By John Bertosa
I know resolutions have become a little overdone for the New Year but not for me. I am a big goal-setter so I've got New Year's resolutions, Half-Year resolutions (for July 1 through the end of the year) and then the pre-New Year's resolutions (from the end of October on) that get me lined up for next year's New Year's resolutions.
In fact one of last year's resolutions was to be more knowledgeable of what was going on in politics so when Dan approached me with this blog idea I happily said yes and crossed it off my To Do list.
So, here are some of my resolutions I hope to accomplish in the coming new year:
JANUARY: I really need to build up my stomach muscles so I don't vomit too much over the fawning coverage of Obama's inauguration. Perhaps a daily dose of hot pepper juice and raw octopus will get me ready.
FEBRUARY: Convince Dan that he should name his child Sarah Palin Holt.
MARCH: Umm, really no resolutions for March. Such a boring month, the only thing really to do is to hear about Spring Training baseball and look forward to summer.
APRIL: Write letters to all Democratic congressmen on the 15th daring them to raise taxes (y'know just on the rich, or is the phrase now "super rich"?)
MAY: Run Cleveland Marathon
JUNE: Try to walk from couch to kitchen.
JULY: Make out a 24-month to do list in preparation for my 40th birthday.
AUGUST: Try to avoid TV at all costs as one of the traditional hottest months of the year will generate plenty of Global Warming cries from people who weren't able to shout it during this cold winter.
SEPTEMBER: Mark one-year anniversary of Subject to Debate and my attempts to enlighten Patriotic and Open-Minded Liberals.
OCTOBER: For Halloween, buy prison uniform and masks of either Hillary, Richardson or Rahm.
NOVEMBER: I need to hone my personal coping skills. After a year of enforced personal savings due to the recession, people will be ready to start spending again on the holidays and we will hear all about the Great Obama instead of realizing the U.S. economy is a very complicated machine relying on millions of vital factors. Perhaps if I shout out "Serenity Now!" one thousand times that will do the trick.
DECEMBER: Make a list of all my non-Christian acquiantences and the go out and wish each of them a "Happy Friday" on Dec. 25.
See you all next year!
Monday, December 29, 2008
A Moment For Change
By D.T. Holt
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to approach this final posting of the year. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, there’s no denying that this was quite a year for politics. It is equally true that the coming year has the potential for greater challenges and more change than most of us have ever experienced. So, what to do, 2008 in review or preview the coming year? After careful consideration I’ve decided to sort of do both and actually do neither. Instead, I would like to talk about the opportunity that this moment in American political history affords liberals and conservatives alike to work together to face the uncertainties our future holds.
There are those in the liberal camp who have had sharp criticism for many of President Elect Obama’s proposed cabinet appointments. As a card carrying liberal (okay, we don’t really carry cards but, you get the idea) I have been concerned about the moderate nature of most of his choices. Many conservatives have expressed displeasure about the number of Obama appointees who played a major role in the administration of President Bill Clinton. Amazingly, these feelings are echoed by the liberals. I realize that to many conservatives, Bill and Hillary represent the very pinnacle of liberalism in America but, those of us who actually are on the left know that the Clintons are card carrying moderates.
So what should we do with our concerns? Should we give voice to our criticism? Absolutely, however we should also give the new president the benefit of the doubt. He does not seem to be surrounding himself with “yes men” but instead is making his appointments based on the expertise and ability to challenge of those he has chosen. It is often said that a smart leader should surround himself with smart people who disagree with him and on some level, this seems to be President Elect Obama’s agenda. Whether we agree or disagree with his political viewpoint, Obama’s willingness to embrace reasoned debate should serve as the bar that we should all strive to reach in the coming year.
My point isn’t that we should all put our beliefs aside and rally around the president. Nor is it that liberals and conservatives should stop fighting and “just get along.” In a few weeks we will inaugurate a new president and swear in a new session of congress. Given the current economic and social climate, we can no longer afford to weigh the decisions of our political leaders based purely on conservative or liberal ideology. We owe it to ourselves to strive for a more inclusive form of political discourse. We should demand and accept nothing less than reasoned debate from our leaders, fact based, intelligent criticism from the press and informed, active participation from our fellow citizens.
I’ve been thinking a lot about how to approach this final posting of the year. No matter what side of the aisle you’re on, there’s no denying that this was quite a year for politics. It is equally true that the coming year has the potential for greater challenges and more change than most of us have ever experienced. So, what to do, 2008 in review or preview the coming year? After careful consideration I’ve decided to sort of do both and actually do neither. Instead, I would like to talk about the opportunity that this moment in American political history affords liberals and conservatives alike to work together to face the uncertainties our future holds.
There are those in the liberal camp who have had sharp criticism for many of President Elect Obama’s proposed cabinet appointments. As a card carrying liberal (okay, we don’t really carry cards but, you get the idea) I have been concerned about the moderate nature of most of his choices. Many conservatives have expressed displeasure about the number of Obama appointees who played a major role in the administration of President Bill Clinton. Amazingly, these feelings are echoed by the liberals. I realize that to many conservatives, Bill and Hillary represent the very pinnacle of liberalism in America but, those of us who actually are on the left know that the Clintons are card carrying moderates.
So what should we do with our concerns? Should we give voice to our criticism? Absolutely, however we should also give the new president the benefit of the doubt. He does not seem to be surrounding himself with “yes men” but instead is making his appointments based on the expertise and ability to challenge of those he has chosen. It is often said that a smart leader should surround himself with smart people who disagree with him and on some level, this seems to be President Elect Obama’s agenda. Whether we agree or disagree with his political viewpoint, Obama’s willingness to embrace reasoned debate should serve as the bar that we should all strive to reach in the coming year.
My point isn’t that we should all put our beliefs aside and rally around the president. Nor is it that liberals and conservatives should stop fighting and “just get along.” In a few weeks we will inaugurate a new president and swear in a new session of congress. Given the current economic and social climate, we can no longer afford to weigh the decisions of our political leaders based purely on conservative or liberal ideology. We owe it to ourselves to strive for a more inclusive form of political discourse. We should demand and accept nothing less than reasoned debate from our leaders, fact based, intelligent criticism from the press and informed, active participation from our fellow citizens.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Have A Happy Thursday!
It's the holiday season, what the hell are you doing trying to read about politics? We're taking the week off and will both be back next week with our final thoughts for the year. In the mean time, enjoy Christmas or Hanukah or Thursday or whatever it is you do or do not celebrate, but for Pete's sake,take a week off from politics!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Logic gets its fingernails pulled out
By John Bertosa
From Webster's Dictionary:
torture. 3: distortion, overrefinement or perversion of a meaning, argument, or a line of thought or reasoning.
Now, liberals love to use the phrase "freedom from religion" but that is simply being overly dramatic. No one is forcing them to adopt a religion, to get down and pray at the call of an imam or face imprisonment, or be required to go to temple on Saturday or church on Sunday. What they mean is "freedom from religious speech."
Well, too bad.
America doesn't operate like that. It emphasize the speaker's right, not the listener's right. And our society does that in every other aspect of Freedom of Speech.
If an evangelical sees a library display about Gay Pride Day, the government doesn't order it taken down when the evangelical says "Ooooh I'm offended," when a military veteran sees another patriot burning the American Flag on the town square he can't count on the government stepping in on behalf of the offended party.
But liberals counter there is no double standard.They say that it is two separate situations because unlike other forms of free speech the U.S. Constitution has set up a separation of church and state.
Wrong.
Here is exactly what the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
That's ALL it says.It does NOT say anything about a separation of church and state. It says NOTHING specifically about religious speech. And it definitely does NOT say anything about freedom from religion.
The clause stems from King Henry VIII abandoning the Catholic Church so he could get a divorce. He ESTABLISHED A RELIGION -- the Church of England, setting himself up as head of the church as well as head of state. Archbishops and other church leaders could be picked by the King or Queen and a proportion of bishops get to sit in the House of Lords.
To connect that situation to a librarian voluntarily putting up a Christmas tree or nativity scene for her 5,000 patrons is utterly and completely tortured logic. A person would have to pass over a lot of steps to connect buying a $10 plastic light-up Jesus to establishment of a religion. It's pull-out-fingernails, electric-shocks-to-the-nipples torture.
As for the thought that government funding equals endorsement, well you might as well strap logic to The Rack while Barbra Streisand music blares all night long.
The government gives tax money to all sorts of groups not because they are seeking to endorse a certain way of life but because public groups should have some access to the public's money. The government made February Black History Month and provides some funding for related educational programs in schools and libraries. That does not mean government is establishing that skin color as America's official skin color.
And on an individual level, someone celebrating Black History Month should not be accused of an unwillingness to acknowledge the trials and success of those with other skin colors. Just as someone who says Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukah is not showing an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. Maybe, just maybe, they are hoping someone has a happy holiday like the well-wisher has experienced in the past.
Congress is clearly forbidden by the Constitution from passing a law demanding a City Hall or library put up a manger but they should not be prevented from voluntarily doing it because that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.
So here's hoping liberals set logic free like they are trying to do with their political prisoners at Gitmo and support a nativity scene on Public Square as graciously as they defend a public museum hanging a Mapplethorpe photograph of someone urinating into another's mouth.
From Webster's Dictionary:
torture. 3: distortion, overrefinement or perversion of a meaning, argument, or a line of thought or reasoning.
Now, liberals love to use the phrase "freedom from religion" but that is simply being overly dramatic. No one is forcing them to adopt a religion, to get down and pray at the call of an imam or face imprisonment, or be required to go to temple on Saturday or church on Sunday. What they mean is "freedom from religious speech."
Well, too bad.
America doesn't operate like that. It emphasize the speaker's right, not the listener's right. And our society does that in every other aspect of Freedom of Speech.
If an evangelical sees a library display about Gay Pride Day, the government doesn't order it taken down when the evangelical says "Ooooh I'm offended," when a military veteran sees another patriot burning the American Flag on the town square he can't count on the government stepping in on behalf of the offended party.
But liberals counter there is no double standard.They say that it is two separate situations because unlike other forms of free speech the U.S. Constitution has set up a separation of church and state.
Wrong.
Here is exactly what the Constitution says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"
That's ALL it says.It does NOT say anything about a separation of church and state. It says NOTHING specifically about religious speech. And it definitely does NOT say anything about freedom from religion.
The clause stems from King Henry VIII abandoning the Catholic Church so he could get a divorce. He ESTABLISHED A RELIGION -- the Church of England, setting himself up as head of the church as well as head of state. Archbishops and other church leaders could be picked by the King or Queen and a proportion of bishops get to sit in the House of Lords.
To connect that situation to a librarian voluntarily putting up a Christmas tree or nativity scene for her 5,000 patrons is utterly and completely tortured logic. A person would have to pass over a lot of steps to connect buying a $10 plastic light-up Jesus to establishment of a religion. It's pull-out-fingernails, electric-shocks-to-the-nipples torture.
As for the thought that government funding equals endorsement, well you might as well strap logic to The Rack while Barbra Streisand music blares all night long.
The government gives tax money to all sorts of groups not because they are seeking to endorse a certain way of life but because public groups should have some access to the public's money. The government made February Black History Month and provides some funding for related educational programs in schools and libraries. That does not mean government is establishing that skin color as America's official skin color.
And on an individual level, someone celebrating Black History Month should not be accused of an unwillingness to acknowledge the trials and success of those with other skin colors. Just as someone who says Merry Christmas or Happy Hanukah is not showing an unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. Maybe, just maybe, they are hoping someone has a happy holiday like the well-wisher has experienced in the past.
Congress is clearly forbidden by the Constitution from passing a law demanding a City Hall or library put up a manger but they should not be prevented from voluntarily doing it because that would be a violation of their freedom of speech.
So here's hoping liberals set logic free like they are trying to do with their political prisoners at Gitmo and support a nativity scene on Public Square as graciously as they defend a public museum hanging a Mapplethorpe photograph of someone urinating into another's mouth.
Monday, December 8, 2008
‘Tis The Season For The War On Christmas
by D.T. Holt
From where I sit, the very notion that there is some sort of an attack being waged on Christmas and that Christians, who by any count are in the majority in this country, are somehow a persecuted minority is laughably ridiculous. Yet every year at this time, conservative radio personalities and conservative Christians alike lament the growing threat to this venerable religious holiday.
Some point to the very idea that those of us who are more sensitive to the multitude of faiths and belief systems in America, choose the slightly more generic “Happy Holidays” over the more specific “Merry Christmas.” A woman I know insists on defiantly wishing everyone she meets a “Merry Christmas,” usually following it up with “did you notice I said MERRY CHRISTMAS!” Christians often proclaim things like “I wouldn’t be offended if one of my Jewish friends wished me a Happy Hanukah” but that is completely missing the point. The problem isn’t that a non-Christian may take offense. It’s not about hurt feelings but instead about an unwillingness to acknowledge other viewpoints.
Another front in this so-called war, involves the nativity displays that appear in the public squares of virtually every town and village in the country. Invariably a few advocates for the separation of church and state will enjoin court action to remove one of these ubiquitous, publicly sanctioned religious displays. The Bill O’Reillys of the world will then rave about the traditions of Christmas and the supposed traditional Christian values that this country was founded on. Again, this is missing the point. The Constitution grants us freedom of religion, but it also grants us the freedom to not have a religion, in effect, the freedom from religion, if we so choose. A Christian specific display on public property, often paid for and maintained by public funds amounts to government sanctioned religion, which is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as citizens of this country.
