You know, the Citizen is constantly amazed that the Left is as self-destructively focused on offering up truly flawed spokespersons, one after another, without ever, finally, waking up to that failing and actually requiring of their spokespeople that they pass some basic tests: be able to speak clearly; be able to speak coherently; and to be able to speak in a way that actually, dare we say it, makes sense?
Take Cindy Sheehan (please take her, preferably someplace quiet and where her rhetoric can't hurt anyone). The background, for those who don't know it: her son went to Iraq and died, and now she's an indignant and angry person who leads anti-war rallies and who serves as the darling of the (left-leaning, or at least anti-right) media. Nothing wrong with that. Her words state that as a mother, she has the obligation to speak up for what she thinks and why she's offended at her son's death. That's also fine. The problem is the rest of it.
For instance, Mrs. Sheehan evidently thinks that she's the only mother entitled to an opinion, since she shouts down other mothers who have dead sons from the Iraq war who disagree with her. We won't touch the hypocrisy there -- it's okay if you're Cindy Sheehan, but if you're another mother whose son died in Iraq and you, like the son himself, support the cause of being there, then you aren't allowed to speak and shouldn't be "hogging the microphone". A moment's weakness on Mrs. Sheehan's part? Nope. Let's remember that she called the hurricanes that ravaged the South, killed many, and left literally hundreds of thousands of people damaged... she called them "little bits of wind and water" as she whined that she couldn't get press coverage like the fawning she was getting throughout the Summer. Poor Mrs. Sheehan couldn't get the microphone anymore, and evidently she of the pristine motivations (if you listen to her describing herself) couldn't be bothered to feel anything for those hundreds of thousands of people who were hurt, killed, and lost everything in the storms.
We also have Mrs. Sheehan, whose son did not believe as she does, gifting us with her views on world politics. For instance, it's all a "Jewish conspiracy". We should support the Palestinians who never did anything wrong, in her world-view, against the evil tyrants of the Jews. We should realise that it was a Jewish cabal that led George Bush into war in Iraq. Oh, let's keep listening the most recent example of horrific bigotry and Anti-semitism that is Mrs. Sheehen. Or, let's not - and actually keep our sanity intact, thank you.
For all of it, the part that most offends the Citizen is that she allows no room for the mothers who mobilized to express their opposition to her and her viewpoints - after all, there can be only one offended mother, and that's Mrs. Sheehan, and no one else is allowed the time to talk or the capacity to actually be right. When her group made little crosses and put the names of the dead on them, and stood over those crosses and announced that they were speaking for these people, they evidently forgot to make sure that they were in fact speaking for them. A score of mothers descended on there and pulled up the stakes that represented THEIR children, for whom Mrs. Sheehan does NOT speak, and they stood in front of the press and rightly and correctly denounced the arrogance of Mrs. Sheehan in doing this. And what did our brave and pitiable Mrs. Sheehan do? She had her people put new stakes in the ground, once again with those same names on them. After all, it's not about what those individuals thought, nor what their mothers think. It's only important that SHE, the only mother who's allowed to be offended, who is the only one allowed to think or dare to be right about these things, does what SHE wants to. Lord forbid she actually have any real emotion, any real sympathy for the dead, any real thoughts at all about the other mothers who also lost sons and daughters. After all, through her actions, she's shown she doesn't care at all about any of them -- she cares only for Mrs. Cindy Sheehan, herself.
Let's not forget her sense of country. Quote: "I'm going all over this country telling moms: 'This country is not worth dying for'". We have to assume, given her comments in support of Islamic Jihad, that supporting terrorist baby-killers who murder children in restaurants are worth supporting and dying for. Yikes.
Or: "We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances." Um, Mrs. Sheehan? You might want to be bothered to, say, take a few seconds of time and go to an elementary school, where they can introduce you to some rather strange concepts like "checks and balances" and how the Constitution works. Here's a clue, since you evidently lack the capacity to check your own facts: just because you disagree with a President, does not make the President a criminal, nor does it mean the Constitution, which is in full power here, no longer exists. Such wild statements that have no bearing on reality only reinforce the opinions of those who look at her words and find her... frighteningly ignorant.
But we can go on, since she provides nothing if not a steady stream of extremist, anti-Semitic, empty-headed comments that are only frightening when we realise how many people just cheer-lead for her:
"It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country." -- Um, Mrs. Sheehan? We've not launched or used a single nuclear weapon, to constitute a "nuclear war", in Iraq. Nor have we, in context of your statement, contaminated Iraq with nuclear after-effects.
"I will stay here until George Bush talks to me. We're not leaving here until he speaks to me at last, which he hasn't done yet!" -- Umm, Mrs. Sheehan? I have to assume grief is such that it causes terrific memory losses, since Mrs. Sheehan and George Bush did in fact already have a meeting, earlier in the year. But hey, the rhetoric wouldn't be as good if she acknowledged reality, would it?
Poster held by one of Mrs. Sheehan's group: "We support our troops when they shoot their own generals." -- The Citizen will not even respond to this, given how utterly disgusting and reprehensible it is. The Citizen prefers to allow Mrs. Sheehan and her ilk to wallow in their self-degredation, if they insist on spouting this sort of viewponit.
And the final quote from Mrs. Sheehan, with context:
Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture. "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." And, later: "That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said (referring to the personal meeting the President instigated, by inviting the Sheehan family as a whole to meet with him).
And Cindy Sheehan on George Bush a few months later: "Every time we tried to talk about Casey and how much we missed him, he would change the subject. And he acted like it was a party."
And Mrs. Sheehan later: "And I'm gonna say, "And you tell me, what the noble cause is that my son died for." And if he even starts to say freedom and democracy' I'm gonna say, bullshit." -- from her Address to Veterans for Peace Convention, August 8, 2005.
And of course we can't ignore her comments that the whole war effort was "only about oil" (yup, we invaded Iraq so we could get cheaper oil -- so, I'll remember her genuis the next time I'm paying nearly three times as much as I was before the war. And I'll happily count how the U.S. has annexed Iraq and taken all the oil for ourselves -- oh, yes, that's right: none of that happened.).
So we have Mrs. Sheehan on the record praising the President for his religious faith, as sincere -- until she became aware that she could become a spokesperson for the antiWar Left. Then, we get the other Mrs. Sheehan -- whose own words are specifically contradicated by the earliest Mrs. Sheehan. Let's call them Cindy Version 1 and Cindy Version 2, since the two versions, by their own words, don't agree with one another.
There are plenty of places to find nice, documented Cindy Sheehan quotes. They're all equally offensive. Anyone who calls for the murder of U.S. Generals by their own troops, and states support for such action; anyone who thinks that we went to war "for oil" (which has become more expensive, not less; and for those with an ounce of intelligence, if we wanted oil, we would have made more deals with Hussein and lifted the ban instead of deposing him, as that would have actually given us a more-stable source of oil at cheaper prices... but again, it wouldn't make as nice a Left-side rhetoric piece, would it, to acknowledge reality?); anyone who uses her own grief for political purposes, and refuses to allow other mothers to do the same when they disagree with her... is not someone that anyone should be following. It is someone, however, who should be pitied and who needs deep counseling. And, preferably, some lessons on basic and consistent logic.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
The Republicans in Power, or how to prove you are what your opponents call you
The Outrage meter has peaked. You can't have missed the many, many commercials for various law firms offering to help you with bankruptcy "before the new laws go into effect." Well, ring the bell -- they're now in effect. And that's a profoud tragedy, and a probably-lasting negative for the Republican Party.
What should a bankruptcy system for individuals look like? It should offer a safety net to those who, for reasons of health, long-term job loss, and other reasonable dilemmas, find themselves unable to keep up with their bills. It should protect them from the moment they file, and it should offer, if the case is severe enough, the capacity to wipe away existing debt with the corresponding negative of having a bankruptcy filing on your credit report for six years. I would go farther, and suggest bank loans that are geared to HELP an individual recover and become a productive member of society again, rather than making those exact people only able to get the worst interest rates, the worst support, etc.
