the building, where they may disturb the other residents, or disrupt the operations of the facility. When the protestors tried to bring water to Terri Schiavo, the hospice was within its rights to have these people picked up.
Having addressed some of the myths surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, I will go on in the next article to explain why this case is important to you.
---
John B.
Let me be clear on this.
If there was any way at all that Terri Schiavo could be fully restored to a vibrant life with little or no ill-effect, I would have it done,and I assume that a vast majority of the people in this country would as well. If Terri Schiavo could be restored to say...75%, or maybe even 50% of what constitutes as normal function, I would support that, and I am sure that most other people in this country would as well.
The case of Terri Schiavo is unfortunate, and I would be hard-pressed to wish such a fate on my worst enemies.
However, something has happened in this case.The Republican conservatives have started to act like liberal Democrats, and liberals actually make sense on this matter. I found myself agreeing with the syndicated columnist Georgie Ann Geyer, which was scary, when you consider that she is usually a shill for the Liberal Left.
There are a number of myths in this case that need to be addressed:
MYTH: Terri Schiavo is NOT in a persistent vegetativestate...she is "minimally conscious".
This latest opinion was offered by a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, who spent less than one hour viewing VIDEO of Terri Schiavo. He did not visit her, and he did not do a medical examination. Thus, Judge George Greer told the state and the Schindler family that there was no new evidence to go on that would allow for a case to be made.
Quite frankly, for all of the zeal that the governor of Florida has displayed in this case, you would think that if he was going to put forward this new "evidence", he would have made sure it was done RIGHT. The fact that no medical exam was done was just plain stupid. The state should have went in and did a full medical examination. This would have provided a fresh view on the condition of Terri Schiavo. It would have actually constituted new evidence had the results indicated a state of minimal consciousness, and it would have indicated any effects of the removal of the feeding tube.
However, when faced with the numerous opinions of the doctors who have been on this case for the past fifteen years, the state did a quick-and-dirty job, and it showed in the decision handed down by Judge George Greer.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo responds to stimuli and therefore is not in a persistent vegetative state.
The problem here is that the Schindler family and the protestors who have been demonstrating outside the hospice where Terri Schiavo is being cared for are taking their wishes, their hopes, and their fantasies, and they are projecting them onto Terri simply because she happens to move.
However, medical science does not take wishes, hopes, or fantasies into consideration when determining the state of a patient. Medical science also recognizes that even a person in a persistent vegetative state may move, they may blink their eyes, they may speak nothingness. Rather than being any sort of coherent response to her surroundings, these are simply Terri's reflexes reacting. The accident that put her into the state she is in took away any higher brain functioning.
Terri Schiavo no longer thinks, and she no longer feels...anything. This means that even with the feeding tube removed, Terri Schiavo is not feeling anything. She is not feeling the euphoria that some doctors say happens with starvation, and she is not feeling the pain that the Schindlers and their supporters say she feels.
MYTH: The Schiavo case did not set legal precedent when the US Congress took up the issue.
In fact, ANYTHING brought up in Congress can serve as a precedent. All one would have to do is say "Remember what we did in the Schiavo bill..." and the precedent would be referenced.
Now, did Congress have the power and authority to allow the Schiavo case to move to the federal level? Yes. Congress has the constitutional right to decide where the federal courts have jurisdiction. However, for them to say that they are limiting the law to Terri Schiavo so that it is not a precedent is ludicrous.
There are precedents in this topic. Karen Ann Quinlan overdosed on drugs and ended up in a persistent vegetative state. At that time, there were no laws on the books governing who has authority to guide treatment when the patient could not do so. The family went to court and asked that they be given permission to remove the feeding tube from Karen Ann Quinlan. The courts agreed, and the precedent that we have operated under up until now was laid down.
An associated myth is that the US Congress passed a law demanding that the Schiavo case be reheard from the beginning. Nope! Congress does NOT have that right. They can say that a certain case can be heard in federal courts, but the US Congress can not come in and dictate court action.
MYTH: Terri Schiavo has had her rights violated, or has not had her day in court.
Actually, the Schiavo case has lasted basically over the past fifteen years, from the case of malpractice against the doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that led to her injury, to all of the fights over her care...this is the third time that her feeding tube hasbeen removed. There are over 22 cases in local, district, or federal court. She has had three petitions to the Supreme Court on her behalf. (As of Saturday, March 26, there have been at least 26 seperate court cases filed with the various courts, and that may not be counting the decisions handed down today.)
MYTH: We really don't know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted in this situation because we only have Michael Schiavo to tell us.
Actually, the reason the case was upheld in the court of Judge George Greer was because Terri Schiavo not only told her husband, but two other friends.
MYTH: Michael Schiavo wants his wife to die.
I believe that people on both sides, both the Schindlers, and Michael Schiavo, the politicians of both political stripes, and even the people on talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh and George Nory are operating in amoral way. I believe that they are doing what they think is morally right.
However, just because people believe they are doing the right thing, this does not mean that they are correct.
MYTH: People were arrested because they were trying to bring water toTerri Schiavo.
Wrong. The hospice and the surrounding grounds are private property. The protestors were arrested because the hospice did not want them near the building, where they may disturb the other residents, or disrupt the operations of the facility. When the protestors tried to bring water to Terri Schiavo, the hospice was within its rights to have these people picked up.
Having addressed some of the myths surrounding the case of Terri Schiavo, I will go on in the next article to explain why this case is important to you.
---
John B.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
The Continuing Saga of Ward Churchill
^.^
I imagine somewhere that I am breaking some code of conduct that says that if you want someone or something to go away, simply stop paying attention to it. It seems to work on zits, television ads, and the streetlght at 2nd and University that seems content with regulating the passage of invisible cars...whatever the color of the light, you're usually pretty safe walking across this intersection...
So, by all accounts, I should ignore the continuous ravings of CU professor Ward Churchill and he will go away.
Well, if you've been following my blog-world up to this point, you have learned that ignoring the controversial is not about to happen here.
See, three things are happening that are keeping the story of Ward "Whacko" Churchill alive.
- He keeps appearing in public venues. He recently attended a speech in Washington or Oregon despite the fact that the university there didn't want him to show up. He also made a guest appearance on Bil lMaher's HBO show, and true to form, Maher almost wet his pants trying to worship Churchill as if he were standing in the presence of the Messiah.
- A far larger event in this story is about to come to a close, if media reports are correct. In the aftermath of the initial controversy over Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment, the CU Board is looking into whether or not Churchill's writings contain academic fallacy. If they do, Churchill could be fired...it's actually a long process, but there would be a huge amount of movement toward getting that process started if the man's teachings are found to be total BS...
- And perhaps the biggest event so far...I received a reply to my first article on the subject! Yes, since you come here to read about me and my opinions on matters of importance, you also get to know what I think about the notes I get from people...please note that I maintain my creative policy of trying to sprinkle historic, economic, political, or cultural truth when answering notes from people who avidly hate me with every fiber of their being...the better to inspire and educate you with, my friends...
And now, to Rachel S. and her comments...
Rachel says:
"However, most of the claims he's made, which you are now questioning, are highly controversial. If some historians are telling one side of the story, and some are telling another side, there is bound to be some dispute about "the facts." After all, history is told by the victor, and Churchill is trying to tell the other side of the story."
Well, there are two things wrong with this statement. The first is the supposition that I am questioning claims made by Churchill that are merely controversial. Nope! The claims I am contesting are also being questioned by scholars in the field of Native American studies. These people have facts which say that what Churchill is claiming as genocidal policies on the part of the US military during the time in question is WRONG.
The second thing wrong with Rachel's statement is the idea that history is written by the victors. Nope again! While history may become clouded by stories, foggy memories, and sinister agendas that may combine to create a myth that gets handed down, at the end of the day, just as the DNA strand forms the basis for an entire entity, history is made up of a series of truths. These are spread out on a series of levels...political, military, economic, cultural, and more...and when taken together, they form something rather important...they form a story of what really happened.
The whole "history is written by the victor" line reflects the fact that people telling the story of history often have agendas, such as Ward Churchill, who has marched at protests demonstrating against Columbus Day. When you add that to his statements about a supposed plan to wipe out the Native Americans through the use of disease-laden blankets, you begin to see an anti-American bias that quite frankly also explains his "little Eichmanns" comment.
A historical scientist learns to strip the biases of other people away from the historical fact and keeps his/her own biases away from the observations being made so that what comes from the work being done is as close to accurate as is possible.
I have no doubt that if Ward Churchill wanted to make himself to be a champion of the Native American, he could...there has been enough bad history between the Native Americans and those who later settled the lands formerly belonging to the indian tribes. No country's history is spotless, and no people can call themselves angels.
