Something has gone seriously haywire with the Republican Party. Once, it was the party of pragmatic Main Street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships. They were good-hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid Roosevelt-haters, the flat Earthers and… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1673)> After watching Outfoxed and F911,
I’m no fan of Bush’s—didn’t and won’t vote for him—but I hope you dosed your popcorn with a boudler-sized grain of salt to cover the mostly-crap filler these movies contained. Any propaganda films (right of left) like these can’t be viewed in isolation. The very fact that 911 was allowed to be labeled a “documentary” does show that the left does have control over hollywood policy-making - it’s surely “documentary style”, but so was Blair Witch…
Posted by Mike on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:39 PM Is this what passes for witty commentary by the left? Quite pathetic.
Posted by Brad W. on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:47 PM “This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people.”
Indeed. Read your own third paragraph, filled with nasty invective. That is why the Democrats will remain a minority party come November. You flatter yourselves for being open-minded, yet you spew intolerance.
Gary, there are two (legitimate) sides to most arguments. Calling those who disagree “dorks” reflects intellectual bankruptcy. And it is juvenile.
A hint: conservatives do not hate government per se. We just see its limits better than you. I live in LA where the government monopoly school district built a $150 million high school atop a toxic site. It was condemned before it opened. And yet the school district cannot provide text books to all students, or bathrooms that don’t have floors soaked with crap. Conservatives think the monopoly grip needs to be loosened to help the poor get a leg up. Yet you flatter yourself to think you care more about people!
Or Social Security. It pays a lousy 3% return with nothing to leave heirs. Imagine if we had a system such as Chile, where workers are compelled to invest in accounts they own. Yeah, own, not the government! The residual wealth in poor neighborhoods could provide the basis for economic growth and self help for the poor. But no, you’d rather smother the poor with pity to reassert your sense of righteousness.
Iraq? Well, let’s see… the humanitarian Left cried for the victims of sanctions in 1995. So Oil-for-Food was created to solve that problem. Instead, under the craven mismanagement of Kofi Annan et al, Saddam played the system to pocket billions of dollars, some of which likely went to support terrorism. It definitely extended the suffering of the people you purported to care about. And don’t forget, stores of WMDs or no, Saddam could easily remake them and was dealing with the N. Koreans for long-range missiles. David Kay, whose report concluded they’d find no WMDs, noted “But Saddam was more dangerous than we thought he was.” The NYT and other mainstream media never stressed that part.
You despise Bush, but his actions have liberated 51 million people. Bill Clinton, by contrast, let 800,000 Rwandans be hacked to death in genocide. That is 8000 per day for 100 consecutive days. What a leader!
Today, I hear whining about political smears. But the Democrat faithful forked over $117 million for Michael Moore’s political porn flick, and fawned over his lies.
Gary, I honor you as a writer. I am astonished at your gift for being able to create something as durable as Lake Wobegone. I want some of them Powder Milk biscuits.
But as a political thinker, you haven’t outgrown your 20s.
Posted by JB on Sep 6, 2004 at 4:58 PM Bernie, thanks for yr. remarks appealing to some of the writers on this thread to strive to rise above ad hominem attacks to the level of civil discourse, rather than the lowest common denominator.
The answer to Garrison Keillor’s question - what happened to the Republican party between Eisenhower and Reagan - seems pretty simple. Vietnam and the Oil Crisis, the two biggest challenges to the US’s otherwise meteoric rise in fortunes since the ‘30’s Depression. Coming off the world-saving white-angel role of WW2 has been tough on the US psyche. The simple days of a good guy fighting a bad guy seem to keep many in infantile regression, politically, and Republican Presidents in particular have done little to disabuse us of such notions.
Our own Cold War propaganda was effective enough that many Americans don’t seem to have a clue about the extent we have manipulated the affairs of other countries, fairly consistently for well over a century, often ousting democratically-elected leaders with savage dictators. Yet we are still in such denial that today half the country cheers Bush on with his jihad. Both parties are pro-war and the 2004 election so far has been about which one offers the most fun, as we take on mangy little countries without any risk of losing.
Terrorism - the much-needed enemy to replace the Red Menace in reproducing that wonderfully stable and focussed civil society of yore - in reality, a)is a method not an enemy, b)is used precisely because the enemy is too weak to represent a threat to the nation, c)is only a menace to the citizenry, along with rapists, drunk drivers, domestic mass murderes and reality shows.
So it is that Reagan died a great hero, with no mention of his backing of death squads throughout C. America, Iran Contra sponsorship(trading with arab terrorists, further promotion of C. American terrorism, funding with crack cocaine delivered to our kids) and his refusal to intervene in the AIDS crisis.
It is an unfortunate accident of history, then, that these 2 post-WW2 affronts to America’s pride and illusion of self-reliance, Vietnam & the Oil Crisis respectively, took place over almost a 20 yr. period counciding with dominance by Democrat Party Presidents, and compounded by the only Republican - Nixon - resigning in disgrace. Republicans, humiliated in political defeat and upset by our national ignominy - naturally so, as the reactionary party - were determined to hang onto power once gained. Ignorant of our successfully-hidden political crimes during the golden ‘50’s (and Nixon/ Kissinger’s in the early 70’s), they associated growing prosperity with moral rectitude, connected the eruption of domestic dissent with moral dissolution, and posited it as the cause of our decline in influence and prestige, when in fact it was more likely the other way around.
Sadly, our dependence upon arab oil - the reason we trade with the enemy, intervening in their affairs and creating enmity - has only increased since the oil crisis began in 1973, a fact which reflects poorly upon our political acumen and national abilities.
A further unfortunate accident of history was the timing of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, coinciding with a Republican Pres. As everyone knows (with the possible exception of the CIA), Russia collapsed under it’s own weight, and it was a further misfortune that it occurred during a reckless expansion of our military machine. The superficial argument could credibly be advanced, then, that the latter caused the former, especially given the convenient contingency of a lack of public information - for purposes of national security, of course. The neocons have therefore been able to use it as the underlying idealogical basis for an aggressive foreign policy.
The extreme chaos of Afghanistan produced the Taliban, the only rulers that could have harboured Al-Queda, but it didn’t need to. Russia was willing to concede defeat years earlier than their eventual pull-out, but George Schultz & Reagan decided not to cooperate over a cease-fire and creation of an interim government, in order to humiliate Russia. They made a last desperate attempt to subdue the country, escalating it’s disintegration, before withdrawing. Just another example of a pattern of cynical, and basically anti-freedom, US foreign policy.
By misplaying Iraq, the neo-conmen have ended up pre-empting our own credibility and military resources, drastically weakening our ability to confront more important threats, such as Iranian nuclear proliferation. As for the silence that hangs over by far the biggest threat and tyrant -N. Korea - official purveyor of terror goods and drugs to the world? Might that silence have anything to do with the fact they are a full-blown nuclear power that could wipe out Seoul in 7 minutes, and that we have submitted to their blackmail for yrs (free food, oil and power) on account of it? After all, who wants to draw attention to a powerful object lesson to nuclear wannabe tyrants around the world?
Finally, one cannot finish such a discussion without mentioning the shameful use to which the US (one shouldn’t say America, since it also comprises Mexico & Canada) has put the post-Russia/ Cold War peace dividend. Essentially, our response was to force countries to open up their markets to our gorilla-size corporations, in the name of liberal capitalist democracy, with as few sageguards as possible in order to lessen the ability of local firms to compete. The term rape comes to mind, even though the economic numbers still compute from a distance. This is merely a continuation of US hegemonic pursuit, now economic, cynically wrapped as instant-democracy in countries which are politically underdeveloped and who need basic property- and human-rights reform and domestic market-reform first.
Posted by different barry on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:00 PM Hi Geoff:
I only have a few moments to post this and unfortunately won’t have time to review your page 16 comments. I am definitely going to vote for GWB, for the following reasons:
1) He has a plan for winning the War on Terror which allows for the possibility of forcibly overthrowing dictatorships. I don’t think the War on Terror will be won unless/until the root causes of terror are addressed, which include (but are not limited to) the oppression experienced by citizens of terrorist-supporting dictatorships. If Kerry has a plan, he refuses to divulge it.
2) GWB also seems slightly less likely to reverse Clinton’s progress towards the elimination of tariffs. The quicker we allow foreign farmers free and fair access to our markets, the more prosperous their countries will become and the less likely they will be to take up arms against us. American agricultural protectionism is probably one of the biggest contributors to terrorism, in the “root causes” department.
3) GWB’s policies tend to favor the ambitious, hard-working and innovative (who deserve their prosperity) as well as trust fund babies (who do not). This is a mixed bag, but I favor rewarding vs. punishing those who try hard to serve market needs, for the same reason I favor petting vs. kicking dogs that bring me newspapers.Fundamentally, GWB’s policies seem to want to encourage more freedom and earned prosperity (as well as some unearned prosperity), both in the US and around the world. Kerry’s policies seem geared towards preserving a no-longer-viable old world order, in which the impudent citizens of developing nations are barred from competing with us, and no one backs negotiations with military action. I have faith in the ability of my fellow Americans to work hard and make good choices, with the right incentives.
Good luck making your decision!
Posted by Jonathan on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:14 PM Nice essay, Phil. Having tossed my Bartlett’s, I’d forgotten the “patriotic” scoundrel quote was from my old friend Sam Johnson, represented in a couple of books within reach.
We all enjoyed yesterday’s contributions from Joanne, as usual, and a number of others. I haven’t finished today’s right-wing barrage, but I’m crossing my fingers that The National Review has sent over their ‘A’ team this time. Here’s hoping Bill Buckley’s final departure this year will not result in the death of cogency and civility in that publication’s readership.
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:20 PM What can I say Garrison?
I generally vote a split ticket, but anymore I find myself voting pretty much straight Republican or Independant, as the Democratic platform is becoming almost indistinguisable from that of a Communist platform.
If one looks at the make up of the Modern Democratic party ( as articles have been written on this) its no longer the Party of the “Working man”. Its made up of alot of the Wealthy Elite, Hoolywood whos who, Homosexuals, Abortion rights supporters, anti Gun wackos, and Anti God types.
Seemingly Lost and and forgotten are the truly patriotic and socially responsible Truman era Democrats. Their Party has pretty much abandoned them and their thinking.
Occasional a Democrat comes along like Zell Miller, who gives a little decency to the Democratic picture, but overall the Democratic platform has become or is becoming the political and social cesspool of our society….
Posted by ST on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:29 PM Mr. Keillor,
Judging from your latest, and the fawning response it’s gathered, it looks as though it’s the Democratic party and the left in general that has flipped it’s lid.
“Brownshirts”, Mr. Keillor? “Fundamentalist Bullies”? It plays as the kind of self-parody common to your other writing, except for the meanness and condescension. You prose here is far more effluent than efficacious, especially given that many of the hard working, middle-Americans who support Bush that you’ve taken great pains to smear here are exactly the kind of people who enjoy “Prairie Home Companion”. Mind you, there are always a great number of us who have seen that program as a kind of elitist parody of America, but we generally accept it in the gentle spirit that it is usually given in. Unfortunately, we also recognize that, as with most entertainment, its creators aren’t so much members of the class intended as their audience, as they are those who sit around in off hours sneering at things like evangelical Christianity, or the Second Amendment. How much of that is true seems to be reflected in your article. Can your fear of Bush, a relatively moderate candidate by historical standards on all issues besides the war on terror (and then conservative, but not even so much as FDR was in WWII when he imprisoned thousands of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor), really be so deranged as to see the Republican party in such hysterical terms?
What most people have realized after watching the latest convention is that the GOP is a much broader based party than the Democrats in terms of issues and expression. If conservatives control the GOP, moderates and some liberals clearly feel more comfortable there than conservatives do in the Democratic Party.
The left has blown a gasket these days, seemingly from a combination of postmodern conflict between traditional liberal views of civil liberty and the new moral ambivelence regrding non-Western societies, not to mention a decidely steep decline in political influence, the national media and universities excepted of course (for now at least).
The problem for the left, as evidenced by your article, is that the morning after the election you’ll have to wake up and live with all this bile, spewed out for whatever cause you felt it worthy to do so for. The grace of listeners like myself will certainly be there, but we’ll also listen with far more suspicion to those who so readily trashed us for the political gain they felt was necessary, if we listen at all.
Sincerely,
Posted by C. Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:30 PM Mr Keillor, I enjoyed your morning drive-time radio program in the 1970’s. And I still remember how saddened I felt when I heard you were quitting The Prairie Home Companion and moving to Denmark.
But now…
Your public radio compatriots have a most descriptive term for what you’ve become.
You, sir, are a wack-job.
Cordially
e
Posted by J Baustian on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:31 PM different barry—Yours is one of the more useful contributions to this thread, along with those of Joanne, bernie, and a number of others.
You inadvertently responded to a subsequent comment from Jonathan: “GWB’s policies seem to want to encourage more freedom and earned prosperity.” We need to practice the ancient motto: “Esse Quam Videre”—to BE rather than to seem.
The redundant words “liberty” and “freedom” at the recent convention ring hollow as we persist in crushing the freedoms and prosperity of other countries and our own citizens.
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 5:58 PM Jonathan—
Thanks for responding.
The points you make about protectionism possibly encouraging terrorism are thought-provoking and worthwhile.
My main concern is the importance of the War against Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers with deep pockets. So preventing the proliferation of “foot soldiers” in their jihad is critical. If freer trade will stem the increase of such followers, that’s all to the good.
I don’t pretend to have enough knowledge about the dynamics of trade either to affirm or question what you say. But putting this concern that you have out there can only be to the good, IMO, since it will be the opening for others here with a better handle on this than I have to discuss it as knowledgeably as you have.
I do hope that you and others who may be leaning to Bush or still undecided will still have time to view my comments on Page 16 at some point, since I am sincerely interested in knowing whether or not my concerns would hold water for those still undecided or those leaning to Bush.
I’m abbreviating what I said there dreadfully, and I hope that my doing this won’t discourage your reading the actual post on Page 16 at some future point. But the chief concern I expressed there was that nothing, IMO, trumps the importance of the War with Al Qaeda. I feel that it is a World War, and as a World War, each and every industrialized democracy around the world, without exception, has to understand that they each have a dog in this fight, or we all lose, IMO. Since Bush has tried his damnedest to bring as many democracies to the effort as possible, but with mixed results, my feeling right now is that it may be time to give someone else, someone like Kerry, a chance to do the same. Essentially, Kerry now strikes me as someone who brings less negative baggage to any dealings with the democracies of Continental Europe than Bush does.
Since I no longer view (though I did once) the war with Iraq as part of the war against Al Qaeda, I now feel that the disaffection of certain industrialized democracies as a result of Iraq has put us back a step in the War against Al Qaeda rather than forward. I see no immediate indication that Bush will be able to make up for lost ground in that respect any time soon, so I am currently supporting Kerry as a result. I realize that it’s not impossible that all of Continental Europe might come on board before the election, but, right now, I view it as unlikely. Consequently, I am supporting Kerry for the time being, since I view it as more likely (though not inevitable) that a Kerry presidency might see each and every industrialized democracy around the Free World finally joining proactively our effort against Al Qaeda.
Since I was happy to acknowledge a few of Jonathan’s points concerning his reasons for voting for Bush, I hope some of my own concerns in turn can now be addressed here by those still undecided or leaning to Bush, like Jonathan. Sincere thanks.
BTW, I just spoke with the very man at NBC who took in the raw footage of Bush’s appearance at West Allis(sp.?). According to him, the applause lasted about six or seven seconds, and there was no audible booing on the feed. While that doesn’t prove that there was no booing of any kind, it does suggest that those on the dais, where the mike feed was located, can probably be let off the hook on this matter.
Sincerely,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:03 PM This is a vile piece of rhetoric! Why are Democrats so nasty? Nasty and angry. Frankly, I’m tired of show business types using their celebrity to comment on politics just as if they knew something about it. I’m still waiting for Barbra Streisand to leave the U.S. as she promised she would do if George W. Bush became our President. And what do celebrities know about the “common man?” They drop a million just as if it were $10. What makes me sick is that all of you sheep just follow along. Gee! If Susan Sarandon says it’s do, they it must be so! Have you lost the power to think for yourselves?
Posted by Sonia Knaefler on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:18 PM Barbara wrote:
“The redundant words “liberty” and “freedom” at the recent convention ring hollow as we persist in crushing the freedoms and prosperity of other countries and our own citizens.”——-
Barbara, I’d be interested to know which freedoms of yours have been crushed, and I’d also be interested to know which freedoms the Afghan and Iraqi people previously enjoyed that they now do not. And be specific.
Thank you.
Posted by Scottt on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:20 PM I’m so sorry that Garrison has stopped entertaining and started preaching, because his sermon is not worth listening to. Rarely have I read such a bunch of vituperative, mean-spirited, unsubstantiated garbage. It makes Zell Millers’s comments on Kerry sound like a sweet bedtime story, but that speech at least was full of irrefutable facts. Garrison’s is nothing but angry, hot-air rhetoric that panders to all haters who don’t want to be upset by information. Sorry, Garrison, but if you ever had it you’ve lost it.
Posted by Robert Field on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:20 PM To Joanne, Brooks, Clay and the anonymous and ball-less stalker calling himself “The Frank Talker”: (Forgive this long post, but you’ll see why it was necessary)
It’s a beautiful day here in Tennessee and farm chores are calling. But Joanne’s last post, saying that she too received an anonymous posting to her personal email address last night from “The Frank Talker (sic and sick), has got me back at the keyboard one more time. First to dispense with some small matters.
Clay, you’re right that many of us on this thread have enjoyed (in my case, really enjoyed) casting broadsides at the loyal (though not always reasonable) opposition in our give-and-take. Try as I might, I’ve not been able to refrain from calling my political opposites on this thread names, though most of the time, I’ve tried to be cute and not scatological (not always succeeded there either.) For the most part, the hard-core bloggers among us have played by similar rules – stating our points clearly (though not always succinctly), documenting them where possible or necessary, responding to specific challenges where it appears worthwhile (that is, where it appears the challenger is actually listening.) Sometimes however, like in your last post directed to me, we have taken snippets of others’ posts and edited them to try to make our own points.
I would much prefer that each of us make our own points, in our own words, than to manipulate what someone else has said to misrepresent their meaning. That also happened early on in these postings to one of my closing paragraphs, and it happened again with you. This behavior reminds me of something I did a while back. There used to be a pretty popular bumper sticker among “touchy-feely” circles that read: “Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty”. Given the way that bumper sticker was printed, I found it easy to edit to a more anarchic phrase that I posted on my pick-up truck which read: “Practice Random and Senseless Acts”. Now that edited bumper sticker got a lot of laughs on the Nashville streets and it really was my intention to just make fun of the “touchy-feely” crowd – that edited sentiment didn’t even represent my own world-view very accurately. But I never deluded myself that – just because I could cut and paste that bumper sticker into a new combination of words – that the new meaning bore any resemblance to the original writer’s intention. So let’s keep calling each other names on this thread—heck, I’m enjoying that when we’re not drone-like in our repetitiveness. But let’s refrain if possible from editing each others’ words to help us make our own points. Or not – it’s still a free country and (until last night when Mr. Frank Talker visited some of us at home while we slept) still a relatively harmless one.
Now for Brooks: I’ve got to hand it to you, my friend, you do have a hard chin. And I do appreciate it when you still keep putting it up there for us to land roundhouses on. Twice before, you’ve challenged us to give you “one example” to support our positions. The first time was when you asked us to give you “one example” of worthwhile government programs launched in the past century. When I gave you more than two dozen examples off the top of my head, you fell silent on that point. Then you asked me to cite you “one study” that demonstrated the value of needle exchange programs for reducing the spread of communicable disease and channeling addicts into substance abuse treatment. When I directed you to 400+ studies that it had taken me only a minute to retrieve on the national Library of Medicine’s PubMed system, you again fell silent on that issue.
Now you challenge us again. Joanne made the statement: “I am willing to pay taxes for
services that I think my government can provide in a more efficient manner than the private sector” to which you responded: “In services for which there are both governmental and private actors, name ONE instance where the government alternative is performed more efficiently
than the private alternative.” Though your question seems to concede some areas where only government is a reasonable (and efficient) provider of a needed service (thanks for that concession—I know how hard it must have been for you), I will once again see how many examples I can come up with in a minute. (Footnote: some of my comparisons will go beyond our own borders to find examples of where government efficiencies outstrip market ones. All of my examples have been tried by the private sector in at least some countries. But to try to sooth your sensibilities, I’ll try not to use any French examples.) Let’s see, how about national defense, libraries, police and fire services, immunization programs, food supplementation programs for pregnant and postpartum women, food and drug inspection programs, vital statistics data collection (birth and death records), agricultural and technical professions training, etc. I could once again go on and on, but as before, you only asked for one.Shoot, if you want to include in your definition of “efficient” the concept of “less expensive”, how about prescription drugs? Why is it that Canada can pay the transportation costs of importing medicines from (and exporting these same medicines back to) the US and then turn around and sell those medicines back to us at one-third the cost that we have to pay for them here in the country of origin, before they’ve made the cross-border trip to Canada? Well, maybe because their government-funded health care system wields a big stick in bargaining for drug prices and maybe because that same health care system is more efficient (or at least less costly when it comes to prescription drugs) because they have eliminated the inefficient (and, IMO, immoral) cost gouging of vulnerable (sick and elderly) patients that our current US health care market system allows.
No matter how many ways the Bushies try to spin their “discount card” programs for prescription drugs, the seniors among us are learning that those cards are composed primarily of smoke and mirrors. Why don’t you poll seniors and ask them which they would rather do: be stuck with another worthless piece of (market-driven) plastic or be allowed by their government to purchase the same medicines much cheaper from Canada? For that matter, how about polling both Democratic and Republican governors and corporation executives (operating outside the pharmaceutical industry) on the same issue. After all, those seniors, state governments and corporations would be buying the same medicines, made by the same US-owned and government-inspected pharmaceutical companies; but they would be freed from the exorbitant mark-ups and obscene profits that our intentionally inefficient US market-controlled health care system now allows.