Because most of us will be celebrating Christmas, the idea goes, public displays and Christian-centric greetings are to be expected. Those who are either non-Christians or choose not to celebrate this holiday should just casually look the other way. When the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it doesn’t specify an exception if the religion in question is in vogue with a majority of the population. The fact that most Americans celebrate Christmas has no bearing on the appropriateness of religious icons or celebrations in the public domain.
While I am one of the many Americans who celebrate Christmas, my celebration of it is more about fellowship with family and friends that it is about my religious beliefs and I suspect that this is true in varying degrees for a large percentage of us. With this in mind, it is important to remember that American culture is a patchwork quilt that encompasses a multitude of viewpoints and belief systems. Far from being seen as an attack, efforts to confine this holiday to the private sector of our places of worship and homes should be applauded as an example of American’s ability to embrace the true spirit of religious freedom granted to us by our Constitution.
Happy Holidays.
From where I sit, the very notion that there is some sort of an attack being waged on Christmas and that Christians, who by any count are in the majority in this country, are somehow a persecuted minority is laughably ridiculous. Yet every year at this time, conservative radio personalities and conservative Christians alike lament the growing threat to this venerable religious holiday.
Some point to the very idea that those of us who are more sensitive to the multitude of faiths and belief systems in America, choose the slightly more generic “Happy Holidays” over the more specific “Merry Christmas.” A woman I know insists on defiantly wishing everyone she meets a “Merry Christmas,” usually following it up with “did you notice I said MERRY CHRISTMAS!” Christians often proclaim things like “I wouldn’t be offended if one of my Jewish friends wished me a Happy Hanukah” but that is completely missing the point. The problem isn’t that a non-Christian may take offense. It’s not about hurt feelings but instead about an unwillingness to acknowledge other viewpoints.
Another front in this so-called war, involves the nativity displays that appear in the public squares of virtually every town and village in the country. Invariably a few advocates for the separation of church and state will enjoin court action to remove one of these ubiquitous, publicly sanctioned religious displays. The Bill O’Reillys of the world will then rave about the traditions of Christmas and the supposed traditional Christian values that this country was founded on. Again, this is missing the point. The Constitution grants us freedom of religion, but it also grants us the freedom to not have a religion, in effect, the freedom from religion, if we so choose. A Christian specific display on public property, often paid for and maintained by public funds amounts to government sanctioned religion, which is a clear violation of our Constitutional rights as citizens of this country.
Because most of us will be celebrating Christmas, the idea goes, public displays and Christian-centric greetings are to be expected. Those who are either non-Christians or choose not to celebrate this holiday should just casually look the other way. When the first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” it doesn’t specify an exception if the religion in question is in vogue with a majority of the population. The fact that most Americans celebrate Christmas has no bearing on the appropriateness of religious icons or celebrations in the public domain.
While I am one of the many Americans who celebrate Christmas, my celebration of it is more about fellowship with family and friends that it is about my religious beliefs and I suspect that this is true in varying degrees for a large percentage of us. With this in mind, it is important to remember that American culture is a patchwork quilt that encompasses a multitude of viewpoints and belief systems. Far from being seen as an attack, efforts to confine this holiday to the private sector of our places of worship and homes should be applauded as an example of American’s ability to embrace the true spirit of religious freedom granted to us by our Constitution.
Happy Holidays.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
John Stewart, Rush Limbaugh and The Sinister Purpose
By D.T. Holt
There is no doubt that political comedy, like that of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, has an agenda beyond merely making us laugh. As far back as Mark Twain, and possibly much further, satirical comedy with a political bent has been part of our culture. In and of itself, this is in no way a bad thing. A comedian who is attempting to go beyond the usual banal banter that passes for comedy in America is a welcome thing and comics like Bill Mahr and John Stewart have honed their “thinking man’s comedian” routine to perfection. It becomes a problem when the audience for these entertainers begins to see them as legitimate news sources.
There is also no doubt that the influence of political comedy has gone far beyond anything we’ve ever seen. The question we must ask ourselves is, are the comedians themselves responsible for this influence? I would argue that the onus is on a news media that has become far more concerned with ratings and infotainment than it is with actually, you know, reporting the news. Americans now have more diversions at their fingertips than at any other time in history and the bi-product of this is a populace with a short attention span and a penchant for quick, easy answers. This makes the pseudo informed persona of Bill Maher seem like a reasonable place to look for stances on political and cultural issues alike.
I don’t believe that there is a sinister purpose behind the plethora of left leaning political comics. For the most part, the tradition of political comedy has been from a liberal viewpoint and none of these shows purport to be anything other than comedy. On the Daily Show, John Stewart constantly pokes fun at the idea that the show is an authority on anything and in interviews seems genuinely aghast at the idea that anyone is looking to his show for their political news. Whenever I see a survey about the droves of college students who see Comedy Central as their primary news source, I find myself wondering how they can possibly get the jokes. Good political comedy, like that of John Stewart or Bill Maher, requires a certain level of knowledge in order to work.
When criticizing a public that relies on liberal comedians for it’s news, it is also important to point out the conservative counterpart. Radio personalities such as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine and especially Rush Limbaugh have made a cottage industry of attacking the left in a way that exploits the political ignorance of our populace. Websites like Media Matters for America have long pointed out the level at which the right wing noise machine is willing to mislead, mischaracterize and outright lie to lead their loyal minions to the alter of so-called “conservative principals.” However, the conservative talk show hosts are still seen by their listeners and, in some cases, the news networks that employ them as legitimate, informed political commentators on the level of George Will or Katha Pollit.
Sean Hannity spent the final weeks before the election raving about Barack Obama’s alleged lack of a birth certificate and his listener believed every word. Never mind that this story has been debunked by numerous fact checking groups. The constant repetition of the story, coupled with an audience that is listening in a vacuum that only includes viewpoints with which they agree, make a ridiculous fabrication seem not only plausible, but actually true.
There is one major difference between the liberal comedians and what I prefer to call conservative radio personalities. The comedians make no effort to convince anyone that they are anything but comedians. They also make no effort to hide that they have an axe to grind and an agenda to further but, at the end of the day, they are presenting themselves as comedic entertainment. The fact that a large segment of the public has assigned them a loftier role is, to be sure, a sad commentary on our lack of an informed electorate but is not an indicator of some sort of conspiracy to win the hearts and minds of young Americans. Limbaugh, Hannity and the others present themselves and are perceived by their public as bona fide political commentators, which is at the very least a disturbing deception.
The effectiveness of right wing talk radio relies on and in fact encourages an audience which mistrusts all other sources of news. If liberal political comedy requires an audience that is at least slightly informed in order for the jokes to work and conservative talk radio encourages it’s audience to look only to them for their news and opinions, which side has a sinister purpose?
There is no doubt that political comedy, like that of The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, has an agenda beyond merely making us laugh. As far back as Mark Twain, and possibly much further, satirical comedy with a political bent has been part of our culture. In and of itself, this is in no way a bad thing. A comedian who is attempting to go beyond the usual banal banter that passes for comedy in America is a welcome thing and comics like Bill Mahr and John Stewart have honed their “thinking man’s comedian” routine to perfection. It becomes a problem when the audience for these entertainers begins to see them as legitimate news sources.
There is also no doubt that the influence of political comedy has gone far beyond anything we’ve ever seen. The question we must ask ourselves is, are the comedians themselves responsible for this influence? I would argue that the onus is on a news media that has become far more concerned with ratings and infotainment than it is with actually, you know, reporting the news. Americans now have more diversions at their fingertips than at any other time in history and the bi-product of this is a populace with a short attention span and a penchant for quick, easy answers. This makes the pseudo informed persona of Bill Maher seem like a reasonable place to look for stances on political and cultural issues alike.
I don’t believe that there is a sinister purpose behind the plethora of left leaning political comics. For the most part, the tradition of political comedy has been from a liberal viewpoint and none of these shows purport to be anything other than comedy. On the Daily Show, John Stewart constantly pokes fun at the idea that the show is an authority on anything and in interviews seems genuinely aghast at the idea that anyone is looking to his show for their political news. Whenever I see a survey about the droves of college students who see Comedy Central as their primary news source, I find myself wondering how they can possibly get the jokes. Good political comedy, like that of John Stewart or Bill Maher, requires a certain level of knowledge in order to work.
When criticizing a public that relies on liberal comedians for it’s news, it is also important to point out the conservative counterpart. Radio personalities such as Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine and especially Rush Limbaugh have made a cottage industry of attacking the left in a way that exploits the political ignorance of our populace. Websites like Media Matters for America have long pointed out the level at which the right wing noise machine is willing to mislead, mischaracterize and outright lie to lead their loyal minions to the alter of so-called “conservative principals.” However, the conservative talk show hosts are still seen by their listeners and, in some cases, the news networks that employ them as legitimate, informed political commentators on the level of George Will or Katha Pollit.
Sean Hannity spent the final weeks before the election raving about Barack Obama’s alleged lack of a birth certificate and his listener believed every word. Never mind that this story has been debunked by numerous fact checking groups. The constant repetition of the story, coupled with an audience that is listening in a vacuum that only includes viewpoints with which they agree, make a ridiculous fabrication seem not only plausible, but actually true.
There is one major difference between the liberal comedians and what I prefer to call conservative radio personalities. The comedians make no effort to convince anyone that they are anything but comedians. They also make no effort to hide that they have an axe to grind and an agenda to further but, at the end of the day, they are presenting themselves as comedic entertainment. The fact that a large segment of the public has assigned them a loftier role is, to be sure, a sad commentary on our lack of an informed electorate but is not an indicator of some sort of conspiracy to win the hearts and minds of young Americans. Limbaugh, Hannity and the others present themselves and are perceived by their public as bona fide political commentators, which is at the very least a disturbing deception.
The effectiveness of right wing talk radio relies on and in fact encourages an audience which mistrusts all other sources of news. If liberal political comedy requires an audience that is at least slightly informed in order for the jokes to work and conservative talk radio encourages it’s audience to look only to them for their news and opinions, which side has a sinister purpose?
Monday, November 24, 2008
J---
By John Bertosa
There is a four-letter word in the English language that I have grown to despise.
I completely loathe this word because it has turned people who use it into deceivers, if not outright liars, 99.9 percent of the time.
And what is this profanity? It’s just the word “just”-- as in “I’m just joking” or “I’m just saying.” It is a safe bet that when someone states “I’m just joking” what they really mean is “I’m making a humorous statement but I’m also mixing in a serious observation which I feel will be more easily accepted if told in a light-hearted manner” and when people say “I’m just saying” what they really mean is “I stand by the simple, obvious meaning of what I just uttered but I also am trying to make another point using allusions, innuendos and/or other wordplay.”
Now, this brings me to this week’s topic here at Subject to Debate -- should we take seriously The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and other comedic observation shows like David Letterman?
And the answer is the jokes should not be taken literally but, yes they should be taken seriously because the shows are not "just" comedy.
One reason these shows should be taken seriously is because people in our society are using the Daily Show to get their news. They aren’t purposefully sitting down with notebook in hand believing every word, but they are picking up on the facts. Why are they doing this? Because political and world events are used as the set-up for the joke, heck, real-life politicians are coming in to sit down and be part of the process.
Case in point -- Over the summer, a very intellectual relative of mine was talking about an episode in which President Bush, traveling overseas, was seen addressing an Eastern European congregation using very colloqiual language. Now my relative didn’t focus on Jon Stewart’s joke about how such English could never properly be translated into Polish or Hungarian, she dwelled on the actually news element.
And then there is an acquaintance of mine, college-educated, who is regularly quoting Bill Maher during political discussions.
All this is in addition to the "real" news shows covering what the Daily Show and The Colbert Report are saying.
Now, intent is another reason this is not “just” joking. Humor in ye olden days used to just be about word play, whether it was a limerick or a “Why did the chicken cross the road.” But from Lenny Bruce in the 1950s through Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor in the 1970s, social observation matured as the popular basis for jokes. These comedians intended to have people think about the different aspects of our society when we laughed at their jokes.
And this humor's maturity has reached a new zenith with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. No longer are comics just basing their jokes on the news, they are adopting a news format to give their humorous observations.
And when almost all the comedy is focused against one side or the other, it's not "just" joking, it's called preaching. And that is my problem with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
The writers on those shows see the world from a certain viewpoint and they want to make the argument that you should to.
The only difference between these writers and George Will, Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh is they do a better job of sugar-coating their observations.
So, if you want to defend the Daily Show writers' Freedom of Speech or even go out on a limb and defend their viewpoints, that's fine. But don't act like these are "just" jokes or say these shows don't have political viewpoints and should not be taken seriously.
There is a four-letter word in the English language that I have grown to despise.
I completely loathe this word because it has turned people who use it into deceivers, if not outright liars, 99.9 percent of the time.
And what is this profanity? It’s just the word “just”-- as in “I’m just joking” or “I’m just saying.” It is a safe bet that when someone states “I’m just joking” what they really mean is “I’m making a humorous statement but I’m also mixing in a serious observation which I feel will be more easily accepted if told in a light-hearted manner” and when people say “I’m just saying” what they really mean is “I stand by the simple, obvious meaning of what I just uttered but I also am trying to make another point using allusions, innuendos and/or other wordplay.”