However, one of history's greatest admonishments for why it is relevant is the teaching of its lessons...because if we don't learn them, we will be forced to stay after class until we do...and history's lessons are often taught with a lot of bloodshed.
With that in mind, Ward Churchill does a dis-service to his students by filling their heads with false teachings...with history that did not happen, with slights against the Native Americans that never ocurred, and with slanders against innocent people whose only crime against humanity was getting up and going to work in New York City on one early Fall day in 2001.
Quite frankly, I know that the White Man has enough historic sin on his head. I don't need to carry extra burdens for things that never happened.
I will continue to follow the Churchill case in Boulder with the hope that not only justice for the students of Colorado University will be done, but also that justice for history will also be done.
John B.
I imagine somewhere that I am breaking some code of conduct that says that if you want someone or something to go away, simply stop paying attention to it. It seems to work on zits, television ads, and the streetlght at 2nd and University that seems content with regulating the passage of invisible cars...whatever the color of the light, you're usually pretty safe walking across this intersection...
So, by all accounts, I should ignore the continuous ravings of CU professor Ward Churchill and he will go away.
Well, if you've been following my blog-world up to this point, you have learned that ignoring the controversial is not about to happen here.
See, three things are happening that are keeping the story of Ward "Whacko" Churchill alive.
- He keeps appearing in public venues. He recently attended a speech in Washington or Oregon despite the fact that the university there didn't want him to show up. He also made a guest appearance on Bil lMaher's HBO show, and true to form, Maher almost wet his pants trying to worship Churchill as if he were standing in the presence of the Messiah.
- A far larger event in this story is about to come to a close, if media reports are correct. In the aftermath of the initial controversy over Churchill's "little Eichmanns" comment, the CU Board is looking into whether or not Churchill's writings contain academic fallacy. If they do, Churchill could be fired...it's actually a long process, but there would be a huge amount of movement toward getting that process started if the man's teachings are found to be total BS...
- And perhaps the biggest event so far...I received a reply to my first article on the subject! Yes, since you come here to read about me and my opinions on matters of importance, you also get to know what I think about the notes I get from people...please note that I maintain my creative policy of trying to sprinkle historic, economic, political, or cultural truth when answering notes from people who avidly hate me with every fiber of their being...the better to inspire and educate you with, my friends...
And now, to Rachel S. and her comments...
Rachel says:
"However, most of the claims he's made, which you are now questioning, are highly controversial. If some historians are telling one side of the story, and some are telling another side, there is bound to be some dispute about "the facts." After all, history is told by the victor, and Churchill is trying to tell the other side of the story."
Well, there are two things wrong with this statement. The first is the supposition that I am questioning claims made by Churchill that are merely controversial. Nope! The claims I am contesting are also being questioned by scholars in the field of Native American studies. These people have facts which say that what Churchill is claiming as genocidal policies on the part of the US military during the time in question is WRONG.
The second thing wrong with Rachel's statement is the idea that history is written by the victors. Nope again! While history may become clouded by stories, foggy memories, and sinister agendas that may combine to create a myth that gets handed down, at the end of the day, just as the DNA strand forms the basis for an entire entity, history is made up of a series of truths. These are spread out on a series of levels...political, military, economic, cultural, and more...and when taken together, they form something rather important...they form a story of what really happened.
The whole "history is written by the victor" line reflects the fact that people telling the story of history often have agendas, such as Ward Churchill, who has marched at protests demonstrating against Columbus Day. When you add that to his statements about a supposed plan to wipe out the Native Americans through the use of disease-laden blankets, you begin to see an anti-American bias that quite frankly also explains his "little Eichmanns" comment.
A historical scientist learns to strip the biases of other people away from the historical fact and keeps his/her own biases away from the observations being made so that what comes from the work being done is as close to accurate as is possible.
I have no doubt that if Ward Churchill wanted to make himself to be a champion of the Native American, he could...there has been enough bad history between the Native Americans and those who later settled the lands formerly belonging to the indian tribes. No country's history is spotless, and no people can call themselves angels.
However, one of history's greatest admonishments for why it is relevant is the teaching of its lessons...because if we don't learn them, we will be forced to stay after class until we do...and history's lessons are often taught with a lot of bloodshed.
With that in mind, Ward Churchill does a dis-service to his students by filling their heads with false teachings...with history that did not happen, with slights against the Native Americans that never ocurred, and with slanders against innocent people whose only crime against humanity was getting up and going to work in New York City on one early Fall day in 2001.
Quite frankly, I know that the White Man has enough historic sin on his head. I don't need to carry extra burdens for things that never happened.
I will continue to follow the Churchill case in Boulder with the hope that not only justice for the students of Colorado University will be done, but also that justice for history will also be done.
John B.
The Peaceniks Strike Back
^.^
For this blog article, you will need a copy of the Imperial March, from"The Empire Strikes Back." If you have it, COOL! If not, just float back in fond memories of yesteryear when DarthVader would stride down the ramp from a shuttle, with all of the evil fanfare.
Yes, for while the forces of good, right, and justice continue onward with their mission, both on the international level, and here in the city of Laramie,Wyoming...while proud Americans stand up for the rights of people everywhere...including here at home to excercise their freedoms, even when those people are dead wrong in their opinions, and even as the foreign policies of the Bush administration continue to bear fruit in the form of blossoming democracies and cowering dictators...even as all of this happens, the liberals, the Democrat National Party, and the peaceniks continue to snipe fromthe shadows...
...and they whine a lot...
Taking you back to the battle over the SUFP protest that was not a protest against the speech last month by Ken Starr at the University of Wyoming, I received a letter from Lesley W, a member of SUFP, who in a very long-winded note proceeded to tell me how I was wrong, how SUFP had been most effective in getting their point across at the Starr speech, and recounting pretty much everything that SUFP even thought of doing from the dawn of the Revolutionary War right up to yesterday afternoon.
What I have just done is save you all some eye-strain by giving you the gist of Lesley's note, because our starting point for this article is in the reply to MY reply to Lesley W.
I responded to Lesley W. ... you can read my response in the comments to that particular blog article if you wish...and then I got the following reply from Willis:
"Pathetic.
It seems that it has become easy fodder for neo-con sympathizers to criticize the efforts of grassroots groups for being "ineffective." It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had. But then that's the luxury one has when sided with the winning team, right? Just keep nodding your head, chewing up the same political information that the rest of the righties are armed with, provide nothing in your opinions that might amount to authentic substance or insight, and go after the little people because they are concerned with making a statement against overwhelming odds... That seems to be the emerging American ethic, eh?
Keep up the good work. The status quo needs more noble people like you beating up on old ladies, hippies, and peaceniks.
Wondering, John, when did you choose to trade your suit and tie (and cowboy hat?) for a brown shirt?"
---
This note is just precious.
Willie here comes onto my blog talking tough, saying that I'm all hot air, providing you with nothing of substance or insight.
Yet what does he do?
When I read Willie's note, I do not hear someone taking my arguments about SUFP and providing some substantial or insightful arguments to combat my singular point, which was that by their inept handling of something as simple as a protest against a speech, SUFP proved that they are nothing more than a bunch of losers.
Rather than "Stand Up For Peace", SUFP should stand for Shut Up Freakin' Peaceniks.
Apparently Willie is well-versed in the fine liberal art of failing to practice what one preaches.
WIllie made some interesting comments, such as: "It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had."
If Willie had perhaps read my blog article, he would see that I followed the story of the Starr protest with quite a bit of interest. The only thing I didn't do was show up at the speech itself. For coverage of the event, I relied on the local newspapers, and they did a good job...then again, it's not like covering a speech is a hard task.
Nowhere do I say that it is my job to track down stories. I am not a reporter. I am an opinion guy. My job is to look at the news of the day, give you feedback based on the facts as I find them, and give you my opinions. If you don't like those opinions, find some other blog to read...but when I give you my opinions, they are based in fact, and often I try to teach
people about history, society, economics, or whatever other subject I slide into on that particular day.
However, rather than combat my fact-based opinions with some opinion of his own, Willie only seems interested in making snide attacks on people who endorse the Bush administration, support the war against terror, and trully believe that we are doing yeoman work in the Middle East.
The last few sentences of Willie's note are interesting. Why is it that if you are supporting liberal psychobabble, if you are speaking out against Republicans, or conservatives, if you are supporting the things that have made this country great and are willing to go into a public arena with comments to that effect, you are called aNazi?
Throughout all of this argument with Shaddup Freakin' Peaceniks, I have steadfastly stood by and defended their rights of free speech. This is even though I disagree with their ideas...this is even though I think their conspiracy-theory-laced BS is about as stupid and wrong-headed as you can get.