Our current system takes someone who, for instance, can't work for eighteen months because of injury or health debacle, and leads them through bankruptcy... and then shreds them by leaving them high and dry. Not only high and dry, but that poor individual will now find it next-to-impossible to get any real help under terms that are doable -- he'll face only the highest interest rates and the like. We have a system that adds misery to financial disaster instead of helping mitigate it and overcome it.
And now, courtesy of the Republican Party in power, we have revisions to the bankruptcy laws that achieve exactly two things: it makes it far worse for someone in that debacle, and it gives to mortgage and credit companies who are already making tons of cash the ability to put serious hurt on those people who do fall into financial debacles. The system now offers little protection to those who file for the first few vulnerable weeks, while you go through the idiotic, over-complicated layers and steps to get to the court, so that your creditors, whom the court notifies immediately, can now swoop in and take away your house, etc. Thank you, Republicans, for screwing people when they're down. You've just made yourselves into exactly what Democrats have accused you of for years: being almost hyperactively against the poor and middle class and totally pro-business. Actually, in this case, it isn't pro-Business -- it's pro-financial-industry-only. And screw-the-individual, the poor person who perhaps suffered a catastrophic health issue and couldn't work for a year or more. He'll face no protections after he files for a short time, leaving him exposed to the circling sharks; he'll face a ridiculous array of hoops to jump through, including having to take classes in money management (um, the whole point of this is, it wasn't mis-managing money that got him to that point, it was a health disaster that came up unforeseen) and other inanities. After all of that lunacy, he may find that he can't get rid of his debts, because the new "formula" judges have to use is so arcane and twisted to achieving a pre-determined end (keeping people out of Chapter 11 and increasing the Chapter 7 filings, whereby debt is not wiped out and very little real help is offered).
So here's to the Republican Party, champion of the financial industry, beater of the downtrodden, for specifically and deliberately targetting the poor, the middle class, and anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in a position to have to file for bankruptcy in the misguided thought that the government might actually HELP them instead of adding to their misery. Under this Republican administration and this Republican Congress, don't delude yourself -- they don't care, and they have now taken specific actions to make sure that, at your worst moment, when all is darkest, the government (courtesy of Republicans) will now make sure to add to your misery rather than mitigate it or assist you with it.
Cheers, Republican Party! (sarcasm intended)
Okay, sarcasm off. (click) Do yourself a favor, Republicans, independents. If you can tolerate the Democratic candidate in your district, and the Republican in your district voted for this atrocity, VOTE HIM/HER OUT. In general, my votes have tended to fall more into the Republican category than Democrats, but there are time when that isn't the case. As when I lived in Louisiana and voted for J. Bennett Johnson, Dem., for U.S. Senator (twice). And now, if my area will serve up Democrats that are palatable, they will flatly have earned my vote -- and the Republicans will have specifically earned my contempt.
This does lead me to another conclusion, for another argument on another day: that the U.S. is best served with a Republican White House (more consistent foreign policy, who actually recognize that people out there hate the U.S. and do kill its citizens, etc.) and a Democratic Congress (whose far-left impulses are checked by the White House). We tend to get better laws that actually help people and build a better Republic under that organization than we do when either side controls all the levers of power.
What should a bankruptcy system for individuals look like? It should offer a safety net to those who, for reasons of health, long-term job loss, and other reasonable dilemmas, find themselves unable to keep up with their bills. It should protect them from the moment they file, and it should offer, if the case is severe enough, the capacity to wipe away existing debt with the corresponding negative of having a bankruptcy filing on your credit report for six years. I would go farther, and suggest bank loans that are geared to HELP an individual recover and become a productive member of society again, rather than making those exact people only able to get the worst interest rates, the worst support, etc.
Our current system takes someone who, for instance, can't work for eighteen months because of injury or health debacle, and leads them through bankruptcy... and then shreds them by leaving them high and dry. Not only high and dry, but that poor individual will now find it next-to-impossible to get any real help under terms that are doable -- he'll face only the highest interest rates and the like. We have a system that adds misery to financial disaster instead of helping mitigate it and overcome it.
And now, courtesy of the Republican Party in power, we have revisions to the bankruptcy laws that achieve exactly two things: it makes it far worse for someone in that debacle, and it gives to mortgage and credit companies who are already making tons of cash the ability to put serious hurt on those people who do fall into financial debacles. The system now offers little protection to those who file for the first few vulnerable weeks, while you go through the idiotic, over-complicated layers and steps to get to the court, so that your creditors, whom the court notifies immediately, can now swoop in and take away your house, etc. Thank you, Republicans, for screwing people when they're down. You've just made yourselves into exactly what Democrats have accused you of for years: being almost hyperactively against the poor and middle class and totally pro-business. Actually, in this case, it isn't pro-Business -- it's pro-financial-industry-only. And screw-the-individual, the poor person who perhaps suffered a catastrophic health issue and couldn't work for a year or more. He'll face no protections after he files for a short time, leaving him exposed to the circling sharks; he'll face a ridiculous array of hoops to jump through, including having to take classes in money management (um, the whole point of this is, it wasn't mis-managing money that got him to that point, it was a health disaster that came up unforeseen) and other inanities. After all of that lunacy, he may find that he can't get rid of his debts, because the new "formula" judges have to use is so arcane and twisted to achieving a pre-determined end (keeping people out of Chapter 11 and increasing the Chapter 7 filings, whereby debt is not wiped out and very little real help is offered).
So here's to the Republican Party, champion of the financial industry, beater of the downtrodden, for specifically and deliberately targetting the poor, the middle class, and anyone unfortunate enough to find themselves in a position to have to file for bankruptcy in the misguided thought that the government might actually HELP them instead of adding to their misery. Under this Republican administration and this Republican Congress, don't delude yourself -- they don't care, and they have now taken specific actions to make sure that, at your worst moment, when all is darkest, the government (courtesy of Republicans) will now make sure to add to your misery rather than mitigate it or assist you with it.
Cheers, Republican Party! (sarcasm intended)
Okay, sarcasm off. (click) Do yourself a favor, Republicans, independents. If you can tolerate the Democratic candidate in your district, and the Republican in your district voted for this atrocity, VOTE HIM/HER OUT. In general, my votes have tended to fall more into the Republican category than Democrats, but there are time when that isn't the case. As when I lived in Louisiana and voted for J. Bennett Johnson, Dem., for U.S. Senator (twice). And now, if my area will serve up Democrats that are palatable, they will flatly have earned my vote -- and the Republicans will have specifically earned my contempt.
This does lead me to another conclusion, for another argument on another day: that the U.S. is best served with a Republican White House (more consistent foreign policy, who actually recognize that people out there hate the U.S. and do kill its citizens, etc.) and a Democratic Congress (whose far-left impulses are checked by the White House). We tend to get better laws that actually help people and build a better Republic under that organization than we do when either side controls all the levers of power.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Al Gore, his words, and the difficulty of being truthful
I first considered writing something about Al Gore's historic difficulty in being honest after the truly offensive 1996 acceptance speech before the Democratic convention. I didn't have a mechanism, and as a simple poor college student, I didn't have the time either.
Now I do, and yet, I think I'm going to just let Al's own words do the speaking here. I'll interject, where it's not blatantly obvious, to point to the lie in the words, but for the most part the absurdity is plain, simple, documented Al Gore.
To begin:
1) Facts: Al Gore's sister died in 1984. In 1988 (this would be four years later): "Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." Source? Newsday, 2/26/88.
1996: Al Gore stands up at the Democratic convention and rails against "Big Tobacco", and stirs up emotions and causes much weeping when he goes on about how his sister died of cancer caused by tobacco and how that changed his life. He does this to take advantage of the left-side "Big Tobacco as villain" rage.
Problem: AFTER his sister's death, he continued to: grow tobacco and profit from it; publicly stated that he was proud of his tobacco heritage and that his family grew and sold tobacco; take contributions from Philip Morris (Big Tobacco). And those nasty little FACTS contradict the weepy story he wove at the convention in 1996, since he couldn't have been "changed" by his sister's death, aka changed against tobacco's evils... and then take pride in raising and selling tobacco and having a tobacco heritage four years AFTER her death.