Now, this brings me to this week’s topic here at Subject to Debate -- should we take seriously The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and other comedic observation shows like David Letterman?
And the answer is the jokes should not be taken literally but, yes they should be taken seriously because the shows are not "just" comedy.
One reason these shows should be taken seriously is because people in our society are using the Daily Show to get their news. They aren’t purposefully sitting down with notebook in hand believing every word, but they are picking up on the facts. Why are they doing this? Because political and world events are used as the set-up for the joke, heck, real-life politicians are coming in to sit down and be part of the process.
Case in point -- Over the summer, a very intellectual relative of mine was talking about an episode in which President Bush, traveling overseas, was seen addressing an Eastern European congregation using very colloqiual language. Now my relative didn’t focus on Jon Stewart’s joke about how such English could never properly be translated into Polish or Hungarian, she dwelled on the actually news element.
And then there is an acquaintance of mine, college-educated, who is regularly quoting Bill Maher during political discussions.
All this is in addition to the "real" news shows covering what the Daily Show and The Colbert Report are saying.
Now, intent is another reason this is not “just” joking. Humor in ye olden days used to just be about word play, whether it was a limerick or a “Why did the chicken cross the road.” But from Lenny Bruce in the 1950s through Redd Foxx and Richard Pryor in the 1970s, social observation matured as the popular basis for jokes. These comedians intended to have people think about the different aspects of our society when we laughed at their jokes.
And this humor's maturity has reached a new zenith with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report. No longer are comics just basing their jokes on the news, they are adopting a news format to give their humorous observations.
And when almost all the comedy is focused against one side or the other, it's not "just" joking, it's called preaching. And that is my problem with the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
The writers on those shows see the world from a certain viewpoint and they want to make the argument that you should to.
The only difference between these writers and George Will, Maureen Dowd and Rush Limbaugh is they do a better job of sugar-coating their observations.
So, if you want to defend the Daily Show writers' Freedom of Speech or even go out on a limb and defend their viewpoints, that's fine. But don't act like these are "just" jokes or say these shows don't have political viewpoints and should not be taken seriously.
Monday, November 17, 2008
The Emperor has no clothes
By John Bertosa
Those who advocate changing society to accommodate those who embrace the homosexual lifestyle connect it to skin color and the 1960s civil rights movement and gender and the feminist movement.
But making that emotional connection is taking the simplistic, easy way out just like labeling every politician you hate "Hitler" or every war "another Vietnam."
Homosexuality is not hereditary (like skin color) nor is it a basic of nature (like gender is). But it also is not morally wrong. Homosexuality simply is a biological defect.
The human body was intelligently designed or evolved -- depending on whether you are a Bible-clutching conservative or enlightened liberal -- to function at certain levels in nature, and the genetic aspects of an individual which hinder that function are defects. Some are as profound as Down's Syndrome, others pose just minor obstacles, like nearsightedness.
Homosexuality is a defect because people are biochemically attracted to their own gender which limits the continuation of the species. A defect, that is all it is.
There are social aspects to homosexuality separate fromthe biological ones and those are the ones that concern this discussion of gay marriage, but the problem with supporters of gay rights is they cite biology to defend the social aspects. When an opponent of the cultural aspects brings up a point, the proponent alludes to the biological aspect and declares "It's not a choice!!"
But that simplistic outlook is wrong. So, to clearly differentiate, let's draw a black solid line in which everything discussed afterward will be just about the cultural aspects of sexuality, both homo and hetero.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There, now I dress in button-down shirts and wear Dockers because that's the societal group I choose to associate with just as other heterosexuals choose to wear black concert t-shirts and ripped blue jeans because that is the group they choose to associate with. If dress was based on sexual urges then all heteros would dress alike.
Therefore, since the only difference between homos and heteros is our sexual urges,the physical appearances homosexuals adopt must also be a choice. The hairstyles, clothing and amount of make-up or lack there of are choices made to associate with a social group. Not genetics.
Now, while my biochemistry pushes me to want sex with women, it does not compel me to marry one. While sexual compatibility is a component, there are numerous other considerations, ranging from intellectual to financial compatibilities. And all of these lead to us having to make a choice of who we marry.
Actually, we don't even have to make such a choice as more and more people are co-habitating without being married. If our sexuality compelled us to marry, then how can this be possible?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I didn't really need the black line there but I liked it so much as a literary tool that I thought I'd use it again to start my summation.
Our society believes we should be judged and accept the rewards and consequences of our choices -- not simply because of who we are. Society should be able to set up laws that push back at people who are 30 years old and choose to go against society norms and try to marry a 10-year-old sheep -- not because these people are black or women but because of the choices they make in our society.
And that is exactly what our society is doing when it decides what parameters need to be met in order to marry. The homosexuality that society addresses is not the biology that takes place in the bedroom but the social choices that bring people to City Hall. .
Our society has accepted those embracing the gay culture as much as it has those embracing the evangelical culture, the Goth culture and the Urban culture.
But on Election Day, the most liberal diverse state (as opposed to Vermont where everyone thinks and looks the same), decided that in the case of changing a pillar of society, it was better to stop pretending that homosexuality in society is the same as race or gender.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I had a little space left so I thought I'd make one side comment, and that's on the rhetorical question "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?"
There are young people out there who feel completely, utterly alone perceiving a world that persecutes them at every turn. Some are drawn to the military as a way of being part of a supportive group, others join a gang while others commit suicide or lead a self-destructive life. Others see the support that homosexuals get from members of their own social group and they want to join it and not feel so alone any more. They either don't see the real-life persecutions (homosexuals are treated nicely on TV all the time) or they believe it can't be any worse than what they're going through now. I believe this is only a small percentage of the gay community, but a percentage nonetheless.
Those who advocate changing society to accommodate those who embrace the homosexual lifestyle connect it to skin color and the 1960s civil rights movement and gender and the feminist movement.
But making that emotional connection is taking the simplistic, easy way out just like labeling every politician you hate "Hitler" or every war "another Vietnam."
Homosexuality is not hereditary (like skin color) nor is it a basic of nature (like gender is). But it also is not morally wrong. Homosexuality simply is a biological defect.
The human body was intelligently designed or evolved -- depending on whether you are a Bible-clutching conservative or enlightened liberal -- to function at certain levels in nature, and the genetic aspects of an individual which hinder that function are defects. Some are as profound as Down's Syndrome, others pose just minor obstacles, like nearsightedness.
Homosexuality is a defect because people are biochemically attracted to their own gender which limits the continuation of the species. A defect, that is all it is.
There are social aspects to homosexuality separate fromthe biological ones and those are the ones that concern this discussion of gay marriage, but the problem with supporters of gay rights is they cite biology to defend the social aspects. When an opponent of the cultural aspects brings up a point, the proponent alludes to the biological aspect and declares "It's not a choice!!"
But that simplistic outlook is wrong. So, to clearly differentiate, let's draw a black solid line in which everything discussed afterward will be just about the cultural aspects of sexuality, both homo and hetero.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There, now I dress in button-down shirts and wear Dockers because that's the societal group I choose to associate with just as other heterosexuals choose to wear black concert t-shirts and ripped blue jeans because that is the group they choose to associate with. If dress was based on sexual urges then all heteros would dress alike.
Therefore, since the only difference between homos and heteros is our sexual urges,the physical appearances homosexuals adopt must also be a choice. The hairstyles, clothing and amount of make-up or lack there of are choices made to associate with a social group. Not genetics.
Now, while my biochemistry pushes me to want sex with women, it does not compel me to marry one. While sexual compatibility is a component, there are numerous other considerations, ranging from intellectual to financial compatibilities. And all of these lead to us having to make a choice of who we marry.
Actually, we don't even have to make such a choice as more and more people are co-habitating without being married. If our sexuality compelled us to marry, then how can this be possible?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I didn't really need the black line there but I liked it so much as a literary tool that I thought I'd use it again to start my summation.
Our society believes we should be judged and accept the rewards and consequences of our choices -- not simply because of who we are. Society should be able to set up laws that push back at people who are 30 years old and choose to go against society norms and try to marry a 10-year-old sheep -- not because these people are black or women but because of the choices they make in our society.
And that is exactly what our society is doing when it decides what parameters need to be met in order to marry. The homosexuality that society addresses is not the biology that takes place in the bedroom but the social choices that bring people to City Hall. .
Our society has accepted those embracing the gay culture as much as it has those embracing the evangelical culture, the Goth culture and the Urban culture.
But on Election Day, the most liberal diverse state (as opposed to Vermont where everyone thinks and looks the same), decided that in the case of changing a pillar of society, it was better to stop pretending that homosexuality in society is the same as race or gender.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I had a little space left so I thought I'd make one side comment, and that's on the rhetorical question "Why would anyone choose to be homosexual?"
There are young people out there who feel completely, utterly alone perceiving a world that persecutes them at every turn. Some are drawn to the military as a way of being part of a supportive group, others join a gang while others commit suicide or lead a self-destructive life. Others see the support that homosexuals get from members of their own social group and they want to join it and not feel so alone any more. They either don't see the real-life persecutions (homosexuals are treated nicely on TV all the time) or they believe it can't be any worse than what they're going through now. I believe this is only a small percentage of the gay community, but a percentage nonetheless.
Monday, November 10, 2008
In Defense of Same Sex Marriage
By D.T. Holt
With the passage of proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, California has become the first state to give the right of same sex marriage and then take it away. It is ironic that a single election could include a triumph for the civil rights movement, in the election of Barack Obama as the first African American President, as well as a major setback in the rights of homosexuals, which many see as one of the major civil rights issues of our era.
There seems to be a lot of debate from both sides of gay rights issues as to whether homosexuality is a choice. While it seems ludicrous to think that anyone would choose a sexual orientation with the real potential to make them social outcasts, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a choice. Why would that make any difference to the argument either for or against gay marriage? Aren’t all relationships between consenting adults by definition a choice? We all choose the person that we will spend our lives with.
Many would say that we should give homosexuals access to the same rights as heterosexual couples, just don’t call it marriage. This is where we get into the idea of civil unions which, theoretically, carry all of the same rights as a marriage but with their own fancy, non-threatening to heterosexuals, name. If the rights are in fact the same, why not just call it a marriage and be done with it? Does our society really have the right to decide which marriages between consenting adults are valid and which are not? I’m not generally a proponent of the fabled “slippery slope” but, isn’t it possible that this paves the way for the return of interracial marriage bans? If two grown men are denied the civil right of marriage because a segment of society sees their relationship as immoral, who’s to say that there aren’t other marriages which large numbers of Americans see as immoral? What about a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman?
For reasons that I have never understood, there seems to be a real fear of the effect same sex marriage will have on so-called traditional marriage. How does a change to the legal definition of an institution inherently threaten that institution? Proponents of gay marriage are in fact attempting to change our legal or civil definition of marriage to be a union between two consenting adults. They are not asking churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin to throw open their doors to the flood of same sex couples looking to take part in the holy sacrament of marriage. Instead, they are simply asking that they be afforded the same rights of any other couple that has decided to legally formalize their relationship.
It is my belief that the aversion to same sex marriage is more about an aversion to homosexuality than it is about some perceived threat to the institution of marriage. To allow gays the same legal rights to matrimony that straight couples enjoy, is to validate what is seen as the homosexual lifestyle. If same sex couples are given the right to marriage it will be tantamount to a societal acceptance of their sexuality as no more remarkable than a straight man with a preference for blonde haired women. Opponents of gay marriage, along with supporters of the separate but equal concept of Civil Unions, are really opposing the acceptance of homosexuals as an ordinary segment of our society. This is an argument that is based in fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to confront the changing social mores that are a necessary part of the evolution of a vibrant, multicultural society.
With the passage of proposition 8, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman, California has become the first state to give the right of same sex marriage and then take it away. It is ironic that a single election could include a triumph for the civil rights movement, in the election of Barack Obama as the first African American President, as well as a major setback in the rights of homosexuals, which many see as one of the major civil rights issues of our era.
There seems to be a lot of debate from both sides of gay rights issues as to whether homosexuality is a choice. While it seems ludicrous to think that anyone would choose a sexual orientation with the real potential to make them social outcasts, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is a choice. Why would that make any difference to the argument either for or against gay marriage? Aren’t all relationships between consenting adults by definition a choice? We all choose the person that we will spend our lives with.
Many would say that we should give homosexuals access to the same rights as heterosexual couples, just don’t call it marriage. This is where we get into the idea of civil unions which, theoretically, carry all of the same rights as a marriage but with their own fancy, non-threatening to heterosexuals, name. If the rights are in fact the same, why not just call it a marriage and be done with it? Does our society really have the right to decide which marriages between consenting adults are valid and which are not? I’m not generally a proponent of the fabled “slippery slope” but, isn’t it possible that this paves the way for the return of interracial marriage bans? If two grown men are denied the civil right of marriage because a segment of society sees their relationship as immoral, who’s to say that there aren’t other marriages which large numbers of Americans see as immoral? What about a marriage between a 50 year old man and a 20 year old woman?
