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.
Monday, October 27, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)