Conclusion: this is just sickening, to deliberately lie about the order of events and how his sister's death "changed him" from supporting tobacco to opposing it -- when his actions, words, and financing were all pro-tobacco for years and years afterward.
2) Honesty in Government, or how Al Gore would treat politicians who lied under oath and to the American people:
Quote: "Any government official who lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately". Source: Seattle Times, July 29, 1987.
Quote: "I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense in the White House." Source: Seattle Times, July 29, 1987.
The problem, of course, is that Mr. Gore here must be talking about the standard he'd apply to only Republican White Houses, since he held up President Clinton, after it was public and indisputable knowledge that he had lied not only to Congress but had stood up before the American citizens and specifically and deliberately LIED to them, as the "one of our greatest Presidents" (rally on Dec. 19, 1998). So, he would fire immediately "any government official who lies", making that point because he at that time understood that a public official who lies to the public on any topic is a public official whose interests are not the public's but their own. Along comes President Clinton, and Mr. Gore's modest and honorable standards, as shown by his own words above, are completely and utterly forgotten. Chalk it up again to Al Gore choosing political expediency and his own political neck over simple honesty (and for that matter being consistent to his own publicly-stated principles).
3) The self-proclaimed genius of the Environment and science! These quotes are fine if you're the average-Joe who doesn't walk around touting his excellent knowledge of the environment and all-things environmental, but if you do sound off at how great you are and how knowledgeable you are, then it's incumbent upon you to actually SHOW that knowledge and NOT make constant factual errors about the topic. Enjoy:
Al Gore on Trees:
Quote: "When we come here, we see the Longpole pine and the Douglas fir." Source: Al Gore, speech for Yellowstone's 125th anniversary, Albright Visitor's Center, August 17, 1997. (For the record, it's Lodgepole Pine, there's no such thing as Longpole pine.)
Al Gore on Breast Cancer:
Quote: how breast cancer victims faced "a long waiting line before they could get a biopsy... or, uh, a sonogram..." Source: MSNBC, 9/21/00, The News with Brian Williams. (For the record, breast cancer victims are not interested in sonograms, they're interested in mammiograms.)
Al Gore on doing Basic Math:
Quote: from his 2000 Democratic Convention acceptance speech, where he claimed the "Bush tax cut would save the average family 62 cents per week." He was using his vaunted science and math skills, as a thinker, to show how Bush wasn't helping the poor or middle class. Only problem? His math was off. He admitted that later, saying it was 62 cents per family per day ... which is, surprise surprise, also wrong. The Bush tax plan during the campaign was verified by the various financial bodies of Congress, BEFORE Mr. Gore went forth with his claim, as coming out to $29 per family per week.
Al Gore on how to be an expert in an environmental field:
Quote: "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about." Source: June 18, 2000, Atlanta Journal Constitution. (problem? Now we're experts if we sleep for one night in someone's barn -- wow, I'm going to go sleep in an abandoned nuclear silo and become a nuclear scientist!!!)
Al Gore's famous statement on the Internet:
Quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Source: Al Gore, on CNN, interview with Wolf Blitzer, March 9, 1999.
Problem? The Internet existed well before Al Gore entered Congress (email, file-sharing via UUCP, etc), making it a simple impossibility for him to "take the initiative in creating" it. Can't create that which already exists. But evidently you can try to claim it, no matter how untrue (and patently ridiculous) the assertion is. Or how easily disproved the assertion is. That's also sad: that he'd say something like this when it's chronologically false and takes five seconds to disprove!
Al Gore, on Zebras (basic ability to look at pictures, animal knowledge, etc.):
Quote: "A zebra does not change his spots." Source: Al Gore attacking George Bush in 1992.
Problem? Zebras don't have spots. Take three seconds to pick up a picture-book for children and look at it. Or, like the rest of us who aren't self-proclaimed knowledge-gods about everything, just remember it from seeing pictures of zebras.
3) Random Stupidity that would be shameful from any public official:
Quote: Al Gore, Monticello, before the inauguration, actually asked who the statues were around them -- and the statues? Busts of the founding fathers. Complete with nameplates.
Quote: "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. "I share your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our environment ... "Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I look forward to working with you for the future of our planet." Source: reported in the 12/6/96 Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" by John McCaslin. Problem? The Texas Eagle that the elderly Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo had been complaining about is actually a TRAIN, an Amtrak train that the couple relied on to travel to see their children in Chicago that the Clinton administration was nixing. When confronted with the couples complaint about an Amtrak train, the self-proclaimed genius Al Gore wrote the letter above. Way to go, Al! Right on target! (might have helped if he'd read their complaint, I guess).
Well, that's enough for now. The problem is, a simple search for Al Gore's own words and the self-contradicting nature of them turns up so many, literally THOUSANDS of times where he couldn't get basic facts right, forgets what he's talking about, or in the one I didn't use above, calls Mary and Joseph "homeless" when they brought the baby Jesus to Bethlehem -- and, for those who didn't know, Mary and Joseph owned their own home and were making a family-culture-related pilgrimmage (for lack of better words) to Bethlehem for the child's birth. But again, that would require Mr. Gore to either: know what he's talking about in the first place; or take ten seconds to look up the information so he doesn't look stupid. Given that he continues to this day to stand by the truth of his words and continues to give us more and more statements as above, I guess it is too much to ask that he do either one.
Oh, one last one, just because I can: the environmental-wizard that is Al Gore, the self-proclaimed specialist, called the Washington Post's editor in 1998 to warn him that he'd "printed a picture of the Earth upside-down on the front page" (Source: Florida Times Union, 4/3/98). The problem, for those not as knowledgeable as our Mr. Gore? There is no "up" or "down" in space and there cannot be a picture of the Earth "upside-down". To call and warn someone they were doing so demonstrates the true depth of Mr. Gore's knowledge -- which is scanty and superficial.
The Citizen will continue with more of Mr. Gore in a few weeks. Next up, the new bankruptcy rules, or how Republicans betrayed the American people and justified all the bad things Democrats say about them.
Now I do, and yet, I think I'm going to just let Al's own words do the speaking here. I'll interject, where it's not blatantly obvious, to point to the lie in the words, but for the most part the absurdity is plain, simple, documented Al Gore.
To begin:
1) Facts: Al Gore's sister died in 1984. In 1988 (this would be four years later): "Throughout most of my life, I've raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put in the plant beds and transferred it. I've hoed it. I've dug it. I've sprayed it, I've chopped it, I've shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it." Source? Newsday, 2/26/88.
1996: Al Gore stands up at the Democratic convention and rails against "Big Tobacco", and stirs up emotions and causes much weeping when he goes on about how his sister died of cancer caused by tobacco and how that changed his life. He does this to take advantage of the left-side "Big Tobacco as villain" rage.
Problem: AFTER his sister's death, he continued to: grow tobacco and profit from it; publicly stated that he was proud of his tobacco heritage and that his family grew and sold tobacco; take contributions from Philip Morris (Big Tobacco). And those nasty little FACTS contradict the weepy story he wove at the convention in 1996, since he couldn't have been "changed" by his sister's death, aka changed against tobacco's evils... and then take pride in raising and selling tobacco and having a tobacco heritage four years AFTER her death.
Conclusion: this is just sickening, to deliberately lie about the order of events and how his sister's death "changed him" from supporting tobacco to opposing it -- when his actions, words, and financing were all pro-tobacco for years and years afterward.
2) Honesty in Government, or how Al Gore would treat politicians who lied under oath and to the American people:
Quote: "Any government official who lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately". Source: Seattle Times, July 29, 1987.
Quote: "I seek this office to restore the rule of law and respect for common sense in the White House." Source: Seattle Times, July 29, 1987.