So if you (and your fellow travelers) can concede that even one in this brief set of examples represents an instance of government efficiency trumping the market alternative, shut up and ask your next question that involves giving you “one example” of where government is a necessary component of civilized (and efficient) society. We’re waiting… And while we’re waiting, answer this question for me: why is it that you folks hate government so much and yet you keep trying to dominate it. And, as now, when you do, you keep growing it so recklessly and inefficiently yourself? (Example: how about what Halliburton is/was charging our military for gasoline they imported into Iraq and sold for our troops to use versus what Iraqis were paying for the same gas, imported from the same place, on the streets? Might it be that—when you folks are in power—it’s not about efficiencies, but rather about treating Uncle Sugar as another cash cow in bad need of over-milking?)
I’ve saved my longest response for last. Like Joanne, I too was visited by a mysterious (and once again anonymous right-wing) emailer last night who calls himself “The Frank Talker” (Hope I’m not being sexist by thinking the creep is male – whichever sex “it” is, I am pretty sure “it” has no balls.) While this thread has allowed all of us to say openly whatever we wanted to say to each other – and to reveal our identifies or not – Mr. FT has never bothered to comment openly on this thread (unless, like Truth of old, FT is another moniker for someone who is unable to stand the light of day or to maintain a stable alias, on or off this thread.)
I would be curious to hear whether anyone else besides Joanne and me got a midnight visit from Mr. FT, and I would be particularly interested in whether any of the right-wing supporters on this thread got a visit from an anonymous stalker from our side of the aisle. If not, you folks need to really ask yourselves just what sort of slimy vermin you’re running with these days in addition to the warty toad Rebels, the homophobes, the militarized muscle-heads, the Social Darwinists and the Kountry Klub Klanners who have already surfaced on this thread. So what follows is the midnight message I received from your slimy fellow traveler. As with Joanne, FT started with a quote from me and then responded. My responses this afternoon to his response are in capital letters. Like Joanne, I want to shed some light on the skull-cap mushrooms like FT that your world-view and political practices appear to be spawning.
——-Bernie-san,
(PERSONALLY, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ORIENTAL PEOPLE, SO I DON’T VIEW THIS HEADING AS AN INSULT. HOW ABOUT YOU RIGHT-WINGERS – IS THIS INTENDED AS AN INSULT?)
A few points of contention for you, regarding your comments:
(My original comment) “I would wonder whether my Bible contains a loop-hole under ‘Thou shalt not kill’ that allows the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
(FT’s comment) It’s not wrong to kill the killers. Was it wrong to bomb Dresden over 60 years ago to break the will of the National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany? IMO, I don’t think so. The Taliban and Hussein were guaranteed to continue their genocidal ways. Also, do you care to acknowledge (SIC) that the millions of Afghanis (SIC) refugess (SIC) - who lived on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border for years because of the civil war - were able to return home after the US led war a few years ago expelled the Taliban? Doesn’t retuning (SIC) millions of people home mean anything to morally blind progressives like you?
AS I SAID EARLIER ON THIS THREAD, I AM NOT A PACIFIST AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MILITARY ACTION WHEN NECESSARY, WHEN PROVOKED AND WHEN DIRECTED WITH THE PRECISION THAT WE ARE MORE CAPABLE OF TODAY THAN 60+ YEARS AGO. WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH INDISCRIMINATE KILLING OF CIVILIANS IN ANY WAR THEATER. IF WE WERE LIBERATING THE AFGHANI AND IRAQI PEOPLE FROM TYRANNICAL REGIMES, WHY DID WE HAVE TO KILL SO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE TO “SAVE” THEM? IN THE CASE OF AFGHANISTAN, WE APPEAR TO HAVE SAVED THE SURVIVORS SO THEY COULD HELP HARVEST THE LARGEST OPIUM CROP IN YEARS FROM THAT COUNTRY. AND SINCE THE FIGHTING IN IRAQ CONTINUES – ALONG WITH THE ANARCHY AND LAWLESSNESS THAT ACCOMPANIES THAT WAR – I THINK IT’S PREMATURE TO SAY WE’VE SAVED THE IRAQIS FROM ANYTHING YET OR THAT WE HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF DISPLACED PERSONS IN THAT COUNTRY. IIN FACT, WE STILL MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION A DECADE FROM NOW, WHEN WE MAY STILL HAVE A MILITARY PRESENCE IN THAT COUNTRY. IN THE VIEW OF TOO MANY PEOPLE (INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF IRAQ), WE APPEAR TO HAVE JUST REPLACED ONE TYRANT (HUSSAIN) WITH ANOTHER (US).
(My original comment) “I would wonder at the mercy of an Administration that wants to deny medical cannabis to dying cancer patients and to imprison their caregivers, while turning a blind eye (and perhaps worse) to the largest opium crop EVER harvested in Afghanistan.”
(FT’s response) Eventually ganja will be made more legal. If people can parade with their dicks hanging out on Castro street in San Franciso (SIC), anything goes. Bide your time.
(MY RESPONSE TO HIM. SINCE I CUT THIS RESPONSE FROM ANOTHER PAPER I HAVE WRITTEN, IT WON’T BE IN CAPITAL LETTERS BUT WILL BE IN QUOTATION MARKS.) “I believe that the harms associated with enforcing the current severe legal penalties that come with marijuana use, and the needless pain caused by preventing sick people from accessing cannabis as medicine, far outweigh any benefits that come from maintaining our current policies against this drug. I am strongly in favor of reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I drug (where it is considered on a par with heroin and considered more dangerous than cocaine and methamphetamine) to a less egregious classification that would reduce the criminal penalties tied to this medicine and return cannabis to its formerly useful place in our medical pharmacopeia. I am also in favor of eliminating the stranglehold which the DEA has maintained for years against meaningful medical research on cannabis in the U.S.
“Every national study commissioned by the U.S. federal government from the presidencies of Richard Nixon through Bill Clinton has recommended that we reclassify marijuana to a less restrictive medicinal category and that we reduce the criminal penalties for its use. Every U.S. state that has placed a medical marijuana referendum before its citizenry has seen that referendum approved at least once, with the margins of victory ranging from 10% (Oregon) to 30% (Arizona). So far, ten states have passed successful medical marijuana referenda, as has the District of Columbia, whose initiative passed by a 38% margin of victory (only to have the implementation of its medical marijuana program blocked by a Republican congress). Today, more than one in every five Americans lives in a state which has voted to approve medical marijuana for use by its sick citizens.
“Even the DEA’s Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young’s own review of the issue (in 1988) led to his ruling that marijuana should be reclassified from Schedule 1 (considered to be potentially addictive and with no current medical use) to Schedule 2 (potentially addictive but with some accepted use). In his decision, Judge Young stated: ‘Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man…. Marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving distress of great numbers of gravely ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record.’ This ruling by Judge Young was overturned by the DEA Administrator in 1988, and it has been ignored by the DEA ever since.
“Virtually all U.S. medical organizations which have reviewed the medical marijuana issue have recommended its availability as medicine. These U.S. organizations include the AIDS Action Council, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Cancer Society, American Medical Association, American Medical Student Association, American Nurses Association, American Preventive Medical Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Addiction Medicine, Congress of Nursing Practice, Federation of American Scientists, Kaiser Permanente, Lymphoma Foundation of America, National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine, National Association for Public Health Policy, National Nurses Society on Addictions, the National Institutes of Health and the New England Journal of Medicine. Medical organizations at the state level have made the same recommendations, including medical groups in Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Virginia and Wisconsin. Similar recommendations have been made by medical organizations in other countries, including Australia, Canada, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Thus, it should not be surprising that many of these states and foreign countries, after a lengthy and informed discussion, have moved to allow access to medical marijuana by their citizens.
“What is surprising is that the United States federal government has steadfastly ignored the wealth of informed and consistent advice over the past four decades to follow the same course. In fact, the Bush administration has moved aggressively to shut down the medical marijuana programs in all U.S. states (despite saying in the 2000 presidential campaign that he would respect states’ rights to approve and establish medical marijuana programs), and his administration has threatened trade sanctions against other countries, particularly Canada, that have established similar programs.
“Fortunately, recent federal verdicts in California, Colorado and Washington state have attempted to blunt this wrongheadedness by the Bush administration. Several recent pivotal rulings by the federal judiciary have stated that the Bush administration’s continued prosecution of lawfully established medical marijuana programs is ‘badly misguided’ and these federal judges have said that they are baffled and disturbed that the DEA and federal prosecutors have wasted so much time and money in pursuing these cases.
“While this and other recent rulings in California have shown some promise of relief for persons in states with approved medical marijuana programs, the majority of Americans who use or provide cannabis for medical purposes do not share that same hope for relief from federal prosecution. This year, over three-quarters of all Americans arrested for drug-related crimes will be arrested for marijuana-related offenses. These people will face potentially serious lifelong consequences of being labeled as criminals or drug addicts, and they will take up prison space or treatment beds that could certainly be put to better use by persons who commit more serious crimes or who battle more damaging addictions.”
SO, FT, DESPITE YOUR CRUDE SUGGESTION, I WOULD RATHER FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SCIENTISTS, HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT REPRESENT THEM; WOULD RATHER RESPECT THE DECISIONS OF FEDERAL COMMISSIONS, JUDGES AND CITIZENS IN TEN STATES (SO FAR); WOULD RATHER USE OUR SCARCE CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT RESOURCES FOR MORE IMPORTANT PURPOSES THAN TO HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL (IN YOUR WORDS) “... people can parade with their dicks hanging out ...” TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO BE USED SAFELY IN THIS COUNTRY.
(TO THE READER: YOU CAN OBTAIN MORE INFORMATION ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA BY VISITING www.safeaccessnow.org and www.medicalcannabis.com )
(My original comment) “The introduction of the fundamentalist Christian influence in our politics not only dishonors the wisdom of our founding fathers (and mothers) to keep church and state separate”
(FT’s comment) It was always there. In fact, the people are guaranteed religious freedom and liberty. You, on the other hand, come across as a prohibitionist, who would disenfranchise certain religous (SIC) people because they vote different than you. Kinda nazi-like (SIC), eh?
(MY RESPONSE): WE HAVE SURVIVED AND HAVE BEEN ENVIED FOR MORE THAN 200 YEARS AS A NATION BECAUSE WE HAVE BOTH RESPECTED EVERYONE’S RIGHT TO A PERSONAL (AND/OR DENOMINATIONAL) RELATIONSHIP WITH A HIGHER POWER (INCLUDING HAVING NO RELATIONSHIP AT ALL), AND WE HAVE STEADFASTLY AVOIDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STATE-SANCTIONED OR -REQUIRED RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE THAT IS THE ONLY ONE CONSIDERED POLITICALLY APPROPRIATE OR LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE. THERE IS NOTHING PROHIBITIONIST ABOUT MY PERSPECTIVE. HOWEVER, SOME OF THE BUSHIES THIS YEAR ARE DISTRIBUTING PAMPHLETS IN CHURCH CONGREGATIONS TELLING PARISHIONERS HOW “GAWD” WOULD VOTE ON THE KEY ISSUES AND THAT – IF THEY CANNOT FIND A CANDIDATE VOTING STRICTLY THAT WAY – THEY SHOULD NOT VOTE AT ALL. THAT IS NOT THE AMERICAN WAY, BUT IT DOES APPEAR TO BE THE REPUB-LIBAN WAY. AS I SAID EARLIER, THEIR PHILOSOPHY – BEING PLAYED OUT IN SO MANY WAYS THIS YEAR – SEEMS TO BE “WHY VOTE?”
(My original comment) “My God made the heavens and the earth, and She put me here to be of service and to protect Her creation.”
(FT’s comment) What makes you think the God is a she? I think you’re just being reactionary. The Christian believers have passed down through the generations the concept of God as our Father, so in a reactionary manner, you label the god you don’t even believe in “she.” Personally, I don’t think there’s any creator; at least, not one who’s active in our social millieu.(SIC) Better to be honest, than try to invert the beliefs of one’s political enemies
(MY RESPONSE) UNLIKE FT (WHO WOULD DISENFRANCHISE HIMSELF IF HE WERE CONSISTENT), I HAVE A CONTINUOUS CONSCIOUS CONTACT WITH A HIGHER POWER THAT I DOUBT FT COULD EVEN BEGIN TO GRASP. AND I BELONG TO A VERY LARGE FELLOWSHIP OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD WHO ARE SOLIDLY GROUNDED IN SPIRITUALITY BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY SINGLE DENOMINATIONAL DOCTRINE AND WHOSE SUCCESS (AS INDIVIDUALS AND AS A FELLOWSHIP) IS BASED ON RESPECTING EACH PERSON’S SEARCH FOR A HIGHER POWER THAT GIVES MEANING, STRENGTH AND HOPE TO OUR LIVES EVERY DAY. MY OWN SPIRITUAL BELIEFS ARE PROBABLY CLOSER TO THOSE STILL UNDERSTOOD AND REVERED BY INDIAN PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY, SO MY USE OF THE PRONOUN “SHE” IS SHORTHAND FOR MOTHER EARTH, THE LIFE-FORCE THAT IS CERTAINLY MYSTERIOUS BUT NO LESS REAL TO ME.
WHILE FT SEEMS TO HAVE A SERIOUS FIXATION ON THE MALE GENITALIA (WHICH MAY BE BECAUSE HE DEARLY MISSES SOMETHING THAT HE HAS LOST), I’M FORTUNATE THAT I LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT DOESN’T RESTRICT MY SPIRITUAL AND RELIGIOUS PRACTICE TO ANY PARTICULAR BELIEF SYSTEM OR ANATOMICAL IMAGE. AND, IN HIS OWN WARPED WAY, HE MAKES MY POINT WHEN HE REFERS TO USING THE “CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS” CONCEPTION OF GOD AS OUR RULING PRINCIPLE. ONCE AGAIN, HIS OWN WORDS CONDEMN HIM TO THE MANTLE OF NARROW-MINDEDNESS AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE, AND THEY PROVE MY POINT. THE NON-REPUB-LIBAN AMERICA I CHERISH IS POPULATED BY MANY DIVERSE PEOPLE. IN OUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE ROOM FOR CHRISTIANS, JEWS, BUDDHISTS, HINDUS, MUSLIMS, ANIMISTS, MONEY-WORSHIPPERS AND NON-BELIEVERS ALIKE. THEY ARE ALL CITIZENS IN THE AMERICA I LOVE. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE – GET IT?
(My comment) “So the moral choice for me is easy: Defend women. Defend children. Defend all peoples on the earth. Defend America. Defend the earth. Defeat Bush.”
(FT’s comment) What about ‘Defend men’? They don’t count? Not being very equal, are we?
(MY RESPONSE) I WOULD INCLUDE “MEN” IN THE PHRASE “ALL PEOPLES”. ONCE AGAIN, I JUST HAVE A CONCERN WHEN FOLKS LIKE FT – WITH HIS OVERBLOWN PENIS FIXATION AND/OR ENVY – AND HIS FELLOW TRAVELERS TRY TO TELL WOMEN WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR OWN BODIES.
(FT’s final comment) Anyways, good luck with backing Kerry all the way to the top. But I don’t think your country is majority socialist. You remind me why I’m not “liberal” anymore. Real liberals these days are called conservative.Yours, The Frank Talker
(MY FINAL COMMENT TO FT) I DON’T THINK YOU’RE EITHER LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE, AND YOU’RE CERTAINLY NOT SOMEONE WITH THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS OR WHO RESPECTS THE PRIVACY OF THOSE HE (IT?) DISAGREES WITH. NO, YOU’RE NOT A CONSERVATIVE (LIKE SO MANY OF OUR HONORABLE OPPONENTS ON THIS THREAD). YOU’RE JUST AN ANONYMOUS MIDNIGHT RAMBLER WHO SENT UNCALLED FOR PRIVATE MESSAGES TO JOANNE AND ME RATHER THAN EXPOSING YOUR OOZE FOR ALL TO SEE ON THIS THREAD.
BUT FOR ALL YOUR RAMBLINGS, I DO AGREE WITH YOUR FINAL POINT: REAL LIBERALS THESE DAYS ARE CONSERVATIVE. WE WANT TO CONSERVE OUR POLITICAL HERITAGE AND OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS, WE WANT TO CONSERVE OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, WE WANT TO CONSERVE OUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY, WE WANT TO CONSERVE OUR BILL OF RIGHTS. SO IF YOU PERSIST IN SENDING UNINVITED MESSAGES TO JOANNE AND ME, LET ME MENTION A SIGN MY COUNTRY NEIGHBOR HAS ON HIS BACKWOODS DRIVEWAY: “NO TRESPASSING. SURVIVORS WILL BE PROSECUTED.” KINDA TRANSCENDS LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE LABELS, DON’T CHA THINK?
And for the rest of the Republicans and Bush supporters on this thread, I do hope you got a strong look and a big whiff of the kind of people drawn to your cause by the likes of FT and his tactics with Joanne and me. Maybe now, you’ll understand why we don’t want the government (much less nut-less nabobs) in our bedrooms or email boxes. The fact that several of you have expressed your own misgivings about Ayatollah Ashcroft and his methods shows me that we do share similar beliefs on this front across the political spectrum. Think FT (Fatuous Toad), multiplied by thousands, when you decide whether to support Bush and his political/judicial appointments and tactics for another four years.
Now for a much-needed breath of fresh air to get this slime-mold FT off my mind. And to go borrow a “No Trespassing” sign from my neighbor and celebrate my right to bear arms. Bernie
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:38 PM It’s obvious you are avoiding the issues - Bush has lied, again and again.
John Kerry has three Purple hearts and a Bronze Star with a “V” and a Silver Star - you can look it up for yourself on his website.
What awards does Bush have besides his presidency?
Posted by steve miller on Sep 6, 2004 at 6:42 PM Found it. No thanks to any of you. Joey is on Thursdays at 8 on NBC. According to a neighbor’s TV section: Joey leaves the Big Apple (that’s NYC) and heads to the land of the stars (I assume LA), fully expecting to become one. But when his role as blood-lovin’ (I assume not one of The Undead - Ha Ha) falls through - and he turns down a male nurse role on a show that becomes a big hit - he gets a bit flummoxed (look it up yourself) about life. (Who doesn’t?) Luckily his spunky sister (I love it when they are spunky), Gina, and her brainiac (a short and punchy way of saying he’s smart) son, Michael, are there for him, along with his loud-mouthed agent (perhaps a stereotype here but I won’t prejudge). But the family support gets put to the test when Michael decides to ditch Mom and move in with his cool Uncle Joey. (I think this is a sentence fragment and not proper grammar, but I digress.)
My favorie show is The Amazing Race. I’ve applied 5 times and never gotten on. I see its on Saturdays now, but it’s opposite The Apprentice. Could be trouble for my show. Chuck
Posted by chuck on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:06 PM Chuck,
Stay right where you are. Don’t worry—be happy. And leave the driving (and the thinking) to the rest of us. Or not—it is a free country but it comes with more responsibilities than being able to use the remote. However, don’t let me interrupt—the commercials are just about over. “Now back to ‘Father’ (Bush) Knows Best”. (Fade to black.)
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:20 PM (A Nat note: Dadgummit, I always kick myself when I post late at night and my thoughts get buried in the middle of some long, 23-plus page thread. While glumly acknowledging that perhaps the lack of response was caused not by the late hour—but rather by a dearth of interest in my actual post—I’ll gamely go again.)
Boy, just love the litany of Eisenhower “accomplishments,” particularly the part about how he “gave us a period of peace and prosperity.”
The reason I love it is that it reveals, yet again, the way leftists such as Keillor instinctively view the government in general, and the president in particular. While he sits and bemoans the “bark” being stripped off the Constitution, he doesn’t even realize that his understanding of the United States is utterly wrong, on a very basic, fundamental level.
American presidents are not kings. They were never intended to be. They are not responsible for “giving us” peace and prosperity. They are not meant to be “the CEOs of the American economy.” They are not meant to have, and in fact largely do not have, the kind of power to which Keillor likes to assign them.
In the very same sentence where Keillor laments bark being stripped from the Constitution, he laments federal agencies being “eviscerated.” His misunderstanding of the Constitution is so entrenched that he doesn’t even catch the incompatibility of the two notions.
Has President Bush upheld his oath to defend the Constitution? Of course not. No president in decades has done so. What it boils down to is that Keillor and other leftists simply don’t like Bush’s particular brand of oath-breaking. FDR helped eviscerate the Constitution more than any president in the history of the United States. Yet I suspect Keillor won’t be scolding him any time soon. Keillor is of the mind that a U.S. president is supposed to be a king. And so it’s just a matter of finding the right sort of king, the kind who rules the people with dictates Keillor personally likes.
Finally, Keillor talks of bequeathing to our grandchildren a country that’s in better shape than we found it. That’s a fine idea. But it’s worth noting that we ourselves are the grandchildren of people who bequeathed to us a country whose principles, and whose Constitution, they helped destroy.
If we want to leave a better America to the future, we’d be wise to skip back and rediscover the past, to remember the America that was actually intended. That’s the America where we don’t argue about “tax cuts,” because taxes aren’t an issue to begin with. That’s the America where the president isn’t upheld as a king to whom we give blame or credit for natural economic cycles. And that’s the America where the Constitution is held sacred, without fear that it will be “eviscerated” by anyone of any political stripe—Bush, FDR or otherwise.
Posted by Nat on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:36 PM Scott (Or is that last ‘t’ redundant?) :)—
You requested explicit instances in which the current administration and friends have attacked freedoms here and abroad.
Concerning our own citizens, take a look at the “Patriot Act.” Some of it is common sense, but depriving accused individuals of the right to a trial and counsel is barbaric. Many are deprived of their liberty, though evidence of their innocence is at hand. (Though I yawn when online posters cite the Nazis, the sudden arrests by the Gestapo and Italian fascists come to mind when I read of detentions without a stated cause.)
The library inquiries began to trouble even more after hearing that a local sheriff had sent a deputy to spy on a small group (Was it in Portland?) comprised chiefly of elderly citizens meeting to discuss means to peace. It’s human nature to want to pry into the thoughts, politics, religion of our fellows, and the library should be able to protect us from such inquiries by those acting under the cloak of “protectors.”
Already, lives of ordinary citizens—the American-born Muslim lawyer, also from the Northwest, who’d defended a Muslim in a domestic case, as well as Republican Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his CIA agent wife, etc.—have been damaged for exercising their right to speak the truth, or for simply existing. These are not isolated cases!
The control of the electronic and much of print media by corporations stems from their inception. but it is only in the last few years that the bulk of our radio stations have been purchased by one company—Clear Channel. (The name alone eerily suggests something from cautionary political fiction.)