Despite all of that, they still have a right to wander around the Laramie area, spewing their propaganda, and pretending that they are relevant.
Yet, I dare to utter a word against the peaceniks, and I get attacked. The person that I run into that I know is a member of SUFP recently referred to me as a "whiney-mouthed Star Trek fan". (It is amazing what you can find on a person by running their email address through Google.)
I've twice been called a Nazi, and other verbal slings have been hurled my way.
The peacenuts can have all the free speech they want...but if you are a supporter of our efforts to take down the terrorist baddies, if you endorse our spreading of democracy over there so that the world is a much safer place, and if you don't think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the administration are the scum of the earth, apparently your rights are forfeit.
Not as long as I breathe air they aren't...
John B.
For this blog article, you will need a copy of the Imperial March, from"The Empire Strikes Back." If you have it, COOL! If not, just float back in fond memories of yesteryear when DarthVader would stride down the ramp from a shuttle, with all of the evil fanfare.
Yes, for while the forces of good, right, and justice continue onward with their mission, both on the international level, and here in the city of Laramie,Wyoming...while proud Americans stand up for the rights of people everywhere...including here at home to excercise their freedoms, even when those people are dead wrong in their opinions, and even as the foreign policies of the Bush administration continue to bear fruit in the form of blossoming democracies and cowering dictators...even as all of this happens, the liberals, the Democrat National Party, and the peaceniks continue to snipe fromthe shadows...
...and they whine a lot...
Taking you back to the battle over the SUFP protest that was not a protest against the speech last month by Ken Starr at the University of Wyoming, I received a letter from Lesley W, a member of SUFP, who in a very long-winded note proceeded to tell me how I was wrong, how SUFP had been most effective in getting their point across at the Starr speech, and recounting pretty much everything that SUFP even thought of doing from the dawn of the Revolutionary War right up to yesterday afternoon.
What I have just done is save you all some eye-strain by giving you the gist of Lesley's note, because our starting point for this article is in the reply to MY reply to Lesley W.
I responded to Lesley W. ... you can read my response in the comments to that particular blog article if you wish...and then I got the following reply from Willis:
"Pathetic.
It seems that it has become easy fodder for neo-con sympathizers to criticize the efforts of grassroots groups for being "ineffective." It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had. But then that's the luxury one has when sided with the winning team, right? Just keep nodding your head, chewing up the same political information that the rest of the righties are armed with, provide nothing in your opinions that might amount to authentic substance or insight, and go after the little people because they are concerned with making a statement against overwhelming odds... That seems to be the emerging American ethic, eh?
Keep up the good work. The status quo needs more noble people like you beating up on old ladies, hippies, and peaceniks.
Wondering, John, when did you choose to trade your suit and tie (and cowboy hat?) for a brown shirt?"
---
This note is just precious.
Willie here comes onto my blog talking tough, saying that I'm all hot air, providing you with nothing of substance or insight.
Yet what does he do?
When I read Willie's note, I do not hear someone taking my arguments about SUFP and providing some substantial or insightful arguments to combat my singular point, which was that by their inept handling of something as simple as a protest against a speech, SUFP proved that they are nothing more than a bunch of losers.
Rather than "Stand Up For Peace", SUFP should stand for Shut Up Freakin' Peaceniks.
Apparently Willie is well-versed in the fine liberal art of failing to practice what one preaches.
WIllie made some interesting comments, such as: "It certainly seems easy to sit at home, throw out a few e-mails, and then write up a few pieces of baby-muckraking as if there's some type of story to be had."
If Willie had perhaps read my blog article, he would see that I followed the story of the Starr protest with quite a bit of interest. The only thing I didn't do was show up at the speech itself. For coverage of the event, I relied on the local newspapers, and they did a good job...then again, it's not like covering a speech is a hard task.
Nowhere do I say that it is my job to track down stories. I am not a reporter. I am an opinion guy. My job is to look at the news of the day, give you feedback based on the facts as I find them, and give you my opinions. If you don't like those opinions, find some other blog to read...but when I give you my opinions, they are based in fact, and often I try to teach
people about history, society, economics, or whatever other subject I slide into on that particular day.
However, rather than combat my fact-based opinions with some opinion of his own, Willie only seems interested in making snide attacks on people who endorse the Bush administration, support the war against terror, and trully believe that we are doing yeoman work in the Middle East.
The last few sentences of Willie's note are interesting. Why is it that if you are supporting liberal psychobabble, if you are speaking out against Republicans, or conservatives, if you are supporting the things that have made this country great and are willing to go into a public arena with comments to that effect, you are called aNazi?
Throughout all of this argument with Shaddup Freakin' Peaceniks, I have steadfastly stood by and defended their rights of free speech. This is even though I disagree with their ideas...this is even though I think their conspiracy-theory-laced BS is about as stupid and wrong-headed as you can get.
Despite all of that, they still have a right to wander around the Laramie area, spewing their propaganda, and pretending that they are relevant.
Yet, I dare to utter a word against the peaceniks, and I get attacked. The person that I run into that I know is a member of SUFP recently referred to me as a "whiney-mouthed Star Trek fan". (It is amazing what you can find on a person by running their email address through Google.)
I've twice been called a Nazi, and other verbal slings have been hurled my way.
The peacenuts can have all the free speech they want...but if you are a supporter of our efforts to take down the terrorist baddies, if you endorse our spreading of democracy over there so that the world is a much safer place, and if you don't think that Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the rest of the administration are the scum of the earth, apparently your rights are forfeit.
Not as long as I breathe air they aren't...
John B.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
A Tale of Two Protests, Part 3: The Emails
^.^
As I have said, I intend to give SUFP and its members their equal chance to express their opinions on this subject...especially since the subject is about THEM.
With that being said, here is a response, from Mr. Hanks (name obscurred for privacy purposes)
"I don't care how this Nazi sympathizer feels. We are at war with trash like him. He belongs in Leavenworth. Instead he will have a career as a corporate lawyer learning all the arts of force and fraud."
"For what it is worth, I was against the demonstration because I didn't think there would be enough interest or time. I would prefer a well planned demonstration demanding the abolition of the Republican party for years of treason and subversion. Then we don't get tied down to "celebrities".
*signed by Mr. Hanks*
---
Hmm. Perhaps Mr. Hanks should be on the lookout for a possible coronary, a brain explosion, or some other such thing. After all, Mr. Hanks and the rest of the members of SUFP say they are for "peace", yet he apparently is at war with "trash like (me)".
And I'm a NAZI... *grin* That's certainly original.
However, Mr. Hanks should perhaps take a step back, and re-evaluate what he said. After all, the "trash" I think he is referring to are a bunch of nihilistic Jihadists who don't think twice about killing anyone, be it Iraqi, American, or miscellaneous, man, woman, children, etc. They are led by men like Ayman al-Zarqawi(sp), and Osama bin-Laden...who are searching for the quickest way to take as many innocent Americans IN THIS COUNTRY off the face of the planet, not to mention any Americans or foreigners who might be "despoiling" their own lands.
I am merely a person using my own opinions, my philosophy, and the philosophies of like-minded people, and the lessons of history to write commentary on today's world, and the people who live there.
It's two different things, in my opinion...
John B.
PS: Please continue with the emails!
As I have said, I intend to give SUFP and its members their equal chance to express their opinions on this subject...especially since the subject is about THEM.
With that being said, here is a response, from Mr. Hanks (name obscurred for privacy purposes)
"I don't care how this Nazi sympathizer feels. We are at war with trash like him. He belongs in Leavenworth. Instead he will have a career as a corporate lawyer learning all the arts of force and fraud."
"For what it is worth, I was against the demonstration because I didn't think there would be enough interest or time. I would prefer a well planned demonstration demanding the abolition of the Republican party for years of treason and subversion. Then we don't get tied down to "celebrities".
*signed by Mr. Hanks*
---
Hmm. Perhaps Mr. Hanks should be on the lookout for a possible coronary, a brain explosion, or some other such thing. After all, Mr. Hanks and the rest of the members of SUFP say they are for "peace", yet he apparently is at war with "trash like (me)".
And I'm a NAZI... *grin* That's certainly original.
However, Mr. Hanks should perhaps take a step back, and re-evaluate what he said. After all, the "trash" I think he is referring to are a bunch of nihilistic Jihadists who don't think twice about killing anyone, be it Iraqi, American, or miscellaneous, man, woman, children, etc. They are led by men like Ayman al-Zarqawi(sp), and Osama bin-Laden...who are searching for the quickest way to take as many innocent Americans IN THIS COUNTRY off the face of the planet, not to mention any Americans or foreigners who might be "despoiling" their own lands.
I am merely a person using my own opinions, my philosophy, and the philosophies of like-minded people, and the lessons of history to write commentary on today's world, and the people who live there.