The problem, of course, is that Mr. Gore here must be talking about the standard he'd apply to only Republican White Houses, since he held up President Clinton, after it was public and indisputable knowledge that he had lied not only to Congress but had stood up before the American citizens and specifically and deliberately LIED to them, as the "one of our greatest Presidents" (rally on Dec. 19, 1998). So, he would fire immediately "any government official who lies", making that point because he at that time understood that a public official who lies to the public on any topic is a public official whose interests are not the public's but their own. Along comes President Clinton, and Mr. Gore's modest and honorable standards, as shown by his own words above, are completely and utterly forgotten. Chalk it up again to Al Gore choosing political expediency and his own political neck over simple honesty (and for that matter being consistent to his own publicly-stated principles).
3) The self-proclaimed genius of the Environment and science! These quotes are fine if you're the average-Joe who doesn't walk around touting his excellent knowledge of the environment and all-things environmental, but if you do sound off at how great you are and how knowledgeable you are, then it's incumbent upon you to actually SHOW that knowledge and NOT make constant factual errors about the topic. Enjoy:
Al Gore on Trees:
Quote: "When we come here, we see the Longpole pine and the Douglas fir." Source: Al Gore, speech for Yellowstone's 125th anniversary, Albright Visitor's Center, August 17, 1997. (For the record, it's Lodgepole Pine, there's no such thing as Longpole pine.)
Al Gore on Breast Cancer:
Quote: how breast cancer victims faced "a long waiting line before they could get a biopsy... or, uh, a sonogram..." Source: MSNBC, 9/21/00, The News with Brian Williams. (For the record, breast cancer victims are not interested in sonograms, they're interested in mammiograms.)
Al Gore on doing Basic Math:
Quote: from his 2000 Democratic Convention acceptance speech, where he claimed the "Bush tax cut would save the average family 62 cents per week." He was using his vaunted science and math skills, as a thinker, to show how Bush wasn't helping the poor or middle class. Only problem? His math was off. He admitted that later, saying it was 62 cents per family per day ... which is, surprise surprise, also wrong. The Bush tax plan during the campaign was verified by the various financial bodies of Congress, BEFORE Mr. Gore went forth with his claim, as coming out to $29 per family per week.
Al Gore on how to be an expert in an environmental field:
Quote: "I'm very familiar with the importance of dairy farming in Wisconsin. I've spent the night on a dairy farm here in Wisconsin. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, you'll have someone who is very familiar with what the Wisconsin dairy industry is all about." Source: June 18, 2000, Atlanta Journal Constitution. (problem? Now we're experts if we sleep for one night in someone's barn -- wow, I'm going to go sleep in an abandoned nuclear silo and become a nuclear scientist!!!)
Al Gore's famous statement on the Internet:
Quote: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Source: Al Gore, on CNN, interview with Wolf Blitzer, March 9, 1999.
Problem? The Internet existed well before Al Gore entered Congress (email, file-sharing via UUCP, etc), making it a simple impossibility for him to "take the initiative in creating" it. Can't create that which already exists. But evidently you can try to claim it, no matter how untrue (and patently ridiculous) the assertion is. Or how easily disproved the assertion is. That's also sad: that he'd say something like this when it's chronologically false and takes five seconds to disprove!
Al Gore, on Zebras (basic ability to look at pictures, animal knowledge, etc.):
Quote: "A zebra does not change his spots." Source: Al Gore attacking George Bush in 1992.
Problem? Zebras don't have spots. Take three seconds to pick up a picture-book for children and look at it. Or, like the rest of us who aren't self-proclaimed knowledge-gods about everything, just remember it from seeing pictures of zebras.
3) Random Stupidity that would be shameful from any public official:
Quote: Al Gore, Monticello, before the inauguration, actually asked who the statues were around them -- and the statues? Busts of the founding fathers. Complete with nameplates.
Quote: "Dear Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo, Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of the Texas eagle. I appreciate hearing from you. "I share your view that the urgent problem of species extinction and the conservation of biological diversity should be addressed. The first step in saving any plant or animal from extinction is to become aware of and respect the fragile ecosystems that make up our environment ... "Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I look forward to working with you for the future of our planet." Source: reported in the 12/6/96 Washington Times "Inside the Beltway" by John McCaslin. Problem? The Texas Eagle that the elderly Mr. and Mrs. Delgadillo had been complaining about is actually a TRAIN, an Amtrak train that the couple relied on to travel to see their children in Chicago that the Clinton administration was nixing. When confronted with the couples complaint about an Amtrak train, the self-proclaimed genius Al Gore wrote the letter above. Way to go, Al! Right on target! (might have helped if he'd read their complaint, I guess).
Well, that's enough for now. The problem is, a simple search for Al Gore's own words and the self-contradicting nature of them turns up so many, literally THOUSANDS of times where he couldn't get basic facts right, forgets what he's talking about, or in the one I didn't use above, calls Mary and Joseph "homeless" when they brought the baby Jesus to Bethlehem -- and, for those who didn't know, Mary and Joseph owned their own home and were making a family-culture-related pilgrimmage (for lack of better words) to Bethlehem for the child's birth. But again, that would require Mr. Gore to either: know what he's talking about in the first place; or take ten seconds to look up the information so he doesn't look stupid. Given that he continues to this day to stand by the truth of his words and continues to give us more and more statements as above, I guess it is too much to ask that he do either one.
Oh, one last one, just because I can: the environmental-wizard that is Al Gore, the self-proclaimed specialist, called the Washington Post's editor in 1998 to warn him that he'd "printed a picture of the Earth upside-down on the front page" (Source: Florida Times Union, 4/3/98). The problem, for those not as knowledgeable as our Mr. Gore? There is no "up" or "down" in space and there cannot be a picture of the Earth "upside-down". To call and warn someone they were doing so demonstrates the true depth of Mr. Gore's knowledge -- which is scanty and superficial.
The Citizen will continue with more of Mr. Gore in a few weeks. Next up, the new bankruptcy rules, or how Republicans betrayed the American people and justified all the bad things Democrats say about them.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Random Thoughts, Part 2
On Friday the Citizen ranted through a bunch of related but poorly-connected thoughts. Apologies to all. Let me try again:
1. Harriet Miers. No offense is intended to Ms. Miers. She is, by her resume, a capable lawyer. The failings are simple: she has held only one position that required her to deal with constitutional issues, and that was as White House Counsel. And how long did she hold that position? Since midway 2004, or, rephrased, right around a year. Literally no other position she's held -- as head of the Texas Lotto Commission (?! -- one of those "first women" things), one of the staff secretaries at the White House (er, secretary?), and so forth; or as head of the Texas Bar (another "first woman"), which has no inherent value in terms of defining her Constitutional capacities nor requires in any way that she ever think about Constitutional law. Fact: we've found no writings of hers that support a claim that she was a "deep thinker" about Constitutional law (the precise opposite of the flawlessly-qualified John Roberts, whose breadth and volume of dealing with exactly Constitutional issues was enormous and deep). So it is palpably FALSE for the White House to assert that Harriet Miers is the "best person they could find" and "best qualified for the job" -- I can come up with a half-dozen female judges/attorneys and several non-lawyers who have a broader and deeper background in Constitutional law than Ms. Miers. What sets Ms. Miers apart from her competitors? That she's a Friend-of-George. Which is sort of ironic: Friend of George = FOG, which is what this nomination was made in. Conservatives are rightly angered, especially as the White House uses rhetoric that exactly undermines its own assertions in the past about how to judge candidates: by their capacity to think, as evidenced by their writings (oops, she doesn't have any!); by their experience with constitutional law (oops, she has less than one year of experience in that, out of her entire career); that a person be judged not by their sex organ but by their capacity to think and how they think (not the policies, the actual methodologies to their thinking process)... and OOPS, the White House has just gotten done holding her up as "the first woman" this and that, which would be exactly counter-intuitive to the "judge not by sexual organ or skin pigmentation but by mental/philosophical capacities" argument that the Right has trumpeted successfully. Well, it was successful... until a Republican White House started trumping exactly the opposite argument. Huh? I prefer Mr. Bush for his correct decisions regarding foreign policy, and some of his stands on domestic politics (some, by no means all), and he was head-and-shoulders better than Al Gore or John Kerry. But this is simply ridiculous, made moreso every time the White House opens its mouth and offers arguments that shouldn't be coming from any Conservative.