Although US television has historically represented mainstream capitalist values, earlier scions of corporate America—who held to some semblance of honor and civic duty—had the grace to allow mildly dissenting voices and even embarrassing scrutiny when the occasion demanded.
Now, all seriously dissenting voices of note are quelled, to be replaced occasionally by a comedian or other under-informed entertainment figure. And occasionally a moderate Republican or purchased former Democrat poses as a liberal voice. One small example: Former Republican Scarborough of MSNBC with David Drier, R, Ca. and network “expert” Lawrence O’Donnell all gave a grade of ‘A’ to the GOP convention and the President’s speech. and with one exception even to the ravings of Zell Miller!
Interesting coincidence that MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ brother is also a Republican congressman. What happened to Phil Donohue and other concerned voices who disappeared in the last weeks before our twenty-year war (John McCain’s prediction) against the weapons-poor bad guy began?And the adminstration and their FCC head, Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, asked to narrow the control of our radio and television stations further—and they almost pulled it off.
For our corporate inroads into other countries of the world, I refer you to the earlier post of different barry. Suffice it to say here, we’ve become the Wal-Mart of world commerce.
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:39 PM [A quick piece of administrative business: After writing out a post and clicking the “Preview” button, you’re brought to—ta da!—a preview page. Atop this preview page is a helpful tip: “This is how your comment will appear. Click submit if you are happy with the way it looks.”
[Oddly, however, there is no “submit” button on that page. If one goes back to the previous page where the comment was written—and where a “submit” button indeed exists—the text of one’s post has disappeared, and must be rewritten.
[Am I missing something on the preview page—namely, a “submit” button? (My browser is IE6, for what it’s worth.)]
Posted by Nat on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:49 PM Need I point out that it is a long held plank of the Democrats’ platform to deprive ALL OF AMERICA of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms??? Why does the ACLU not protest loud and strong about the deliberate intent to disarm the law abiding citizens of this land while they scream that burning the flag is “Protected Political Speach”??? Who is really supporting our rights? The Second Amendment is about “the People”(that’s the same “We, the People” that starts out the Constitution) being able to protect themselves from THE GOVERNMENT, not about hunting or anything else…...
To be sure, I have problems with some aspects of the Patriot Act, but by and large the Dems are almost as anti-American as the commuists…...
Posted by Kirk on Sep 6, 2004 at 7:58 PM Is it ignorance or apathy, or some combination of both that prompts the continued pandering to “Politics as Usual”? Although Mr. Keillor, in his uniquely articulate style, brings to the forefront some beliefs and behaviors that absolutely require redress, assigning blame to one group is a buy-in to a belief system that is one of the lowest common denominators and greatest distractors from the evolution of human consciousness: The “Us against Them” game.
For the record, I am neither Democrat, nor Republican, and I consider myself an independent, free-thinker who makes a commitment to making informed decisions by taking the time and personal responsibility for gathering information from a variety of independent, non-partisan sources from around the world.
What is frightening about our country is that our collective attention span is about as long as a NY Minute- or a soundbite on the network news…and from THAT perspective, we are electing leaders who are making decisions that have a profound, far-reaching impact, not only on this country, but on the entire world.
We live in a country that consumes and creates waste on a collosally disproportionate level on this planet, and yet less than 15% of our population has a passport and takes advantage of our extraordinary privilege of travel. So, if we’re told by any source, of which we’re unaware of underlying agendas, that the French, or the Muslims, or the Africans, or the [just fill in the blank] are [whatever]....HOW would we know any different? For a few seconds in the wake of the tragedy of 9/11/01, we stopped shopping for a second and someone dared ask “Why do [they] hate us?”...before that became an un-popular or worse un-patriotic line of ponderance. We have become a nation of self-absorption on an unprecedented scale. The “Power of Pride” and the pettiness of partisan bickering has precluded any possibility of self-assessment that might allow for accountability and sustainable solutions. As long as we blame the [whomevers], we absolve ourselves of personal responsibility, which is the ONLY place of true power- where positive change can occur.
What might our dialogue look like if we eliminated any labels or organizational associations and required analysis and actual knowledge of a subject prior to proferring an opinion? What if the people living in a country that has a dramatic impact on the daily lives of people all around the world were required to have some knowledge of what that looks like, firsthand, and began to realize the direct personal connection between themselves, their purchases, their political positions, etc.- and the entire world??? What if we turned off the propaganda machine (tv) and began exploring the policies and PRACTICES of our leaders and candidates, independent of partisan POSITIONING, and cast our votes according to what those individuals were DOING, as opposed to what they were simply SAYING?
In my [hopefully ever-evolving] opinion, until we reach a level of consciousness (collectively) where we transcend belief systems based in fear, separation, victimization and blame (all cornerstones of our current political parties)and begin taking personal responsibility for educating ourselves from a wide variety of sources (from around the world), getting on planes and going to some of these places we’re “Liberating” and learning how our decisions affect their daily living, researching and getting the facts on what our leaders are supporting, and reforming our system from the current corporation-serving government, it will be business and politics as usual. The Democrat/Republican debate is a massive distraction, supported by billions of our tax dollars in propaganda, designed to keep us in-fighting and unaware of what is actually happening.
Engage your brains. Exercise your precious (and rapidly eroding) freedoms; Get on the net; Get on a plane. Get off your political platform and into the investigation of the issues. Get off your ass and get an education. If you can’t offer an opinion, backed by evidence of ACTION, and offer a sustainable solution…You’ve got homework to do…Don’t stoop to lobbing labels. Freedom isn’t FREE. It requires a great deal of responsibility. Stop blaming and start taking PERSONAL responsibility for the “State of the Union”.
Posted by Kim on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:00 PM Response to:
“Baloney.
It is immoral to take life without due process - without justice. Abortion and euthanasia do exactly that. And the death penalty represents society’s
condemnation of certain terrible crimes. Once again - due process and justice.”The bible clearly states in four different places(Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17, Matthew 5:21, and Romans 13:9): “Thou shalt not kill.” It does not equivocate. It does not say, “Thou shalt not kill, unless due process is observed.” Clearly stated to kill a human being is immoral. Any human being. For any reason, just or not, with due process or not. This is the code of behaviour these Christian men claim to follow. And yet under Mr. Bush Texas had the highest number of executions in the nation. Under Mr. Bush a war that kills and maims thousands, whether civilian or soldier has been waged and continues. Morally, you cannot have it both ways. Either All Human Life is sacred or none is sacred.
Response to:
“The moral ambiguity of the ref’d excerpt causes concern. It represents an ends-justifies-the-means mentality with little thought about the means (i.e. justice), which is basically the moral compass of sociopath.”
My point exactly. Time and time again the current administration has shown this attitude. In the 2000 primary they attacked Sen. McCain saying he was unfit to hold public office due to the trauma he suffered in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp: character assassination to win the nomination. More recently the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay held without due process in the name of national security.
In 1095 Pope Urban II decreed a crusade to free the Holy Land offering a Papal Indulgence to all who participated. He gave a “free ticket” to heaven to anyone who would go and kill, maim, and torture Islamists. My point is that this administration feels that they have a similar moral imperative to further their agenda both domestically and internationally using whatever means at their disposal. As stated above, the moral compass of a sociopath.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:03 PM To label the performance of Zell Miller as “comments” is truly an extreme act of kindness, which could only come from Mother Theresa. The man was virtually foaming at the mouth, and I’m so glad I had my rabies shots up-dated. There are two guys in white coats with a net looking for him as I speak!
Once again, our sterling, appointed Commander-in-Chief who never get HIS hands dirty, can stand back from his accusers and ask, “MOI?”
Posted by Phil Werntz on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:15 PM So am I to believe that GWB is responsible for 911 after being in office for less that 8 months. Clinto was President for 8 years and his claim to fame ( besided getting a hummer in the Oval Office and perjury) was to gut the military. John Kerry was to liberal for even that bloated drunk Ted Kennedy when he proposed gutting the foriegn intel services to the tune of 6 billion (thats right, BILLION) after the first World Trade Center Bombing. You people just DO NOT GET IT. We are at war with a people who despise us for simply existing. Look at the news coverage from Russia (NOT THE USSR, Reagan destroyed that) More good news from the religion of peace. Grave diggers in Beslan have been to dig 600 GRAVES. These are women and children, innocents all who were bruitally murdered, not unlike 3000 Americans in 2001. I have read the posts here and can sleep easier at night knowing that you people are out there spewing your vitriol, because the more you rant and rave, the more votes GWB will get in November. GO GET EM’ GARRISON.
Posted by Brent Clarke on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:30 PM What’s all the excitement about here? He’s just another moonbat in love with his own hate.
Posted by flenser on Sep 6, 2004 at 8:42 PM Barbara wrote:
“Already, lives of ordinary citizens…as well as Republican Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his CIA agent wife, etc.—have been damaged for exercising their right to speak the truth, or for simply existing. These are not isolated cases!”—————
Barbara, a few questions:
1) Are you unaware that Wilson was recently shown to be a liar? (Maybe you’re honestly not. The major media outlets became suddenly disinterested in Joe Wilson once he became a hindrance, rather than a help, to their agenda. Regardless, DO look it up. The man has been shown to be a liar with a vendetta.)
2) When you say, “or for simply existing”, what EXACTLY do you mean by that? What evidence do you have that someone, anyone, was targeted because they “simply existed”?
Additionally, I’m still waiting to hear how the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are now less free than they were just a couple of years ago.
Thank you.
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 9:17 PM To those liberals obsessed with Kerry’s Vietnam shtick: Why are you unaware that at least one of his purple hearts appears to have been unintentionally self-inflicted? Why are you not troubled with his “Christmas in Cambodia” lie? And there is more still to come. Stay tuned.
And what about directly after Vietnam? Why are his actions then not too much of keen interest to you? Do you actually know what he said, what he did, and that he has yet to account for it?
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 9:34 PM My how perverse are you legions of fans and what an absurd story you weave! Bush is not evil, rather you democrats are irrational in your vitriol and childish in your fuming.
May clearer heads prevail. If you have a case to make don’t rely on passion alone - you will only convince those of the choir.
Posted by Patrick on Sep 6, 2004 at 9:47 PM Barbara, regarding Joe Wilson the liar, here is a link to get you started:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 9:50 PM Geoff,
You’ve thought about the issues at length and in depth and you are clearly qualified to make your own decision. Just keep surfing the ‘sphere and googling.A couple of comments:
The European countries not in the coalition:
*Switzerland and Sweden: pacifist and ‘neutral’, won’t join.
*Spain - will broken by Al Qaeda, pulled troops.
*France - has a large muslim population they are trying not to offend.
*France, Germany, Russia - had significant economic dealings with Iraq before the war, including the graft under the UN “Oil for Food” program, and weapons sales to Iraq.
*France, Germany, Russia - dislike following the lead of the USA. I’m pretty disappointed in Germany (being one generation removed)
*Austria - ? I don’t know the issues, may be following Germany.The other European countries are in the coalition already:
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/the-coalition/coalition-forces.htmI doubt that Sen. Kerry will be any more successful than Pres. Bush when it comes to “respectful persuasion” of France and Germany. These countries are all already more or less committed to the fight against Al Qaeda (if they’d stop releasing the criminals, it would help) but they view the war in Iraq as a separate issue. Sen. Kerry may be able to ask in French, but the answer will still be “Merci, Monsieur le President, mais…non.”
Personally, I think it was right to go into Iraq. The West can survive terrorist attacks with conventional weapons, but nukes are qualitatively different. The administration has not said that Iraq was connected with 9/11, but it’s pretty clear to me from what I’ve read over the last three years that there were in fact ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. All the major intelligence organizations around the world thought that Iraq had WMD. We haven’t found them yet, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. The Iraqi scientists involved are not talking freely, and a number of them have been assassinated recently. Take a look at the Iraq sections on this page:
http://www.nci.org/
“Kay’s Replacement Presses Search for WMD”The press has made a premature determination that there were no WMD, in my opinion. Did you see the story about the Iraqi scientist who claimed to have been in a WMD storage facility 40 feet below an island in a river? Quite convincing. Or the convoy of trucks crossing to Syria after we invaded? When the border guards were replaced by Saddam’s personal guards?
You’ve no doubt heard that some knowledgeable people believe there may be half a dozen ‘suitcase’ nukes (from Russia/Ukraine) in this country. I have to tell you, I was on the edge of my chair the last hour of the RNC.
Well, I’m getting off-topic. I think what the election comes down to is character. While both candidates have their flaws in that regard, I believe I have a pretty good idea about what GWB is going to do in this crisis. I can’t say the same for his opponent.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:35 PM From the Judicial Watch Website:
On Tuesday, August 31, 2004, Judicial Watch called upon Senator Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his political campaign Internet site pending a review of the granting of the award by the U.S. Navy. Senator Kerry’s political Internet site displays a document listing a “Silver Star with Combat ‘V.’” The Combat “V” device is never awarded with the nation’s third highest award for heroism. A U.S. Navy spokesperson has reportedly stated: “The Navy has never issued a ‘Combat V’ to anyone for a Silver Star.” Additionally, former Navy Secretary John Lehman was quoted with respect to the Silver Star citation as saying: “It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me.”
“We hope this is the beginning of an actual investigation of the legitimacy of Senator Kerry’s awards by the Navy and the Pentagon,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 10:44 PM Mr. Oplas’ comments that Mr. Keillor is more likeable if he stays out of the political debate is a typical comment from Republicans who blast Hollywood types and categorize anyone with a disparaging comment about the war in Iraq as unpatriotic. We were misled into the conflict and we are not safer than we were on 9/11.
We would be less than patriotic if we stood by silently and allow the Bush policy of pre-emption (and many other of his misguided policies)lead us down a path of destruction.
Posted by Paul Joseph on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:00 PM Ever since I grew up, I’ve wanted to be a Republican. When I was young, Republicanism stood for frugality, reason, patriotism, and pragmatism. When I was old enough to understand that there was a limit to what government could do, and that spending us into ruin wasn’t ok, even when it had good intentions, suddenly, Spiro Agnew came along and started spoiling it for me. Republicans started to be something new. Mean-spirited, greedy, short-sighted, provincial, intolerant bullies who resurrected Calvinism with a vengeance. The party I longed to join was suddenly telling me that I didn’t belong and that a lot of worthwhile people didn’t belong either and didn’t matter. Single mothers, gays, anyone who wasn’t fortunate enough to be on the “winning” side in our economy, people who could be good Christians without being Bible Bigots, people who believed that the First Amendment represents a right to know, not just a right to speak.
Someone needs to rescue the Republican party. For me and many others who would flock to their banner if they would only get off this moralistic, narrow-minded hobby horse, and transform the “big tent” crap into something meaningful, and not just a smarmy cynical election-year slogan.
Posted by Steve on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:07 PM MN—CIA officials twice circumvented the White House crowd to tell us they had no intelligence of mass weapons in Iraq, perhaps with some encouragement from Dick Clarke and other concerned higher-ups. Scott Ritter, one of our weapons inspectors said repeatedly on twenty-four hour news network interviews that Hussein had spent millions destroying weapons of interest after being ordered to do so. (He was immediately branded as traitorous. self-interested subversive and accused of attempting to seduce a young girl.)
As for the suitcase bombs and thimbles of ricin, anthrax. other biologicals, and a variety of bombs held here in the U.S., perhaps we should set aside some of the hundreds of billions spent pretending to bring democracy to Iraq to guard against and prepare for their very real threat.
Posted by same barbara (IN, NC) on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:09 PM I guess I am always puzzled by conservatives who scream “Hollywood!” at liberals, while electing the Governator, and featuring Hollywood-types in their convention (Ron Silver, anyone?) This is either hypocritical or just plain stupid: We either all admit that both sides use actors and other “stars” to make their points, or we ignore the “star” status altogether, and say that they are just Americans, who have the same right to express their views — just as much as business owners, garbage-men, and office workers.
Posted by Anna on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:09 PM Dear Michael Bierbaum,
We are a constitutional republic and not a theocracy. The bible is not the governing law here. The Constitution allows for capital punishment. If you object to capital punishment on moral grounds, then you need to convince a sufficient number of other citizens of the wisdom of your objection and get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw capital punishment.
Sincerely Yours,
Brooks
Posted by Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:13 PM Steve,
It’s people like you and me who need to rescue the Republican party. Join in and move in the direction you want. You can’t just wait for someone else to do it for you.There’s plenty of crummy people in both parties. Ignore them. Go with the positive.
Frugality, reason, patriotism, and pragmatism sound pretty good to me.
Posted by MN_native-MA_voter on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:15 PM Correct, Anna. And what party elected Sen. George Murphy, deceased film star; Ronald Reagan, ditto; Fred Grandy; Arnold Schwarzenegger, and elevated John Wayne to sainthood?
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:19 PM Bernie,
We don’t agree on the value of the welfare state to our society. We’re paying a heavy price for the social programs passed in the “first hundred days” back in 1935, in addition to a boodle more since then, and the underlying problems these programs were intended to resolve persist, and the clientele of these programs continues to expand. Good intentions aren’t enough. I expect results and I haven’t seen them. Unquestionably many things have been done, much money has changed hands. But the instigating problems that started these public projects remain. That’s a definition of failure.As for your 400 references, sorry, I missed that post. I am, however, puzzled at why the CDC does not appear to reach the same conclusion about free needles and bleach programs as your 400 referrals. Maybe you could explain this discrepancy.
Lastly, RTFQ. (Read The F*&^(ing Question as they say.) You listed a whole slew of government programs that you presumed to be efficient. I said show me one example where there are both government and private alternatives to a given service, and where the government alternative is more efficient than the private service. This you did not do. That’s OK. I already know the answer to this question though you are most welcome to prove me wrong.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:30 PM This election is not about Bush vs. Gore. It’s about whether the American people want to be scared mindless automations who embrace a worldview and approach to the rest of the world, that no matter how bad the situation is now, will make it progressively, and perhaps irretrievably worse.
Posted by LDR on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:31 PM Anyone hear this yet? John Kerry has issued yet another position on the Iraq war today. When liberals say they agree with John Kerry, I always want to ask, WHICH John Kerry? The man is incoherent on the most imortant issue facing us all, the war on terror, and you liberals are apparently fine with that.
Nice, very nice!
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:35 PM Anna and Barbara:
Regarding the Hollywood issue, all that you’re doing is citing exceptions as if they are the rule, when in fact they are exceptions to the rule. It’s like saying that ABC News has a conservative bias because they let George Will utter 90 seconds of opinion per week.
Silly girls.
Posted by Scott on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:41 PM Scott—That Wilson’s wife may have recommended her husband proves neither that her recommendation was crucial, or that either he or she considered it so. International missions of ambassadors seldom rest on an agent-spouse’s opinion.
The number one man in Nigeria in speaking with Wilson nixed that any talks about plutonium had taken place. He told Wilson that Iraq’s emissary had mentioned in passing an interest in “expanded” commerce. So if that was in any way a reference to plutonium, the emissary was as shy as a girl at her first prom. It’s in Wilson’s book and numerous television interviews.
We cannot craft foreign policy on the basis of paranoia.
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:44 PM To Margo: They say that N.Z. is very beatiful in the winter time. I doubt that the shy will fall there, or so I’m told.
Posted by Larry on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:45 PM And the Democrat entertainers who’ve held public office?
Posted by barbara on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:50 PM Scott, Wow, please try not to trip over your talking points. What conservatives (that is, certain conservatives, usually the ones that cannot walk and chew gum at the same time) seem to miss is that issues that a president would have to face, such as defense, are difficult, complicated, and yes, require nuance and clarification (sounds suspiciously French??!!). Kerry is able to think about an issue from all sides — and given the gravity of the decisions he would have to make, I would not want it any other way. This is not the same thing as being paralyzed into inaction. It is, however, indicative of his ablity to make very sure that he does not jump before the parachute is on his back.
Having watched the current leader and his ilk durign the past few years, I, for one, believe that we have all learned a lesson in what rigidity, inflexibility, and general lack of worldview can do. “We liberals” are just fine electing a leader who reasons things through, and who, generally, is not allergic to thinking.
Posted by Anna on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:54 PM Scott,
And all this timr, I thought that conservatives at least had some manners. Well, there goes the last bit of hope I had for ya, kid.
Posted by Anna on Sep 6, 2004 at 11:58 PM Anna writes: “Scott, Wow, please try not to trip over your talking points.”
Okay Anna. Whatever that means. I guess it means that I got your panties in a bind or something uncomfortable like that.—————
Anna writes: “What conservatives (that is, certain conservatives, usually the ones that cannot walk and chew gum at the same time)”
and then she writes: “I thought that conservatives at least had some manners. Well, there goes the last bit of hope I had for ya, kid.”
Well, I don’t guess any comment is necessary on this one.—————
Anna writes: ” issues that a president would have to face, such as defense, are difficult, complicated, and yes, require nuance and clarification (sounds suspiciously French??!!). Kerry is able to think about an issue from all sides — and given the gravity of the decisions he would have to make, I would not want it any other way. This is not the same thing as being paralyzed into inaction. It is, however, indicative of his ablity to make very sure that he does not jump before the parachute is on his back.”
Anna, don’t try to argue that Kerry is anything other than incoherent. It makes you look silly. But I’ll admit that I’m wrong and you’re right and I’ll even vote for Kerry if you do one thing: Look up everything Kerry has said/done/voted regarding the Iraq War for the last two years. Then, reconcile all of the various and glaring contradictions and sum up his final position on this one issue. And you get bonus points if your summation approximates his next bit of “nuance” on the issue. You have slightly less than two months to do this.Best of luck to you honey.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 12:51 AM Barbara,
Joe Wilson is a proven liar. It’s what is known as a true fact. It’s not even in dispute. This is exactly why the major media outlets ignored the story, because there is no good way to spin it in favor of a liberal agenda. Look, if Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and all the rest couldn’t do it, then you certainly cannot either. You have no credibility if you cannot look this up, think it through, and have the intellectual honesty to admit that the man is a proven liar, and that the scandal was manufactured.
And then you say, “We cannot craft foreign policy on the basis of paranoia”.
Well no kidding, genius! But that’s just a strawman argument, another fallacy. If you don’t know what that is, then I’m afraid it’s just another thing you’re going to have to look up.
One last question: How freaked out are you going to be when John Kerry loses this November?
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:09 AM Thank God Scott is still here on this issue… everyone else seems like they are for Kerry and this editor/author who wrote this article that is filled with hate comparable to al-gayda.