It's two different things, in my opinion...
John B.
PS: Please continue with the emails!
A Tale of Two Protests, Source Materials (emails)
^.^
Okay, so maybe I wasn't as polite as I thought...but here is my initial email, and the response it received...
---
^.^
Ok. A couple of things for you to consider...
First off, GET OVER IT! Clinton and impeachment were about FIVE YEARS ago, and you still insist on crying about it...
Second, if you don't have a permit to protest Mr.Starr, then university security can and probably WILL do something about it. Your rights of free speech do not mean that you can prevent the university from functioning in that area of the building, nor does itmean you can block the free speech rights of Ken Starr, or people who agree with him.Your rights of free speech also don't do you much good if you get hauled away from the area. Do yourselves a favor and apply for a permit.
John B.
Laramie, WY
---
Here is the response I got from Josh Thompson, a member of SUFP:
With all due respect:
(a) Clinton's impeachment proceedings concerned the obstruction of justice charge related to the Lewinsky investigation. These are the matters with which most Americans are very familiar, and will always be the subject of controversy regardless of how you feel about that... Why doesn't that right wing neocon cabal responsible for the replacement of the first independent counsel with Starr and Starr go after Bush for his obstruction of justice that potentially killed 3,000 Americans in blocking FBI and CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and others that may have prevented September 11 because of his family's unequivocally proven business relations with them through Carlysle and Arbusto? Or after his lies to the American people to justify the War on Iraq or about his relationship with Kenneth Lay? Which were more egregious, really? I'msorry, but the President is the moral compass of our children... What will my son do now that President Bush has so much more frequently and substantively lied to the American people on national television? LOL... I'm sorry, but I think it's important to point out all of the hypocrisy in regards to all of this wonderful right wing moralism... Next, a good number of people believe that Ken Starr abused the public trust and wasted tremendous taxpayer resources on what, prior to Lewinsky, were completely scurrilous charges and baseless allegations (from White Water to Flowers toTroopergate, there most certainly was a nefarious right wing cabal financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and others). Essentially, I'll never "just get over" the fact that Kenneth Starr wasted $30 million dollars on an investigation that was ultimately unable to prove the allegations and leaks Starr was frequently making to the media? I think Starr should be dis-barred, frankly. I think he violated his code of ethics in many ways...Yes, it may have happened five years ago, but that is irrelevant. What, to most of us, is relevant, is the fact that the mainstream corporate American news media was absolutely negligent in its coverage of these issues, and that because of the same, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious as to all of the reasons we disdain Starr's conduct. What is important is informing others. It appears clear in your reply that you do not fully understand Starr's conduct. I highly encourage you to attend our re-screening of The Hunting of the President that Friday evening and to watch for the details to be announced... It's free.
(b) I've had two potentially precedent setting First Amendment cases surrounding protest, and beg to differ with your interpretation of FirstAmendment case law. Don't worry; we're not stupid, and we will decide on a protest permit if we think in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both. But we do not need a protest permit to express our First Amendment rights on the grounds of a public state institution. Period. University security CANNOT do anything unless we are disruptive simply because we have not asked somebody for permission to do what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a vast body of case law guarantees us the right to do... And if they do, we will have legal observers and video cameras, and the University will be paying dearly for any illegal political repression, and such officers will be facing the consequences that contingent action will bring to them... We will ensure that our expression is well within the confines of current case law because none of us want to go to jail. But we will also ensure that law enforcement does not overstep their bounds and will ensure that all involved are well-educated as to what they can and cannot do... We are not having a parade, and a protest permit is not necessary, seriously...
(c) while you have the right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree; the College of Law and those who've brought Starr at public expense or the expense of law school students have had their opportunity to express themselves in extending the invitation and bringing him here, who is most clearly a very controversial partisan political operative; we have the right, and some might argue, the duty, as American citizens, to express ourselves in kind; you may disagree with the means of expression, but you cannot fundamentally disagree with our right to do so ourselves and publicly express that disagreement and work to educate others without being a fascist; I would never myself ever prescribe for you how and when and where you should exercise your rights guaranteed to you by the First Amendment; personally, I find that fundamentally un-American ; please extend us the same courtesy, or if you disagree with us, organize your own counter-protest; that's certainly your right...
---
My counter-protest is right here...in the pages of my own personal soapbox. However, I reserve for you the right to read this, and any of my blog articles and respond to them. I encourage the exchange of ideas and debate. In fact, your letter may inspire me to delve deeper into your insinuations. March may turn into a busy month for me...
John B.
Okay, so maybe I wasn't as polite as I thought...but here is my initial email, and the response it received...
---
^.^
Ok. A couple of things for you to consider...
First off, GET OVER IT! Clinton and impeachment were about FIVE YEARS ago, and you still insist on crying about it...
Second, if you don't have a permit to protest Mr.Starr, then university security can and probably WILL do something about it. Your rights of free speech do not mean that you can prevent the university from functioning in that area of the building, nor does itmean you can block the free speech rights of Ken Starr, or people who agree with him.Your rights of free speech also don't do you much good if you get hauled away from the area. Do yourselves a favor and apply for a permit.
John B.
Laramie, WY
---
Here is the response I got from Josh Thompson, a member of SUFP:
With all due respect:
(a) Clinton's impeachment proceedings concerned the obstruction of justice charge related to the Lewinsky investigation. These are the matters with which most Americans are very familiar, and will always be the subject of controversy regardless of how you feel about that... Why doesn't that right wing neocon cabal responsible for the replacement of the first independent counsel with Starr and Starr go after Bush for his obstruction of justice that potentially killed 3,000 Americans in blocking FBI and CIA investigations into the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and others that may have prevented September 11 because of his family's unequivocally proven business relations with them through Carlysle and Arbusto? Or after his lies to the American people to justify the War on Iraq or about his relationship with Kenneth Lay? Which were more egregious, really? I'msorry, but the President is the moral compass of our children... What will my son do now that President Bush has so much more frequently and substantively lied to the American people on national television? LOL... I'm sorry, but I think it's important to point out all of the hypocrisy in regards to all of this wonderful right wing moralism... Next, a good number of people believe that Ken Starr abused the public trust and wasted tremendous taxpayer resources on what, prior to Lewinsky, were completely scurrilous charges and baseless allegations (from White Water to Flowers toTroopergate, there most certainly was a nefarious right wing cabal financed by Richard Mellon Scaife and others). Essentially, I'll never "just get over" the fact that Kenneth Starr wasted $30 million dollars on an investigation that was ultimately unable to prove the allegations and leaks Starr was frequently making to the media? I think Starr should be dis-barred, frankly. I think he violated his code of ethics in many ways...Yes, it may have happened five years ago, but that is irrelevant. What, to most of us, is relevant, is the fact that the mainstream corporate American news media was absolutely negligent in its coverage of these issues, and that because of the same, the vast majority of Americans are oblivious as to all of the reasons we disdain Starr's conduct. What is important is informing others. It appears clear in your reply that you do not fully understand Starr's conduct. I highly encourage you to attend our re-screening of The Hunting of the President that Friday evening and to watch for the details to be announced... It's free.
(b) I've had two potentially precedent setting First Amendment cases surrounding protest, and beg to differ with your interpretation of FirstAmendment case law. Don't worry; we're not stupid, and we will decide on a protest permit if we think in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of both. But we do not need a protest permit to express our First Amendment rights on the grounds of a public state institution. Period. University security CANNOT do anything unless we are disruptive simply because we have not asked somebody for permission to do what the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a vast body of case law guarantees us the right to do... And if they do, we will have legal observers and video cameras, and the University will be paying dearly for any illegal political repression, and such officers will be facing the consequences that contingent action will bring to them... We will ensure that our expression is well within the confines of current case law because none of us want to go to jail. But we will also ensure that law enforcement does not overstep their bounds and will ensure that all involved are well-educated as to what they can and cannot do... We are not having a parade, and a protest permit is not necessary, seriously...
(c) while you have the right to express your opinion, I respectfully disagree; the College of Law and those who've brought Starr at public expense or the expense of law school students have had their opportunity to express themselves in extending the invitation and bringing him here, who is most clearly a very controversial partisan political operative; we have the right, and some might argue, the duty, as American citizens, to express ourselves in kind; you may disagree with the means of expression, but you cannot fundamentally disagree with our right to do so ourselves and publicly express that disagreement and work to educate others without being a fascist; I would never myself ever prescribe for you how and when and where you should exercise your rights guaranteed to you by the First Amendment; personally, I find that fundamentally un-American ; please extend us the same courtesy, or if you disagree with us, organize your own counter-protest; that's certainly your right...