For reasons that I have never understood, there seems to be a real fear of the effect same sex marriage will have on so-called traditional marriage. How does a change to the legal definition of an institution inherently threaten that institution? Proponents of gay marriage are in fact attempting to change our legal or civil definition of marriage to be a union between two consenting adults. They are not asking churches who believe that homosexuality is a sin to throw open their doors to the flood of same sex couples looking to take part in the holy sacrament of marriage. Instead, they are simply asking that they be afforded the same rights of any other couple that has decided to legally formalize their relationship.
It is my belief that the aversion to same sex marriage is more about an aversion to homosexuality than it is about some perceived threat to the institution of marriage. To allow gays the same legal rights to matrimony that straight couples enjoy, is to validate what is seen as the homosexual lifestyle. If same sex couples are given the right to marriage it will be tantamount to a societal acceptance of their sexuality as no more remarkable than a straight man with a preference for blonde haired women. Opponents of gay marriage, along with supporters of the separate but equal concept of Civil Unions, are really opposing the acceptance of homosexuals as an ordinary segment of our society. This is an argument that is based in fear of the unknown and an unwillingness to confront the changing social mores that are a necessary part of the evolution of a vibrant, multicultural society.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Final Thoughts On The 2008 Presidential Election
By D.T. Holt
This has to stop. Not the election or the campaigning, which will obviously stop after the results have been counted tomorrow night. What has to stop is the way we’ve been doing this for as many presidential election cycles as I can remember. The idea that a candidate can say whatever is necessary to win. That gross mischaracterizations and even outright lies are just part of a “tough campaign.” We have to expect more from our politicians and from ourselves.
It should be obvious to anyone who has been reading this blog that I am pulling for Barack Obama to win this election. While I am encouraged by the polls going into the final day of the campaign, I by no means think that this is a forgone conclusion. These things have a way of being much closer than anyone can predict and it could still go either way. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Obama will be elected President of the United States tomorrow night. At some point in the evening, John McCain will address a roomful of faithful supporters with a speech that will start out with something like “I’ve just spoken with Senator Obama and congratulated him on his victory and a well run campaign,” and go on with something along the lines of “I have nothing but respect for Senator Obama and plan to give the next President of the United States my full support,” and maybe something like “in these difficult times, it is more important than ever that Republicans and Democrats alike pull together to reach across the aisle and do the hard work of putting our country back on the right track.”
How can this possibly be what he will say after spending the last three months trying desperately to convince the American people that Barack Obama is a terrorist or a socialist or a redistributionist? If even half of the things that have been suggested about Barack Obama were true, why shouldn’t all of McCain’s supporters take to the streets and refuse to acknowledge a Barack Obama presidency?
The answer that most would give is that campaigns are tough and sometimes things are said during the course of a campaign that wouldn’t normally be said. How can we, as Americans who are asked to believe in this process, accept this answer? How can we all walk away from the divisiveness and the attempts to incite hatred and fear and mistrust? Elections and the future of our country are too important for us to continue to accept the angry rhetoric, the willing manipulation of half truths and the exploitation of an uninformed electorate.
It has to stop. No matter who wins this election, as a country, we have to decide, right here and now, that we will no longer accept this kind of behavior from our candidates. There is a vast difference between advertising and rhetoric which is critical of an opponent’s stances on the issues and that which seeks to defame his character by bending the truth and manipulating any factoid, no matter how inconsequential, in order to cast a shadow of fear or distrust.
If Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the first time in a long time that the politics of character assassination have failed. Should McCain win the office, we should all take to the streets, not to refuse acknowledgement of his presidency, but to make it known that never again will we allow ourselves to be used in this way. That in the future, we will expect our candidates to rise to a higher standard of debate and convince us of their own worth without calling into question the patriotism of their opponent. We must expect, no, demand that future candidates for office respect not only the country or the office for which they are running, but also the patriotism and sacrifice of their opponent and, above all, the intelligence of the electorate that they seek to represent.
This has to stop. Not the election or the campaigning, which will obviously stop after the results have been counted tomorrow night. What has to stop is the way we’ve been doing this for as many presidential election cycles as I can remember. The idea that a candidate can say whatever is necessary to win. That gross mischaracterizations and even outright lies are just part of a “tough campaign.” We have to expect more from our politicians and from ourselves.
It should be obvious to anyone who has been reading this blog that I am pulling for Barack Obama to win this election. While I am encouraged by the polls going into the final day of the campaign, I by no means think that this is a forgone conclusion. These things have a way of being much closer than anyone can predict and it could still go either way. But let’s, for the sake of argument, say that Obama will be elected President of the United States tomorrow night. At some point in the evening, John McCain will address a roomful of faithful supporters with a speech that will start out with something like “I’ve just spoken with Senator Obama and congratulated him on his victory and a well run campaign,” and go on with something along the lines of “I have nothing but respect for Senator Obama and plan to give the next President of the United States my full support,” and maybe something like “in these difficult times, it is more important than ever that Republicans and Democrats alike pull together to reach across the aisle and do the hard work of putting our country back on the right track.”
How can this possibly be what he will say after spending the last three months trying desperately to convince the American people that Barack Obama is a terrorist or a socialist or a redistributionist? If even half of the things that have been suggested about Barack Obama were true, why shouldn’t all of McCain’s supporters take to the streets and refuse to acknowledge a Barack Obama presidency?
The answer that most would give is that campaigns are tough and sometimes things are said during the course of a campaign that wouldn’t normally be said. How can we, as Americans who are asked to believe in this process, accept this answer? How can we all walk away from the divisiveness and the attempts to incite hatred and fear and mistrust? Elections and the future of our country are too important for us to continue to accept the angry rhetoric, the willing manipulation of half truths and the exploitation of an uninformed electorate.
It has to stop. No matter who wins this election, as a country, we have to decide, right here and now, that we will no longer accept this kind of behavior from our candidates. There is a vast difference between advertising and rhetoric which is critical of an opponent’s stances on the issues and that which seeks to defame his character by bending the truth and manipulating any factoid, no matter how inconsequential, in order to cast a shadow of fear or distrust.
If Barack Obama is elected president, it will be the first time in a long time that the politics of character assassination have failed. Should McCain win the office, we should all take to the streets, not to refuse acknowledgement of his presidency, but to make it known that never again will we allow ourselves to be used in this way. That in the future, we will expect our candidates to rise to a higher standard of debate and convince us of their own worth without calling into question the patriotism of their opponent. We must expect, no, demand that future candidates for office respect not only the country or the office for which they are running, but also the patriotism and sacrifice of their opponent and, above all, the intelligence of the electorate that they seek to represent.
Prediction
By John Bertosa
When this campaign began in earnest at the beginning of the year, I started making mental notes about whether a candidate's actions on a certain day would be the deciding factor on whether they would go on to win or lose the election.
I had a decent-sized list going when I had to throw it all out. That's because the deciding factor ended up being when the stock market started to plummet and the Wall Street bailout was talked about. Because the day before that the polls showed only a 1 percentage point separating Obama and McCain with Obama not getting more than 47 percent of the vote. Also, the Generic Ballot poll for Congress showed Democrats with their smallest lead of the year.
What happenned during those five days in late September were two-fold. One it was the final straw for many voters who were disturbed with the way the country was going and they were turned off to Republicans no matter what.
But the second was how McCain handled it. I'm not saying his suspending campaigning and going to Washington was wrong. It absolutely was the right thing to do. But he didn't follow through. If he would have joined with conservatives in demanding a better plan he would have utterly taken away Obama's accusation that his just policies are just like Bush's. He also would have been the one being pro-active and he also would have endeared himself to working families who didn't like billions of dollars going to corporations.
But he caved into Bush and his Treasury Secretary who had just recently left Wall Street, and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and the Democratic Speaker of the House.
Maybe, the election will reveal I was wrong about the turning point of the election. Maybe it will be when Obama accidentally revealed his economic goals to a plumber in Ohio. But I don't think so.
Overall, this has really been a boring race, with few lead changes and thus few changes in campaign tactics. However, I have learned some things through the media and my liberal friends.
-- Obama's idea of a running a post-partisan campaign is to break a promise about accepting federal campaing funding and the limitations that come with it, imply that one of his opponents is a pig, and throw reporters off his plane if their papers hadn't endorse him.
-- That liberal politicians shouldn't be held to the higher standard they've set for themselves but conservatives should be criticized.
-- We should never forget that after the Twin Towers were rammed in 2001 Bush kept reading a storybook to kids. And we should never remember that as the stock and credit markets began to plummet, Obama decided to shoot hoops.
-- Joe Biden taught me that unlike how Bush handled the beginning of this financial crisis, President Roosevelt got on TV when the Great Depression first hit and looked the public in the eye and told them the problems they were facing. (I used to think that Hoover was president when the Depression started in the late 1920s and TVs weren't mainstream until the 1960s). Oh, and Biden also taught me that J-O-B-S has three letters and Obama assured me he will campaign in all 57 states.
-- I was already taught by liberals that conservatives are stupid for saying "misunderestimate." or saying there's an "e" in "potato".
-- Now, I also already had learned over the last eight years that if you can find a reason to criticize the actions, or inaction, of a Republican leader then do it but remain silent if you can't find a reason. In this campaign, my liberal friends have taught me that if you can find a reason to praise a Democrat, then do it but if you can't find a reason then... well... criticize a Republican.
When this campaign began in earnest at the beginning of the year, I started making mental notes about whether a candidate's actions on a certain day would be the deciding factor on whether they would go on to win or lose the election.
I had a decent-sized list going when I had to throw it all out. That's because the deciding factor ended up being when the stock market started to plummet and the Wall Street bailout was talked about. Because the day before that the polls showed only a 1 percentage point separating Obama and McCain with Obama not getting more than 47 percent of the vote. Also, the Generic Ballot poll for Congress showed Democrats with their smallest lead of the year.
What happenned during those five days in late September were two-fold. One it was the final straw for many voters who were disturbed with the way the country was going and they were turned off to Republicans no matter what.
But the second was how McCain handled it. I'm not saying his suspending campaigning and going to Washington was wrong. It absolutely was the right thing to do. But he didn't follow through. If he would have joined with conservatives in demanding a better plan he would have utterly taken away Obama's accusation that his just policies are just like Bush's. He also would have been the one being pro-active and he also would have endeared himself to working families who didn't like billions of dollars going to corporations.
But he caved into Bush and his Treasury Secretary who had just recently left Wall Street, and the Democratic Senate Majority Leader and the Democratic Speaker of the House.
Maybe, the election will reveal I was wrong about the turning point of the election. Maybe it will be when Obama accidentally revealed his economic goals to a plumber in Ohio. But I don't think so.
Overall, this has really been a boring race, with few lead changes and thus few changes in campaign tactics. However, I have learned some things through the media and my liberal friends.
-- Obama's idea of a running a post-partisan campaign is to break a promise about accepting federal campaing funding and the limitations that come with it, imply that one of his opponents is a pig, and throw reporters off his plane if their papers hadn't endorse him.
-- That liberal politicians shouldn't be held to the higher standard they've set for themselves but conservatives should be criticized.
-- We should never forget that after the Twin Towers were rammed in 2001 Bush kept reading a storybook to kids. And we should never remember that as the stock and credit markets began to plummet, Obama decided to shoot hoops.
-- Joe Biden taught me that unlike how Bush handled the beginning of this financial crisis, President Roosevelt got on TV when the Great Depression first hit and looked the public in the eye and told them the problems they were facing. (I used to think that Hoover was president when the Depression started in the late 1920s and TVs weren't mainstream until the 1960s). Oh, and Biden also taught me that J-O-B-S has three letters and Obama assured me he will campaign in all 57 states.
-- I was already taught by liberals that conservatives are stupid for saying "misunderestimate." or saying there's an "e" in "potato".
-- Now, I also already had learned over the last eight years that if you can find a reason to criticize the actions, or inaction, of a Republican leader then do it but remain silent if you can't find a reason. In this campaign, my liberal friends have taught me that if you can find a reason to praise a Democrat, then do it but if you can't find a reason then... well... criticize a Republican.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Is it voter fraud or voter suppression?
By D.T. Holt
I think it would be difficult to find anyone who doesn’t agree that voter fraud is reprehensible and that we should do whatever we can to keep it from happening. However, I think there is some question as to whether ACORN has perpetrated voter fraud. The fact that a small number of more than 13,000 registration assistance workers hired by the organization have willfully turned in inaccurate or sometimes fictitious registrations does not prove that the organization itself has engineered, as John puts it, “a systematic corruption of our voting system.”
It is instructive that the conservative pundits who are accusing ACORN of trying to steal this election fail to point out that in almost every instance which has been reported, it was actually ACORN who discovered the bad forms and called them to the attention of election officials. They also fail to mention that ACORN is required by law to hand over each and every registration that they collect. They are not required to verify the forms and flag those that are suspicious for further investigation by the election commission and yet ACORN has done exactly that at considerable expense to their organization. If their intent was systematic corruption of our voting system, what would be their motivation to draw attention to the registrations that they have been unable to verify?
Another point that the conservative pundits fail to make about the discrepancies in voter registrations is that many of them are routine in nature. John sites the estimated 200,000 of 660,000 new Ohio voters with records that don’t match. It is crucial to point out that the most minor of differences between the information on the registration form and the databases used for verifying registrations would constitute a record that doesn’t match and therefore requires further investigation. For example, if I were to register to vote as “Dan Holt” instead of “Daniel T. Holt,” that would constitute a record that does not match. While these types of differences cause additional verification by election officials, they do not constitute voter fraud, nor do they lead to anyone having the opportunity to cast an extra vote.