I could care less whether she was the first woman to head the Texas Lotto Commission -- or if she were he and he were the first Chairman of the Right to Surf organization. They're equally as relevant -- which is the point. They need to be talking about her qualifications in terms of actual qualifications for the position in question, which is Supreme Court justice: that she has a history that indicates deep constitutional study and thinking; that she has held at some point positions that lend themselves to constitutional study; that she has a philosophy toward the Constitution that is of the same philosophy that the President promised to appoint, and that there be evidence to show that she has that philosophy. The problem is, they can't talk about those things in specifics -- she doesn't have anything in those categories. They can't talk about her writings, she doesn't have any that relate to the job; can't talk about her constitutional philosophy, because her history has nothing in it to indicate or prove what sort of constitutional scholar (other than that she isn't, which is proveable given the absence of any supporting evidence) she is/will be.
The White House should either: withdraw the nomination NOW and get back to basics, or start immediately justifying the nomination by pointing to and providing the actual evidence that she is a deep Constitutional scholar. Neither is going to happen -- President Bush has among his failings a flawless loyalty that can extend into situations that get him in trouble, like now; and they have no evidence to speak of, because she has no writings/positions/etc. to offer.
Tomorrow, we look back at Al Gore, who continues to try to be a voice in American politics... and how one single event makes Al Gore utterly and completely unqualified for any office, even dogcatcher. Ah, the fun of videotape and chronology... :)
1. Harriet Miers. No offense is intended to Ms. Miers. She is, by her resume, a capable lawyer. The failings are simple: she has held only one position that required her to deal with constitutional issues, and that was as White House Counsel. And how long did she hold that position? Since midway 2004, or, rephrased, right around a year. Literally no other position she's held -- as head of the Texas Lotto Commission (?! -- one of those "first women" things), one of the staff secretaries at the White House (er, secretary?), and so forth; or as head of the Texas Bar (another "first woman"), which has no inherent value in terms of defining her Constitutional capacities nor requires in any way that she ever think about Constitutional law. Fact: we've found no writings of hers that support a claim that she was a "deep thinker" about Constitutional law (the precise opposite of the flawlessly-qualified John Roberts, whose breadth and volume of dealing with exactly Constitutional issues was enormous and deep). So it is palpably FALSE for the White House to assert that Harriet Miers is the "best person they could find" and "best qualified for the job" -- I can come up with a half-dozen female judges/attorneys and several non-lawyers who have a broader and deeper background in Constitutional law than Ms. Miers. What sets Ms. Miers apart from her competitors? That she's a Friend-of-George. Which is sort of ironic: Friend of George = FOG, which is what this nomination was made in. Conservatives are rightly angered, especially as the White House uses rhetoric that exactly undermines its own assertions in the past about how to judge candidates: by their capacity to think, as evidenced by their writings (oops, she doesn't have any!); by their experience with constitutional law (oops, she has less than one year of experience in that, out of her entire career); that a person be judged not by their sex organ but by their capacity to think and how they think (not the policies, the actual methodologies to their thinking process)... and OOPS, the White House has just gotten done holding her up as "the first woman" this and that, which would be exactly counter-intuitive to the "judge not by sexual organ or skin pigmentation but by mental/philosophical capacities" argument that the Right has trumpeted successfully. Well, it was successful... until a Republican White House started trumping exactly the opposite argument. Huh? I prefer Mr. Bush for his correct decisions regarding foreign policy, and some of his stands on domestic politics (some, by no means all), and he was head-and-shoulders better than Al Gore or John Kerry. But this is simply ridiculous, made moreso every time the White House opens its mouth and offers arguments that shouldn't be coming from any Conservative.
I could care less whether she was the first woman to head the Texas Lotto Commission -- or if she were he and he were the first Chairman of the Right to Surf organization. They're equally as relevant -- which is the point. They need to be talking about her qualifications in terms of actual qualifications for the position in question, which is Supreme Court justice: that she has a history that indicates deep constitutional study and thinking; that she has held at some point positions that lend themselves to constitutional study; that she has a philosophy toward the Constitution that is of the same philosophy that the President promised to appoint, and that there be evidence to show that she has that philosophy. The problem is, they can't talk about those things in specifics -- she doesn't have anything in those categories. They can't talk about her writings, she doesn't have any that relate to the job; can't talk about her constitutional philosophy, because her history has nothing in it to indicate or prove what sort of constitutional scholar (other than that she isn't, which is proveable given the absence of any supporting evidence) she is/will be.
The White House should either: withdraw the nomination NOW and get back to basics, or start immediately justifying the nomination by pointing to and providing the actual evidence that she is a deep Constitutional scholar. Neither is going to happen -- President Bush has among his failings a flawless loyalty that can extend into situations that get him in trouble, like now; and they have no evidence to speak of, because she has no writings/positions/etc. to offer.
Tomorrow, we look back at Al Gore, who continues to try to be a voice in American politics... and how one single event makes Al Gore utterly and completely unqualified for any office, even dogcatcher. Ah, the fun of videotape and chronology... :)
Friday, October 14, 2005
Random Thoughts
Consider:
1) Harriet Miers. She's held three different jobs in the past four years at the Bush White House. From White House Secretary (if she's a great lawyer, why be "White House Secretary" or appoint a great thinking mind to be secretary?) to, finally, her position for the past slightly-more-than-one-year as White House Counsel. From a Human Resources perspective, a prospective employee would be grilled, or ignored completely, if they had a resume that showed three positions in four years. Why? Because it generally shows either: an inability to hold a job; an inability to do the jobs held; or some character trait that keeps the person hopping around without settling into a career path. None of these makes for a good prospective employee. Nor does it speak well for Harriet Miers. Nor do the comments from other White House staffers who worked with her help -- since the lower-levels who have been interviewed on TV don't exactly paint a picture of a competent person.
2) The White House. They argue that Ms. Miers has great experience with the "higher-level issues" (Constitutional issues) since she's been the White House Counsel and had to deal with those issues. Note to the White House: one year in the position does not constitute enough experience to qualify ANYONE to be a Supreme Court Justice. You'll have to provide a lifetime of similar experience to rise to that level -- and Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the resume to support a conclusion that she's a great Constitutional thinker/scholar. Or, to rephrase: that one year is literally the only experience she'd had with Constitutional issues. Huh?
3) Democrats. Not much I can say positively about the Dems for the past decade or so, and many great Liberal thinkers like Daniel Patrick Moynihan whose passing I still mourn... but they're holding their fire on Ms. Miers, which is (for once) an excellent tactic. Letting the White House do their work for them is perfect for them -- every time the White House says that "her experience as White House Counsel is enough" (see #2), they only need to sit back and let the actual, thinking Republicans roar loudly for them.
4) Republicans. More power to the actual, consistent Republicans on the Harriet Miers nomination -- which does NOT include the White House. Republicans argued just a few weeks ago that the proper method for judging someone nominated to be Supreme Court Justice was to look at their history as a scholar and a thinker and judge from that history. Since Ms. Miers has no such history, the White House keeps throwing out other inanities that contradict everything Republicans have fought for.
5) White House idiocy. What was I referring to, at the end of #4? Take the following: "Ms. Miers was the first woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association". Um, what does that have to do with being a Supreme Court Justice? Does it tell us something about her mental capacities, that she possesses the wisdom necessary? Does it tell us anything about her character, or how her mind works? Nope. Republicans have argued for decades that people should be judged on their individual MERITS -- right up to the point where the White House now specifically contradicts that Republican principle. And it contradicts it because it has nothing else to say, because Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the qualifications based on prior Republican standards. Again, the Dems don't need to do anything -- this White House is doing more than enough damage to Republican philosophy all by itself.