---
My counter-protest is right here...in the pages of my own personal soapbox. However, I reserve for you the right to read this, and any of my blog articles and respond to them. I encourage the exchange of ideas and debate. In fact, your letter may inspire me to delve deeper into your insinuations. March may turn into a busy month for me...
John B.
A Tale of Two Protests
^.^
I'll start off this article by telling you that I dislike people who say they're going to do something, then fail to do it. Such inaction makes the person or group appear to be unreliable or ineffective, and one should question their word again in the future if they say they are going to do something.
This has turned out to be the case with Stand Up For Peace(SUFP), a local peacenik group here in Laramie, WY that decided to protest a recent speaking engagement at the University of Wyoming. The speaker in question was Kenneth Starr, currently the dean of School of Law at Pepperdine University, and former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and charges stemming from it, including lying under oath about sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. These charges resulted in impeachment proceedings, which resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but not his removal from office.
To set up my point, we have to go through the whole story of SUFP and Ken Starr.
SUFP announced that they were going to protest the Starr appearance on their listserv, although at the time, they didn't really know HOW they wanted to go about making a protest...they just knew they wanted to show up and make their presence known.
I was concerned...not because SUFP might interfere with Starr or his speech...I figured that even if they were standing around outside the doors with signs, it would still be a respectable demonstration, and an act of free speech...and let me be clear here that I support SUFP's rights to free speech...I never know when I may need someone to defend my own free speech rights...
I was concerned because I had recently seen a newspaper article about a group of Christians who had surrounded a gay pride get-together in a public park. While the Christians did not engage the crowd, those who approached and showed an interest in the Christians were given some words of encouragement from the Christians in their own Chirstian sort of way. Nothing anti-gay, just "Jesus loves you," "Jesus died for you," that sort of thing.
Police soon contacted the Christians and told them that they were demonstrating without a liscense. I believe at least one of the Christians was arrested for this incident.
With this in mind, I wrote to a couple of people in SUFP and told them that they should consider going to the university police and getting a permit. I also told them that I disagreed with their protest, and I asked why they couldn't get over the whole thing. It has been several years since the impeachment fight, and even I don't bother with anti-Clinton rhetoric much anymore.
I really should reprint the response I got from SUFP. It was a classic left-wing tirade about how SUFP didn't need a permit to engage in free speech, and how I was wrong, and blah blah.It was that letter that initially got my dander up and started the inspiration for this rant.
I will find the letter and reprint it here for you...
HOWEVER, as the time for the protest neared, publicity of the protest escalated, and it was printed in the university paper,which as most university rags, tends to be quite liberal-leaning.
Shortly before the day of the Starr speech, SUFP came up with a plan to come to the speech wearing blue dresses with a stain on them, a reference to the semen-stained blue dress that was made famous in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. I did what I could responsibly in opposition to the protest...I notified the college Republican group about the protest, and encouraged them to engage in some free speech of their own.
Then I sat back to watch the fireworks.
On Saturday, February 19, one day after the Starr speech, the local newspaper, the "Laramie Boomerang" had the following to say about the protests in their story on the speech...and the story ran on the front page of the paper...
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Please read that last paragraph again. It's kinda important.
So! It seems that for all their bluster about how they were going to SHOW Ken Starr, how they were going to make their voices heard, how they were going to use their rights of free speech and such...when it came down to show time, when it came time for SUFP to put their money where their mouth was, they failed miserably.
Let me re-state for the record:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
So much for wearing stained blue dresses.
Now, the story is not quite over. See, today I ran into one of the members of SUFP, and I politely asked her what happened to the protest,and I said that I had been expecting something more substantial.
Her response was that SUFP had in fact showed up for the speech, and had entered the venue as listeners, thus skirting around the need for a protest permit...who is going to arrest anyone because they are wearing a blue dress? However, the protestors apparently were scattered throughout the audience. My SUFP acquaintance believes that they made an effective statement against Republicans, the neocon-dominated Bush administration, and Ken Starr in particular.
But, once again, I bring you to the official eye-witness account of the speech:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Even if SUFP had stuck with the strategy of attending the speech wearing blue dresses, they should have stayed together as a single group...that way they would stand out visably, and that would have gotten them noticed.
Instead, they chose to spread out, and send a quiet message.
The message was so quiet that it was not noticed.
SUFP has thus proven that they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to putting on a protest. Rather than maximizing their effect and cleverly making their presence known in a respectful manner, they diluted themselves in a sea of suits, ties, and dresses of a multitude of colors.
SUFP let people down.
They are inept as a protest group, and I for one won't pay much attention to them again.
As if that weren't enough, my SUFP acquaintance apparently thought that I didn't have the right of free speech...just because I don't happen to share her (and SUFP's) liberal anti-Bush policies. She asked me why I didn't sign up to go to Iraq. The conversation wasn't pointing in that direction. We were not talking about the military,and we were not discussing any possibility of a draft (there is none). This just seemed to come out of nowhere. So, according to SUFP, if you believe in the Bush administration and what we are doing in Iraq, or if you perhaps believe in Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation, you should sign up to go to Iraq.
I would if I could. However, with my health, no armed force will take me. However, I should not have to sign up for military service simply because I have a point of view.
However, it was an excellent dodge. The real issue was SUFP, and how they can't put on an effective protest. They and their representatives certainly are good at dodging the issues though.
John B.
PS: I'll post the email I received from an SUFP representative as a seperate article...
I'll start off this article by telling you that I dislike people who say they're going to do something, then fail to do it. Such inaction makes the person or group appear to be unreliable or ineffective, and one should question their word again in the future if they say they are going to do something.
This has turned out to be the case with Stand Up For Peace(SUFP), a local peacenik group here in Laramie, WY that decided to protest a recent speaking engagement at the University of Wyoming. The speaker in question was Kenneth Starr, currently the dean of School of Law at Pepperdine University, and former independent counsel who investigated Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater and charges stemming from it, including lying under oath about sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. These charges resulted in impeachment proceedings, which resulted in Clinton's impeachment, but not his removal from office.
To set up my point, we have to go through the whole story of SUFP and Ken Starr.
SUFP announced that they were going to protest the Starr appearance on their listserv, although at the time, they didn't really know HOW they wanted to go about making a protest...they just knew they wanted to show up and make their presence known.
I was concerned...not because SUFP might interfere with Starr or his speech...I figured that even if they were standing around outside the doors with signs, it would still be a respectable demonstration, and an act of free speech...and let me be clear here that I support SUFP's rights to free speech...I never know when I may need someone to defend my own free speech rights...
I was concerned because I had recently seen a newspaper article about a group of Christians who had surrounded a gay pride get-together in a public park. While the Christians did not engage the crowd, those who approached and showed an interest in the Christians were given some words of encouragement from the Christians in their own Chirstian sort of way. Nothing anti-gay, just "Jesus loves you," "Jesus died for you," that sort of thing.
Police soon contacted the Christians and told them that they were demonstrating without a liscense. I believe at least one of the Christians was arrested for this incident.
With this in mind, I wrote to a couple of people in SUFP and told them that they should consider going to the university police and getting a permit. I also told them that I disagreed with their protest, and I asked why they couldn't get over the whole thing. It has been several years since the impeachment fight, and even I don't bother with anti-Clinton rhetoric much anymore.
I really should reprint the response I got from SUFP. It was a classic left-wing tirade about how SUFP didn't need a permit to engage in free speech, and how I was wrong, and blah blah.It was that letter that initially got my dander up and started the inspiration for this rant.
I will find the letter and reprint it here for you...
HOWEVER, as the time for the protest neared, publicity of the protest escalated, and it was printed in the university paper,which as most university rags, tends to be quite liberal-leaning.
Shortly before the day of the Starr speech, SUFP came up with a plan to come to the speech wearing blue dresses with a stain on them, a reference to the semen-stained blue dress that was made famous in the Clinton-Lewinsky affair. I did what I could responsibly in opposition to the protest...I notified the college Republican group about the protest, and encouraged them to engage in some free speech of their own.
Then I sat back to watch the fireworks.
On Saturday, February 19, one day after the Starr speech, the local newspaper, the "Laramie Boomerang" had the following to say about the protests in their story on the speech...and the story ran on the front page of the paper...
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Please read that last paragraph again. It's kinda important.
So! It seems that for all their bluster about how they were going to SHOW Ken Starr, how they were going to make their voices heard, how they were going to use their rights of free speech and such...when it came down to show time, when it came time for SUFP to put their money where their mouth was, they failed miserably.
Let me re-state for the record:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
So much for wearing stained blue dresses.
Now, the story is not quite over. See, today I ran into one of the members of SUFP, and I politely asked her what happened to the protest,and I said that I had been expecting something more substantial.