In any voter registration drive, there will be false registrations for the likes of Mickey Mouse. There will always be anecdotal evidence such as the teenager in Ohio who registered multiple times. However, there still isn’t clear proof that these false registrations have lead to widespread fraudulent voting. John’s example of the recent case in New Mexico, in which the GOP reviewed 92 ballots and found 28 to be fraudulent, doesn’t seem to be true. ACORN was able to locate and verify several of the so-called false registrants within a day or so. Even if the claim is true, are 92 ballots a representative sample in a state where thousands of new voters were registered in advance of the Democratic primaries? Does the fact that the investigation was undertaken by a Republican lawyer who played a central role in an effort to pressure a U.S. attorney to bring politically motivated voter fraud cases have any effect on the credence of the voter fraud claims?
The only systematic attempt that I see in all of this is the systematic attempt of the conservative punditry and the McCain/Palin campaign to throw the results of the coming election into question. This is nothing short of an attempt to suppress or disenfranchise millions of new voters simply because they are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate on November 4th.
I think it would be difficult to find anyone who doesn’t agree that voter fraud is reprehensible and that we should do whatever we can to keep it from happening. However, I think there is some question as to whether ACORN has perpetrated voter fraud. The fact that a small number of more than 13,000 registration assistance workers hired by the organization have willfully turned in inaccurate or sometimes fictitious registrations does not prove that the organization itself has engineered, as John puts it, “a systematic corruption of our voting system.”
It is instructive that the conservative pundits who are accusing ACORN of trying to steal this election fail to point out that in almost every instance which has been reported, it was actually ACORN who discovered the bad forms and called them to the attention of election officials. They also fail to mention that ACORN is required by law to hand over each and every registration that they collect. They are not required to verify the forms and flag those that are suspicious for further investigation by the election commission and yet ACORN has done exactly that at considerable expense to their organization. If their intent was systematic corruption of our voting system, what would be their motivation to draw attention to the registrations that they have been unable to verify?
Another point that the conservative pundits fail to make about the discrepancies in voter registrations is that many of them are routine in nature. John sites the estimated 200,000 of 660,000 new Ohio voters with records that don’t match. It is crucial to point out that the most minor of differences between the information on the registration form and the databases used for verifying registrations would constitute a record that doesn’t match and therefore requires further investigation. For example, if I were to register to vote as “Dan Holt” instead of “Daniel T. Holt,” that would constitute a record that does not match. While these types of differences cause additional verification by election officials, they do not constitute voter fraud, nor do they lead to anyone having the opportunity to cast an extra vote.
In any voter registration drive, there will be false registrations for the likes of Mickey Mouse. There will always be anecdotal evidence such as the teenager in Ohio who registered multiple times. However, there still isn’t clear proof that these false registrations have lead to widespread fraudulent voting. John’s example of the recent case in New Mexico, in which the GOP reviewed 92 ballots and found 28 to be fraudulent, doesn’t seem to be true. ACORN was able to locate and verify several of the so-called false registrants within a day or so. Even if the claim is true, are 92 ballots a representative sample in a state where thousands of new voters were registered in advance of the Democratic primaries? Does the fact that the investigation was undertaken by a Republican lawyer who played a central role in an effort to pressure a U.S. attorney to bring politically motivated voter fraud cases have any effect on the credence of the voter fraud claims?
The only systematic attempt that I see in all of this is the systematic attempt of the conservative punditry and the McCain/Palin campaign to throw the results of the coming election into question. This is nothing short of an attempt to suppress or disenfranchise millions of new voters simply because they are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate on November 4th.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Twisted tree grows from this seed
By John Bertosa
I know I promised to discuss the role of government regulation in our economy this week but recent events have yielded a different subject (and yes a much jucier one) to discuss. Which is why I'm going to talk about balancing the assurance that U.S. citizens can vote with the assurance that there is no criminal activity tainting those results.
Every year, in every major election, there are going to be individual instances of voter intimidation and/or voter fraud. The most creative ones I’ve heard were dead people voting in Chicago in the 1960 election and in 2004 pamphlets were being circulated in black neighborhoods saying to be sure to vote on the second Tuesday of November. (If you don’t understand what’s wrong with that then please go to a different Web site and never return here again).
But, throughout American history there have been times when these problems coalesced into organized, systemic problems. From Southern Democrats using reading tests and other unrelated requirements for decades to prevent blacks from voting to New York Democrats in the mid-1800s encouraging the immigrant population to vote early and vote often (literally). The problems in the South from the end of the Civil War to the late 1960s, put the focus on intimidation and disenfranchisement, and laws and other efforts since then have worked to alleviate that.
But, those efforts have led the pendulum to swing the other way and now, we are seeing another systemic corruption of our voting system. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has claimed to have registed 1.3 million people this year, including Mickey Mouse in Orlando, Fla. There is no word yet on whether that number includes all 73 times one Cleveland teen has registered. Nevada, Connecticut and Missouri are among the eight states targeted as the FBI has launched investigations into a possible national coordinated scam. And ACORN is not the only one pushing the pendulum the other way. In Cleveland last month, a non-partisan chauffer taking the homeless to register and vote admitted on camera that she was encouraging them to vote for a certain candidate. And, wow, talk about coincidence. As I was typing that last paragraph, I was interrupted by a call saying that a man living in a home for 36 years just received a mailing with his address on it telling where to go vote on Nov. 4. The name on the notice was not his.
It is not surprising about this growth in fraud considering the fertile ground it was planted in. Voting by mail, voting with no ID required, registering and voting the same day all make fraud easier because they strain the verification process or outright circumvent it.
Some might say, what’s the big deal, the elections boards will catch fraudulant registrations and illegal voting. But those people obviously have never lived in Cuyahoga County in Ohio where government ineptitude is on full display every spring and fall. And even if an elections board is on the ball, they don’t have the personnel resources to handle so many questions. In Ohio’s , the Associated Press reports 200,000 of 666,000 newly registered voters have records that don’t match.
And here's proof -- in a June election in a House District in News Mexico, the GOP reviewed just 92 ballots and reported 28 were from fraudulent registration. Now, because of a biased source, let's only look at the 10 registrations that were released to the public. These did not include any Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdays. And the cherry on top? One of the voters was "Duran-Duran." Nice.
The pendulum has swung from one way of eroding democracy to another damaging way. And America needs to get the pendulum to settle right in the middle. But that won’t happen if people lustily shout out for making it easier to vote while only reluctantly whispering about fraud prevention.
I know I promised to discuss the role of government regulation in our economy this week but recent events have yielded a different subject (and yes a much jucier one) to discuss. Which is why I'm going to talk about balancing the assurance that U.S. citizens can vote with the assurance that there is no criminal activity tainting those results.
Every year, in every major election, there are going to be individual instances of voter intimidation and/or voter fraud. The most creative ones I’ve heard were dead people voting in Chicago in the 1960 election and in 2004 pamphlets were being circulated in black neighborhoods saying to be sure to vote on the second Tuesday of November. (If you don’t understand what’s wrong with that then please go to a different Web site and never return here again).
But, throughout American history there have been times when these problems coalesced into organized, systemic problems. From Southern Democrats using reading tests and other unrelated requirements for decades to prevent blacks from voting to New York Democrats in the mid-1800s encouraging the immigrant population to vote early and vote often (literally). The problems in the South from the end of the Civil War to the late 1960s, put the focus on intimidation and disenfranchisement, and laws and other efforts since then have worked to alleviate that.
But, those efforts have led the pendulum to swing the other way and now, we are seeing another systemic corruption of our voting system. ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has claimed to have registed 1.3 million people this year, including Mickey Mouse in Orlando, Fla. There is no word yet on whether that number includes all 73 times one Cleveland teen has registered. Nevada, Connecticut and Missouri are among the eight states targeted as the FBI has launched investigations into a possible national coordinated scam. And ACORN is not the only one pushing the pendulum the other way. In Cleveland last month, a non-partisan chauffer taking the homeless to register and vote admitted on camera that she was encouraging them to vote for a certain candidate. And, wow, talk about coincidence. As I was typing that last paragraph, I was interrupted by a call saying that a man living in a home for 36 years just received a mailing with his address on it telling where to go vote on Nov. 4. The name on the notice was not his.
It is not surprising about this growth in fraud considering the fertile ground it was planted in. Voting by mail, voting with no ID required, registering and voting the same day all make fraud easier because they strain the verification process or outright circumvent it.
Some might say, what’s the big deal, the elections boards will catch fraudulant registrations and illegal voting. But those people obviously have never lived in Cuyahoga County in Ohio where government ineptitude is on full display every spring and fall. And even if an elections board is on the ball, they don’t have the personnel resources to handle so many questions. In Ohio’s , the Associated Press reports 200,000 of 666,000 newly registered voters have records that don’t match.
And here's proof -- in a June election in a House District in News Mexico, the GOP reviewed just 92 ballots and reported 28 were from fraudulent registration. Now, because of a biased source, let's only look at the 10 registrations that were released to the public. These did not include any Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers or birthdays. And the cherry on top? One of the voters was "Duran-Duran." Nice.
The pendulum has swung from one way of eroding democracy to another damaging way. And America needs to get the pendulum to settle right in the middle. But that won’t happen if people lustily shout out for making it easier to vote while only reluctantly whispering about fraud prevention.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Yes
By John Bertosa
First, should we only look at candidates’ intentions and policies when voting?
Well, the military saying goes “A battle plan is great until the first shot is fired.” What that alludes to is that in an emotionally intense, ever-changing situation, what looks good on paper is quickly irrelevant. That’s why the military focuses on the foundations of good soldiering and leadership. So, when that first shot is fired the soldier will immediately take appropriate action as will the officer even if it’s not what’s dictated by the plan.
Running a major country is no different. President Bush came into office talking very little about international plans, until Al Qaeda fired that shot. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s intentions and policies for the economy are already obsolete.
So, what also matters is the foundations of these leaders. What inner workings will guide them and what philosophies will they rely on? That is what voters need to know — how candidates will react once their plans become irrelevant.
So, then, should a candidate’s personal faith be considered?
For some voters, education is the most important factor. But unless the President majored in Human Psychology, textbooks aren’t enough. Temperament is a key indicator as well as the ability to determine which advisors to rely on and which not to (can you say “Michael Corleone”?).
Another indicator is a leader’s religous faith and strength of it. Because faith (belief in a higher power and the guidance that higher power has given) is infused in believers to a great degree or lesser; it colors our personal philosophy and outlook and affects our decisions, minutely or decisively. A prime example is Sarah Palin’s decision to carry out her latest pregnancy despite the hardships it will cause because she believed life is sacred.
Faith moves us to take action beyond our own basest self-interest, like taking in foster children or standing in the freezing cold ringing a bell for The Salvation Army. Faith also serves as an excellent coping mechanism, knowing that there’s a higher power backing you up is a great comfort. And faith serves as a brake on emotionally selfish tendencies (Consider the 10 Commandments).
And if a candidate does not have a strong or encompassing faith, then I’ll leave that up to the voter to decide on the level of importance to attach to it. But the voter should be able to gather enough information on the candidates to make that decision.
But should candidates infuse their personal beliefs in the way they govern or legislate?
The people who ask that question think of faith as just a credit card that you stick in your wallet and take out like you’re paying for dinner — something that can be compartmentalized, a tangible object to be isolated.
But it’s not. It is ingrained throughout our being, serving as a building block for new experiences and coloring everything we’ve done and thought. And even if we could completely set aside our beliefs, no one would want to.
Taking care of the poor is very much a Christian (and Islamic and Judiac) teaching. Should a government official really set aside these religious teachings when it comes to policies that direct funding (including tax dollars from non-believers) to the most needy?
After all, from a scientific viewpoint, it is better the weakest should die so they do not use limited resources that are better served going to the strongest. What good does the severely mentally handicapped in orphanages do for society except to serve as test subjects?
Those who fear religioun point to its worst examples — The Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic extremism — and make no mistake those were horrible. But the absence of God has led to even more horrendous societies — the officially aethiestic USSR sent hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths in Siberia; and consider Nazi Germany where Hitler and his party were set up as religous figures. Remember, it was the deeply religious Abolitionists in the early 180s who led the fight to ban slavery even though the Supreme Court had ruled blacks were not living, breathing human beings (hmmm, sound familiar?).
So, yes we should be a Christian nation, or at least a nation that emphasizes that we are accountable to something greater than ourselves (don't even think about saying the United Nations).
But, John, personal faith may be fine in a leader but does organized religioun have to play a role in their duties?
It should and will play as much of a role as the candidate’s faith allows. Just as political parties cannot force every member to believe every part of a platform, it is closeminded to think that every Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim must believe every tenant. After all, Joe Biden is a Catholic but he supports much pro-choice legislation. Sarah Palin’s church preaches that homosexuality is wrong but as governor she vetoed legislation that would haved banned health benefits for same-sex state workers.
Organizations, religious or other, serve as an amplifier. It is still the words (i.e. faith or political views) that comes through that megaphone that truly matters.