Posted by zman on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:28 AM MN—
Thanks for being the first Bush supporter to have responded to my many concerns. You are a patient reader;-)
Candidly, I still feel that a strong enough representation to the many nations you cite can indeed overcome certain other “allegiances” you referred to. As I wrote on Page 16, trumping those concerns through reasoned persuasion, either privately or publicly, is now, IMO, part of the President’s job description for the conceivable future. No, it won’t be easy, but it is now essential.
You and I may have to agree to disagree on this. Ultimately, I still feel that failure on this effort at democracy consolidation around the world means ultimate defeat—in a matter of a few decades or so—in the War with Al Qaeda.
Since I no longer regard the war in Iraq as part of the War with Al Qaeda anyway, frankly (the evidence remains unpersuasive, IMO), I am paying particularly close attention to Continental Europe’s other efforts against Al Qaeda—and I feel they are coming up short after all.
I don’t feel the proper sense of urgency in a number of their state capitals. You say you are more or less satisfied with France and Germany’s general commitment against Al Qaeda overall. Candidly, I am not—and I regard their premature releases as all too typical of the tragically lackadaisical approach they are adopting. In fact, it is the tip of the iceberg. They are fiddling while Rome burns, IMO.
And, incidentally, I have never been comfortable with the occasional methodology of waiting until someone dies to install a traffic light. But this is what Europe _appears_ to be doing, in effect.
I’m afraid that much of this incorrigible attitude can be traced to the fact that they now regard the President as the boy who cried “Wolf!” Some day, a real wolf will come to Europe (it’s already happened once in Madrid), Bush will see it plain as day, and Continental Europe will say “Yeah, sure!” The results will be tragic and will probably ricochet around the world.
Unfortunately—not entirely through Bush’s own fault—the atmospherics are simply too charged now, IMO. It may be entirely undeserved, but Bush—in this respect anyway, IMO—has become damaged goods, much like that boy in Aesop’s fable. What makes it so terribly unfair is that the boy in the fable made up a lie several times and then lost his credibility. OTOH, Bush erred only once (Iraq, IMO, but more relevantly in Continental Europe’s opinion also), and he gets the rug pulled out from under him, even though I doubt he was practicing deliberate deception.
At least, Kerry will change those unfortunate atmospherics, IMO. Actually, FWIW, I can imagine Kerry persuading France and Germany after all to keep a closer surveilance on Al Qaeda suspects than they’ve been doing. I think (maybe I’m wrong) that you may be underestimating the extent to which Kerry’s election could change the dynamic in a positive direction in this respect after all. Continental Europe could really start listening to us. And most importantly, Continental Europe is more likely to pay attention when Kerry cries “Wolf!”
Again, that may be unfair, but it’s what I see today, unless a miracle happens, and our closeness to Continental Europe is radically improved within a matter of just a few months from now.
Clearly, from the page on Kay’s replacement that you showed me, the “returns” are not all in after all, when it comes to Kay’s previous conclusion that there were no brand-new WMDs after all. Such a conclusion may still turn out to be premature after all. That’s sobering.
Unfortunately, that does not address the degree to which too many industrialized—and threatened—democracies around the world still do not listen to us, bury their heads in the sand, even when we may be remonstrating with them in good faith! This is untenable.
No question that, should Mr. Duelfer find brand-new WMDs after all, the equation might change radically, and Bush might have his credibility restored. That might make me take another look at this race. But lacking that, I don’t see how the cohesion of any worldwide democracy alliance can be properly generated, sustained and strengthened. One can only hope Mr. Duelfer finds _something_—and soon!
In the meantime, right now, I see Kerry as the only practical hope for changing the dynamic around the industrialized Free World.
BTW, I too was on the edge of my seat during the entirety of Bush’s acceptance speech at the Convention—and I’m right here in Manhattan!!!!!
You made a reference to character. Frankly, I get a sense that both candidates are basically decent people who are honestly trying to do the right thing. I could do without the mutual efforts of their surrogates to tear each of them down. I think it’s wearing on the country, and thoughtless.
Where I fault them both is in limited vision. Bush, I sometimes think, doesn’t fully appreciate how completely he has to walk the walk of this struggle against Al Qaeda being a truly _worldwide_ struggle. A greater effort to intimately engage the whole world in this effort would reassure me more than anything else.
OTOH, while Kerry seems to understand more clearly in his gut just how totally this is the _world’s_ struggle, he does not convey as vital a sense of urgency generally as Bush does. Now, granted, he may feel that urgency in his gut. But he has not yet fully conveyed it. Again, vision.
Neither of these vision flaws carry any character flaws with them, IMO, and I think our bored denizens of the media sometimes do not get it. They do not get just how passionate and sincere most public officials are in their having chosen public service in the first place. I include both Bush and Kerry among those who are sincerely dedicated.
Now if only we could give one or the other candidate huge doses of both the inspirational and the intellectual in tandem (both candidates have at least a small portion of both, but not hefty _and_ balanced portions of both, IMO), we’d have our candidate, and the rest of the world would work with us.
(As you can see, I’m not too sanguine…....)
My two cents,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:35 AM A question for all of the noble, intelligent, morally superior liberals on this thread: Given the obvious fact that John Kerry cannot even run a halfway effective presidential campaign, (which is a great deal simpler than running this country), and given that he apparently didn’t have the “nuance” to see this Swift Boat Vet thing coming beforehand (though he should have, in that these 250+ men are still sore from having been slandered and smeared by John Kerry while he also gave propagandistic aid to the enemy), and given that John Kerry began his political career as an antiwar activist and has now performed a 180 degree spin by trying to sell himself as Audie Murphy incarnate, how confident would you really feel having this guy in charge?
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:50 AM Gracious! Mr. Keillor’s analysis and the comments of those cheered by it raises the question: Why are so many Democrats so bitter? As a conservative businessman living in Hubert Humphrey’s hometown in Huron, SD, I’ve seen and heard much the same bitterness among my Democrat friends, and it’s a shame. Politics is serious business, but it’s not central for conservatives. It is central to liberals. How do I know this? Simple: If victory over Muslim fanatics was guaranteed, but the cost was a one-term Bush presidency, I know nearly all Republicans would take that deal. Flip that—victory in the war, but Bush wins a second term—and most Democrats would reject it.
Posted by Cliff Hadley on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:13 AM I love Garrison Keilor, but this is pure nonsense. It is a stream of name calling, devoid of constructive argument or substance. Please offer one substantive example that lives up to your characterization of how the President has tried to “strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill”.
What sort of evil do you think it is that motivates Mr. Bush, and his supporters such as Rudy Guliani, Ed Koch, and John McCain (who turned down a vice-presidency offer from Kerry because he preferred to see Bush win)?
I am dissapointed with the President’s competency in many ways, and certainly considered voting for his alternative. Seeing how previously-sane liberals such as Mr. Keilor have adopted the rhetoric of the loony left, however, has made me decide this crowd is just not ready to be in charge of this country.
Posted by DeBaron on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:22 AM Why is it that Kerry will not address the Swift Boat Vets claims? He can’t.
Why has the Kerry campaign come out changing his position on different claims by the SBV? Because he lied, stole and embellished the truth.
How many people has Kerry been credited for killing in Vietnam? 20.
Why doesn’t Kerry’s campaign talk about legislation that he has introduced in his 20 years in the Senate? There isn’t any. Why would anyone think that he will change as President and all of a sudden become a leader?
What is this Kerry direction???
Posted by Jack on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:23 AM To Anna and Barbara—Thanks for your continuing clear comments. And the chauvinistic belittling you’re getting from some of these greezy rite-wing pigs is a clear sign that some men’s brains really are in their underwear—and small enough to fit on the head of the pin that’s there. (Sorry, FT’s midnight message last night still has me thinking in a rhetorically phallic mood.)
Brooks, Brooks, Brooks—My post regarding the 400+ references to the value of needle exchange programs (NEP) is not only still on this stream, but it has been referred to several times by me and by Joanne. So if you had been paying attention, it would be disingenuous to plead ignorance. (Don’t worry, we’re used to it by now.) But in case your myopia prevents you from retaining our earlier post, I’ll try again. Google PubMed (the online service of the National Library of Medicine which also includes links to international medical library databases. Follow the instructions there. When prompted, type in “needle exchange programs”. You will be given abstracts to the 400+ articles that I (and others) have referenced several times in this thread.
Those articles, if you review them, will demonstrate to you what common sense demonstrates for the rest of us: that removing contaminated needles from the IDU community reduces the risk of additional communicable disease infection caused by sharing needles among IDUs or the accidental needle stick that may occur within the IDU’s family or among others accidently exposed to the contaminated needle. In addition, teaching addicts not to share needles and to clean needles with bleach before injection also reduces the spread of communicable disease. Further, setting up NEPs that are staffed with competent and non-moralistic (read “professional”) public health staff increase the likelihood that addicts will be engaged to seek substance abuse treatment. Once again, read a sampling of the articles I have referred you to continually.
There have been continuing limitations placed on the federal government’s direct involvement in NEPs that began under Reagan and Bush 41 and that have been maintained (over CDC’s strong objections) ever since that time by the hairy-knuckled Drug War moralists who (unfortunately) are on both sides of the Congressional aisle. Fortunately, organizations like the Kaiser Foundation have stepped into the breach and funded excellent and well-studied NEP programs as a result.
And in case you missed it again or are tempted to misstate CDC’s position one more time, I just said that CDC professionals have been very clear and consistent over the past decade, even in the face of Congressional pressure, regarding their support for the value of needle exchange programs, as this excerpt from a simple google search this evening revealed: “(T)wo confidential internal Clinton administration reports ... urge the President to lift the ban on federal support for needle exchange programs to curb the spread of AIDS. The two reports by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) review research on needle exchange programs and find that they reduce the spread of the virus that causes AIDS and do not increase rates of drug use. The ban on federal funding of needle exchange programs has been renewed every year by Congress since 1988, but the Surgeon General can overturn it with scientific proof that needle exchange programs are effective in reducing the spread of the AIDS virus while not increasing drug use.
“AIDS researcher Peter Lurie, MD, MPH, from the University of California at Berkeley School of Public Health is an author of one of the studies reviewed in the reports. At a forum held ... to release the reports, Lurie blasted the administration for not acting on this information. Officials are ‘cowering behind a legalistic fig leaf when the lives of drug users, their sex partners and their babies are at stake,” he said. ‘For them to sit on their hands is really the height of public health irresponsibility. It’s infuriating.’
“When Lurie’s study was released in 1993, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) asked the CDC to review it. The CDC concluded that the study’s findings were valid and added, ‘the ban on federal funding of NEPs [needle exchange programs] should be lifted to allow communities and states to use federal funds to support NEPs as components of comprehensive HIV prevention programs.’ HHS ordered another review, and the CDC again confirmed the findings, including new research on the benefit of needle exchange programs in its report. The (Clinton) administration is continuing to review needle exchange policy, and neither CDC review was made public…. HHS spokesperson Avis LaVelle said that the CDC reviews ... ‘offer conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of needle exchange for curbing the transmission of HIV virus.’”
So sorry, Brooks. You may misplace this posting also but in case you really have no short-term memory left, please believe what your “lying eyes” are telling you as you read this post now about what CDC’s real position is regarding the value of needle exchange programs. Now to continue with the public health theme by repeating again two of my examples of the efficiency of government programs versus private solutions to our common problems in hopes that you won’t continue to see the “welfare state” behind every brightly burning Bush (if only…)
Step 1: Reread my earlier post about the efficiency (and cost effectiveness) of the Canadian (government-controlled and administered) prescription drug program versus our “free (sic) market” approach. If you truly believe in the laws of the marketplace, you would be able to understand that the huge demand among our US citizens, corporations and state and local governments to be allowed access to the government-controlled prescription drug market in Canada is prima facie evidence for the greater efficiency of that system. (Tell me, which direction are the “market forces” pointing. From here, it looks like north to me.)
Step 2: For a little lagniappe, immunization programs—in this country and elsewhere—have been administered in the past through the “free (again sic) market” of private medical practices. But because those programs—by themselves—have had such poor success in reducing the incidence and prevalence of communicable disease, governments have had to assume the role of providing full coverage for immunizations, working in partnership with the private sector where possible and feasible but picking up the slack where that system falters, as it so often does when folks don’t have the money to pay. And since we are all at risk when unimmunized people mingle amongst us, the most efficient system is one which immunizes all of us, regardless of the person’s ability to pay (with anything other than their tax dollars).
I could keep going on and on, but the readers of this thread have already had more public health examples than they want to demonstrate the silliness of your position. (Regardless, readers, please don’t jump up in pent-up frustration from your computers, run down to your local needle exchange program and ask for needles so you can begin shooting heroin for the first time this evening—because you have needles.)The real value of the needle exchange program example is to demonstrate the importance of having a President who believes in the power of science for guiding our public health policy. As with our military (and its leadership’s frustration when Bush ignored their advice on Iraq and Afghanistan), we also need a President (John Kerry) who will listen to and respect the advice of CDC professionals when they support more effective approaches to disease prevention and control. We need a President (John Kerry) who does not allow the still-too-pervasive moralistic strictures of “sinfulness” to play a predominant role in the public health arena when those strictures suggest that drug users deserve any diseases they get and, if they give those diseases to their spouses and children… well, that their spouses and children should know better than to consort with (or be parented) by drug users. Your uninformed positions on needle exchange programs follow the all-too-common Bush pattern of falsely stating what the real professionals actually believe on any issue whenever the hard science conflicts with his moralistic pin-hole (and pinhead) view of the world. Think stem cell research, think global warming, think clean air and water.
To tie this competition between world views and policy foundations back to my earlier post, Bush in 2000 said that he would honor any states’ decisions to implement medical marijuana programs and keep the federal government out of that matter. But four years later, the Ayatollah Ashcroft storm-troops continue today to raid duly constituted medical marijuana programs in the ten states (soon to be fifteen) that operate these programs, despite specific and forceful direction from the federal judiciary to cease this behavior. Just like the prisoner abuse scandals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba; this willful lawlessness and disregard for states’ rights and judicial direction is a bright reflection (sad as it is) of how this gang of thieves, sociopaths, “holier than all of us” bible-thumpers and thugs at the top operates.
John Kerry’s position, clearly stated during this campaign and backed up by his Senate record, is that scientific judgement and medical experience, buttressed by the common sense, the compassion and the will of the people, should predominate when it comes to our public health policies. He has stated his support for duly-constituted medical marijuana programs and has said that he would call off the Justice Department and DEA dogs when he is elected so that physicians and their seriously ill patients can have safe access to medical cannabis. Further, he has supported allowing other university-based researchers to become more involved in exploring the potential of this medicine, which has been used for 4,000 years and which only became illegal at the federal level (in 1937, over the strong objections of the American Medical Association) to give the anti-alcohol revenuer bureaucracy something to do after Prohibition was repealed.
In closing, while I know that many of the National Review readers who have joined us in the past few days agree with Brooks that the existence of any government program (at all) defines the “welfare state”, I would expect that many more of them would agree with the following excerpt from William F. Buckley, Jr.‘s recent editorial, “Free Weeds: The Marijuana Debate” (National Review, June 29, 2004). (The full editorial can be found at this link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200406291207.asp:
“Conservatives pride themselves on resisting change, which is as it should be. But intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great…. General rules based on individual victims are unwise…. If all our laws were paradigmatic, imagine what we would do to anyone caught lighting a cigarette, or drinking a beer. Or — exulting in life in the paradigm — committing adultery. Send them all to Guantanamo?
“Legal practices should be informed by realities…. What we face is the politician’s fear of endorsing any change in existing marijuana laws…. But the stodgy inertia most politicians feel is up against a creeping reality. It is that marijuana for medical relief is a movement which is attracting voters who are pretty assertive on the subject. Every state ballot initiative to legalize medical marijuana has been approved, often by wide margins. Of course we have here collisions of federal and state authority. Federal authority technically supervenes state laws, but federal authority in the matter is being challenged on grounds of medical self-government….
“The court has told federal enforcers that they are not to impose their way between doctors and their patients, and one bill sitting about in Congress would even deny the use of federal funds for prosecuting medical marijuana use…. What is required is a genuine republican groundswell. It is happening, but ever so gradually.”
So thanks, Brooks, for giving us another chance to demonstrate which candidate (Kerry) has more respect for science (and scientists), for states’ rights and for the common sense and compassion of the people; and which one 9Kerry) also has taken a position closer to that of William F. Buckley, Jr.‘s call for republican solutions to the persistent problems caused by our misguided Drug War. (What do you think now? Did I just “out” Bill Buckley as a “closet liberal”? I hardly think so.)
Now after two weeks of answering your questions, I have three for you:
1) Are there any governmental programs that are not examples of the “welfare state”, any government programs that you believe are legitimate? (And please give us as many of those programs as you can name. Be honest and complete.)
2) Given your faith in the value of the free market system to solve all our problems, would not even these programs be better administered by private entities rather than by the government?
Now I know that you may breeze through this test by answering “none” to Question #1, which means that Question #2 is moot. But that still leaves my last question.
3) If government is, at best, irrelevant and unnecessary to our lives and, at worst, destructive and harmful to our very existence; why on earth do the Repub-libans want to be part of the problem—why do they want to govern?
If you were at all consistent with your own oft-stated beliefs, you would not give false legitimacy to the idea of government by continuing to try to dominate the political process. And by acting in a fashion consistent with your beliefs, you would free the rest of us from the effort to grant your wish to be free from government distraction by keeping you out of political office—for your sake and certainly for ours.
So tell us, please—which is it? Is there just a disconnect between your beliefs and your practices? Or are you just continuing to lie to us, about both your beliefs and your practices? Or is it “all of the above”? Take as long as you need to answer. Nighty night. Don’t let the welfare state bite.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:25 AM I’m still here, reading all the posts that everyone wrote today while I was taking out the walls in my kitchen. The morning wasn’t so great, but this thread is cooking tonight!
Kim, I really liked your comments as they went off in a somewhat different direction and were very original, obviously heartfelt, and rose entirely above the nitpicking and gotcha level. It’s really easy for all of us to fall into that, so I enjoyed reading your piece and thank you for it.
On that procedural question earlier today. When you are done with your preview, hit the ‘back’ button on your browser. This will bring you back to here, and then you can submit. To be safe, select all and make a copy. If you lose all your fine commentary, you can paste it back in!
Geoff, I haven’t responded to you and I think you’re the gentleman who went to a lot of trouble over the booing story. Thanks for your efforts and I will repeat what I said earlier, which is that I concede that the entire crowd probably wasn’t booing. Kerry frequently gets heckled and booed at his rallies because they are pretty open to anyone who wants to come, so it doesn’t strike me as terribly anomolous that there would be Republicans booing anything to do with Bill Clinton, particularly at one of their closed, invitation-only events.
As long as I’m of on this subject, can any of the Bush supporters explain to me why his rallies are closed to any member of the general public who does not present a threat, like a gun-toting maniac for instance? He’s come to Wisconsin several times, and his campaign staff works in concert with the Secret Service and local authorities to confiscate tickets from anyone they suspect or can verify is a Kerry supporter. This even happened to a local county board supervisor. Frankly, it makes the Republicans look pretty silly. It has also resulted in a lot of grumbling about Bush flying around in Air Force one at taxpayer expense, then costing local taxpayers a lot of money to protect him while he speaks to the faithful. Several communities have started sending invoices to both campaigns, and since Bush is President, his bills are an awful lot higher because, evidently, he requires a great deal more security. Someone in the RNC needs to remember that over half the voters did not vote for Bush in 2000, It’s one thing for partisan supporters to forget this, but it seems an awful mistake for the campaign to exclude taxpaying citizens from a political event regardless of their point of view. I personally feel that I am being asked to support this president, yet I am not permitted to attend a speech and hear him speak to my concerns and issues in person. It’s very odd.
But back to Geoff. I have enjoyed reading your posts and have not responded because others seem to be doing that in a productive way and I have a lot of lath and plaster to remove from my kitchen! Keep writing though. The only thing I would add on the subject of Europe is that they have been battling terrorists for many years. Germany had Bader-Meinhof, Italy had the Red Brigades, Britain had the IRA, France the Algerians, etc. It seems to me they were largely successful, though both Greece and Spain have recently had incidents. In Spain it is evident that Islamic extremists were involved, but Greece (I think) attributed their most recent incident to domestic terrorists. IMO (to use your handy shorthand) has decades of experience in tracking, arresting, and interdicting terrorists. Perhaps the reason we don’t hear much about this is our general insularity and self absorption, which was discussed by Kim, though in a different context. I think we could learn a great dea from their past efforts, and we can also count on them to bring their expertise to bear even more in the future. I would not assume that they are not vigorously pursuing Al Quaeda and related Islamic extremists. Recent reports have indicated that the US justice department has also had to drop cases and release suspects during the past several years for a variety of reasons that remain murky.
In regard to Kerry’s expertise in the area of terrorism, I encourage you to read about the investigation of BCCI and the drug/terrorist money connections. Kerry was instrumental in exposing and dismantling BCCI, which has been characterized as the mother of all terroist money laundering banks. For myself, I think this will be a crucial part of our efforts to detect and dismantle terrorist networks. It’s obvious that we can’t kill them all and the estimated 16,000 dead Iraqis illustrate the cost of trying. The collateral deaths and injuries to civilian populations are unacceptable and breed more hatred, which only enhances the recruitment efforts of these groups.
Finally, on that subject, a couple of people have mentioned the truly devastating and tragic events in Russia this past week. Out of respect for the victims and their loved ones, I think we should refrain from trying to make this part of our partisan arsenal. It would be well to remember that Chechnya has been brutally occupied by Russia for many years, and there is a long history of violence and discord in this region with terrible acts committed on both sides. Children are always the first to suffer in any armed conflict, and I hope we can all agree that they are without exception innocent victims. Children are being victimized in every corner of the world, every single day, and we’re not going to solve that problem by using their suffering to score points in this discussion. May they all rest in peace.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:32 AM It’s so nice to end the day reading other thoughtful posts from Joanne, Geoff and the others. Joanne, hope the renovation is going well. I’ll think of all of you bright and shining posters (and you rite-wing troglodytes too) as I head to Atlanta tomorrow to see if there’s any need for this old reformed Republican in the ranks of the battleground field forces for Kerry for the past two months. This is one ex-hippie (I know, I know—my life has been a series of flips and flops also) who’ll be reporting for duty, and happy to do so. Looking forward to a fall spent harvesting voters for Kerry/Edwards.