6) U.S. giving. We've given 'til it hurts, from one disaster to the next: hurricanes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and tsunamis. Now there's an earthquake in Pakistan, and I'm sorry, but the individuals in the U.S. are simply tapped out -- we've given and we've given and we've listened to the rest of the world criticising us for not giving enough (hypocrites they be, since the citizens of, say, England haven't exactly rushed out to give money in huge volumes (like we did) to help U.S. citizens struck by fires, floods, hurricanes #1 and #2, etc.). Sorry, folks. No money left.
7) Battlestar Galactica. The Reimagining. Somehow, the idiots who run this monstrosity took a family-friendly show and made it into the "who's sleeping with who" show, complete with rape. And let's not forget the utterly moronic portrayal of military personnel under stress. What a waste of great potential. Oh, and a special note to those who argue that the new show is a success and has "outdone" the original: the original had at its LOWEST point a 14 share and a 31 share at its highest. The new show's highest point? Right around a 3 share. It's average? Around 2.0. The last time I checked, the show that pulls in roughly 1/4 the rating of the other show ISN'T considered the successful one. Basic math.
8) Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Another truly superb show from the 70s. The reporter who, just by being the grumpy soul he was, kept happening upon the strange and unusual, if not supernatural. And what do the geniuses who run TV today do? Let's make it ultra-violent (the original managed to NOT show violence and yet be violent in nature -- something the suits today don't seem to understand can be very effective). Let's add an unnecessary female character in an equal role. Let's take it from a struggling news service to a mainstream, never-worry-about-money entity. Let's make Kolchak a brooding type, with a personal death in his background that had supernatural causes. Or, to rephrase: let's take literally EVERYTHING that was Kolchak: The Night Stalker and remove ALL OF IT. This remake is nothing more than a watered-down, violent X-Files -- completely unworthy of the name and the heritage. Suggestion to all: buy the newly-released DVD of the original series and enjoy a show that focused on characterisation instead of by-the-numbers-idiocy of modern TV.
Special note to Hollywood: just stop remaking old shows. You have no clue what made those shows special, and you keep, over and over again, demonstrating that fact with idiocy like the aforementioned shows. Just stop it. Get a clue, come up with original ideas. Then again, given that you can't seem to even reuse old ideas well...
That's it for the day. Have a good weekend, and the Citizen will return in full form on Monday.
1) Harriet Miers. She's held three different jobs in the past four years at the Bush White House. From White House Secretary (if she's a great lawyer, why be "White House Secretary" or appoint a great thinking mind to be secretary?) to, finally, her position for the past slightly-more-than-one-year as White House Counsel. From a Human Resources perspective, a prospective employee would be grilled, or ignored completely, if they had a resume that showed three positions in four years. Why? Because it generally shows either: an inability to hold a job; an inability to do the jobs held; or some character trait that keeps the person hopping around without settling into a career path. None of these makes for a good prospective employee. Nor does it speak well for Harriet Miers. Nor do the comments from other White House staffers who worked with her help -- since the lower-levels who have been interviewed on TV don't exactly paint a picture of a competent person.
2) The White House. They argue that Ms. Miers has great experience with the "higher-level issues" (Constitutional issues) since she's been the White House Counsel and had to deal with those issues. Note to the White House: one year in the position does not constitute enough experience to qualify ANYONE to be a Supreme Court Justice. You'll have to provide a lifetime of similar experience to rise to that level -- and Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the resume to support a conclusion that she's a great Constitutional thinker/scholar. Or, to rephrase: that one year is literally the only experience she'd had with Constitutional issues. Huh?
3) Democrats. Not much I can say positively about the Dems for the past decade or so, and many great Liberal thinkers like Daniel Patrick Moynihan whose passing I still mourn... but they're holding their fire on Ms. Miers, which is (for once) an excellent tactic. Letting the White House do their work for them is perfect for them -- every time the White House says that "her experience as White House Counsel is enough" (see #2), they only need to sit back and let the actual, thinking Republicans roar loudly for them.
4) Republicans. More power to the actual, consistent Republicans on the Harriet Miers nomination -- which does NOT include the White House. Republicans argued just a few weeks ago that the proper method for judging someone nominated to be Supreme Court Justice was to look at their history as a scholar and a thinker and judge from that history. Since Ms. Miers has no such history, the White House keeps throwing out other inanities that contradict everything Republicans have fought for.
5) White House idiocy. What was I referring to, at the end of #4? Take the following: "Ms. Miers was the first woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association". Um, what does that have to do with being a Supreme Court Justice? Does it tell us something about her mental capacities, that she possesses the wisdom necessary? Does it tell us anything about her character, or how her mind works? Nope. Republicans have argued for decades that people should be judged on their individual MERITS -- right up to the point where the White House now specifically contradicts that Republican principle. And it contradicts it because it has nothing else to say, because Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the qualifications based on prior Republican standards. Again, the Dems don't need to do anything -- this White House is doing more than enough damage to Republican philosophy all by itself.
6) U.S. giving. We've given 'til it hurts, from one disaster to the next: hurricanes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and tsunamis. Now there's an earthquake in Pakistan, and I'm sorry, but the individuals in the U.S. are simply tapped out -- we've given and we've given and we've listened to the rest of the world criticising us for not giving enough (hypocrites they be, since the citizens of, say, England haven't exactly rushed out to give money in huge volumes (like we did) to help U.S. citizens struck by fires, floods, hurricanes #1 and #2, etc.). Sorry, folks. No money left.
7) Battlestar Galactica. The Reimagining. Somehow, the idiots who run this monstrosity took a family-friendly show and made it into the "who's sleeping with who" show, complete with rape. And let's not forget the utterly moronic portrayal of military personnel under stress. What a waste of great potential. Oh, and a special note to those who argue that the new show is a success and has "outdone" the original: the original had at its LOWEST point a 14 share and a 31 share at its highest. The new show's highest point? Right around a 3 share. It's average? Around 2.0. The last time I checked, the show that pulls in roughly 1/4 the rating of the other show ISN'T considered the successful one. Basic math.
8) Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Another truly superb show from the 70s. The reporter who, just by being the grumpy soul he was, kept happening upon the strange and unusual, if not supernatural. And what do the geniuses who run TV today do? Let's make it ultra-violent (the original managed to NOT show violence and yet be violent in nature -- something the suits today don't seem to understand can be very effective). Let's add an unnecessary female character in an equal role. Let's take it from a struggling news service to a mainstream, never-worry-about-money entity. Let's make Kolchak a brooding type, with a personal death in his background that had supernatural causes. Or, to rephrase: let's take literally EVERYTHING that was Kolchak: The Night Stalker and remove ALL OF IT. This remake is nothing more than a watered-down, violent X-Files -- completely unworthy of the name and the heritage. Suggestion to all: buy the newly-released DVD of the original series and enjoy a show that focused on characterisation instead of by-the-numbers-idiocy of modern TV.
Special note to Hollywood: just stop remaking old shows. You have no clue what made those shows special, and you keep, over and over again, demonstrating that fact with idiocy like the aforementioned shows. Just stop it. Get a clue, come up with original ideas. Then again, given that you can't seem to even reuse old ideas well...
That's it for the day. Have a good weekend, and the Citizen will return in full form on Monday.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Principle versus Ideology: hypocrisy, modern feminism, and the 90s
Yesterday the Citizen held forth on the misuse of words and why it should outrage everyone in the country. Today, the Citizen turns a scathing eye to another foulness in modern society: the trumping of philosophy, the core of ideals, by political ideology. And our highlighted case will be the behavior of modern feminist leaders in the 1990s.
So, consider: if a man in a position of authority and power, either directly or simply by having that position of power, extorts sex from one of his female underlings, is it not a bad thing? Women have fought for the right to be free of that sort of criminal misbehavior in this country and they've won that freedom, by law. Feminists have decried this sort of behavior when it occurs in the boardroom or from CEOs, requiring (rightly) that these foul creatures be jailed and removed from their positions. This is a philosophical issue, a core ideal: that no woman (or man, for that matter) should be put in a position where sex is required of them by a person of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter) who holds authority or power over them.