So, to summarize, religious faith is not something we can lock up in a small corner of our minds. It molds and influences our views and actions (and inactions). And in picking our leaders the depth and breadth of their views should be considered.
But, are voters who do that relying on a simplistic litmus test for their candidates?
Now, our society’s language has devolved, to where we use as few words and even letters as possible. Remember when we said Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King but now its KFC and BK? Politics and social situations have also been condensed to where the word Democrat connotes certain things as does Christian and Muslim.
This leads some to think that people are seeking to use shorthand litmus tests. But make no mistake, the people using these simple words know they are not simple labels. Evangalicals call both Palin and McCain Christians but react to each differently. And liberals consider Obama and Palin Christians but they also act like there are differences in their views. Heck, Biden is a Catholic but polls show McCain has more support from that group.
Voters are looking at not just the candidates’ stated beliefs but how strongly they express them and how they’ve lived their lives. They are intellectually and logically comparing a candidate’s words with their philosophies and then seeing if that’s the type of leader they want to follow.
Well, sorry the post ran over (just under 1000 words) but I felt it was needed to properly explain things. For next week, in light of the current economic situation, I'll kick off a discussion about the role of government (i.e. regulations) in capitalism.
First, should we only look at candidates’ intentions and policies when voting?
Well, the military saying goes “A battle plan is great until the first shot is fired.” What that alludes to is that in an emotionally intense, ever-changing situation, what looks good on paper is quickly irrelevant. That’s why the military focuses on the foundations of good soldiering and leadership. So, when that first shot is fired the soldier will immediately take appropriate action as will the officer even if it’s not what’s dictated by the plan.
Running a major country is no different. President Bush came into office talking very little about international plans, until Al Qaeda fired that shot. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s intentions and policies for the economy are already obsolete.
So, what also matters is the foundations of these leaders. What inner workings will guide them and what philosophies will they rely on? That is what voters need to know — how candidates will react once their plans become irrelevant.
So, then, should a candidate’s personal faith be considered?
For some voters, education is the most important factor. But unless the President majored in Human Psychology, textbooks aren’t enough. Temperament is a key indicator as well as the ability to determine which advisors to rely on and which not to (can you say “Michael Corleone”?).
Another indicator is a leader’s religous faith and strength of it. Because faith (belief in a higher power and the guidance that higher power has given) is infused in believers to a great degree or lesser; it colors our personal philosophy and outlook and affects our decisions, minutely or decisively. A prime example is Sarah Palin’s decision to carry out her latest pregnancy despite the hardships it will cause because she believed life is sacred.
Faith moves us to take action beyond our own basest self-interest, like taking in foster children or standing in the freezing cold ringing a bell for The Salvation Army. Faith also serves as an excellent coping mechanism, knowing that there’s a higher power backing you up is a great comfort. And faith serves as a brake on emotionally selfish tendencies (Consider the 10 Commandments).
And if a candidate does not have a strong or encompassing faith, then I’ll leave that up to the voter to decide on the level of importance to attach to it. But the voter should be able to gather enough information on the candidates to make that decision.
But should candidates infuse their personal beliefs in the way they govern or legislate?
The people who ask that question think of faith as just a credit card that you stick in your wallet and take out like you’re paying for dinner — something that can be compartmentalized, a tangible object to be isolated.
But it’s not. It is ingrained throughout our being, serving as a building block for new experiences and coloring everything we’ve done and thought. And even if we could completely set aside our beliefs, no one would want to.
Taking care of the poor is very much a Christian (and Islamic and Judiac) teaching. Should a government official really set aside these religious teachings when it comes to policies that direct funding (including tax dollars from non-believers) to the most needy?
After all, from a scientific viewpoint, it is better the weakest should die so they do not use limited resources that are better served going to the strongest. What good does the severely mentally handicapped in orphanages do for society except to serve as test subjects?
Those who fear religioun point to its worst examples — The Crusades, the Inquisition, Islamic extremism — and make no mistake those were horrible. But the absence of God has led to even more horrendous societies — the officially aethiestic USSR sent hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths in Siberia; and consider Nazi Germany where Hitler and his party were set up as religous figures. Remember, it was the deeply religious Abolitionists in the early 180s who led the fight to ban slavery even though the Supreme Court had ruled blacks were not living, breathing human beings (hmmm, sound familiar?).
So, yes we should be a Christian nation, or at least a nation that emphasizes that we are accountable to something greater than ourselves (don't even think about saying the United Nations).
But, John, personal faith may be fine in a leader but does organized religioun have to play a role in their duties?
It should and will play as much of a role as the candidate’s faith allows. Just as political parties cannot force every member to believe every part of a platform, it is closeminded to think that every Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim must believe every tenant. After all, Joe Biden is a Catholic but he supports much pro-choice legislation. Sarah Palin’s church preaches that homosexuality is wrong but as governor she vetoed legislation that would haved banned health benefits for same-sex state workers.
Organizations, religious or other, serve as an amplifier. It is still the words (i.e. faith or political views) that comes through that megaphone that truly matters.
So, to summarize, religious faith is not something we can lock up in a small corner of our minds. It molds and influences our views and actions (and inactions). And in picking our leaders the depth and breadth of their views should be considered.
But, are voters who do that relying on a simplistic litmus test for their candidates?
Now, our society’s language has devolved, to where we use as few words and even letters as possible. Remember when we said Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King but now its KFC and BK? Politics and social situations have also been condensed to where the word Democrat connotes certain things as does Christian and Muslim.
This leads some to think that people are seeking to use shorthand litmus tests. But make no mistake, the people using these simple words know they are not simple labels. Evangalicals call both Palin and McCain Christians but react to each differently. And liberals consider Obama and Palin Christians but they also act like there are differences in their views. Heck, Biden is a Catholic but polls show McCain has more support from that group.
Voters are looking at not just the candidates’ stated beliefs but how strongly they express them and how they’ve lived their lives. They are intellectually and logically comparing a candidate’s words with their philosophies and then seeing if that’s the type of leader they want to follow.
Well, sorry the post ran over (just under 1000 words) but I felt it was needed to properly explain things. For next week, in light of the current economic situation, I'll kick off a discussion about the role of government (i.e. regulations) in capitalism.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Yes, This Is A Christian Nation. But Should It Be?
By D.T. Holt
What if Sarah Palin was an atheist? What if there was nothing else different and she had all of the same conservative touchstone values but just without the belief in God? Would she still be the darling of the far right that she is today? Not only is the answer no, she wouldn’t even be in the race. Her name would’ve never come up for consideration.
Similarly, what if Barack Obama really was a Muslim, like all those crazy emails are claiming? Again, what if everything else about him were exactly the same? Obviously, if this were true, we wouldn’t even know his name. He probably would have never made it to the US Senate, let alone the presidential race.
All of the contestants in a debate during the Republican presidential primary were asked if they believed every word in the bible and several of them said yes but, even more amazingly, none of them was willing to point out that the answer to that question was completely irrelevant. Those who were unwilling to sign on to every word gave stuttering non-answers that they hoped would be glossed over by the Christians in the viewing audience. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are afraid of having the wrong religious views and those, like John McCain, who, by all appearances, don’t seem to be active participants in religion, try desperately to pretend that they are.
For many, having a belief in Jesus Christ has become shorthand for having sound morals and the elusive “family values” that the pundits insist are the key factors in most presidential races. But would a politician who held the same views as you on the economy, on the war, on abortion, or human rights be dismissed because he does not share your religious views? Isn’t this a shallow short cut to choosing which candidate deserves your vote?
Conservatives have successfully rewritten history to read that this nation was founded on Christian values however a casual Google search brings a list of conflicting quotes about the religious beliefs and intent of the founding fathers. The truth is that their religious intentions are not only difficult to discern they are also irrelevant to this debate. The question is not whether we are a Christian nation but whether we should be.
I am an atheist, that is, I do not believe in God. Sometimes, I also refer to myself as a Buddhist but, I see Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion. I not only don’t believe that Buddha was a god, I don’t believe it even matters. I am drawn to Buddhism by the concept of being present in each moment and I have found its philosophies and rituals to be effective in my life. I mention my personal beliefs because I don’t expect or even look for them when choosing to support a candidate for president. I honestly don’t think it’s important or even any of my business.
I don’t care whether Barack Obama believes in God but I do care how he intends to help millions of Americans, many of them children, who are without adequate health care. I care about his plan for our economic woes and his plan to fix our failing education system. His religious beliefs are his business and should have no bearing in my judgment of his fitness for office.
The only time that a candidate’s religious beliefs become a concern for me is when, as in the case of Sarah Palin’s support of teaching creationism in high school science class alongside the theory of evolution, those beliefs can potentially have an undue influence on public policy. If Sarah Palin wants to ignore the findings of literally thousands of scientists and pretend that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that is certainly within her rights however, those beliefs can have no bearing on the way she governs as an elected official.
The next President of the United States will potentially face as much adversity and make as many difficult decisions as any in our history. It’s time that we focused our attention on the intentions and policies of those vying for the highest office in this country instead of the incessantly examining their religious beliefs. It’s time to do the hard work of researching the candidates and leave the shorthand of a simple “yes, but is he a Christian?” litmus test behind.
What if Sarah Palin was an atheist? What if there was nothing else different and she had all of the same conservative touchstone values but just without the belief in God? Would she still be the darling of the far right that she is today? Not only is the answer no, she wouldn’t even be in the race. Her name would’ve never come up for consideration.
Similarly, what if Barack Obama really was a Muslim, like all those crazy emails are claiming? Again, what if everything else about him were exactly the same? Obviously, if this were true, we wouldn’t even know his name. He probably would have never made it to the US Senate, let alone the presidential race.
All of the contestants in a debate during the Republican presidential primary were asked if they believed every word in the bible and several of them said yes but, even more amazingly, none of them was willing to point out that the answer to that question was completely irrelevant. Those who were unwilling to sign on to every word gave stuttering non-answers that they hoped would be glossed over by the Christians in the viewing audience. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are afraid of having the wrong religious views and those, like John McCain, who, by all appearances, don’t seem to be active participants in religion, try desperately to pretend that they are.
For many, having a belief in Jesus Christ has become shorthand for having sound morals and the elusive “family values” that the pundits insist are the key factors in most presidential races. But would a politician who held the same views as you on the economy, on the war, on abortion, or human rights be dismissed because he does not share your religious views? Isn’t this a shallow short cut to choosing which candidate deserves your vote?
Conservatives have successfully rewritten history to read that this nation was founded on Christian values however a casual Google search brings a list of conflicting quotes about the religious beliefs and intent of the founding fathers. The truth is that their religious intentions are not only difficult to discern they are also irrelevant to this debate. The question is not whether we are a Christian nation but whether we should be.
I am an atheist, that is, I do not believe in God. Sometimes, I also refer to myself as a Buddhist but, I see Buddhism as more of a philosophy than a religion. I not only don’t believe that Buddha was a god, I don’t believe it even matters. I am drawn to Buddhism by the concept of being present in each moment and I have found its philosophies and rituals to be effective in my life. I mention my personal beliefs because I don’t expect or even look for them when choosing to support a candidate for president. I honestly don’t think it’s important or even any of my business.
I don’t care whether Barack Obama believes in God but I do care how he intends to help millions of Americans, many of them children, who are without adequate health care. I care about his plan for our economic woes and his plan to fix our failing education system. His religious beliefs are his business and should have no bearing in my judgment of his fitness for office.
The only time that a candidate’s religious beliefs become a concern for me is when, as in the case of Sarah Palin’s support of teaching creationism in high school science class alongside the theory of evolution, those beliefs can potentially have an undue influence on public policy. If Sarah Palin wants to ignore the findings of literally thousands of scientists and pretend that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that is certainly within her rights however, those beliefs can have no bearing on the way she governs as an elected official.
The next President of the United States will potentially face as much adversity and make as many difficult decisions as any in our history. It’s time that we focused our attention on the intentions and policies of those vying for the highest office in this country instead of the incessantly examining their religious beliefs. It’s time to do the hard work of researching the candidates and leave the shorthand of a simple “yes, but is he a Christian?” litmus test behind.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
I Hoped This Blog Wouldn't Turn Into This
I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in John's "Rebuttal to The Rebuttal." It's not that I mind having my opinions challenged, I very much welcome it. However, I would rather see them actually challenged than merely ridiculed.
I did not say that offshore drilling and John McCain were "useless," as John puts it, instead I explained that I don't believe that offshore drilling will solve the problem and I included some of the facts that I was able to find to support my point of view. I opined that John McCain's motives in supporting drilling were more about getting votes than about solving problems and made no mention of whether I think he is "useless."
My mention of "a frank discussion" of the scope and complexity of energy independence was not a call for, again as John puts it, "A 9/11-style commission 30-plus years after the problem." It was a comment on my belief that we have yet to actually have such a discussion. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans have spent the last 30 years ignoring the problem, pointing fingers and trying to come up with answers based entirely on the desire to be re-elected. I honestly don't believe that we have even begun to act as if solving this problem is a national priority.
Finally, I don't understand the idea that in order to criticize a proposed solution to a problem, I must have an alternative solution. I don't believe that there currently is a viable solution to energy independence and I don't believe that we will find one until politicians on both sides of the aisle become serious about actually solving the problem.