Let’s all keep working. The Rasmussne Poll still shows Bush only one point ahead (47 to 46) today. Putrid pundits, good government-phobes and frat boys be damned—let the people be heard!!
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:45 AM Bernie Ellis wrote: “To Anna and Barbara—Thanks for your continuing clear comments. And the chauvinistic belittling you’re getting from some of these greezy rite-wing pigs is a clear sign that some men’s brains really are in their underwear—and small enough to fit on the head of the pin that’s there.”
—————
Man, you incredibly smart liberals are far too easy to play with. Thin-skinned and always so eager to take the obvious bait, then you turn around and brag about your keen insight into the complexity and “nuance” of all matters. Funny stuff.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:07 AM This entire exchange is proof that the Left simply isn’t a valid political position. It’s the place dysfunctionals go looking for political identity and weight. Obviously it works well for that purpose.
Consider that the modern Demo party is entirely Socialist; both in practice and philosophy. In turn Socialism is the arrogant, dishonest, we-know-better theft of property, time, and resource by government, an experiment with a 100% record of failure.
Consider that such political dishonesty must be intractable and pathological to endure like it has in the wake of universal failure. Consider that The Social Lie is the cornerstone of government duping the populace into subservience. And consider that American academia foments these failed policies, sheer historical revisionism, and general intellectual corruption at all costs. With Socialist Demos, the ends always justify the means.
So, the Left is a party of liars, thieves, arrogants, and other dysfunctional types with pathological (read: uncurable) minds who wish to browbeat, name-call, obscure, rant, steal, and lie…all for an ideal even they can’t adequately explain or defend.
Keillor fits this mold to a tee.
Leftism isn’t a valid political philosophy. Leftism is a fading, antiquated, irresponsible and permanently dishonest yet shrill cesspool of the dysfunctional and mentally ill.
Keillor does the world a service by proving the point.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:11 AM Bernie Ellis wrote: “Let’s all keep working. The Rasmussne Poll still shows Bush only one point ahead (47 to 46) today. Putrid pundits, good government-phobes and frat boys be damned—let the people be heard!!”
—————
Good news for you Bernie: The people WILL be heard! Next November in fact. And when you realize that the American people have once again rejected liberalism, I want you to remember me. Sleep well.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:17 AM Oh, and a prediction: The Paulas of the world will continue to buy into this feel-good/hate-Bush rot no matter how empty the claims.
Keillor’s “Pithecanthropus Republicanii has humbugged us to death on terrorism and tax cuts for the comfy and school prayer and flag burning and claimed the right to know what books we read and to dump their sewage upstream from the town and clear-cut the forests and gut the IRS and mark up the constitution on behalf of intolerance and promote the corporate takeover of the public airwaves and to hell with anybody who opposes them.” is just hysterical stereotyping, the dysfunctional Left’s version of political Kool Aid.
Yeah, Keillor; and the “Conservative”, fundamentalist white male Baptist New Right also endorses pointed white hoods and pumping mercury into pregnant women. Prairie Home Useful Idiot.
Stereotypes. Fantasy. Smoke and mirrors. Leftism is the diseased political view that finds Moore’s Farenheit fantasy images more intriguing than the reality of hundreds of children blown apart and shot in the back or thousands of our own countrymen burned and dropped to their deaths. What an arrogant, selfish, and utterly dysfunctional Hive of liars is the Democrat Socialist Party of 2004.
But, no matter the underlying substance, appearances are all that matter to liars.
“Great stuff, Keillor!” is the war cry of the willfully ignorant and hatefully intolerant. Drive over these people with a bus and they’d find a way to deny even that reality.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:29 AM http://www.cdc.gov/idu/facts/disinfection.pdf
SYRINGE DISINFECTION FOR INJECTION DRUG USERS
July 2004“Studies have looked for differences in the number of new infections between injectors who say they always disinfect and injectors who say they do not disinfect. They have found no significant difference in new infections among IDUs in the two groups.”
-o-
RE: More efficient government services.
The big hole in your discussion of Canadian pharmaceuticals is different wholesale pricing from drug manufacturers in each market. If you removed the difference in wholesale pricing from the comparison I doubt you could make a case for a more economic governmental distribution system of pharmaceuticals in Canada. In addition, you wouldn’t be comparing a true private enterprise on the part of the states because of the large segment of government-funded health care in the U.S. Whenever you use public money to fund an activity, the price of the activity goes way up. Still, no one would hold up Canadian health care as a model worth emulating in the states. We won’t see true cost reductions in health care until we get the government subsidies out of it.
-o-
RE: Legitimate government enterprises.
Legitimate government programs are the ones anticipated by the Constitution. Article I, Sections 8 and 9 describe what the federal legislature is empowered to do and prohibited from doing respectively. Much that has been done, however, for the sake of the “general welfare” has gone far beyond the participation by government in the daily lives of citizens that the framers anticipated. In addition, the police power of the states enables states to mess around with citizens lives far more than the, theoretically, limited feds. Even so, the way many court decisions have stretched the plain meaning of words to extend the boundaries of what is constitutional is completely out of control. Make a phone call and you are engaged in interstate commerce for example. Lawmakers love technicalities but they really should have paid more attention to the spirit of the law.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:38 AM It seems to me that the most strident supporters of our current president and his policies have taken extreme offense at Garrison Keillor’s commentary. Allow me to introduce you to 6Gun. Does he express your sentiments on the extreme end of the continuum of opinion expressed in this thread? On a scale of 1 - 10 on the right, where exactly would you place him? And just so I can get a fix on the value system in place here, please join my little poll and place Garrison Keillor on a scale of 1 - 10 to the left.
Brooks, nice post. Where is the first quote regarding the efficacy of bleach kits for IDU’s coming from?
I can’t follow your logic on the pharmaceuticall pricing. Maybe it’s just too late at night, but could you explain this more clearly?
On your last item, you have a point. I find it hard to beileve that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated a constitutional amendment to prohibit any two people from marrying. I think the Democratic postion on this is that the states should decide these matters. “The theoretical limits on federal law enforcement powers have been breached in many instances. One example is in the area of the war on drugs, which Bernie has expounded upon at length. The second would, of course, be the USA Patriot Act. In both cases I heartily agree that constitutional boundaries have been exceeded. Finally, something upon which we can agree. See, if we just keep at it long enough, we’ll end up thinking alike! Hahaha!
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:54 AM Bernie Ellis wrote: “... I’ll think of all of you bright and shining posters (and you rite-wing troglodytes too)...
—————
After reading Bernie’s well-worded and very clever jab at us “troglodytes” (i.e. people with the inexplicable temerity to disagree with Bernie), I was struck with an excellent idea: Someone with lots of time on their hands (say, a welfare recipient), that can read (well, maybe not a welfare recipient), should go through this entire thread and keep a running score of which side, conservative or liberal, has committed the most ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual argumentation. And just to give you liberals a head start, we don’t have to include the 537 ad hominem attacks in the original Keilor rant. Then, when the totals are published, the losing side, having been shown to be the most fallacious and ideologically bankrupt, has to vote for the other side’s candidate.
How’d that be?
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:56 AM Sorry, Brooks - just saw the link on the bleach kits. I missed it first time around. I must be getting tired - time to quit.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:58 AM Why don’t you do that, Scott? Sounds like a good little project for you. Get back to us when you’re done and please reference the count in each post so we can spot check the results for accuracy.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:01 AM Ross! You moron.I have tried my best to be civil and finally Ross has push the wrong button. You speak of frivolous law suits.I hope that you are not speaking of law suits that try to stop the Bush party from destroying wilderness areas,and virgin forests or drilling for oil and gas in a reserve for endangered turtles,etc.,etc.,etc..Believe it or not you fool,but there are things that are more important than money.Oh my god,now I’ve done it.I have insulted your god,but you know what I don’t care.You know what?I am not insulted when you call me a tree hugger or a conservationists.I just don’t understand some one who has NO vision for the future or concern for the protection of things that can not protect themselves.I really feel sorry for you and others like you.You will be the ones crying the loudest when these things are gone and all you have is money and then it will be gone and you will have nothing.The worst thing is that you will blame the problem on some one else and not even realize that YOU are the problem. You are so sad dude.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:06 AM Joanne wrote: “I find it hard to beileve that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated a constitutional amendment to prohibit any two people from marrying.”
—————
Well, I find it hard to believe that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated the concept of homosexual marriage.
AND
I find it hard to believe that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated the current judicial activism that so routinely and blatantly subverts the democratically enacted will of the people by declaring ANYTHING THEY DON’T LIKE as unconstitutional.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:09 AM Regarding my challenge, Joanne wrote: “Why don’t you do that, Scott? Sounds like a good little project for you. Get back to us when you’re done and please reference the count in each post so we can spot check the results for accuracy.”
—————
Joanne, thanks for the response, but I’m afraid I haven’t the time. Ya see, I have to go back to work tomorrow, spending a depressing portion of the day earning money for the welfare state (the Democratic constituency). Besides, I think we both know that though you’d lose the contest, you still wouldn’t vote for Bush. I bet the thought of it just gives you the shivers.
Anyway, have a lovely November Joanne. I know I will.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:21 AM You know Jack you made sense for the most part and one of the things I would like to suggest—don’t vote for the party ,vote for the persons that best reflect your views.Each party has it’s share of boobs and fools and outright crooks.So vote for the people that you can trust and not for just a party ie.straight ticket.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:21 AM Timm,you are so right when you say that politicians are a despictable lot.They only care for themselves and the power of their office.Finally,there is a light in the forest.I wonder how long the forest will still be here.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:35 AM Hey John.You are so right when you mentioned that people should knock off hanging around their elitist friends.It’s the same thing that I have been saying about our congress people.You know the ones who have a residence in their home states but really spend all of their time hanging out with their peers in places like Maryland,Virginia,and Deleware,etc.,except every four years that is,when they remember that it is time to shill the rubes back home.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:56 AM How did everyone on here feel on September 12, 2001? Think back. I just hope the next President keeps in mind that we need to do just what we felt capable on that terrible day. I think Bush has kept on track somewhat in regard to this. My generation (x) and generation y have been born into a tough world. Terrorism is going to be against us for A VERY LONG TIME. Should we just sit back and wait? I think not.
Posted by zman on Sep 7, 2004 at 5:43 AM In response to:
“Dear Michael Bierbaum,
We are a constitutional republic and not a theocracy. The bible is not the
governing law here. The Constitution allows for capital punishment. If you object to capital punishment on moral grounds, then you need to convince a sufficient number of other citizens of the wisdom of your objection and get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw capital punishment.
Sincerely Yours,
Brooks”Again you swerve from my point. Our current administration and much of the Republican platform is based upon Conservative Christan principles. These principles are founded upon biblical teachings. But there is conflict within their policies. On the one hand they say that all human life is sacred. On the other they espouse the death penalty and are quick to resort to war, both of which are based on killing humans. My point is that according to the document and tradition that forms the basis for the ethical system of the current administration it is clearly stated that killing another human is wrong. There is no qualifier that allows for taking of human life after due process or in the name of justice. Yet the Bush administration ignores their espoused moral system picking and choosing which parts of it they will follow and at the same time wishing to impose their own version of Christianity upon the entire country.
You are right. This country is not a theocracy. The Constitution clearly defines the separation of church and state. However, again this administration has continued to support and promulgate policies that ignore that Constitutional fact. The issues of prayer in schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, public funded religious displays, (the display of the Ten Commandments on public courthouses, for example,) faith based social programs all bring into question the church/state issue.
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the citizens right to worship where and how they please. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees every citizen equal protection under the law. Taken together no person who adheres to one religious tradition can be required to worship in another. Would the Conservative Christian Right stand still if their children were required to listen to a Wiccan prayer read in their school? To a Hindu prayer? A Bhuddist prayer? An Islamic prayer? Yet they have no qualms about requiring children of other faiths to listen to a Christian prayer. According to the Fourteenth Amendment if one religious tradition is allowed then all must be allowed.
The current administration questions the patriotism of those who object to the phrase, “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance ignoring both the protection of the First Amendment and history. These words were not in the original Pledge but were added in 1954 during the height of the Cold War and McCarthyism. The change was motivated by a desire to differentiate between ‘godless communism’ and Western capitalistic democracies, which were at least nominally Christian. Upon signing it into law Eisenhower said, “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” In discussing the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in Nedow vs the United States, President Bush announced that the decision proved that the country needs federal judges who have “common sense” (apparently a synonym for majoritarian supporters) and, chillingly, federal judges who “recognize that our rights come from God.” All of which are significant of a move to a theocratic form of government.
Now before I am attacked for my seeming lack of religious beliefs let me state that I have deeply held spiritual beliefs. I know and understand the good that comes from a deeply held spirituality but I do not want my government interfering in my beliefs and worship, especially an administration that demonstrates so little consistency in their own moral and spiritual observances and such little respect of other people’s religious beliefs.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:49 AM if only the actual democrats had the balls to speak this kind of truth. they don’t. either they’re too stupid (not likely) or becoming ever drunk with their own wealth and power as they slowly, quietly collude with the GOP. hey, it works for those guys! no conspiracy here, as i think it’s more of a collective unconscious choice.
either way, kerry’s gonna lose. mark my words.
Posted by rocky mullin on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:49 AM Ok Joanne,I will go first. I am a househusband.I have worked in different factory jobs for about 20 years and about 10 years in various outdoor jobs(farming,state park,landscaping,etc.). After I got back from Vietnam I was given a disability that has paid for my house all these years(the government teat).Oh, I also worked in the restaurant business for about 10 years.I guess that I have gotten too old now,because when the last business that I worked for went under,it seems that no one has a need for my many diverse services.So now I am a househusband and my wife is a CNA and a monitor tech. at one of the local hospitals.I garden and raise rabbits and chickens for food.My proudest accomplishment is having raised two hard working honest sons.Thank you.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:58 AM Response to:
“Anna and Barbara:
Regarding the Hollywood issue, all that you’re doing is citing exceptions as if they are the rule, when in fact they are exceptions to the rule.
It’s like saying that ABC News has a conservative bias because they let George Will utter 90 seconds of opinion per week.Silly girls.”
Ah, now I get it. The rule is that Hollywood and by extension, all artists and entertainers have no valid political opinions and beliefs and should therefore stay out of politics, nor should they expect to exercise their First Amendment rights except when they are true patriotic Americans and support the current administration. Wow. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Gosh, I suppose the long tradition of artistic comment on political excess stretching back to the bards of ancient history was nothing but a pile of hogwash.
By the way, you left Sonny Bono off that list. . .
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:16 AM I had the same problem Nat with the posting and found that I could just submit and my comments were posted.Ed P.
Posted by Ed Pleskovitch on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:11 AM Response to:
“Well, I find it hard to believe that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated the concept of homosexual marriage.”
The framers of the Constitution counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for means of representation. We are still experiencing the effects of that lack of foresight. But the framers had the foresight to include a process to amend the Constitution to address new issues as they arose. The framers provided for equal protection under the law for all citizens and this was reiterated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether the Constitution offers equal protection based upon sexual preference remains to be seen but neither does it specifically deny it.
“ANDI find it hard to believe that the framers of the constitution could ever have anticipated the current judicial activism that so routinely and
blatantly subverts the democratically enacted will of the people by declaring ANYTHING THEY DON’T LIKE as unconstitutional. “While it is true that the Constitution did not expressly provide for the concept of Judicial Review it was established in 1803 in the case Marbury v Madison and, while it has been debated off an on ever since, Marbury clearly established that the Court would abide by its understanding of the Constitution.
In Article VI Section 2 the Constitution established itself as the “supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. . .”
It is therefore the duty of the Courts to decide the Constitutionality of laws enacted by the “democratic will of the people.” And any law “contrary thereto” whether democratically enacted will of the people or no is rendered void.
As I previously stated the framers anticipated the need to amend the Constitution and provided a specific method to do so. If it is the democratically enacted will of the people to eliminate judicial review, eliminate equal protection under law, establish a national religion, or appoint George W. Bush president for life all that is needed is for the appropriate amendment be made to the Constitution: All it takes is passing both Houses of Congress with 2/3 majority and passing the legislatures of 3/4 of the States by a similar vote, or for 2/3 of the States, by a similar majority, calling for a Constitutional Convention.And speaking of the “democratically enacted will of the people” need I remind you of who won the democratic or popular vote in the Presidential Election of 2000 and how current judicial activism decided the election in favor of George W. Bush.
And, yes, I do know that it isn’t the popular vote but rather the Electoral College that elects the President and not always in accordance with the “democratic will of the people.”
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:42 AM Thank you, Garrison for plain-talking common sense. I think back to the 1960’s when we thought protesting such errant governmental behavior would result in change and how that resulted in the exact opposite of the desired effect. The message must be clear: Protest is not where the power is; only the power of the vote can stop this. Even my aging mother, who passed on the last election out of fear she might have to travel to jury duty in a state where public transportation is limited (as is her mobility), is determined to make her preference clear. However, the movie “Z” haunts my memory and part of me can’t help but wonder if the result will be subverted to satisfy those invested in the status quo.
Posted by Gary on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:57 AM I’m disappointed in this article as it uses emotionally charged statements with very liitle to back up what are solely the opinions of the author.
I’ve always been unimpressed by anyone that uses language that incites and inflames but does not inspire.
I found nothing uplifting or insightful in this prose.
Posted by Craig on Sep 7, 2004 at 12:13 PM Sally Russell is dead wrong. Re-electing Bush won’t kill democracy in the Republic. It died when it became possible to elect someone like him in the first place.
Posted by Frank Lazar on Sep 7, 2004 at 12:20 PM I wish Keillor could help us understand how it is that the Republican creep show seems to be making inroads in Lake Wobegon. Why are traditionally Democratic and liberal states like Wisconsin and Minnesota trending red?
Posted by Bob_H on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:08 PM Thank you, Ed, for sharing your brief bio with us. I’m not surprised you are the first one to jump in as I’ve found your writings here to be very down to earth and free of any phony delicacy or intellectual frou-frou - which I intend as a sincere compliment. You illustrate perfectly how one who has served the public good is supported by a government program (veterans disability compensation), resulting in further public good: owning a home, raising two sons, supporting your spouse (who I am sure is delighted to have you on the home front). You also illustrate, in your candid comments about being unable to find gainful employment appropriate to your skills, the truth of the Bush economic miracle: the idling of so many hard-working, capable, intelligent and motivated people in this country. By your own account you have put your time to good use.
It is INCREDIBLE to me that so many people in this country can ignore the obvious when it comes to the situation in which working people, including the unemployed, find themselves two months before an election. Those who do have jobs are working longer hours so employers can avoid taking on new hires. Workplace stress is at an all time high, which is leading to increased illness and injury, which is pushing up the health care and worker’s compensation costs, which lead employers to be even more hesitant to hire more workers. When I owned a small manufacturing business, we would occasionally get swamped and have to work overtime, but never more than 10 hours in a week. If the situation was going to be sustained for more than two weeks, I brought in temporary help to alleviate the pressure on my regular workers - generally someone they knew who was available (carpenters). Not anymore, and with these new overtime rules, this will only get worse. Don’t be bamboozled by the idea that all these workers who have not been eligible in the past will now get overtime. The department of labor developed the new rules with guidance from employers, not workers, and hundreds of thousands of hard working people will lose. They will be the workers who through many years of service have risen to a fairly high hourly rate. They can now be reclassified as exempt. The few workers who will gain overtime rights are at the lowest end of the wage scale, and they could have been given the right to overtime without cutting anyone already eligibe.
Meanwhile, corporate profits are at an all time high as is CEO and upper management compensation. The gap between the wages of the production workers and management is astonishing and breaking records. This is, in my opinion, unacceptable. I was able to make a comfortable if not lavish living for 16 years, while having a decent concern for the well being of my employees. The only worker paid minimum wage was the high school boy who swept the floor part time. Nobody else started at less than 150% of the minimum wage for unskilled labor, and the others were paid a competitive living wage. We also had a benefit package that included a good health plan with low co-pays and prescription drugs, life, and short and long term disability. I was punished for doing the right thing for my employees. Banks were hesitant to provide capital for expansion because our profits were low. Our cash flow was good and we paid our bills, but our investment in the ‘human capital’ of our company was frowned upon. I used to laugh when I’d read in the paper about a local bank having to absorb the losses from the collapse of some real estate speculator or some other greedy asshole that snookered them out of a pile with his big bottom line.
This is not a Democrat/Republican issue. There are plenty of good Republican business people that have had the same issues I’ve had with running a successful business. Everyone likes to bitch about regulations and paperwork, but I never found that to be as big a problem as maintaining a banking relationship that was not entirely one-sided. I was inspected by OSHA - no infractions, no fines, no biggie. They put air quality monitors on all my production workers. I was audited by the state department of labor - no infractions, no fines. I was audited by my liability insurance carrier though, and told I had too many safety hazards and they ‘had’ to raise my rates. Guess what - in 16 years we never made a claim because we took our obigation to produce a safe product in a safe workplace seriously. (And don’t start yakking about tort reform. That’s another scam to cover up the attempt to grab the last vestige of power in the David/consumer V. Goliath/big business battle.) The bank audited my books annually and complained I didn’t have enough profit. I got used to this after the first few years, but I gotta tell you - the government is just a convenient punching bag.
Anyway, enough. I sold the business to a wealthy guy whose Dad was bankrolling him. Four years later the business is kaput after he used what little money he managed to make to charge ski trips and a big pick-up truck and some very expensive accountants to make it all tax deductible. To be fair, health insurance costs became unmanageable, as did other insurance costs. Wages stagnated, productivity was low on the production end and too high on the design end where the (exempt) salaried workers were putting in way too many hours and piling up comp time that added up to months. These factors are making it harder than ever for a person to start a business and hire employees.
It has always been the case that most new businesses fail within 5 years. George Bush could tell you about failing in business - he’s done it several times. Now he has the balls to stand up and talk about how people without the financial safety net he’s always enjoyed should get out there and start up small businesses. If you’re toying with the idea, and thinking how great it would be to be your own boss, think carefully. You are likely to lose your ass-ets. Tax deductions are generous for business, but you have to have income from which to take the deductions. We do not have a favorable climate for starting a small business with employees at the present time. The business climate is geared entirely toward the huge corporations that dominate their markets, which incidentally support the import of cheap domestic goods and the outsourcing of good paying jobs.