Her response was that SUFP had in fact showed up for the speech, and had entered the venue as listeners, thus skirting around the need for a protest permit...who is going to arrest anyone because they are wearing a blue dress? However, the protestors apparently were scattered throughout the audience. My SUFP acquaintance believes that they made an effective statement against Republicans, the neocon-dominated Bush administration, and Ken Starr in particular.
But, once again, I bring you to the official eye-witness account of the speech:
"Rumored protestors never materialized for the event and Starr didn't make even passing reference to his role as chief Whitewater investigator during the Clinton administration or the Monica Lewinsky scandal during the address."
Even if SUFP had stuck with the strategy of attending the speech wearing blue dresses, they should have stayed together as a single group...that way they would stand out visably, and that would have gotten them noticed.
Instead, they chose to spread out, and send a quiet message.
The message was so quiet that it was not noticed.
SUFP has thus proven that they really don't know what they are doing when it comes to putting on a protest. Rather than maximizing their effect and cleverly making their presence known in a respectful manner, they diluted themselves in a sea of suits, ties, and dresses of a multitude of colors.
SUFP let people down.
They are inept as a protest group, and I for one won't pay much attention to them again.
As if that weren't enough, my SUFP acquaintance apparently thought that I didn't have the right of free speech...just because I don't happen to share her (and SUFP's) liberal anti-Bush policies. She asked me why I didn't sign up to go to Iraq. The conversation wasn't pointing in that direction. We were not talking about the military,and we were not discussing any possibility of a draft (there is none). This just seemed to come out of nowhere. So, according to SUFP, if you believe in the Bush administration and what we are doing in Iraq, or if you perhaps believe in Ken Starr and the Whitewater investigation, you should sign up to go to Iraq.
I would if I could. However, with my health, no armed force will take me. However, I should not have to sign up for military service simply because I have a point of view.
However, it was an excellent dodge. The real issue was SUFP, and how they can't put on an effective protest. They and their representatives certainly are good at dodging the issues though.
John B.
PS: I'll post the email I received from an SUFP representative as a seperate article...
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The Insane Writings of Ward Churchill
^.^
Alrighty.
Unless you've been living in a cave for the past couple weeks, you have probably heard of Ward Churchill, a professor at Colorado University, who recently stated his views on the September 11th attacks...and you probably know the gist of his views...that America deserved the attacks, and his calling the victims "little Eichmanns."
First, I will tell you that I find these views to be utterly insulting and nonsensical, and I for one find comfort in the fact that the majority of the reaction on this subject from responsible human beings has been pretty much right where it should be...outright and utter condemnation.
(Please note the equivocation in that last sentence...it becomes important here in a bit...)
I will also tell you that I agree that Ward Churchill had best be checking through the want ads of his local paper for a job, because the man will not find work at a reputable college or university once he is fired, and I believe that he WILL be fired at some point.
However, this will not happen as a result of his remarks about Sept. 11.
Now, I can see two reactions from this last statement. The first, from those on the Right, and from the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks would be: WHY THE HELL NOT? And trust me folks, I empathize all the way with you on this.
And before the total morons who make up the vast majority of the college/university populace in this country start cheering for victory, please remember that the man WILL be fired. My opinion of these people has sunk too, which is why I hedged a bit earlier when I talked about responsible human beings. The actions of a few students at a recent CU Board meeting called to discuss the case of Ward Churchill convinced me that these people are not normal. As for being responsible, as a former college student myself, I contend that as long as you are getting money either from parents or financial aid, you are not responsible in the true sense of the word.
These idiots were storming around the room where the board meeting was held yammering about an obstruction of Churchill's rights of Free Speech.
However, what the CU Board decided to do should lift the spirits of those offended by Churchill, whether they are victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, or just honest, sensible, reasonable people who think that Churchill's spoutings amount to the equivalent of raw sewage in the arena of ideas.
The CU Board decided rightly that they will look into the writings of Ward Churchill, to see if his writings, which have been controversial as well, are protected by the Free Speech amendment to the US Constitution.
See, STOOPID speech is generally protected, even at a university, because it represents a different point of view from the majority, or perhaps a more "enlightened perspective."
However, if a speech or a book demonstrates teachings that indicate that the professor in question is inept, incompetent, or outright falsifying information, that my friends will get you out of a job at a university, whether you are tenured or not.
And in the case of CU & Ward Churchill, we seem to have a case where our dear friend, the Nutty Professor, has passed off fiction as scientific fact.
In 1993, Churchill published a book entitled "Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America." In it, he made the following claims:
- The US government had a policy of eventually wiping out the Indians.
- The US Army deliberately spread smallpox among the Indians of the US West.
- The US government passed a lot requiring proof that an Indian was more than one-half Indian before providing a land grant to that person.
All of these claims have been contested by scholars who have some background in Indian history. Ward Churchill claims he is one-sixteenth Creek indian, but this claim is not confirmed. He claims to have served in the military in Vietnam, but those claims have shifted. Churchill himself will not answer questions about his past, or questions about his academic qualifications.
However, Thomas Brown, a sociology professor at Lamar University called Churchill's claim of the use of smallpox to commit genocide "shocking" and "fraudulent." Churchill cited UCLA anthropologist Russell Thornton as his source for the assertion, but in reading the two
claims, Churchill's argument does not match Thornton's. Thornton describes how the Mandan indians may have received smallpox from the deckhands on ships that traded up and down the Missouri River. Churchill claims that smallpox-laiden blankets were distributed by the US Army at Ft. Clark.
Another critic is John LaVelle, a University of New Mexico law professor, who said that Churchill's book "constitutes a regrettable setback in Indian people's struggle for social justice." In further comments, LaVelle said: "...the discerning reader will discover that, notwithstanding all the provocative sound and fury rumbling through his essays, Churchill's analysis overall is sorely lacking in historical and factual veracity and scholarly integrity."
In other words, Ward Churchill wouldn't know truth if it came up and smacked him in the face with a huge sign that said I AM THE TRUTH on it. His claim that the US has had a concerted plan to wipe out the indians has never been proven and is the thin hope of those seeking something...anything...to stick Uncle Sam with. The US government is certainly no angel here, but they are not as guilty as Churchill and his radical buddies make them out to be.
The claim that the US passed a law requiring indians to be one-half indian in order to receive land grants is also proven false, in this case because people have read the law in question, and the language Churchill says is in there...well...isn't.
On those three claims alone, Ward Churchill can be proven to be teaching bad history. The man is entitled to his views, and he is entitled to speak them. However, as I have always said, your right of free speech does not entitle you to an audience. In other words, just because you can say something doesn't mean that people have to listen. However, in a classroom setting, the students are expecting their professor to bring them truthful information on the subject, with a minimal amount of their own biases. If Ward Churchill can not keep his political biases out of his class, he is inept.
If he is teaching falseness and passing it off as the truth, he is incompetant.
In either case, he should forfeit his position at Colorado University.
John B.
(Note: I used a front-page story printed in the Denver Post on February 10, 2005 for some of the info in this article.)
Alrighty.
Unless you've been living in a cave for the past couple weeks, you have probably heard of Ward Churchill, a professor at Colorado University, who recently stated his views on the September 11th attacks...and you probably know the gist of his views...that America deserved the attacks, and his calling the victims "little Eichmanns."
First, I will tell you that I find these views to be utterly insulting and nonsensical, and I for one find comfort in the fact that the majority of the reaction on this subject from responsible human beings has been pretty much right where it should be...outright and utter condemnation.
(Please note the equivocation in that last sentence...it becomes important here in a bit...)
I will also tell you that I agree that Ward Churchill had best be checking through the want ads of his local paper for a job, because the man will not find work at a reputable college or university once he is fired, and I believe that he WILL be fired at some point.
However, this will not happen as a result of his remarks about Sept. 11.
Now, I can see two reactions from this last statement. The first, from those on the Right, and from the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks would be: WHY THE HELL NOT? And trust me folks, I empathize all the way with you on this.
And before the total morons who make up the vast majority of the college/university populace in this country start cheering for victory, please remember that the man WILL be fired. My opinion of these people has sunk too, which is why I hedged a bit earlier when I talked about responsible human beings. The actions of a few students at a recent CU Board meeting called to discuss the case of Ward Churchill convinced me that these people are not normal. As for being responsible, as a former college student myself, I contend that as long as you are getting money either from parents or financial aid, you are not responsible in the true sense of the word.
These idiots were storming around the room where the board meeting was held yammering about an obstruction of Churchill's rights of Free Speech.
However, what the CU Board decided to do should lift the spirits of those offended by Churchill, whether they are victims of the Sept. 11 attacks, or just honest, sensible, reasonable people who think that Churchill's spoutings amount to the equivalent of raw sewage in the arena of ideas.