I'm glad that we agree on the need to end the posturing and tendency to oversimplify the problem but I would argue that John's response to my rebuttal does just that.
I did not say that offshore drilling and John McCain were "useless," as John puts it, instead I explained that I don't believe that offshore drilling will solve the problem and I included some of the facts that I was able to find to support my point of view. I opined that John McCain's motives in supporting drilling were more about getting votes than about solving problems and made no mention of whether I think he is "useless."
My mention of "a frank discussion" of the scope and complexity of energy independence was not a call for, again as John puts it, "A 9/11-style commission 30-plus years after the problem." It was a comment on my belief that we have yet to actually have such a discussion. Instead, both Democrats and Republicans have spent the last 30 years ignoring the problem, pointing fingers and trying to come up with answers based entirely on the desire to be re-elected. I honestly don't believe that we have even begun to act as if solving this problem is a national priority.
Finally, I don't understand the idea that in order to criticize a proposed solution to a problem, I must have an alternative solution. I don't believe that there currently is a viable solution to energy independence and I don't believe that we will find one until politicians on both sides of the aisle become serious about actually solving the problem.
I'm glad that we agree on the need to end the posturing and tendency to oversimplify the problem but I would argue that John's response to my rebuttal does just that.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Rebuttal to the Rebuttal
By John Bertosa
First, I’d like to respond to Dan’s solutions... hmm, let’s see... more domestic drilling not viable... ok, that’s fine so he must support... ummm... “no viable solution currently available.” Well, er, ok he must get into more theoretical solutions... alternative energy development good, drilling and McCain useless... hmmm, has to be more than that... wants to find a viable solution....ok here’s where he must start talking about a solu... no wait that’s not it.... or is it? He wants a “frank discussion of its scope and compexity”? A 9/11-style commission 30-plus years after the problem first burst upon American? What Sen. Obama called “the oldest political trick in the book”? Well, I would have to disagree, there’s been enough talk. Ah, here in his last paragraph, now I see the crux of his argument -- He’s against posturing and oversimplification and non-solutions.
I agree.
First, I’d like to respond to Dan’s solutions... hmm, let’s see... more domestic drilling not viable... ok, that’s fine so he must support... ummm... “no viable solution currently available.” Well, er, ok he must get into more theoretical solutions... alternative energy development good, drilling and McCain useless... hmmm, has to be more than that... wants to find a viable solution....ok here’s where he must start talking about a solu... no wait that’s not it.... or is it? He wants a “frank discussion of its scope and compexity”? A 9/11-style commission 30-plus years after the problem first burst upon American? What Sen. Obama called “the oldest political trick in the book”? Well, I would have to disagree, there’s been enough talk. Ah, here in his last paragraph, now I see the crux of his argument -- He’s against posturing and oversimplification and non-solutions.
I agree.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Are We Trying For Energy Independence or Electoral College Votes?
by D.T. Holt
It seems to me that the gap between the left and the right on energy in general and oil in particular is getting smaller everyday. There is a lot in John’s take on energy independence that I agree with. For example, I agree that the answer is comprehensive. There is no single answer – off shore oil drilling, electric cars, hydrogen cars etc – that solves the problem. The tendency of politicians on both sides of the aisle to oversimplify this issue is at least part of the reason that we have been talking for years about solving our energy problems and our “addiction to oil” without making serious moves towards actually doing it.
I disagree with John’s assertion that those who are opposed to offshore drilling don’t really WANT energy independence. I very much want energy independence however, what I don’t want is an empty solution which includes environmental risks, however minimal, while doing nothing to solve the problem. Most experts put the percentage of the world’s oil produced by the US at around 3%, while we consume around 25% of the oil used on the planet. Simple math tells us that it is impossible for us to survive on US oil alone without an immediate, drastic reduction in our consumption of oil and even that may not be enough.
Some would argue that increasing US oil production in the short term will give us the time to develop alternative fuels for the long term solution. This would be a fine argument if it were possible to make even a small dent in our usage of fuel from foreign countries by drilling more in the US. The fact is that our current infrastructure is not equipped to produce any more oil than we are already producing. According to a report by the US Energy Information Administration, increased access to offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil and natural gas prices or production before 2030 and even then would only represent a 7% increase over current production.
The simple truth about our dependence on foreign oil is that the only viable path to total or even partial independence is to end our usage of carbon based fuels. Obviously, this is not something that can happen over night and there is, in fact, no viable solution currently available. John assumes that liberals would be against the idea of fledgling alternative power companies striking it rich by developing new fuel technologies. On the contrary, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who would be opposed to the economic boost that growth in this vital area of development would bring. The potential for large profits and job growth may be one of the best incentives for development of alternative energy and the assumption that the left is opposed to the concept of profit is at best a gross oversimplification of an issue that is probably fodder for another debate.
So why do politicians in general and Republicans in particular continue to treat offshore drilling as a main component in our energy independent future? For the same reason that most politicians, Republican or Democrat, support anything, because they think it will help them win elections. It is a shell game that focuses the attention of the American public on an empty solution which is often far easier than actually trying to solve the problem
I’m guessing that my conservative co-blogger would call this viewpoint cynical and it probably is but, I still maintain that what John McCain WANTS is to be the next president of the United States and I don’t believe that his stance on offshore drilling is offered in the spirit of actually solving a problem. If it was, why wouldn’t he acknowledge that offshore drilling has no short term impact on the problem?
The fact is that the endeavor to solve our “addiction to oil” probably doesn’t play well on either side of the aisle. How many people would vote for a politician who said “While we do not currently have a viable solution to the problem of energy independence, it is of the utmost importance that we work towards finding one.” Voters generally want to hear promises and solutions, no matter how short sighted, instead of nuanced discussion of the problem. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to solve a problem of this nature without a frank discussion of its scope and complexity.
The other common argument for offshore drilling is that it offers short term relief in the much debated “price at the pump.” In his post, John asserts that oil prices “plummeted” this summer when the President called for more offshore drilling. According to the US Energy Information Administration website, the average price of gasoline was $3.65 per gallon the week of September 8, 2008, which is an increase of 90 cents over the price one year ago. While gas prices have fluctuated down from their mid-summer peak of around $4 per gallon, overall they are 32% higher than they were one year ago. The decrease of 35 to 40 cents per gallon over the past month or so can hardly be described as a plummet and its cause is more likely the result of decreased demand as the American people were forced to use less fuel in order to maintain their already overstressed budgets
John talks a lot in his posting about which side in the argument actually wants energy independence and which side is merely posturing for more sinister political gain. I don’t believe that either side is serious about energy independence and the posturing, oversimplification and emphasis on misleading the public with non-solutions will only continue to exacerbate the problem and do nothing to solve it. Until the American people and the politicians who represent them truly treat energy independence as an actual crisis, we will continue to look to the Middle East to feed our addiction to carbon based fuels.
__________________________________________________________________
Be sure to tune in next week when I'll kick off another "Subject To Debate" and in the mean time, let's have some more comments from our readers. This blog isn't just about the opinions of one liberal and one conservative, it's about dialogue.
It seems to me that the gap between the left and the right on energy in general and oil in particular is getting smaller everyday. There is a lot in John’s take on energy independence that I agree with. For example, I agree that the answer is comprehensive. There is no single answer – off shore oil drilling, electric cars, hydrogen cars etc – that solves the problem. The tendency of politicians on both sides of the aisle to oversimplify this issue is at least part of the reason that we have been talking for years about solving our energy problems and our “addiction to oil” without making serious moves towards actually doing it.
I disagree with John’s assertion that those who are opposed to offshore drilling don’t really WANT energy independence. I very much want energy independence however, what I don’t want is an empty solution which includes environmental risks, however minimal, while doing nothing to solve the problem. Most experts put the percentage of the world’s oil produced by the US at around 3%, while we consume around 25% of the oil used on the planet. Simple math tells us that it is impossible for us to survive on US oil alone without an immediate, drastic reduction in our consumption of oil and even that may not be enough.
Some would argue that increasing US oil production in the short term will give us the time to develop alternative fuels for the long term solution. This would be a fine argument if it were possible to make even a small dent in our usage of fuel from foreign countries by drilling more in the US. The fact is that our current infrastructure is not equipped to produce any more oil than we are already producing. According to a report by the US Energy Information Administration, increased access to offshore drilling would not have a significant impact on oil and natural gas prices or production before 2030 and even then would only represent a 7% increase over current production.
The simple truth about our dependence on foreign oil is that the only viable path to total or even partial independence is to end our usage of carbon based fuels. Obviously, this is not something that can happen over night and there is, in fact, no viable solution currently available. John assumes that liberals would be against the idea of fledgling alternative power companies striking it rich by developing new fuel technologies. On the contrary, I think it would be difficult to find anyone who would be opposed to the economic boost that growth in this vital area of development would bring. The potential for large profits and job growth may be one of the best incentives for development of alternative energy and the assumption that the left is opposed to the concept of profit is at best a gross oversimplification of an issue that is probably fodder for another debate.
So why do politicians in general and Republicans in particular continue to treat offshore drilling as a main component in our energy independent future? For the same reason that most politicians, Republican or Democrat, support anything, because they think it will help them win elections. It is a shell game that focuses the attention of the American public on an empty solution which is often far easier than actually trying to solve the problem
I’m guessing that my conservative co-blogger would call this viewpoint cynical and it probably is but, I still maintain that what John McCain WANTS is to be the next president of the United States and I don’t believe that his stance on offshore drilling is offered in the spirit of actually solving a problem. If it was, why wouldn’t he acknowledge that offshore drilling has no short term impact on the problem?
The fact is that the endeavor to solve our “addiction to oil” probably doesn’t play well on either side of the aisle. How many people would vote for a politician who said “While we do not currently have a viable solution to the problem of energy independence, it is of the utmost importance that we work towards finding one.” Voters generally want to hear promises and solutions, no matter how short sighted, instead of nuanced discussion of the problem. Unfortunately, it is often impossible to solve a problem of this nature without a frank discussion of its scope and complexity.
The other common argument for offshore drilling is that it offers short term relief in the much debated “price at the pump.” In his post, John asserts that oil prices “plummeted” this summer when the President called for more offshore drilling. According to the US Energy Information Administration website, the average price of gasoline was $3.65 per gallon the week of September 8, 2008, which is an increase of 90 cents over the price one year ago. While gas prices have fluctuated down from their mid-summer peak of around $4 per gallon, overall they are 32% higher than they were one year ago. The decrease of 35 to 40 cents per gallon over the past month or so can hardly be described as a plummet and its cause is more likely the result of decreased demand as the American people were forced to use less fuel in order to maintain their already overstressed budgets
John talks a lot in his posting about which side in the argument actually wants energy independence and which side is merely posturing for more sinister political gain. I don’t believe that either side is serious about energy independence and the posturing, oversimplification and emphasis on misleading the public with non-solutions will only continue to exacerbate the problem and do nothing to solve it. Until the American people and the politicians who represent them truly treat energy independence as an actual crisis, we will continue to look to the Middle East to feed our addiction to carbon based fuels.
__________________________________________________________________
Be sure to tune in next week when I'll kick off another "Subject To Debate" and in the mean time, let's have some more comments from our readers. This blog isn't just about the opinions of one liberal and one conservative, it's about dialogue.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Do you really want independence?
In 1969, America’s oil production alone was enough to meet our demands, but increasing reliance on foreign imports means we now ship in 18 million barrels a day to go with the almost 10 million barrels produced domestically.
The U.S. demand for fuel and electricity is growing and simply pumping more oil is not the answer. Nor is simply putting solar panels on houses and erecting wind turbines.
So what will it take for America to become energy independent? That answer is straightforward.
By loosening the handcuffs and providing financial incentives, the federal government should encourage companies to drill for more oil in the United States, to build more nuclear power plants, to create more electric vehicles, and to develop more wind and solar power options.
OK then, end of debate, end of blog entry, turn out the lights, see you next week, everyone goes home happy... but...wait. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the debate.
Because while both sides in Washington want energy independence, only some WANT energy independence.These people are willing to accept a minimal risk of an oil spill if it means billions of dollars aren’t sent to countries (or Blue States) that hate America. And they are willing to have innovative entrepreneurs strike it rich with fledgling alternative power companies if it contributes to such independence.
And, yes, automakers and oil companies with their millions of employees and their dependants could make large fortunes.
Now, others want energy independence, but what they really WANT is to make sure evil corporations (booo, hissss, Remember Lehman Brothers! cue menacing music) don’t make “too much” money and nuclear power becomes as extinct as the dodo.
They want elderly grandmothers not to go broke paying for heat during a Vermont winter. But they WANT a 100-percent guarantee of pristine Alaskan wilderness that the average person can’t afford to visit.
And most of all they WANT the federal government as overlord (Hoorah for the savior!!!).
And, as such, they are willing to allow stalemates in Congress or allow bills to pass that only affect small aspects of this vast problem.
First, domestic oil production. As supply rises, demand falls and thus so do prices as companies try to get their goods off the shelves (or out of oil tanks). Sooooo, get more supply.
Those who WANT energy independence see that, those who want energy independence say the oil companies (boo) will just keep the gas prices high regardless of how much more is pumped. But oil prices began dropping this summer as soon as President Bush started calling for more offshore drilling and it kept falling as Republicans in Congress took up the call. If prices plummet just by talking about getting more, think about what will happen once the oil starts actually flowing.