I’ve been scratching my head lately over this ‘ownership’ society concept, trying to decipher the code. I think this could mean the creep of the independent contractor syndrome, which until now has been discouraged by the IRS through some very strict guidelines on who can be considered an IC. Imagine for a moment, those of you who do have a good job, if you had to go in and bid on a contract for that work. Imagine that you were one of thousands of people submitting a bid for a few hundred available openings. Don’t think you won’t be encouraged to compete on price. Rural mail carriers have been doing this for years.
Now keep in mind that as an IC you will pay what is now the employer’s contribution to Social Security and Medicare. You will have to obtain your own medical insurance. You will not necessarily have worker’s compensation insurance, or may be required to show proof that you have obtained it at your own expense. And when your contract is up, you will not be unemployed, thus not eligible for unemployment compensation. How does that sound?
I know, the Republican crowd here is going to say that nobody has proposed anything like this. I say add ‘yet’ and you are correct. But think about the explosion over the past few years of temporary employment agencies. Think about what a ‘culture of responsibility’ really means. That used to refer to a person who gets up and goes to work every day and implied an obligation on the part of business owners to uphold their responsibility to all their stakeholders, of which workers were a prime category. No more. Businesses are now in a position of having to concern themselves more with the fate of their investors and the opinion of the bank that finances them. Many of them are run by greedy bastards who operate on the edge of legality, and that edge is being moved further away from the common good with each passing day. The results are all around us, including environmental degradation upon which Ed Pleskovitch has expounded.
Well, this post is already too long, so I’m going to quit now. In closing, though, I want to doff my hat to Michael Bierbaum for his excellent comments on constitutional matters and the bold and continuing perversion of same by our government.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:21 PM My partner and I sold the business to a wealthy guy whose Dad was bankrolling him. Four years later the business is kaput after he used what little money he managed to make to charge ski trips and a big pick-up truck and some very expensive accountants to make it all tax deductible. To be fair, health insurance costs became unmanageable, as did other insurance costs. Wages stagnated, productivity was low on the production end and too high on the design end where the (exempt) salaried workers were putting in way too many hours and piling up comp time that added up to months. These factors are making it harder than ever for a person to start a business and hire employees.
It has always been the case that most new businesses fail within 5 years. George Bush could tell you about failing in business - he’s done it several times. Now he has the balls to stand up and talk about how people without the financial safety net he’s always enjoyed should get out there and start up small businesses. If you’re toying with the idea, and thinking how great it would be to be your own boss, think carefully. You are likely to lose your ass-ets. Tax deductions are generous for business, but you have to have income from which to take the deductions. We do not have a favorable climate for starting a small business with employees at the present time. The business climate is geared entirely toward the huge corporations that dominate their markets, which incidentally support the import of cheap domestic goods and the outsourcing of good paying jobs.
I’ve been scratching my head lately over this ‘ownership’ society concept, trying to decipher the code. I think this could mean the creep of the independent contractor syndrome, which until now has been discouraged by the IRS through some very strict guidelines on who can be considered an IC. Imagine for a moment, those of you who do have a good job, if you had to go in and bid on a contract for that work. Imagine that you were one of thousands of people submitting a bid for a few hundred available openings. Don’t think you won’t be encouraged to compete on price. Rural mail carriers have been doing this for years.
Now keep in mind that as an IC you will pay what is now the employer’s contribution to Social Security and Medicare. You will have to obtain your own medical insurance. You will not necessarily have worker’s compensation insurance, or may be required to show proof that you have obtained it at your own expense. And when your contract is up, you will not be unemployed, thus not eligible for unemployment compensation. How does that sound?
I know, the Republican crowd here is going to say that nobody has proposed anything like this. I say add ‘yet’ and you are correct. But think about the explosion over the past few years of temporary employment agencies. Think about what a ‘culture of responsibility’ really means. That used to refer to a person who gets up and goes to work every day and implied an obligation on the part of business owners to uphold their responsibility to all their stakeholders, of which workers were a prime category. No more. Businesses are now in a position of having to concern themselves more with the fate of their investors and the opinion of the bank that finances them. Many of them are run by greedy bastards who operate on the edge of legality, and that edge is being moved further away from the common good with each passing day. The results are all around us, including environmental degradation upon which Ed Pleskovitch has expounded.
Well, this post is already too long, so I’m going to quit now. In closing, though, I want to doff my hat to Michael Bierbaum for his excellent comments on constitutional matters and the bold and continuing perversion of same by our government.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:28 PM M. Bierbaum,
The Constitution defines many more legalities in addition to the separation of church and state. The 5th Am. specifically anticipates capital crimes and capital punishment. The 14th Am. anticipates deprivation of life after due process and, as it has been interpreted, extends the other provisions of the 5th Am. to apply to the states. The Bush administration is bound by the same Constitution that binds the rest of the country. Having said that, is it consistent for conservatives to be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment? Absolutely, because capital punishment is predicated on a perpetrators voluntary commission of a capital crime against society, and abortion takes an innocent life. Much has been written to redefine the meaning of life in order to avoid the moral problem with abortion. None of it succeeds in my view.As for the morality of going to war, the requirement to make war does not depend on our own view of morality. In fact our own view of morality has very little to do with it. The attacking enemy determines the requirement to make war. Here again, the left would redefine the real nature of the Islamic radical fundamentalists in order to support their own broader isolationist and pacifist goals. This is wishful thinking and it is dangerous to our collective survival. Fortunately the allure of their utopian paradise will not be sufficient to overcome the majority’s survival instincts next November at the polls. May it ever be so.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:45 PM Sorry, the Constitution’s “Nature and Nature’s God” referred to an Absolute Power, one capable of granting the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To say that government has the obligation to grant freedom FROM religion, as Michael seems to do, is a post-modern abberation in the fabric of both Constitutional and philosophical integrity.
The American Government has no business instilling the “values” of Nihilism, yet that is precisely what the modern religion of American Secular Humanism does via Government education and Government management of the family through everything from welfare to family law.
Freedom FROM religion is a common cry of the ignorant or intentionally agenda-bound, much as freedom of speech is the cry from the pornographer, but to say that this is what the Framers intended from their overtly Christian roots, culture, and plans is a dishonesty at best.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:51 PM Brooks - You confuse tactics with strategy, particularly in your discussion about the alleged goals of the left.
As usual.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:51 PM The day after 9/11 was the day that I truly felt 100% American and felt as One with all fellow Americans, regardless of wealth, race, sex, sexual orientation or religion. We were One as a Nation and the whole world shared in our sorrow and anger.
This feeling of unity was almost immediately destroyed by this Administration. It began with denial of survivor benefits for gay partners of those who died (we were no longer all Americans - some had more value and rights than others). Then the verbal attacks on the list of “evil doers”. Then we snubbed the whole world by saying we knew more than they did about Iraq and we attacked them. Americans were misled and lied to and continue to be mislead and lied to.
This Administration wants Americans to be afraid and to vote based on this fear. I say that our signal to the world and to all who want to instill fear in us (including this administration)should be to say that we will not be intimidated -we are stronger and smarter than that. We love this County and we will protect it from all who wish to destroy it - both outside our borders as well as within our government.
Posted by Chuck Johnson on Sep 7, 2004 at 1:53 PM Michael mouths popular words: “The Constitution clearly defines the separation of church and state.”
Er, actually it does, but not in the street-wisdom corruption of the phrase most of you left-leaning individuals wish. This hoary phrase doesn’t even appear in the Constitution, and had absolutely no place in the forming of the American Republic. Rather, the Framers saw to it (as best they could, not envisioning post-modern, images-based Leftist culture of today) that freedom OF religion would be the basis of a moral society, a moral society, in their words, being essential to literal cultural and national survival.
Having established this guilt-by-assumption and assertion, Michael continues: “However, again this administration has continued to support and promulgate policies that ignore that Constitutional fact. The issues of prayer in schools, the Pledge of Allegiance, public funded religious displays, (the display of the Ten Commandments on public courthouses, for example,) faith based social programs all bring into question the church/state issue.”
Well, I grant that you step lightly, Michael, but Government was never intended to be free from…the freedom of speech and religious expression! Your statement casts trendy aspersions but contains neither logic or reality.
How is it that it seem logical for the Left to holler about freedom from religion and freedom of free speech when it is their own revisionism that PREVENTS freedom of speech not sanctioned by the State’s religion (of secular humanistic speech and thought control) on tax-paid property?!
Is it not a mindblower to the Left that one simply may not express the slightest non-sanctioned thought on federal property? How is that freedom itself FROM religion?
The problem is that, as in all things, such illogic and irrationality outs itself. And the Left wants it nicely and neatly under wraps.
So we have “separation of Church and State” and highly conditional “freedoms” of both speech and religion. Welcome to the Left’s political Nihilism. These days, political correctness kills; witness the NYT’s treatment of the 340 child deaths in Russia…
Christ had it: You are either for or against truth. Fence sitters of the kind who foolishly believe freedom from religion (and ethics and philosophies and morality) constitutes the basis to steer the ship of State are simply incorrect an will, in the (postmodern) end, add to the oppression of the very rights they sanctimonously think they preach today.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:08 PM “This feeling of unity was almost immediately destroyed by this Administration. It began with denial of survivor benefits for gay partners of those who died (we were no longer all Americans - some had more value and rights than others).”
Chuck, it sems you don’t really want a Republic bound by law and a Constitution such as ours. You want to scapegoat your instant-gratification problems onto a King.
I believe you’ll find that even a Kennedy or a Kerry cannot do that for you…at least not in this country.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:15 PM Joanne
Thank you for your follow up comment on my post. Sadly, I think that the fact that no one else on this board has commented is proof of some of my points. It seems that for the majority of our population, politics is like team sports. Intelligent debate on issues, without resorting to “annihilating an opponent”, is not as fun. Also, its not as easy to have an intelligent debate on issues, in which all participants are required to bring viable solutions to the table for each of their critcisms, as it is to just say “You suck, man…and so does everyone like you…We’re gonna kick your aaaassss”. Where is the political dialogue that says ALL lying, cheating, gerrymandering, pork-barreling, corporation favoring, etc. is wrong…no matter who is doing it…AND they ALL ARE DOING IT! If anyone in this country believes that their party, or their candidate has risen above these practices, I submit that they ARE living in Lake Wobegon…The Land of the Lemmings.
Now, what can we as a people united for honesty, intergrity, justice for all, and all those seemingly empty or rapidly evaporating ideals…what can we do about it??? Why are we in a position where we have ONLY two candidates to choose from…a sad situation for those of us who don’t like either??? How have we gotten here in the wake of Democrating AND Republican shennanigans, and what can we, or more importantly, what am I going to do about it? This is the dialogue we need to be having. Political bickering is the biggest waste of our energy, and as I said before, EXACTLY what the “Powers that Be” hope we will remain distracted with. Clearly very, very few people are willing or able to rise above the false sense of superiority that blame brings and taking personal responsibility for learning what is really going on behind the scenes in this country and in the world. It’s so much easier to believe that George or John or Jesus [or whomever is the Hero of Your Day]...is going to “save” us from ourselves.
Whenever possible, I speak for myself, vote my conscience at the polls, in the marketplace and in the way I live my life, and never take what someone is “selling me” at face value, without uncovering their agenda and investigating opinions on all sides, particularly those in opposition. It is not the easiest route, and there isn’t much fanfare or flag-waving for Free-Thought anymore. In fact it has very effectively been positioned as un-patriotic or even supportive of the “enemy” by the current administration. But, despite the high price, it beats the hell out of living like a lemming.
We need leaders who model personal accountability, who encourage in-depth assessment and open dialogue on important issues, who can not only say “I was wrong” when they are, but who also say “...and this is what I’m going to do to make it right”. We tout these as American ideals. However, they are NOT demonstrated, and in fact are marginalized values, characterized as weakness, flip-flopping or worse.
Our political system is seriously flawed on too many levels to list in this post. But it is a representation of the collective consciousness of the people. When the people change, so will our politics…and so will the world. As I said before, until we put aside partisan positioning, and address issues from a place of objective assessment, we will remain at the level of ingnorance and bombast that is the REAL reason the rest of the world believes we are deaf, dumb and dangerous.
That’s my piece. Peace ;-)
Posted by Kim on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:24 PM Help! I feel as though I am stuck in Republicanville! Thank you for your article. I’ll try to spread the word.
Posted by Linda Lowry on Sep 7, 2004 at 2:26 PM Thank you, Mr. Keillor, I needed that.
What I also need is to understand why the Democrats rolled over and played dead while Bush did all of this. Our “leaders” in Congress did very little to oppose Bush during his first couple of years and didn’t really gear up to oppose him in a meaningful way until very recently. I think we Democrats are too NICE. Our leaders haven’t been willing to play hardball. But if we roll over, the Republicans WILL walk on us. Can you send your essay to all of the Democratic members of Congress and shake them up some?
Cory
Posted by Cory on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:09 PM Good (late morning) all:
Boy, the thread is humming this morning. And I must say that (with the notable exception of 6Gun and Scott), the tone and level of respect for each other’s opposing views has increased markedly. (I guess it’s a good thing that I had to replace the U-joint on my old truck this morning.)
So in the spirit of the new leaf that the thread has turned over during the night, I want to start off by apologizing to Scott for getting his panties in a knot last night. You have to realize that launching ad hominem attacks against all Democrats (but particularly the Clintons and Ted Kennedy) has been a staple of right-wing hate radio for the past decade. So we know that you’re used to—and even wildly support—that method of political discourse. IMHO, it does appear that right-wingers are happy to dish out that dirt, but they’re not so adept at taking it. And while that’s no reason why we should join you in the mud pit, please be advised that we have seen the effectiveness (and the humor) of that approach and some of us don’t mind getting our hands dirty either. It’s against our better natures (well, not really), but we agree it’s fun.
But since even our political debates can start over again with each new day, let me make a few “make peace” gestures of my own this morning. Since both Scott and Brooks have mentioned the importance of getting Bush’s supporters to the polls next November, I want to offer now all of my help to the two of you to see to it that the Bushies turn out in force next November to vote. (Note to Democrats on the thread: we want our supporters to show up “this” November to vote. If I do a good job helping Brooks and Scott, maybe it won’t be so crowded at the polls “this” November.)
Secondly, I heard a good suggestion recently for how we could all show our support for the democratic process and for a renewed spirit of bipartisanship. The suggestion was that Kerry supporters could show their support for the democratic process by driving with their headlights on during the day and the Bush supporters could show their support by driving with their headlights off at night. Just a suggestion, in the spirit of togetherness (No, really.)
I know that most of you are probably tired of my debate with Brooks about needle exchange programs, or at least that’s what I thought we were debating. For those of you who visited the link Brooks provided, you might be surprised (or not) to know that it didn’t deal directly with needle exchange programs, but with using bleach to disinfect needles. There is a BIG difference between these strategies. But since I can’t get Brooks to do the reading I have suggested or apparently even read the CDC statements in support of NEPs that I provided last night in my post, I did read the article he provided and this is what it really said: (Just a few excerpts)
(From the introduction): “The central message is that disinfection is a back-up prevention strategy if the user cannot stop injecting, DOES NOT HAVE A NEW, STERILE SYRINGE; and is about to inject with a syringe that has been used before.
(From the body of the article): “The strategy of disinfecting syringes to prevent HIV emerged in California in the 1980s. East Coast epidemics among IDUs (especially in New York) made public health officials fear that HIV would be a major threat to California IDUs. California IDUs, like those in other parts of the country, shared and reused syringes, in part because IT WAS HARD FOR THEM TO GET NEW, STERILE ONES. This greatly increased their risk of HIV transmission (see box, page 2). State law made it illegal for drug users to buy syringes from pharmacies and a crime to possess them. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STERILE SYRINGES, combined with limited capacity of substance abuse treatment programs, forced prevention programs to focus on reducing injection-related risks among IDUs who would not or could not stop injecting. Field research in California showed that IDUs would act to reduce their risks if acceptable measures were
available to them….“The central message is that disinfection is a back-up prevention strategy if the user cannot stop injecting; DOES NOT HAVE A NEW, STERILE SYRINGE; and is about to inject with a syringe that has been used before…. Substance abuse treatment and ACCESS TO STERILE SYRINGES through pharmacies, physician prescription, and SYRINGE EXCHANGE PROGRAMS are essential components of HIV prevention efforts among injection drug users….
“Disinfection Seems to Make Sense. What’s the Problem? A Disinfected Syringe is NOT a Sterile Syringe. If it is done carefully and thoroughly, disinfection can reduce the amount of live HIV, HBV, and HCV in a syringe. However, even the best disinfection procedure cannot guarantee that all viruses have been killed. The plastic syringes usually used by IDUs are designed for one-time use. They are not designed to be cleaned and used again….For these reasons, a disinfected syringe is NOT as safe as a NEW, STERILE SYRINGE .... Syringes with bleach or others agents apply ONLY to situations in which DUs do not have STERILE SYRINGES…. IDUs, outreach workers, and policymakers may mistakenly believe that disinfecting with bleach is as safe as using a new, STERILE SYRINGE….Disinfection should be used only when an IDU has no safe options for preventing transmission. Disinfection is not as good as stopping injecting, getting into substance
abuse treatment, using a NEW STERILE SYRINGE, and not sharing drug solution and equipment…. If you cannot or will not stop injecting, you should:
Use a NEW, STERILE SYRINGE obtained from a reliable source.”The piece that Brooks provided us ends with two good references: • Interventions to Increase IDUs’ Access to Sterile Syringes, a series of six fact
sheets (available from CDC), and a reference to the April 1993 CDC/CSAT/NIDA HIV/AIDS Prevention Bulletin.This publication reviews the topic of disinfection and concludes that stopping injection or using NEW, STERILE SYRINGES is superior to disinfection. (ALL EMPHASIS ADDED)
So, Brooks, I’m happy to use your references or mine to support my conclusions and to illustrate why science is so important to solving our common problems. In either case, the science and the CDC scientists support NEPs. And for the readers, the two sentences that Brooks pulled out of the CDC article and shared with us earlier (questioning the utility of bleach programs—again not the topic (NEPs) I thought we were discussing) is followed by more than a half-dozen caveats explaining why the research conclusions he cited of “no effect for bleach programs” may have been due to methodological problems.I’m happy to retire this side discussion, though it continues to demonstrate that Bush supporters selectively pick and choose the science they want to use and—even then—don’t read their own “supportive literature” to know beforehand that it proves their opponents’ position.
To end, respectfully: I would still ask Brooks to answer the questions I posed last night and that he has still not answered. I would repeat them again in case Brooks doesn’t remember them either, but they can be found by scrolling back through this thread.
Thanks to Michael, Kim, Chuck, Ed P., Gary and (of course) Joanne for continuing to elevate and illuminate this debate; and to our loyal opposition for following suit. I am almost afraid to return home tomorrow evening to see how many new posts there will be in my inbox, but I wouldn’t give up this exchange for the world.
Take care and remember, Republicans, it’s important to really turn out the vote NEXT November (LOL).
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:38 PM Every year I give large sums of money to worthy causes. I bring meals to the sick. I feel close to tears when I see the suffering of others. I help whenever I can…and sometimes when I can’t. I pay my taxes with pride. I purchase environmentally friendly products. I am pro gun control.
I am also…a Republican. Articles like this, full of generalizations and name calling, are as dangerous as the shortcomings you assign to our president. You are as guilty of dividing this nation as the people you are accusing. Trying to understand me and why I vote the way I do will be much more profitable than sitting behind a desk complaining. I certainly want to understand the Democratic view better because harmony between us is more important to me than a bitter airing of grievances.
Posted by Toni on Sep 7, 2004 at 3:46 PM A couple posts on this page point to the escalation of hostility we humans so enjoy. Push comes to shove comes to somebody getting hurt. I find it interesting that the Ted Rall-like Evil Conservative Right, that home of traditional values, self-responsibility, accountability, and charity is now, mysteriously, the origin of ad “hominem attacks against all Democrats (but particularly the Clintons and Ted Kennedy)...a staple of right-wing hate radio for the past decade.”
Ah, more Leftist Preemptive Political Striking, that “hate radio” canard. And push already comes to shove…
From my perspective (having just been identified as a hostile combatant due to my opposition to screeds and emotional, images-oriented leftwing um, ad hominem attacks, Bernie) the Left had infiltrated both media and Academia some 60 years ago, and had initiated a familiar tactic that continues to this day: The ad hominem (yes, one and the same, Bernie) false-stereotyping, image-centrist, morally-relative and completely preemptive attack on the Right.
Or far more correctly, what they conveniently construed as the Right. Hollywood thinking.
is Bush a Conservative? Not a chance. Are national politics in late 04 really about the Man Who WOuld be King, ala Bush/Kerry? Not really, Keillor’s juvenile, self-indulgent, Bush-hating screed notwithstanding. This is and should be about what underlies the pathological Leftist dishonesty that has ruined the Democrat Party as surely as opportunistic Neocons have ruined the Republican party.
Joanne implied a question: Are we Left or Right of 1776? According to decline theory, we’re infinitely Left of center, regardless of the impossibly irresponsible and reactionary nonsense spilling from Keillor and his advocates.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:03 PM Dear Editor,
This essay of Garrison Keillor’s needs to be read by every American. How can it be published so that no one will miss it? It is being passed around on the internet but most older folks and lots of busy working people don’t “surf the web.”
I’d like to see it published on a full page in every newpaper.
Greer Nolan
Posted by Greer Nolan on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:22 PM This essay should be read by every American. How can we get it out there?
It is being sent around the internet but most older folks and lots of busy working people do not “surf the web.”
I would like to seet his essay published on a full page in every newspaper in the country.Greer Nolan
Posted by Greer Nolan on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:27 PM Thank you Thank you Thank you Mr. Keillor for putting words to our anguish. We must vote this man from office, to quote Bruce Springsteen,” The America of our hearts are calling us”!
Posted by Trudy Fleishman on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:29 PM The quote from Springsteen should read “The America of our hearts is calling us”
Posted by Trudy Fleishman on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:32 PM Bernie:
Your work is Tennessee is admirable but akin to throwing your head against a brick wall. The 9/11 Democrats will turn out in droves for Bush there. Don’t think the the Oak Ridge references to where the nuclear material from Libya is being housed is lost on Tenn either.
Any poll showing Tenn outside of five points is a joke.