The CU Board decided rightly that they will look into the writings of Ward Churchill, to see if his writings, which have been controversial as well, are protected by the Free Speech amendment to the US Constitution.
See, STOOPID speech is generally protected, even at a university, because it represents a different point of view from the majority, or perhaps a more "enlightened perspective."
However, if a speech or a book demonstrates teachings that indicate that the professor in question is inept, incompetent, or outright falsifying information, that my friends will get you out of a job at a university, whether you are tenured or not.
And in the case of CU & Ward Churchill, we seem to have a case where our dear friend, the Nutty Professor, has passed off fiction as scientific fact.
In 1993, Churchill published a book entitled "Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America." In it, he made the following claims:
- The US government had a policy of eventually wiping out the Indians.
- The US Army deliberately spread smallpox among the Indians of the US West.
- The US government passed a lot requiring proof that an Indian was more than one-half Indian before providing a land grant to that person.
All of these claims have been contested by scholars who have some background in Indian history. Ward Churchill claims he is one-sixteenth Creek indian, but this claim is not confirmed. He claims to have served in the military in Vietnam, but those claims have shifted. Churchill himself will not answer questions about his past, or questions about his academic qualifications.
However, Thomas Brown, a sociology professor at Lamar University called Churchill's claim of the use of smallpox to commit genocide "shocking" and "fraudulent." Churchill cited UCLA anthropologist Russell Thornton as his source for the assertion, but in reading the two
claims, Churchill's argument does not match Thornton's. Thornton describes how the Mandan indians may have received smallpox from the deckhands on ships that traded up and down the Missouri River. Churchill claims that smallpox-laiden blankets were distributed by the US Army at Ft. Clark.
Another critic is John LaVelle, a University of New Mexico law professor, who said that Churchill's book "constitutes a regrettable setback in Indian people's struggle for social justice." In further comments, LaVelle said: "...the discerning reader will discover that, notwithstanding all the provocative sound and fury rumbling through his essays, Churchill's analysis overall is sorely lacking in historical and factual veracity and scholarly integrity."
In other words, Ward Churchill wouldn't know truth if it came up and smacked him in the face with a huge sign that said I AM THE TRUTH on it. His claim that the US has had a concerted plan to wipe out the indians has never been proven and is the thin hope of those seeking something...anything...to stick Uncle Sam with. The US government is certainly no angel here, but they are not as guilty as Churchill and his radical buddies make them out to be.
The claim that the US passed a law requiring indians to be one-half indian in order to receive land grants is also proven false, in this case because people have read the law in question, and the language Churchill says is in there...well...isn't.
On those three claims alone, Ward Churchill can be proven to be teaching bad history. The man is entitled to his views, and he is entitled to speak them. However, as I have always said, your right of free speech does not entitle you to an audience. In other words, just because you can say something doesn't mean that people have to listen. However, in a classroom setting, the students are expecting their professor to bring them truthful information on the subject, with a minimal amount of their own biases. If Ward Churchill can not keep his political biases out of his class, he is inept.
If he is teaching falseness and passing it off as the truth, he is incompetant.
In either case, he should forfeit his position at Colorado University.
John B.
(Note: I used a front-page story printed in the Denver Post on February 10, 2005 for some of the info in this article.)
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Democracy in Action...It's a Beautiful Thing, Pt 2
^.^
Welcome back!
In Part One of this article, I went over the victory of democracy in the Palestinian territories, and the total vindication that those elections were for democracy, peace, and the policies of George W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon, who refused to play the "business as usual" game with a committed terrorist.
Now we move on to Iraq, where a possibly even bigger election has just taken place. And I must say that this election mirrors one that was helf not too long ago in Afghanistan, resulting in the election of Hamid Karzai to the Presidency in that country. Iraq's completed election has similar effects throughout the Arab world, but it was done in a more spectacular way. Let us review, shall we?
1: First off, let's splash the entire idea that the Left put forth that the US could not use military force to impose a democracy on a people. I can see George Bush now, saying: "Well, we did...so NYAH!"
2: The terrorists (the word "insurgents" does not convey what these people really are) were supposed to have a banner day! There was supposed to be blood running in the streets, and they were supposed to have a real impact on the election. In fact, in the week or so running up to the election, attacks on Iraqis increased quite a bit. Most of those attacks were on election workers, or against polling stations. However, on the day of the elections itself, there were a few attacks during the morning hours, but by early afternoon, they had died out, and people turned out by the MILLIONS to cast their ballots!
3: The Left thought that turnout would be low, probably due to the terrorists. After all, once a person in Iraq cast his or her vote, their finger would be dipped in a purple ink that would not come off for a few days...and this would make them into easy targets for the terrorists. So why bother? Why risk one's life for what's likely to be a sham election of a puppet government run by those evil Americans...right?
WRONG!
Turnout in Iraq averaged 70%. In some places, it was above 90%. Folks, the United States hasn't seen those kind of turnout numbers for a very long time, if ever. Since the government shut down most of the roads and restricted travel, the people turned it into an impromptu holiday and it was quite festive in places.
By the way, you can take all three of those points I just made about Iraq, and they also apply to the election last year in Afghanistan. The democracy in Afghanistan was imposed there by the US military, it was carried out under the threat of attacks by the terrorists in that country, and turnout was not supposed to be high.
In both cases, the Left, the talking heads on antique TV, and the Liberal know-nothing politicians in Washington got the story horribly wrong.
BUT, let's not talk about the Left for a moment...
Instead, look at the situation in the Middle East, and listen to what various people are saying about the Iraqi elections.
First off, if you look at a map of the region, you see that we've had successful democratic elections in the Palestinian territory, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All three of these are areas in the Arab world that have virtually no experience with democracy whatsoever. The last free election in Iraq was in 1954, there has never been a really free election in Afghanistan until last year, and Yasser Arafat controlled all of the elections in Palestinian areas up until the one last month.
The success of these elections cuts the Middle East's autocratic nations into seperate areas, with little support for each other. If I were in Damascus or Tehran, I would seriously be looking over my shoulder at the possibility of a democratic uprising, in part inspired by the elections being held on my borders. The only reason the Iranian people haven't risen up yet is because the mullahs are feeding them some line of bull about how the US is about to attack them. It's the classic way for a government to avoid facing problems at hmome...have the people focused on a problem on the foreign relations front.
If either Syria or Iran collapses in a heap, and democracy is allowed to flourish there, it would be an huge thing. If both go, even better. If we throw Saudi Arabia on that pile, even better. Now, don't get me wrong...none of this will be a cake-walk. I doubt that Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia will go quietly into the night. These are entrenched regimes, possibly with the power of the military behind them, and the collapse of any government is seldom a neat affair.
However, things are possible in the area...good things. And for every person in Jordan who says that the election in Iraq is a sham to allow the Americans to stay there and suck all of the oil out of the country, there is a Yemeni wondering if this is only the beginning. When I saw that, I thought "You know, this could be just the beginning."
John B.
Welcome back!
In Part One of this article, I went over the victory of democracy in the Palestinian territories, and the total vindication that those elections were for democracy, peace, and the policies of George W. Bush, and Ariel Sharon, who refused to play the "business as usual" game with a committed terrorist.
Now we move on to Iraq, where a possibly even bigger election has just taken place. And I must say that this election mirrors one that was helf not too long ago in Afghanistan, resulting in the election of Hamid Karzai to the Presidency in that country. Iraq's completed election has similar effects throughout the Arab world, but it was done in a more spectacular way. Let us review, shall we?
1: First off, let's splash the entire idea that the Left put forth that the US could not use military force to impose a democracy on a people. I can see George Bush now, saying: "Well, we did...so NYAH!"
2: The terrorists (the word "insurgents" does not convey what these people really are) were supposed to have a banner day! There was supposed to be blood running in the streets, and they were supposed to have a real impact on the election. In fact, in the week or so running up to the election, attacks on Iraqis increased quite a bit. Most of those attacks were on election workers, or against polling stations. However, on the day of the elections itself, there were a few attacks during the morning hours, but by early afternoon, they had died out, and people turned out by the MILLIONS to cast their ballots!
3: The Left thought that turnout would be low, probably due to the terrorists. After all, once a person in Iraq cast his or her vote, their finger would be dipped in a purple ink that would not come off for a few days...and this would make them into easy targets for the terrorists. So why bother? Why risk one's life for what's likely to be a sham election of a puppet government run by those evil Americans...right?
WRONG!
Turnout in Iraq averaged 70%. In some places, it was above 90%. Folks, the United States hasn't seen those kind of turnout numbers for a very long time, if ever. Since the government shut down most of the roads and restricted travel, the people turned it into an impromptu holiday and it was quite festive in places.