As for nuclear energy, space for this blog entry is short, so let me just point out the French get 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power and they don’t seem to be glowing in the dark.
Now, conservatives have been lukewarm when it comes to wind and solar energy. Part of it is they are caught up in the “if one side is for something then the other must naturally be against it” that pervades Washington. But the other problem is these alternatives are talked about on Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill as the only alternatives.
And both those situations simply need to change.
Augment all this with clean-air burning coal and realistic expectations for conservation and the country will not only be energy independent but also have millions of more jobs created.But, unfortunately corporations (more boos, more hisses, Enron!!) could make “too much” money and have “too much” control. And that’s a chance some don’t WANT to take.
The U.S. demand for fuel and electricity is growing and simply pumping more oil is not the answer. Nor is simply putting solar panels on houses and erecting wind turbines.
So what will it take for America to become energy independent? That answer is straightforward.
By loosening the handcuffs and providing financial incentives, the federal government should encourage companies to drill for more oil in the United States, to build more nuclear power plants, to create more electric vehicles, and to develop more wind and solar power options.
OK then, end of debate, end of blog entry, turn out the lights, see you next week, everyone goes home happy... but...wait. Unfortunately, that is not the end of the debate.
Because while both sides in Washington want energy independence, only some WANT energy independence.These people are willing to accept a minimal risk of an oil spill if it means billions of dollars aren’t sent to countries (or Blue States) that hate America. And they are willing to have innovative entrepreneurs strike it rich with fledgling alternative power companies if it contributes to such independence.
And, yes, automakers and oil companies with their millions of employees and their dependants could make large fortunes.
Now, others want energy independence, but what they really WANT is to make sure evil corporations (booo, hissss, Remember Lehman Brothers! cue menacing music) don’t make “too much” money and nuclear power becomes as extinct as the dodo.
They want elderly grandmothers not to go broke paying for heat during a Vermont winter. But they WANT a 100-percent guarantee of pristine Alaskan wilderness that the average person can’t afford to visit.
And most of all they WANT the federal government as overlord (Hoorah for the savior!!!).
And, as such, they are willing to allow stalemates in Congress or allow bills to pass that only affect small aspects of this vast problem.
First, domestic oil production. As supply rises, demand falls and thus so do prices as companies try to get their goods off the shelves (or out of oil tanks). Sooooo, get more supply.
Those who WANT energy independence see that, those who want energy independence say the oil companies (boo) will just keep the gas prices high regardless of how much more is pumped. But oil prices began dropping this summer as soon as President Bush started calling for more offshore drilling and it kept falling as Republicans in Congress took up the call. If prices plummet just by talking about getting more, think about what will happen once the oil starts actually flowing.
As for nuclear energy, space for this blog entry is short, so let me just point out the French get 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power and they don’t seem to be glowing in the dark.
Now, conservatives have been lukewarm when it comes to wind and solar energy. Part of it is they are caught up in the “if one side is for something then the other must naturally be against it” that pervades Washington. But the other problem is these alternatives are talked about on Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill as the only alternatives.
And both those situations simply need to change.
Augment all this with clean-air burning coal and realistic expectations for conservation and the country will not only be energy independent but also have millions of more jobs created.But, unfortunately corporations (more boos, more hisses, Enron!!) could make “too much” money and have “too much” control. And that’s a chance some don’t WANT to take.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
In a world without unicorns and mermaids
By John Bertosa
Someone who shows a woman can be successful and independent without being pro-choice and demanding government support?
Moose hunter?
Knowingly chose to have a baby with Down's syndrome instead of an abortion?And had another child shipped out to Iraq on 9/11?
Was a state basketball star nicknamed "The Baracuda"?
Eloped to save money on a wedding? And who married a snowmobile champion/union worker nicknamed The First Dude?
Has more government executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined?
Runner-up in a state beauty contest?
I love Sarah Palin!
But the best part about her is Palin not only represents conservative ideals but she also articulates them in a way that smashes the arch-stereotypes the Left has crafted for conservatives. Angry? Stuffy? Out of touch? A woman subserviant to a man? Not Palin.
Now, the day after her acceptance speech, a co-worker knowing my leanings gave me a very interesting task. "Palin's speech - describe it in one word." My immediate answer completely caught her off-guard.
Clintonesque.
I always grudgingly admired how he could rip apart the opposition and it was never described as angry (at least until he referred to "that woman"). Who else not only could say "It's the economy, stupid" but make it a tag line and not seem condescending or insulting? Who else? Palin, that's who.
I became giddy as she plunged the knife into the opposition with a mischievious smile and a homespun vocal pattern. She was talking like a regular person! She wasn't acting like she was addressing a jury, an Ivy League classroom or a political crowd.
And it was ingenious to use so much sarcasm and mockery! When criticizing,those are the best tools to use, especially when you have the smile and delivery of Palin. Direct criticism comes off as strident, confrontational and mean. It makes an unbiased listener uncomfortable and turns them off. Mockery and sarcasm make an unbiased listener feel like they are in on the joke and not part of one. That was a key to President Clinton's delivery and Palin's.
Didn't address the issues enough? Palin tackled the only one that had been talked about for the previous five days and she tackled it in depth. That issue? Sarah Palin. You want other issues, go to McCain.com or Obama.com. They're all spelled out there. Or tune into the Sunday morning talk shows. You still got problems, take it up with Obama. He declined the 10 town hall meetings with McCain to discuss 10 different issues leading up to the official debates.
Now, some bemoan the "us versus them" aspects to her speech, well I say it's about time!
McCain had reached out on numerous occasions, from immigration reform to senate battles over judicial nominees. He also spoke out against conservatives' attacks against Sen. John Kerry in 2004. And what did he get for this effort to take the discussion to a higher level? Last month Kerry called him "pathetic." and President Jimmy Carter accused McCain of "milking" his time as a POW.
His treatment shows if the Left is offering praise then that means either the conservative is behind in the polls, is criticizing another conservative or is retired/dead. So I cheered when this pit bull with lipstick didn't seek a pat on the head from liberals going to the polls to vote for Obama.
In a perfect world where everyone respects each other's opinions and unicorns frolic with mermaids, I would boo Sarah Palin. But the unicorns and mermaids were eaten long ago by dinosaurs and I've already outlined the "respect" liberals have shown for McCain.
So, it's not a perfect world, and I'm glad Palin is on my side on it.
Check back next week where America's solution to the budding energy crisis will be A Subject to Debate.
Someone who shows a woman can be successful and independent without being pro-choice and demanding government support?
Moose hunter?
Knowingly chose to have a baby with Down's syndrome instead of an abortion?And had another child shipped out to Iraq on 9/11?
Was a state basketball star nicknamed "The Baracuda"?
Eloped to save money on a wedding? And who married a snowmobile champion/union worker nicknamed The First Dude?
Has more government executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined?
Runner-up in a state beauty contest?
I love Sarah Palin!
But the best part about her is Palin not only represents conservative ideals but she also articulates them in a way that smashes the arch-stereotypes the Left has crafted for conservatives. Angry? Stuffy? Out of touch? A woman subserviant to a man? Not Palin.
Now, the day after her acceptance speech, a co-worker knowing my leanings gave me a very interesting task. "Palin's speech - describe it in one word." My immediate answer completely caught her off-guard.
Clintonesque.
I always grudgingly admired how he could rip apart the opposition and it was never described as angry (at least until he referred to "that woman"). Who else not only could say "It's the economy, stupid" but make it a tag line and not seem condescending or insulting? Who else? Palin, that's who.
I became giddy as she plunged the knife into the opposition with a mischievious smile and a homespun vocal pattern. She was talking like a regular person! She wasn't acting like she was addressing a jury, an Ivy League classroom or a political crowd.
And it was ingenious to use so much sarcasm and mockery! When criticizing,those are the best tools to use, especially when you have the smile and delivery of Palin. Direct criticism comes off as strident, confrontational and mean. It makes an unbiased listener uncomfortable and turns them off. Mockery and sarcasm make an unbiased listener feel like they are in on the joke and not part of one. That was a key to President Clinton's delivery and Palin's.
Didn't address the issues enough? Palin tackled the only one that had been talked about for the previous five days and she tackled it in depth. That issue? Sarah Palin. You want other issues, go to McCain.com or Obama.com. They're all spelled out there. Or tune into the Sunday morning talk shows. You still got problems, take it up with Obama. He declined the 10 town hall meetings with McCain to discuss 10 different issues leading up to the official debates.
Now, some bemoan the "us versus them" aspects to her speech, well I say it's about time!
McCain had reached out on numerous occasions, from immigration reform to senate battles over judicial nominees. He also spoke out against conservatives' attacks against Sen. John Kerry in 2004. And what did he get for this effort to take the discussion to a higher level? Last month Kerry called him "pathetic." and President Jimmy Carter accused McCain of "milking" his time as a POW.
His treatment shows if the Left is offering praise then that means either the conservative is behind in the polls, is criticizing another conservative or is retired/dead. So I cheered when this pit bull with lipstick didn't seek a pat on the head from liberals going to the polls to vote for Obama.
In a perfect world where everyone respects each other's opinions and unicorns frolic with mermaids, I would boo Sarah Palin. But the unicorns and mermaids were eaten long ago by dinosaurs and I've already outlined the "respect" liberals have shown for McCain.
So, it's not a perfect world, and I'm glad Palin is on my side on it.
Check back next week where America's solution to the budding energy crisis will be A Subject to Debate.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Thoughts On Sarah Palin In General and Her Acceptance Speech In Particular
by D.T. Holt
Looking at it from a strictly political point of view, the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is a brilliant move by John McCain. She is an anti-abortion, pro-gun, devoutly Christian, conservative, which is everything the Republican nominee needs to shore up his support with a conservative base whose response to him has been tepid at best. Even the single minded focus of the media on her perceived lack of experience has helped the cause by giving John McCain the opportunity to continue developing the perception that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President.
It is, however, difficult for me to believe that Sarah Palin, an unknown entity to not only the electorate but, until recently, to John McCain, was chosen because she was believed to be the best person for the job. I’m not referring to her relative lack of experience because I would argue that all four candidates that make up the two major party tickets lack experience as President of The United States. I am merely suggesting that it appears to me that the McCain camp based their pick entirely on what they think will help them win the election without any regard for whether she is the right choice to be Vice President of the United States.
In her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Palin encompassed much of what is wrong with what passes for political discourse in this country. Although she used the first part of the speech to talk about her background, her family and her support of John McCain, it was the next part that I had a problem with. Her snide, sarcastic, over simplified characterization and mockery of the Obama/Biden campaign’s stances on the issues was not only mean spirited, it made no useful addition to the national conversation that a presidential campaign should strive to encompass. She made little or no effort to offer alternatives or even to make measured, fact based criticisms. Instead she chose the “us versus them” approach that pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned into an art form and more respected, supposed mainstream journalists have chosen to celebrate and cover as if the candidates were two trash talking NASCAR rivals.
It is absolutely true that both parties are guilty of this type of incendiary rhetoric. Sarah Palin’s speech was merely a recent and extreme example. The speeches at the recent Democratic convention at times veered into this same, angry territory but, at other times they made the effort to respect the distinction between criticism and mockery. Both sides owe it to the American people to remember this distinction and move beyond attacks and verbal jabs into an actual debate. The stakes are too high and the issues too important for them to do otherwise.
Looking at it from a strictly political point of view, the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate is a brilliant move by John McCain. She is an anti-abortion, pro-gun, devoutly Christian, conservative, which is everything the Republican nominee needs to shore up his support with a conservative base whose response to him has been tepid at best. Even the single minded focus of the media on her perceived lack of experience has helped the cause by giving John McCain the opportunity to continue developing the perception that Barack Obama is not qualified to be President.
It is, however, difficult for me to believe that Sarah Palin, an unknown entity to not only the electorate but, until recently, to John McCain, was chosen because she was believed to be the best person for the job. I’m not referring to her relative lack of experience because I would argue that all four candidates that make up the two major party tickets lack experience as President of The United States. I am merely suggesting that it appears to me that the McCain camp based their pick entirely on what they think will help them win the election without any regard for whether she is the right choice to be Vice President of the United States.
In her acceptance speech at the Republican convention, Palin encompassed much of what is wrong with what passes for political discourse in this country. Although she used the first part of the speech to talk about her background, her family and her support of John McCain, it was the next part that I had a problem with. Her snide, sarcastic, over simplified characterization and mockery of the Obama/Biden campaign’s stances on the issues was not only mean spirited, it made no useful addition to the national conversation that a presidential campaign should strive to encompass. She made little or no effort to offer alternatives or even to make measured, fact based criticisms. Instead she chose the “us versus them” approach that pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have turned into an art form and more respected, supposed mainstream journalists have chosen to celebrate and cover as if the candidates were two trash talking NASCAR rivals.
It is absolutely true that both parties are guilty of this type of incendiary rhetoric. Sarah Palin’s speech was merely a recent and extreme example. The speeches at the recent Democratic convention at times veered into this same, angry territory but, at other times they made the effort to respect the distinction between criticism and mockery. Both sides owe it to the American people to remember this distinction and move beyond attacks and verbal jabs into an actual debate. The stakes are too high and the issues too important for them to do otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)