Best wishes, you keep up your stuff in Tenn, since I’m in safe Georgia (+15 for Bush), I’m spending the next two weekends in Florida registering voters in a real battleground state.
Posted by Brad Cundiff on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:36 PM Love the leftwing emotionalism in this the thread. Proves the point: Images, stereotypes, and fantasy constitute reality for the new Left.
And about [gasp!] the Holy Separation of Church and State, that non-Constitutional, near-religious social construct so dear to Leftists, how about this reality, ‘Wings:
“By the grace of God and your help, last year I was elected President.”
— Clinton, Church of God in Christ, Memphis, Tennessee, November 1993“Our ministry is to do the work of God here on Earth.”
— Clinton to a church in Temple Hills, Maryland, August 1994“God’s work must be our own. And there are many questions before us now in this last presidential election of the 20th century.”
— Clinton to a church in Newark, New Jersey, October 1996“The Scripture says, ‘While we have time, let us do good unto all men.’ And a week from Tuesday, it will be time for us to vote.”
— Clinton, Alfred Street Baptist Church, Alexandria, VA, October 29, 2000“But I am pleading with you…. I have done everything I know to do…. [But] you have to show. So talk to your friends, talk to your neighbors, talk to your family members, talk to your co-workers, and make sure nobody takes a pass on November 7th.”
— Clinton, Shiloh Baptist Church, Washington, D.C., October 29, 2000It’s a documented fact that Bill Clinton mentioned Christ MORE often than the hated fundamentalist from Texas. Poof! another ‘Wing myth exploded.
Ah yes, the ubiquitous Leftwing double standard, part and parcel for a political movement based not in rational thought and principle but on the mere illusion of a feel-good, politically-correct reality that literally costs innocent lives.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 4:39 PM when our freedoms our fully lost, all you ignorant simpletons who believe that “bush vs. kerry” or “democrat vs. republican” are legitimate points of view will be to blame. wake you uninformed media-sucking, “buy whatever these dingbats sell me” clowns. the demopublican party depends your ignorance to sustain the illusion of choice, to divide you dingbats with irrelevant issues, to get you hot and bothered over stupid shit in order to push through the same bullshit that’s been going on for decades. anyone stupid enough to think that bush is better than kerry or that kerry is better than bush should go hang yourself right now. YOU’RE THE REASON AMERICA IS GETTING SCREWED UP. your ignorance. wake up, read a freakin book or something. turn off the tv and get your heads out of your asses. it scares me that you morons vote.
Posted by bob on Sep 7, 2004 at 5:43 PM Garrison,
As a forth generation Southern Republican, ( I assure you a rare bird.), I wish I had written your article myself. I too have watched with horror as a practical party of physical conservatives has been turn into a power hungry, group of unprincipled racist and raiders. (See previous emails. And Yes, to all you Confederates, my family members not only fought at Gettysburg, and Shiloh, we lead, outfitted, and armed troops there and suffered the full force of the Yankee’s revenge during reconstitution. So unless your grandfather was Jefferson Davis don’t give me any of that crap.) It is just time now to move on.
Anyone who denies that everything Garrison says is true either lacks the ability to comprehend and understand global politics and macro-economics, or simply shares “the win at all cost” mentality. Many of us within the party were hopeful that Bush would lose in 2000, as this would have given us the excuse we need to clean out some of these radical elements from the party leadership. But lets all be honest, Al Gore ran the worst campaign in my lifetime. He was clearly “over handled” and never seem to know who was. Don’t make that mistake again. Like Goebbels and Hiemler these people know who they are, and are intent in crushing anyone who questions them or gets in their way. Karl Rove is the most arrogant, ruthless advisor in my lifetime. There are no lines he will not cross to win. Ask John McCain. (Who will vote for Kerry I bet you $50.00.)
To win, you will have to be just as ruthless and nasty and willing to take a few chances. I am not sure you guys really know what is at stake. It is not just tax breaks they want, it is complete global domination, the destruction of your party, and complete oppression of the working class. If they win, they will get it. Iraq will look like a day in park as we will invade Iran, Syria, and probably North Korea-unless they concede. Kevin Phillips is correct, they are seeking to set up a new aristocracy.
For the first time in history, we are the greatest threat to world peace. That is why Europe is so uneasy, the have seen this before. (1936 Germany) Neo-con’s are not neo anything, the are facist and ultra nationalist.It is the same old story. Doesn’t the term “homeland security” bother anyone but me?
Also, quit attacking Bush, he doesn’t have any power or know anything to began with. Go after the real players, and may God help you. If you guys fail we will all pay the price with our children’s blood, and our nations future.
-Southern Republican,
(WHO READS & UNDERSTANDS)
Posted by Southern Republican on Sep 7, 2004 at 5:53 PM “Bipartisanship is another term of date rape,” says Grover Norquist, the Sid Vicious of the GOP. “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”
These folks are anarchists—and we need to call them out.
Posted by Jude Edelstein on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:29 PM GAO: Ex-Medicare Chief Should Repay Salary
Tuesday September 7, 2004 8:16 PM
By MARK SHERMANAssociated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The former Medicare administrator should repay his government salary because of his efforts to keep higher estimates of the cost of a prescription drug plan from Congress last year, congressional investigators said Tuesday.
The recommendation from the Government Accountability Office reignited the controversy over the passage of the Medicare overhaul and questions about whether the Bush administration intentionally concealed its own estimates of the cost - $100 billion more than the $400 billion it acknowledged - to win support from conservative Republicans.
The Associated Press reported last year that Thomas Scully, the Medicare chief until December, threatened to fire chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster to prevent him from giving the information to lawmakers.
Federal law prohibits a federal agency from paying the salary of an official who prevents another federal employee from communicating with Congress, GAO said.
Because the Department of Health and Human Services ``was prohibited from paying Mr. Scully’s salary after he barred Mr. Foster from communicating with Congress, HHS should consider such payments improper,’’ GAO general counsel Anthony Gamboa wrote in a report to Democratic senators who requested it. ``Therefore, we recommend that HHS seek to recover these payments.’’
An earlier report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service also concluded that the administration was wrong to keep the information from Congress.
HHS officials and Scully, who now works for a law firm and investment bank, did not immediately provide comment Tuesday.
But the administration argued in a July report that no laws were broken. Scully ``has the final authority to determine the flow of information to Congress,’’ the HHS inspector general’s office said.
The administration has adamantly refused to release Foster’s estimates, even since the law’s enactment in December. House Democrats have sued for the documents in federal court. The Associated Press, which sought the same materials under the Freedom of Information Act, received 13 pages that had previously been made public.
The administration withheld another 150 pages that HHS acknowledged are responsive to the AP’s request.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4479309,00.html
Another example of the current administration’s policies of secrecy and public deceit.
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 7, 2004 at 6:47 PM Finally, an issue my two favorite radio storytellers can agree on, Bush is a joke and has to go! (oh, that’s Howard Stern and Garrison Keillor) Quit watching tv, people, it’s rotting your mind!
Posted by Brian Ruff on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:02 PM Amazing! Invective full of bigotry and innuendo. He accuses the other side of name calling in a diatribe filled with labels and name calling. Every constituency in the Republican side is villified if not libeled.
Where is the party of Truman and Kennedy that knew when to stand up to threats?
Where is the party that believed in dialog and debate? I keep hearing that dissent is suppressed but never see a quote or citation except by liberals and academics.. Ask any Naderite trying to register voters or any conservative student or reporter.
How did liberals become so bigoted? “bigot -One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.” If you don’t think the writing below is not bigoted, then you are blind, deaf, and dumb.
The Supreme Court said if you want to recount, recount all votes. The Democrats said it couldn’t be done in time (except where a recount worked for them but not in some rural counties that had more votes than registered voters).
It’s strange that he says that this country wasn’t made great by angry people in a tract that is full of anger.
Posted by Paul Cubbage on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:09 PM “Every year I give large sums of money to worthy causes. I bring meals to the sick. I feel close to tears when I see the suffering of others. I help whenever I can…and sometimes when I can’t. I pay my taxes with pride. I purchase environmentally friendly products. I am pro gun control.
I am also…a Republican. Articles like this, full of generalizations and name calling, are as dangerous as the shortcomings you assign to our president. You are as guilty of dividing this nation as the people you are accusing. Trying to understand me and why I vote the way I do will be much more profitable than sitting behind a desk complaining. I certainly want to understand the Democratic view better because harmony between us is more important to me than a bitter airing of grievances.”
Thank YOu Toni, Good words.
Posted by zman on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:18 PM In response to Brooks:
“The Constitution defines many more legalities in addition to the separation of church and state. The 5th Am. specifically anticipates capital crimes and capital punishment.”
Again you refuse to see my point. I am not arguing the legality of capital punishment. I am arguing the morality of it. The Bush administration claims to be based upon Conservative Christianity which is based upon the Bible which clearly and unequivocally states that killing a human being is wrong. How convenient for them to pick and choose which of the commandments and Christian principles to follow and which to discard. Of course if one adheres to the Calvinist concept of predestination and the total depravity of mankind then those who are not of “the Chosen”, those who are sinners and have demonstrated that by their crimes or poverty or difference are somehow not covered under those same commandments and Christian principles so it is possible to kill them with a clear conscience.
“The Bush administration is bound by the same Constitution that binds the rest of the country.”
And chooses to follow it in the same manner as it chooses to follow its Conservative Christian laws as well. I will reiterate my first post. Mr. Bush owes no allegiance to the Constitution. He usurped the Presidency in a corrupt and illegal manner. He will exploit the Constitution to his own gain and where it constrains him he will ignore it. The war in Iraq and the Patriot Act are just two examples of Mr. Bush trampling on the Constitution.
“Having said that, is it consistent for conservatives to be against abortion and in favor of capital punishment? Absolutely, because capital punishment is predicated on a perpetrators voluntary commission of a capital crime against society, and abortion takes an innocent life.”
So therefore, while the innocent’s life is sacred the convict’s life is not? Ah, thank you for pointing out to me that once a person is convicted of a capital crime they somehow cease to be human or become subhuman and may be treated so with impunity. Therefore if the state, through due process defines a certain class of person as worthy of death they are de facto defining them as less than human. The logical corollary then becomes if the state defines a person as less than human it is morally acceptable to kill them.
Who therefore must bear the burden of deciding what is a capital crime? The state. Has the state ever put to death the wrong person? Has the state ever abused capital punishment to silence dissent? Has the state ever put anyone to death to further its own ends? Couldn’t happen here. . . could it?
This administration has a strong tendency to view dissent as vaguely treasonous behaviour. It is just a few short steps from defining disagreement with their policies as supporting terrorist activity to engaging in terrorism itself. It could be construed that dissenting with the government is treasonous and treason is a capital crime.
At root here is the moral conflict of the sanctity of human life. I reiterate, either All Life is sacred or none of it is. It is an absolute. Would you be the judge of who should live and who should die?
“Much has been written to redefine the
meaning of life in order to avoid the moral problem with abortion. None of it succeeds in my view.”Abortion need not and should not be necessary. However the woman’s right to choose places her in the moral dilemma. Unfortunately, open, honest and free discussion of sexuality and all its benefits and dangers in a mature and non-threatening environment is repressed.
“As for the morality of going to war, the requirement to make war does not depend on our own view of morality. In fact our own view of morality has very little to do with it. The attacking enemy determines the requirement
to make war.”The requirement to make war depends specifically on our view of morality. This administration repeatedly claims the moral high ground of Conservative Christianity but repeatedly ignores its teachings. Aside from the previous admonition against killing (referenced here: Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17, Matt 5:21, Rom 13:9) There is that little homily by Jesus Christ in Matthew 5, specifically Matt 5:39: “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus clearly did not say, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek go out and kick his ass until he is a grease spot on the ground.” But in Matt 5:44 he did say: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” These are the standards to which Mr. Bush claims to adhere as a Conservative Christian.
Yet in his dealings politically and internationally he seems rather to adhere to “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and if I knock out your eyes and teeth first then I don’t ever have to worry about you: the whole concept of pre-emptive war.“Here again, the left would redefine the real nature of the Islamic radical fundamentalists in order to support their own broader isolationist and pacifist goals.”
And the right would exploit radical Christian fundamentalism to support their own expansionist and economic goals.
“This is wishful thinking and it is dangerous to our collective survival.”
What is dangerous to our collective survival is the “lets swat this fly with our big stick” attitude of the Bush administration. It certainly is glamorous and certainly appeals to a lot of people, heck it is fun to see things go “BOOM” and after all, they’re just Middle-Easteners, Islamists, Ragheads, it isn’t like they are real good Christian Americans or nothing. It isn’t like they are really people, like they are really human or anything. Hasn’t our government told us they are the enemy? Hell, that doesn’t make them human, right? After all, they chose to kill us so we have every right, legal, political and moral to do anything to them we want, right? It isn’t even like it is a real war, they are all just terrorists so none of the rules of real war apply.
Is it any wonder we are hated and feared in that part of the world? How different would the situation be today had we taken our cue from the admonition to “love your enemies” and approaching in a true attitude of respect for their culture and humanity?
“Fortunately the allure of their utopian paradise will not be sufficient to overcome the majority’s survival instincts next November at the polls. May it ever be so.”
Be careful what you wish for. . .
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 7, 2004 at 7:36 PM Thank you Mr Keillor, for having the courage to express your views so openly. I agree with a previous writer that you ARE our Mark Twain. I have felt this way since I first began listening to Prairie Home Companion years ago. Yes, there is anger here. But we may need this expression of feeling to rally the troops, and rally we must!
Posted by Mike Plaut on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:05 PM M. Bierbaum,
The beautiful thing about our system of government is I don’t have to care about your moral definitions. And I don’t. Between us, legal authority is all that matters and you have completely misconstrued constitutional and legal authority in order to score your zingers. I blame your teachers.
Posted by Brooks on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:12 PM In response to 6gun:
“Sorry, the Constitution’s “Nature and Nature’s God” referred to an Absolute Power, one capable of granting the inalienable rights of “life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To say that government has the obligation to grant freedom FROM religion, as Michael seems to do, is a post-modern abberation in the fabric of both Constitutional and philosophical integrity.”Question: does the atheist deserve equal protection under the law?
Question: should a child be required to eat the only meal provided in a federally funded school lunch program if it goes against the dietary restrictions of their religion?
Question: should a Wiccan child who believes in a goddess be required to say the words, “under God” in the Plegde of Allegiance?
Question: should a Christian child be required to take part in a Shinto prayer read over the loudspeaker at school?
Question: does displaying the 10 Commandments on the public courthouse give it precedence over the sayings of Bhudda?
For some people their choice is no religion. Are they therefore somehow less citizens than the Christian founders? Do they deserve less protection under the law?
“The American Government has no business instilling the “values” of Nihilism, yet that is precisely what the modern religion of American Secular Humanism does via Government education and Government management of the family through everything from welfare to family law.”
According to “The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”
Author Information: Alan Pratt
Email: pratta@db.erau.eduHumanities Department
Embry-Riddle University
Daytona Beach, FL 32174
USANihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
Secular Humanism, from the following site:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htmSecular Humanism a non-religiously based philosophy promoting man as the measure of all things. It had its roots in the rationalism of the 18th Century and the freethought movement of the 19th Century.
Some of the concepts we hold dear have arisen from Secular Humanism: the concept of democracy, for example, also value freedom of inquiry, expression and action and combating bigotry, hatred, discrimination, intolerance and censorship. There is much in our Constitution that derives from the humanist rationalism of the 18th century.
So, according to 6Gun Nihilism = Humanism. Ahhh.
“Freedom FROM religion is a common cry of the ignorant or intentionally agenda-bound, much as freedom of speech is the cry from the pornographer, but to say that this is what the Framers intended from their overtly
Christian roots, culture, and plans is a dishonesty at best.”Sir I am not ignorant. And we are all “intentionally agenda-bound”. We all support our own agendas, our own world view, you just as much as me. My agenda just happens to be equal protection under the law. At the risk of further raising your ire, pornography, like religion is in the eye of the beholder. If it offends you, don’t look at it. But don’t force your version of religion or pornography on me. Abridge one freedom, whether you like it or agree with it or not and you take away the right to full and free discourse, such as we are having right now, something this administration seems hell-bent to limit.
Posted by Michael Bierbaum on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:22 PM Mr. Keillor’s condescending diatribe illustrates perfectly the problem those on the right side of the political spectrum (not to mention history) have with those on the Left: anyone who disagrees with liberal policies or ideas is ignorant, evil, or greedy, or all of the above. This lack of perspective and critical analysis reveals that the ignorant, close-minded person is not the typical Republican excoriated by Mr. Keillor, but Mr. Keillor himself.
Mr. Keillor’s tirade also helps prove that the Democrats are bereft of ideas and can only rail against the evil conservatives, who stand in the way of liberal Utopia.
Posted by TexJAG on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:34 PM Bierbaum wrote: “...And speaking of the “democratically enacted will of the people” need I remind you of who won the democratic or popular vote in the Presidential Election of 2000 and how current judicial activism decided the election in favor of George W. Bush.”
—————
Well sir, that’s actually not true, in several ways.
First, the tired and already exhaustively dealt-with liberal myth that it was judicial activism that decided the election for George Bush. You seem to have walked into the middle of the movie. The election laws of each state, according to the constitution are defined by the legislature, not by that state’s supreme court - period. If, there is to be any judicial review, it comes BEFORE the game has been played, not after. But the Florida supreme court decided, on the fly, that they were going to throw out Florida election law and decide these matters, ad hoc, from the bench. And thus began the harvesting of imaginary votes for Al Gore, recounting and recounting, and only in Dem-heavy precincts. So, Gore-inspired constitutional crisis was finally brought before the U.S. Supreme Court and at last a sober decision was made. And need I remind you, that when the votes were later counted again, in full, it turns that YES, George Bush did win Florida.
Is the truth hurting yet? I hope so.
Now, on to the other liberal myth that is finally being shattered: that Al Gore won the popular vote. Now, I know you think it’s true, and I know you and your ilk cleave to it like a baby to a tit. But, in fact, when you discount for voter fraud and scandalous manipulation by the media, it turns out that Bush won even the popular vote. Ouch, that’s gotta hurt!
Let’s take just one example: I bet you didn’t know that in the 2000 election over 46,000 people were simultaneously registered to vote in both New York AND in Florida - a violation of both states’ election laws. And would you care to know the percentages of their party affiliations? 12% Republican, 16% Independent, and (drum roll please)...a whopping 68% Democrat! And that’s not a typo. Yes, 68% Democrat. (Now, why do I think that if it were instead 68% Republican that committed voter fraud in this case, somehow ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, et al, would suddenly have found it a story worth reporting, and even hyping?)
And are you unaware of the scandalous coverage by the media the night of the election that adversely affected Republican turnout late in the day. Whenever a state was clearly going to Bush, the media would delay in “calling it” for Bush, saying that it was “too early to tell”. But they in fact were more than eager to call a state for Al Gore, even when they were wrong about it (like Florida). The media knew what they were doing and unfortunately lots of Republicans that had intended to vote late in the day, and in later time zones, and in states like California where they already know the states’ electoral votes are going to the Democrats, ended up staying home. There was a commission setup afterward to investigate this and they setup some standards that will hopefully force the TV news media to behave themselves this time. They have been put on notice and they know that they are being carefully watched.
And are you proud of the Democratic party for trying to disqualify military votes while registering convicted felons to vote? Does that speak to your moral superiority?
Lastly, check out the new book by John Fund on voter fraud. Read it, independently verify the facts therein, and then get back to me to let me know if you still want to promote the myth that “Al Gore won the popular vote”.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:36 PM I’ll tell you—the hits just keep on coming on this thread. Really hate to get on the road to Hot-lanta, but the battleground states are calling.
Once again, the tone and quality of commentary continues to rise. With the new “kinder and gentler” leaf I’m wearing, I feel downright sanctified. Why, I even found myself agreeing (a bit) with old PopGun’s last post. While I agree with almost every poster—of every political stripe on this thread—that our beliefs and our principles must inform and direct our voting behavior, I for one would be happy to make churches off-limits to politicians of every stripe. I do want parishioners to be informed and stimulated to think about the connections between their spiritual and their secular lives in church. But I don’t want them to be told who to vote for there because, as a decidedly non-Calvinist, I believe our Higher Power gave us free will and a promise of redemption as well as a soul AND an intellect to help direct that will and lead us to a happy and joyous life of service. So I’ll tell you what, TopGun, the Democrats will surrender all the church directories we requested from sympathetic pastors and the pew-stuffing, “divinely inspired” voters guides (guides, as in rings in the noses of their congregation’s souls), if the Repub-libans will do the same. How about if you go first?
To Paul Cubbage: From what I’ve read, the folks who have been doing a great deal of the Nadir campaigning around the country have been Repub-libans in Nadir-ite disguises. (Those disguises must be REALLY ITCHY AND ILL-FITTING for you folks.)
To Georgia Brad, heading to Florida: Thanks for the comments and the compliments. The polls are tightening here in Tennessee and even if I accept your number at this point (Bush by +5), that shows a loss of more than half of his polling lead here in the past six weeks. Personally, I think we are still very much in play here (and around the country, since USA Today reported only a 2 point margin among registered voters between Bush and Kerry), and if we can keep getting sensible, small business men and women who run our country stores to serve as voter registrars, we will keep gaining. And by the way, we don’t use the term “911 Democrats” up here—we say “911 Americans”. And there are a lot of our 911 Americans who wonder just how the road to Bin Ladin got sidetracked to Iraq. I believe it’s called “that leadership thing”.
But good luck to you in Florida also. With the recent announcement of the 17% increase in Medicare premiums (interesting timing of that announcement, eh?—and you should really review Daydreamer’s post after yours today in case you get any in-depth questions on that Medicare-related issue down in blue-hair land) and the not-so-recent announcement that Cuban Americans can no longer send as much financial support or visit their relatives back in Cuba as often without becoming lawbreakers, you’re in for some hard-selling yourself.
These days, Democrats value families by working to ease the burdens of medical care on our grandparents and parents and by encouraging policies that bring estranged families together rather than keep them apart. On the other hand, the “family values” paraded on the stage in New York last week were as hollow and two-dimensional as any cardboard cut-outs I’ve ever seen. How about those Cheneys, huh? You could almost feel (and see, by conspicuous omission) the hole in their family that the Repub-liban platform has wrought.