By the way, you can take all three of those points I just made about Iraq, and they also apply to the election last year in Afghanistan. The democracy in Afghanistan was imposed there by the US military, it was carried out under the threat of attacks by the terrorists in that country, and turnout was not supposed to be high.
In both cases, the Left, the talking heads on antique TV, and the Liberal know-nothing politicians in Washington got the story horribly wrong.
BUT, let's not talk about the Left for a moment...
Instead, look at the situation in the Middle East, and listen to what various people are saying about the Iraqi elections.
First off, if you look at a map of the region, you see that we've had successful democratic elections in the Palestinian territory, Afghanistan, and Iraq. All three of these are areas in the Arab world that have virtually no experience with democracy whatsoever. The last free election in Iraq was in 1954, there has never been a really free election in Afghanistan until last year, and Yasser Arafat controlled all of the elections in Palestinian areas up until the one last month.
The success of these elections cuts the Middle East's autocratic nations into seperate areas, with little support for each other. If I were in Damascus or Tehran, I would seriously be looking over my shoulder at the possibility of a democratic uprising, in part inspired by the elections being held on my borders. The only reason the Iranian people haven't risen up yet is because the mullahs are feeding them some line of bull about how the US is about to attack them. It's the classic way for a government to avoid facing problems at hmome...have the people focused on a problem on the foreign relations front.
If either Syria or Iran collapses in a heap, and democracy is allowed to flourish there, it would be an huge thing. If both go, even better. If we throw Saudi Arabia on that pile, even better. Now, don't get me wrong...none of this will be a cake-walk. I doubt that Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia will go quietly into the night. These are entrenched regimes, possibly with the power of the military behind them, and the collapse of any government is seldom a neat affair.
However, things are possible in the area...good things. And for every person in Jordan who says that the election in Iraq is a sham to allow the Americans to stay there and suck all of the oil out of the country, there is a Yemeni wondering if this is only the beginning. When I saw that, I thought "You know, this could be just the beginning."
John B.
Democracy in Action...It's a Beautiful Thing
^.^
Alright. It is now two days since the elections in Iraq, and the Left in this country is astounded that the elections went so well...mostly because it means that George W. Bush has been totally vindicated in his idea that the United States can use military force to bring democracy to an authoritarian state.
All the rest of the authoritarian states would do well to learn a few lessons from the example of Iraq.
But, before we get to that, let's take a look at not one, but TWO elections that must surely have the people in the White House jumping up and down, shouting "YES!"
First, at the beginning of January, we had the election in the Palestinian territories. In them, Abu Mazan prevailed over a bunch of no-names and has succeeded the late terrorist, Yasser Arafat to lead the Palestinian people, and during his first month in office, he has already done more for the Palestinian people than Arafat did in the last two years of his life.
Despite sporadic incidents, the cease-fire that Mazan asked for after winning the election appears to be holding. In case you don't remember, there was a time not too long ago where mortar attacks from Gaza or the West Bank would hit some Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, or a town in Israel proper. Once this happened, the Israeli army would respond with overwhelming force, lock down an area of the occupied territory, bulldoze a few houses, perhaps kill a few Palestinians who they accused of being terrorists, and generally make life a living Hell for the inhabitants. After a while, the Israelis would pull out, some idiot terrorists would vow revenge for the "acts of oppression" committed by the Israeli army, and before long, another mortar attack would be launched, starting the cycle again...
The cycle has largely been stopped.
Instead, Israeli army units are pulling back from the border areas, and Palestinian security forces are being deployed in an effort to stop terrorist attacks into Israel.
At the same time, Mazan has started cracking down on corruption within the municipalities. On a visit to Gaza, Mazan saw some shops that had been built without legal permits. Under the regime of Arafat, these shanty shops had been allowed. Mazan ordered them demolished. One man who lost his shop was not happy, but he seemed willing to accept it as long as all of the illegal shops were demolished.
"Abu Mazan said he was going to enforce the laws," the man said.
Abu Mazan's approach to the peace process, and perhaps the very fact that he is NOT Yasser Arafat has also opened some doors that had been closed to the Palestinians prior to his winning the presidency.
See, ever since Yasser Arafat started attempting to pretend that he was a statesman and not a terrorist, both Israel and the United States have attempted to work with him. I believe, based on the results of the talks, that the United States and Israel were honestly working toward a just peace in the Middle East, with Israel living side-by-side with a Palestinian state. Arafat however, wanted no such thing. I know this because former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and former US President Bill Clinton handed Yasser Arafat *95%* of what he wanted. He wasn't going to get ONE thing, and he threw the agreement in everyone else's face and walked out of the talks.
Yasser Arafat never wanted Jerusalem by itself...he wanted that city, plus Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, and every square inch from Elat to Kiryat Shimona...preferably with the Jews driven into the sea. Once Israel and the United States realized this on some level, they stopped doing business with the man that I called the "little evil elf".
Now we have Abu Mazan, and while I don't want to throw all of my eggs in this one basket, I really do hope that he is serious about making real progress in the peace process. Like I said, doors have been opened that were slammed shut on Arafat. Mazan and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be meeting soon, and a meeting with President Bush is also planned. This is a signal that in Abu Mazan, we have a man that we can do business with.
I believe that the future of the Palestinians and the Israelis has been brightened, and it was done through a democratic election that we backed wholeheartedly.
More democracy in action in Part II...
John B.
Alright. It is now two days since the elections in Iraq, and the Left in this country is astounded that the elections went so well...mostly because it means that George W. Bush has been totally vindicated in his idea that the United States can use military force to bring democracy to an authoritarian state.
All the rest of the authoritarian states would do well to learn a few lessons from the example of Iraq.
But, before we get to that, let's take a look at not one, but TWO elections that must surely have the people in the White House jumping up and down, shouting "YES!"
First, at the beginning of January, we had the election in the Palestinian territories. In them, Abu Mazan prevailed over a bunch of no-names and has succeeded the late terrorist, Yasser Arafat to lead the Palestinian people, and during his first month in office, he has already done more for the Palestinian people than Arafat did in the last two years of his life.
Despite sporadic incidents, the cease-fire that Mazan asked for after winning the election appears to be holding. In case you don't remember, there was a time not too long ago where mortar attacks from Gaza or the West Bank would hit some Jewish settlement in the occupied territories, or a town in Israel proper. Once this happened, the Israeli army would respond with overwhelming force, lock down an area of the occupied territory, bulldoze a few houses, perhaps kill a few Palestinians who they accused of being terrorists, and generally make life a living Hell for the inhabitants. After a while, the Israelis would pull out, some idiot terrorists would vow revenge for the "acts of oppression" committed by the Israeli army, and before long, another mortar attack would be launched, starting the cycle again...
The cycle has largely been stopped.
Instead, Israeli army units are pulling back from the border areas, and Palestinian security forces are being deployed in an effort to stop terrorist attacks into Israel.
At the same time, Mazan has started cracking down on corruption within the municipalities. On a visit to Gaza, Mazan saw some shops that had been built without legal permits. Under the regime of Arafat, these shanty shops had been allowed. Mazan ordered them demolished. One man who lost his shop was not happy, but he seemed willing to accept it as long as all of the illegal shops were demolished.
"Abu Mazan said he was going to enforce the laws," the man said.
Abu Mazan's approach to the peace process, and perhaps the very fact that he is NOT Yasser Arafat has also opened some doors that had been closed to the Palestinians prior to his winning the presidency.
See, ever since Yasser Arafat started attempting to pretend that he was a statesman and not a terrorist, both Israel and the United States have attempted to work with him. I believe, based on the results of the talks, that the United States and Israel were honestly working toward a just peace in the Middle East, with Israel living side-by-side with a Palestinian state. Arafat however, wanted no such thing. I know this because former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and former US President Bill Clinton handed Yasser Arafat *95%* of what he wanted. He wasn't going to get ONE thing, and he threw the agreement in everyone else's face and walked out of the talks.
Yasser Arafat never wanted Jerusalem by itself...he wanted that city, plus Haifa, Tel Aviv, Ashkelon, and every square inch from Elat to Kiryat Shimona...preferably with the Jews driven into the sea. Once Israel and the United States realized this on some level, they stopped doing business with the man that I called the "little evil elf".
Now we have Abu Mazan, and while I don't want to throw all of my eggs in this one basket, I really do hope that he is serious about making real progress in the peace process. Like I said, doors have been opened that were slammed shut on Arafat. Mazan and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will be meeting soon, and a meeting with President Bush is also planned. This is a signal that in Abu Mazan, we have a man that we can do business with.
I believe that the future of the Palestinians and the Israelis has been brightened, and it was done through a democratic election that we backed wholeheartedly.
More democracy in action in Part II...
John B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)