So, consider: in the 1990s, a powerful man in a position of authority required of a girl barely out of her teens that she have sex (and, in fact, some truly twisted sexual favors beside basic sex) with him. What does principle, what does the philosophy of women's rights, require that we do with this beast, this man who used his position to extort sex from a child? That we apply the same fate that modern feminists have required of CEOs who behave that way: that they lose their jobs and be held up for public ridicule, that they pay fines and be ostracized. No feminist has given a pass or allowed a man who behaved that way to remain in their position. They shouldn't. It would be abandoning their core principles, their philosophy, to do so. It would bankrupt what they supposedly fight for and believe.
But, of course, that's not what happened. The man in question was Bill Clinton, President of the United States, and he used his position of authority and power to require sex of a girl barely out of her teens. And what did we get from modern feminist leaders? Did we get outrage, did we get calls to hold him to the standard of punishment that they've fought for over the decades? No. We got, instead, the following quotes from various modern feminist leaders: Nina Burleigh of Time magazine -- "I'd be happy," she said, "to give him oral sex just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Betty Friedan said that, even if Clinton did everything he was accused of doing, and more, "It's no big deal." And from others, we get such wonders as: "As long as he is in office and protects a woman's right to choose, his personal behavior shouldn't matter." And, we can't forget Gloria Steinem's "One Grope Rule", which literally excused the actions of a sexual predator and said it was an acceptable thing to her.
Um. Excuse me? When confronted with a sexual predator (whose history of sexual deviance and forcing himself on unwilling parties goes back to rape charges from multiple sources in the 1970s) who extorts sexual favors from children, these paragons of feminism... began justifying his behavior, excusing it, allowing it, and, most shocking of all, actually stating that they don't have a problem with it (aka, give him blow jobs)!
There's no other way to look at it. This wasn't "personal behavior" -- it was the act of a sexual predator, by definition, and confronting and punishing that sexual predator should have been FOREMOST the actions and words of any feminist who actually believes the principles they call for. But we didn't get that. We got permissiveness, we got excuses, we got "she should do it, as long as it protects Roe". There's no other way to interpret this: ideology, the protection of one single political issue (the protection of abortion rights re Roe Vs Wade), was more important than the philosophy, the principles, of feminism... was more important than anything else. So what signal does this send? What were these feminists telling us? It's perfectly okay for a man in a position of power to require sexual favors from women, as long as he has a political philosophy that protects abortion rights. We've now traded protecting women from sexual predators for protecting abortion rights -- trading philosophy and principle for rank political ideology.
Congratulations to these feminist leaders. In one fell swoop, you undid decades of fighting for women's rights, erased the value of your so-called principles, by defending the sexual predator and in fact, in some cases, telling the victim, the prey, that they should have "been happy to do so", as long as it "protects Roe". There is literally no way to describe the disgust, the outrage, that SHOULD have happened, all of it directed at these women who abandoned women's rights in order to protect a sexual predator. Protecting women? Not important. Confronting a sexual predator who used his power to get sex? Not important. Protecting Roe Vs. Wade? That's what matters to them. And that, fellow Citizens, is disgusting, it is reprehensible, and it utterly demonstrates, in their own words, how modern feminists have completely bankrupted their own principles. You cannot believe or support any woman or man who would excuse, condone, justify, and in fact promote through their permission the actions of a sexual predator. Yet, these feminists did that exactly.
It is a sad day indeed. It is moreso because... there was no public outrage. It is a sadder day indeed, because it seems to say that the United States has no interest in the principles of our ideas, no focus on the philosophy that underpins what we believe, and is instead a country obsessed only with political ideology.
For Feminists, as proven by their own words above, they'd rather side with a man guilty of the very behavior women have spent centuries fighting against, as long as he can protect Roe Vs. Wade.
Even if it means abandoning the prey to sexual predators.
That, fellow Citizens, is the worst outrage of all. Congratulations to these modern feminist leaders for bankrupting their own principles, by defending someone completely guilty of the very behavior women have fought against for centuries. Bravo.
So, consider: if a man in a position of authority and power, either directly or simply by having that position of power, extorts sex from one of his female underlings, is it not a bad thing? Women have fought for the right to be free of that sort of criminal misbehavior in this country and they've won that freedom, by law. Feminists have decried this sort of behavior when it occurs in the boardroom or from CEOs, requiring (rightly) that these foul creatures be jailed and removed from their positions. This is a philosophical issue, a core ideal: that no woman (or man, for that matter) should be put in a position where sex is required of them by a person of the opposite sex (or the same sex, for that matter) who holds authority or power over them.
So, consider: in the 1990s, a powerful man in a position of authority required of a girl barely out of her teens that she have sex (and, in fact, some truly twisted sexual favors beside basic sex) with him. What does principle, what does the philosophy of women's rights, require that we do with this beast, this man who used his position to extort sex from a child? That we apply the same fate that modern feminists have required of CEOs who behave that way: that they lose their jobs and be held up for public ridicule, that they pay fines and be ostracized. No feminist has given a pass or allowed a man who behaved that way to remain in their position. They shouldn't. It would be abandoning their core principles, their philosophy, to do so. It would bankrupt what they supposedly fight for and believe.
But, of course, that's not what happened. The man in question was Bill Clinton, President of the United States, and he used his position of authority and power to require sex of a girl barely out of her teens. And what did we get from modern feminist leaders? Did we get outrage, did we get calls to hold him to the standard of punishment that they've fought for over the decades? No. We got, instead, the following quotes from various modern feminist leaders: Nina Burleigh of Time magazine -- "I'd be happy," she said, "to give him oral sex just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Betty Friedan said that, even if Clinton did everything he was accused of doing, and more, "It's no big deal." And from others, we get such wonders as: "As long as he is in office and protects a woman's right to choose, his personal behavior shouldn't matter." And, we can't forget Gloria Steinem's "One Grope Rule", which literally excused the actions of a sexual predator and said it was an acceptable thing to her.
Um. Excuse me? When confronted with a sexual predator (whose history of sexual deviance and forcing himself on unwilling parties goes back to rape charges from multiple sources in the 1970s) who extorts sexual favors from children, these paragons of feminism... began justifying his behavior, excusing it, allowing it, and, most shocking of all, actually stating that they don't have a problem with it (aka, give him blow jobs)!
There's no other way to look at it. This wasn't "personal behavior" -- it was the act of a sexual predator, by definition, and confronting and punishing that sexual predator should have been FOREMOST the actions and words of any feminist who actually believes the principles they call for. But we didn't get that. We got permissiveness, we got excuses, we got "she should do it, as long as it protects Roe". There's no other way to interpret this: ideology, the protection of one single political issue (the protection of abortion rights re Roe Vs Wade), was more important than the philosophy, the principles, of feminism... was more important than anything else. So what signal does this send? What were these feminists telling us? It's perfectly okay for a man in a position of power to require sexual favors from women, as long as he has a political philosophy that protects abortion rights. We've now traded protecting women from sexual predators for protecting abortion rights -- trading philosophy and principle for rank political ideology.
Congratulations to these feminist leaders. In one fell swoop, you undid decades of fighting for women's rights, erased the value of your so-called principles, by defending the sexual predator and in fact, in some cases, telling the victim, the prey, that they should have "been happy to do so", as long as it "protects Roe". There is literally no way to describe the disgust, the outrage, that SHOULD have happened, all of it directed at these women who abandoned women's rights in order to protect a sexual predator. Protecting women? Not important. Confronting a sexual predator who used his power to get sex? Not important. Protecting Roe Vs. Wade? That's what matters to them. And that, fellow Citizens, is disgusting, it is reprehensible, and it utterly demonstrates, in their own words, how modern feminists have completely bankrupted their own principles. You cannot believe or support any woman or man who would excuse, condone, justify, and in fact promote through their permission the actions of a sexual predator. Yet, these feminists did that exactly.
It is a sad day indeed. It is moreso because... there was no public outrage. It is a sadder day indeed, because it seems to say that the United States has no interest in the principles of our ideas, no focus on the philosophy that underpins what we believe, and is instead a country obsessed only with political ideology.