If I end up getting assigned as a field organizer for Kerry somewhere other than in the Volunteer State, I hope it’s back to my second home, New Mexico. There are a large number of Indian people out there who would be more than happy to hang Bush’s “country club cowboy” scalp over the door of their underfunded health clinic or school. They have suffered in silence too long and since John Kerry has promised to put an Indian voice in the White house as his policy adviser, their days of being silent (or at least unheard and unheeded) are numbered. Can anyone say “Two more months”? Aho!!
Finally, thanks to Michael, Daydreamer and Jude for more “blue sky” clarity about our principles. And a particular tip of the baseball cap to Southern Republican for joining the swelling ranks (on this thread and off) of the truly honorable and loyal Republicans who want to throw the pretender-rascals out, most particularly that scoundrel known as Bush’s brain—Karl Rove. S.R. —as a descendent myself of those who fell at Shiloh, Vicksburg and Franklin—I salute you as a principled gentleman and a scholar (unless, of course, you are a Lady, in which case I must say that it is an honor and a privilege to make your acquaintance.)
Finally, to Zman—sorry for my earlier snide remarks to you. Please accept that I’ve been bathed in the light of this thread and am making amends for my past ways. And I want to join you to shout out a “ditto” for your kind remarks to Toni. And to also say that Toni has it right. This time, our votes should certainly be about our principles and not about the candidates’ personalities or our past party affiliations. And from what Toni shared with us about her principles, if we gleefully Rush-mimicking liberals can bide our tongues and mind our manners, I believe her principles will bring her to sky-blue clarity about the principled way to vote this time. (And she won’t need her preacher to tell her which way her morals MUST direct her to vote.)
Now it’s time to find my old Willie Nelson tape so I can sing “On The Road Again” and “Georgia on My Mind” all the way south. And Brad, while you’re canvassing for votes in Florida, I hope you’ll have time to help those folks down there clean up the wreckage and to take with you all our prayers for their swift recovery. All our hearts go out to so many places today, including to the flooded families of Florida. See ya’, bye.
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:49 PM Mr. Keillor wrote, “It’s a beautiful world, rain or shine, and there is more to life than winning.”
I’m glad he feels this way because, if Fortune is smiling on America, his candidate will lose.
Posted by JamesC on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:53 PM “Question: does the atheist deserve equal protection under the law?”
Answer: Sure. What’s your point?
“Question: should a child be required to eat the only meal provided in a federally funded school lunch program if it goes against the dietary restrictions of their religion?”
Answer: Explain how, by way of the conundrum at the heart of Statist education, we got to this level. Then we can discuss lunches. How do you expect to place the State in the position of simultaneously enforcing “free” choice by first ending free speech? I know what to do about it. Are you willing to accept the solution?
“Question: should a Wiccan child who believes in a goddess be required to say the words, “under God” in the Plegde of Allegiance?”
Answer: Nope. More importantly, should a room full of Wiccans be barred from chanting to a humanist god while on State property? They are. And the 10 Commandments were yanked from a courthouse (despite the entire front of the US Supreme Court being liberally embellished with Biblical images—love it.)
“Question: should a Christian child be required to take part in a Shinto prayer read over the loudspeaker at school?”
Answer: Same answer.
“Question: does displaying the 10 Commandments on the public courthouse give it precedence over the sayings of Bhudda?”
Answer: It might. (It should.) Interestingly, where did US law originate, Mike? In the moral teachings of the East? Are you this technically strict with the Communist Chinese government?
“For some people their choice is no religion. Are they therefore somehow less citizens than the Christian founders? Do they deserve less protection under the law?”
Yes, they are less citizens, at least in my opinion. But no, they should not, nor do they, enjoy lesser rights.
But these too are canards. The real questions are how can government enforce (as we foolishly demand of it) destroying free speech in order to “separate Church and State” when government is in the business of instructing children in their most impressionable years…the same years where it should be argued they are sponges for moral instruction?
And about Nihilism and Secular Humanism, like Socialism and the modern Democratic Party, they are not interchangeble. Yet one springs from the other; Secular Humanism (especially the impaired free speech, philosophically illogical State school kind practiced in the US today as the effective religion of the land) comes from some odd combination of Nihilism, Epicureanism, and some other easily defeated lesser philosophies; and the modern Democratic Party comes from it’s now purely Socialist, Big Brother, Statist ideals.
Are you ignorant? Didn’t imply that. But I would suggest you answer how a Statist philosophy that claims, in effect, the absolute of “their are no absolutes”, and enforces freedom from religion by violating free speech makes any logical sense.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 8:58 PM Bernie wrote: “These days, Democrats value families by working to ease the burdens of medical care on our grandparents and parents and by encouraging policies that bring estranged families together rather than keep them apart.”
—————
Exactly which part of the constitution defines this as a responsibility of the governement?
Or, how about easing the burden on people by leaving them the hell alone and letting them manage their own money and their own lives, benefitting from their successes and taking responsibility for their failures. That sir, is liberty, like it or not.
And just in case I haven’t reminded you lately, you’re spinning your wheels trying to get Kerry elected. It’s not going to happen. Sleep well.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:01 PM I have a better idea about religion and State, Bernie. Let’s see what you’re made of…
1. In order to further then Holy Separation of Church and State, i.e., federal and private, let’s get government ENTIRELY out of the private sector. No Statist medicine, no Statist schools, no welfare, no thought-policing, no tacit (but unavoidable) enforcement of our odd lesser philosophy of State practiced here in America.
2. Get religion firmly INTO government, man by man, by any by-the-people means possible. All you hair-on-fire Leftists can drop the hysterical protectionist whims you all harbor about [gasp!] white, Baptist, male devils foisted upon you by Hollywood (you image-saturated non-thinkers, you) and [equally gasping now!] actually have YOUR pet religion of logically impossibly yet politically correct Nihilist Epicureanism/Nanny Government COMPETE purely in the private intellectual realm! Holy crap! Imagine THAT Constitutional ideal coming home to roost in a highly effective, free-market way?! Bet that get’s Keillor’s old flag waving again.
Are you Liberals ready to do that? To allow all of your idealist soft-hearted and charitable urges really shine in the private sector where they belong?
Or are you all really so frightened at the prospect that you insist—conciously or otherwise—that your whims about human beings on planet Earth be adopted by Government so that you can sleep at night? While your once-free Republic burns around you, not for want of a old timey Republican, Keillor, but for YOUR want of a real spine with which to take responsibility not only for yourselves but too your fellows.
Because you’ve seen Socialism’s and Communisms’s abject failures, right? Government makes a horrendous parent.
Or…let’s just face it; fear of your pet Hollywood conservative rural stereotypes and a general arrogance about knowing better what’s good for me than I do really drives your agenda.
That’s cool too. You might just enjoy Europe…
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:15 PM Thanks Garrison for standing up saying so warmly all the things I wish I could remember to say when somebody says things like:
“I think Laura looks good (which is supposed to mean George must be ok too)”
“I don’t think Bush is stupid…he’s just made some mistakes…(which is supposed to mean George is only human too, and give him a chance an’ he’ll straighten it out)”
“all I can say is, if we’re gonna be inna war with them terrorists, you gotta thank God George Bush is president…(which is supposed to mean George didn’t really start the war (them Iraqis did it din’t they?), but he’s the only one to finish it)”
“You gotta back him (Bush) now…(which is supposed to mean that it’s disloyal, unpatriotic, and just plain dunb-ass wrong to vote him out of office during “War Time”)
“I heard Kerry’s speech…an’ he’s just such another phony…(which is supposed to mean that George and Dick and Donald and the Republican et al are the only real standup guys for the truth of it all)”
“...and who does his (Kerry’s) wife think she is?...(which is supposed to mean Theresa Heinz is too arrogant and above it all because she speaks her mind, which is also supposed to mean that Kerry can’t be any good either for pickin’ such a bad wife)”
“I gotta say Bush’s speech was very focused and well articulated…(which is supposed to mean that George really got it all together enough at the RNC to really put the nails in the Democratic campaign coffin and plus answer any questions anybody could possible still have about his leadership)”
“Well, I’m not so happy with the way things are, but…whaddya gonna do?...(which is supposed to mean that hey you can’t switch parties now when the goin’ gets tough…and be a bad American, or worse: a bad Republican, or worser: a new Democrat)”I’m sure glad for Garrison writing something like that. For me, he’s really startin’ to make some sense out of all this stuff flyin’ around.
I say, get them out. Now. They done enough harm. There are no heros there. Ever since the morning of 9/11, they been dead wrong.
Posted by Leif Arntzen on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:24 PM Scott, part of the amazing arrogance of Leftwing ignorance, like this needed restating, is that Government’s 10% return on tax-paid investment is better for the general population, especially when important stuff like medicine is concerned.
Damned if we can remember how to take care of ourselves or our families, or the folks down the street if/when we have another thirty or forty percent of our incomes back in our packets due to lower taxes, eh? I mean, without Washington telling us how to distribute resources, what kind of shape would we be in.
But I’m being a smartass. We already all know this yet about half of us insist it just ain’t so. That, magically, THIS TIME it’ll be different. This time, just before the cliff, we’ll yank the wheel back and avoid a complete descent into dependency.
And of course, none of this could possibly have to do with ethics, or religion, of personal philosophies because, hey, they’re all the same under the skin.
Postmodern relativist lemmings. Absolutely stating there are no absolutes. Thank God for Bush; not because Bush is any kind of consistent Conservative realist with any evident Constitutional ideals, but because he, like the Kerry Kamp, ironically, isn’t the Other Guy Who Would be King.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:27 PM Winning isn’t everything? Great. I can’t wait to lose every game I play from now on. I can’t wait to see us lose every war we ever fight. I’m sorry we won WWI, WW2, The Korean War, etc. Life would be so much better if we had never won any war.
Posted by Mike on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:28 PM “These days, Democrats value families by…encouraging policies that bring estranged families together rather than keep them apart.”
I got news, Bernie: Government is in up to it’s neck, like a pig in shit, in the INDUSTRY of tearing up families in family court. It makes BILLIONS.
Just this week our largely Libertarian (anti-authoritarian, that is) friends filed in nearly every state lawsuits that each had set up a blatantly unconstitutional system of (1) legally kidnapping children from parents and (2) legally stealing financial resources from one parent to give to the other.
There literally aren’t words to describe the horror of American “family law” procedures. Some THOUSANDS of parents have already comitted suicide due to the stress of losing everything to the State in this country. Anything I could offer would fall far short of adequately describing this outrage.
Yet it is Government that usurps this absolute power and makes these moral and deeply personal choices for us.
Is there a solitary Democrat in sight of the protest movement against Big Government’s pillaging of the family? How about those civil rights, Keillor? ACLU got on this yet?
Heck, even the Pubbies can’t muster a claim on Government based on their supposed convictions of less is more when it comes to Federal Nannyism.
What a rotting cesspool we’ve become. And why? Because we gave up our rights. We walked in and handed them over. What do each of you realistially think it’ll take to get em back?
HillaryCare?
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:38 PM Damn, I’m never going to get on the road unless I turn this computer off. But before I go, just a quick shout-out to my friends “Why Bother To Vote” Scott (hope your panties are a bit looser this afternoon) and old “Fire and Brimstone (just for the noise of it)” PopGun.
First to Scott: We’re Democrats, not Constitutionalists. We want our broad and inclusive shared ideals and values to inform government policies and practices, not to re-define it rigidly with the crude oil and hairspray paste that runs in your veins or to re-write its foundations every time we find another group whose racist and homophobic oppression wins us more polling points among the unwashed. And with your last post, that seems to include most families who live outside gated communities also, be they Cuban, the elderly or otherwise. And I’ll sleep well tonight (if I can ever get to Atlanta), knowing that I’m doing what I can to keep this democracy alive. And that certainly doesn’t include discouraging anyone (on this thread, on the streets or in churches) from voting. So please, shut up and sing “... sweet land of Liberty…”
And for PopGun: Jesus, guy, practice what you’ve been preaching at us for two days. Your hyperventilating screed is getting a bit much, or is it just me in my new-found “why can’t we all just get along” world-view who would like you to turn down the volume? Your hollering at us does warm us up (though I, for one, would suggest breath mints), but it does little to enlighten us. However, you have posed some interesting questions and since Kinko’s is open all night in Atlanta, I’ll respond then to the hypotheticals you posed. But others, please keep jumping in here.
Finally to Brooks: I hope you’re still working on a cogent (and well-researched) set of answers to the only set of questions I have ever posed to you (last night). If you’re stuck between your beliefs, your practices and your flustered misreading of CDC publications, here’s a hint to you (and to “tight panties” and PopGun above): Government is not all bad. It exists primarily to help us solve our common problems, the identification of which should occur in a consensual and (despite this Administration) a multipartisan fashion.
Repeat after me: ‘Government is not all bad. But if it is, I won’t vote next November (or this November) to legitimize the process.’ There, I’m even beginning to sound like a Repub-liban myself. (And that’s a sign that maybe I need to drink a little less of this “respect all opinions” elixir that I swallowed this morning before I gag and vomit.) Time to go—I can’t afford another speeding ticket, because I already give enough to the welfare state. (Help me, help me, someone!! I’m slowly melting into a pool of crude oil and anarchic crud.)
Posted by Bernie Ellis on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:42 PM It’s this kind of rhetoric that will get Bush re-elected. Let’s hope John Kerry can come up with a better approach than this preaching to the converted, this purgatory of endless unsupported lists and witless name-calling. What hogwash!
Posted by Abigail Connard on Sep 7, 2004 at 9:50 PM Bernie wrote: “Damn, I’m never going to get on the road unless I turn this computer off. But before I go, just a quick shout-out to my friends “Why Bother To Vote” Scott (hope your panties are a bit looser this afternoon) and old “Fire and Brimstone (just for the noise of it)” PopGun.”
—————
Bernie, have a safe and rewarding trip to Atlanta. Best of luck managing your dementia, and may your useless endeavors provide you with the illusion of purpose. And don’t forget to pack your lithium.
Sincerely,
Scott
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:11 PM I’ve been real busy taking responsibility for myself today, so I didn’t have time to check back until now. Bernie is taking most of the shots, as usual, but I think he has broad shoulders, so he can handle it. Nobody on the R side has had the cojones to step up to the plate and tell us how they earn a living, which I find fascinating…particularly since so many of them seem to be off work during the day.
Scott, since Florida 2000 is back on the table, could we distinguish between people who registered to vote and people who actually did? Do you have any evidence that people who are registered in two places actually voted in both? I would imagine, given Florida’s demographics, that many of those voters were ‘snowbirds’ who vote in different places at different times of the year. They may not realize that this is not legal, thinking that if they’re not voting in both places, they have not violated the law. I can imagine if they own homes in both places, they would think this was appropriate. So let’s try to distinguish between voter registration irregularities and voter fraud as constituted by voting twice in the same election.
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:14 PM Hi—
I’m the guy who’s been posting the occasional TOME;-) on keeping all the industrial democracies inside the tent when it comes to our—and the world’s—efforts against Al Qaeda.
I want to thank Bernie and Joanne for the kind words they’ve written concerning my overlong ramblings.
As one who is now leaning to Kerry, I want, most especially, to thank two in the Bush camp who took some time to exchange a few thoughtful reflections: Jonathan and MN. MN was particularly plucky in that he went through my entire “article” (so to speak…...) on Page 16—WHEW!
This current posting, for a change, is not about intellectual frou-frou (mea culpa) but a good hearty laugh. I’m ready to go out on a limb and say I have a feeling this will be hugely enjoyed by all here on both sides of the “aisle”:
http://images.shockwave.com/afassets/flash/this_land.swf
Cheers,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:15 PM FYI - Geoff: I wasn’t thinking of you at all when I used the term ‘intellectual frou-frou!
Posted by Joanne Roush on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:24 PM Joanne—
Oh, I know that—but I was when I read it <GG>!
Cheers,
Geoff
Posted by Geoff on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:25 PM 6Gun, I sense that you’re every bit as annoyed and perplexed as I am regarding liberals and their indefensible agenda. And the extent to which they just do not get it is like one of those car wrecks that is at once a horrifying site and at the same time impossible to ignore.
Anyway, I’ve had a good time seeing that your posts have consistently left the enlightened people of nuance with little to say but to utter various Bernie-isms. Well done, 6Gun!
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:30 PM All political parties are competing for minds of the people. The Bush/Cheney ticket, however, not only wants your mind, but your balls as well. These clever fellows already have great numbers people in their greedy hands, highly conditioned robots repeating the slogans told them by their Masters. Is this not reminiscent of times past: the1930’s…Germany. There are great plans afoot for the Masters. Little do the robots who are now marching to the the Bush/Cheney drumbeat know that they, too, will be victims.
Let us strike a blow for (hopefully) a better America and a better world and support the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
I’m for
Posted by Robert Stadille on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:35 PM I was just struck with yet another great idea. Instead of electing John Kerry to be President, why don’t we just cut out the middleman altogether and elect the French government. That way, they can dictate our foreign policy to us directly, en francais, and John Kerry can just do whatever it is he does best…whatever that may be.
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:43 PM Bernie claims the government that wages war, sets borders, enforces laws, and taxes us into oblivion ain’t all bad. Like I say, Leftism is a smoke and mirrors show, all shamelessly tied up in appearances. There’s no there, there.
Here’s what happens when Benovolent Government makes a industry out of divorce and custody. I urge all fairminded and rights-oriented Americans to participate in the terrorism going on in our own backyards:
http://www.indianacrc.org/
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:55 PM Robert Stadille wrote: “The Bush/Cheney ticket, however, not only wants your mind, but your balls as well. These clever fellows already have great numbers people in their greedy hands, highly conditioned robots repeating the slogans told them by their Masters. Is this not reminiscent of times past: the1930’s…Germany.”
—————
Robert, I believe congratulations are in order! Unless I’m mistaken, I think you may have just won the “Liberal of the Day” award for posting the first “Republicans are Nazis” ad hominem attack on this page of the thread. And I think you also get a few bonus points for offering absolutely no support for your various cliched and over-the-top assertions. The ruling committee has decided however that you cannot be awarded a “Perfect 10”, because in the category of originality you came up short. But still, a fine and commendable effort on your part. Well done!
Posted by Scott on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:01 PM “Is this not reminiscent of times past: the1930’s…Germany”
Hey dumbass, ever hear of Godwin’s law?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Posted by Josh on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:10 PM I was an avowed Republican until this past year, when this current presidency smashed into the wall of its own incompetence. It is a terrible feeling to be completely disillusioned by someone that you put your trust in and your support behind. This piece puts the decline of the Grand Old Party into eloquent perspective. What DID happen to the good ol’ days?
Posted by Burt Mejor on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:10 PM More hypocritical tripe from the elitist left, I see. While I too have enjoyed Mr. Keilor over the years, his tongue-in-cheek rhetoric has recently gone over the top. Of course, am I to believe that only the GOP has become a force of evil? Seems to me that the Democrat Party has shifted gears a wee bit too. Now it’s the party of special interest groups, blame America firsters, and socialist apologists. The Republic will be no more if the current President is re-elected? Me thinks not…after all, it survived eight years of W.J. Clinton, didn’t it? Schools are going down the tubes?...not because of a lack of funding…more likely because of a liberal focus on everything BUT giving our children an education…better to teach them about two mommies or condom installation than about non-revisionist history and mathematics, at least in the apparent liberal mindset. The “party of equality and free speech,” ie the Democrats, have become the party of hate and indignation…and you have the hypocritical nerve to point finger at the GOP. Garrison, you and your supporters here may have an excuse for your ignorance, but none for your lack of shame.
Posted by Robert on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:11 PM Thanks, Scott. I stand by my theory that Leftism is where dysfunctionals go; it’s simply not a valid political dialogue anymore.
To be a Liberal these days is to deny reality, endulge spectacle, cast ad hominem aspersions, create victimizing stereotypes, and carry on with a Keillor-like showbiz arrogance that begs description.
Socialists are obvious thieves who lie to suit their tyrannical ends. Does this not make them pathologically dishonest? And do we not know from experience that the pathological dishonesty from the Socialist American Left is intractable? Incurable? Appearances-centric Clinton still blames to this day his own weakness—as if it were some parasite beyond his control—for lying to us all.
They call this perversion diversity. As with all things leftwing, it’s not about the substance of it; it’s about the keeping up of appearances.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:12 PM Interesting! It seems that some of the “ultra-manly” independent types here have been here all day….Do you right-wingers work anywhere, or do you take your afternoon tea in your mommy’s basement?
Or….are you a part of the “cafe society” that those French are so fond of, Scotty?
Dites-moi, s’il vous plait….
Just wondering….
Posted by Anna on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:13 PM Whoa, somebody yanked Anna’s cord.
Actually dear, while I do enjoy a spot of Earl Grey at mom’s (my being into solid family values and all) I work two jobs and earn well, making me certainly not wealthy but certainly above the average. Both endeavors are home-office based and one is my own company. I do it in order to grant my 13 year old daughter both an education and a future, again my being all traditional and such.
Don’t recall ever spending any time in France, although I got a kick out of the other half-dozen intercontinental trips I’ve been fortunate enough to have made. Interestingly, THEY love us more than many of US do, if you catch my drift.
Posted by 6Gun on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:21 PM BBGun,
Nobody “yanked” my cord, but I got your attention, eh?....it just seems rather dysfunctional (let alone not too bright) to label half the country “dysfunctional,” do you not think? And your daughter, if she is fortunate enough to go to college, will interact with all kinds of people — not just those holdng her family’s views. Are you “preparing” her by telling her that anyone left of W is a “dysfunctional,” “tyrannical” zero? Will that really help her? And what if she does not agree with you — is that acceptible to you —ever?
Posted by Anna on Sep 7, 2004 at 11:27 PM Good luck Bernie! Bless you in your travels cause Georgia is getting soaked tonight!
Good luck to all!
I hope anyone truly interested in a variety of reactions will read through the entire thread to see the totality of heartfelt opinions and facts and philosophy. This forum is unedited, and uncensored so it is unsurprising to see the best in human behavior and ideals and the worst.
Posted by daydreamer on Sep 8, 2004 at 12:22 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Garrison Keillor
- A Foul Tragedy
Democrats fled in the face of danger - We’re Not in Lake Wobegon Anymore
How did the Party of Lincoln and Liberty transmogrify into the party of Newt Gingrich’s evil spawn and their Etch-A-Sketch president, a dull and rigid man, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