For Feminists, as proven by their own words above, they'd rather side with a man guilty of the very behavior women have spent centuries fighting against, as long as he can protect Roe Vs. Wade.
Even if it means abandoning the prey to sexual predators.
That, fellow Citizens, is the worst outrage of all. Congratulations to these modern feminist leaders for bankrupting their own principles, by defending someone completely guilty of the very behavior women have fought against for centuries. Bravo.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
How the Meaning of Words is misused by Politicians, and Why You should be angry about it
The one thing in American politics that aggravates me more than anything else is the flagrant, widespread misuse of words. That, and why that misuse occurs. Let's look specifically at the word "Nazi", which is flung around by members of Congress on a far-too-frequent basis to describe one another or one another's party.
What does "Nazi" mean, by the way, specifically or by association? The Nazis committed genocide, which for those who don't know means the complete extermination of an entire race (or at least the specific desire, and action to achieve that desire, to do so). That isn't "being racist" -- it's far, far worse, it's putting to action the specific, coordinated effort to utterly exterminate, to murder, every single member of a racial group for no other reason than a sense of racial superiority (where the actors are of the "superior" race and those exterminated are of the "inferior" race). Choosing not to sit on a bus beside someone who has chartreuse-colored-skin because of that skin color is racist; what the Nazis did, and therefore are, is far, far worse. The Nazis advocated the right to "living space" (Lebensraum) for the "superior Germanic people", which in turn translated into wars designed solely to force other people off their lands and give the Nazis more actual land for their own use. Being a Nazi means embracing National Socialism as an economic/social construction, which has its own definitions. Let's leave it with these, because these few offerings are more than enough.
How many politicians in Congress advocate the specific extermination of an entire race? Or advocate invading, say, Canada, so we can force the Canadians off their lands so we can move Americans onto that land? The answer is, none. Zero. Nada. Not a Single One.
How many politicians, therefore, should be called "Nazi"? How many politicians should be tarred with association, by being called that word, to the actions that Nazis brought to the world? The answer, again, is NONE. Doesn't matter if they disagree with your philosophy, no Democrat, no Republican, is right to call the other a "Nazi" or their actions "Nazis". Doing so is beneath contempt and should be actively and angrily condemned by every other politician and every American out there.
But, of course, that brings us to the fact that the use of the word continues to the present day. Why? Because there is no uproar, no condemnation, no actions on the part of the electorate to punish the disgraceful individual who did so. And that is the greatest tragedy of all. The politicians are mostly intelligent people, or at least they put themselves forward as smart and wise people. If they are indeed as smart and wise, or just 1/2 as smart and wise, as they claim, and I think they are, then they know what the word means, literally and by association. So why would they choose -- this is key, the act of choosing -- to deliberately misuse the word? They know the public will hear "my Republican colleague is a Nazi because he wants to redo the arcane methodology we use to calculate student lunches" and just associate "Nazi = Bad". Think about that, because there is an outrage lurking behind that reasoning: that the public isn't smart enough, or wise enough, to understand the full implications and meaning of the word "Nazi" and will just make the childlike association "Nazi = Bad". This is the greatest insult a politician can direct at us, the electorate, the American people: that they will use words knowing full well the words aren't right or correct or even fair, solely and specifically because they know the American people are ignorant and will react based on that ignorance. And what's sadder than that? The fact that they appear to be right. There's no uproar, no anger, no Press that points these things out. In a world where college graduates can't find Iraq (or Mexico, for that matter) on a map in large majorities, where the majority of college graduates can't even put the Civil War, World War I, and World War II in chronological order, the misuse of a word is a given -- because the public really is as ignorant as the politicians who take advantage of that ignorance believe.
As an American who does think about the words people use and how they use them, as a free-thinking American who is offended that the public at large can more readily identify Michael Jordan properly than identify the significance of Otto von Bismarck, I am offended and disgusted with these politicians -- but I am equally as ashamed of the American people who continues to revel in a social culture that puts no value on learning, puts no value on thinking, and therefore allows these politicians to get away with it.
Next time, we'll look at the 1990s, and how modern feminism bankrupted itself during that decade through its own actions. Brief summary: if your actions contradict your philosophy, which is to say the ideas behind the movement, then you've bankrupted the movement and become blatant hypocrites.
What does "Nazi" mean, by the way, specifically or by association? The Nazis committed genocide, which for those who don't know means the complete extermination of an entire race (or at least the specific desire, and action to achieve that desire, to do so). That isn't "being racist" -- it's far, far worse, it's putting to action the specific, coordinated effort to utterly exterminate, to murder, every single member of a racial group for no other reason than a sense of racial superiority (where the actors are of the "superior" race and those exterminated are of the "inferior" race). Choosing not to sit on a bus beside someone who has chartreuse-colored-skin because of that skin color is racist; what the Nazis did, and therefore are, is far, far worse. The Nazis advocated the right to "living space" (Lebensraum) for the "superior Germanic people", which in turn translated into wars designed solely to force other people off their lands and give the Nazis more actual land for their own use. Being a Nazi means embracing National Socialism as an economic/social construction, which has its own definitions. Let's leave it with these, because these few offerings are more than enough.
How many politicians in Congress advocate the specific extermination of an entire race? Or advocate invading, say, Canada, so we can force the Canadians off their lands so we can move Americans onto that land? The answer is, none. Zero. Nada. Not a Single One.
How many politicians, therefore, should be called "Nazi"? How many politicians should be tarred with association, by being called that word, to the actions that Nazis brought to the world? The answer, again, is NONE. Doesn't matter if they disagree with your philosophy, no Democrat, no Republican, is right to call the other a "Nazi" or their actions "Nazis". Doing so is beneath contempt and should be actively and angrily condemned by every other politician and every American out there.
But, of course, that brings us to the fact that the use of the word continues to the present day. Why? Because there is no uproar, no condemnation, no actions on the part of the electorate to punish the disgraceful individual who did so. And that is the greatest tragedy of all. The politicians are mostly intelligent people, or at least they put themselves forward as smart and wise people. If they are indeed as smart and wise, or just 1/2 as smart and wise, as they claim, and I think they are, then they know what the word means, literally and by association. So why would they choose -- this is key, the act of choosing -- to deliberately misuse the word? They know the public will hear "my Republican colleague is a Nazi because he wants to redo the arcane methodology we use to calculate student lunches" and just associate "Nazi = Bad". Think about that, because there is an outrage lurking behind that reasoning: that the public isn't smart enough, or wise enough, to understand the full implications and meaning of the word "Nazi" and will just make the childlike association "Nazi = Bad". This is the greatest insult a politician can direct at us, the electorate, the American people: that they will use words knowing full well the words aren't right or correct or even fair, solely and specifically because they know the American people are ignorant and will react based on that ignorance. And what's sadder than that? The fact that they appear to be right. There's no uproar, no anger, no Press that points these things out. In a world where college graduates can't find Iraq (or Mexico, for that matter) on a map in large majorities, where the majority of college graduates can't even put the Civil War, World War I, and World War II in chronological order, the misuse of a word is a given -- because the public really is as ignorant as the politicians who take advantage of that ignorance believe.
As an American who does think about the words people use and how they use them, as a free-thinking American who is offended that the public at large can more readily identify Michael Jordan properly than identify the significance of Otto von Bismarck, I am offended and disgusted with these politicians -- but I am equally as ashamed of the American people who continues to revel in a social culture that puts no value on learning, puts no value on thinking, and therefore allows these politicians to get away with it.
Next time, we'll look at the 1990s, and how modern feminism bankrupted itself during that decade through its own actions. Brief summary: if your actions contradict your philosophy, which is to say the ideas behind the movement, then you've bankrupted the movement and become blatant hypocrites.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Thoughts of a Citizen
Greetings, salutations, and welcome to the debut of my second Blog. I originally was going to put all my thoughts in my "Thoughts of a Gamer" blog, but I've decided to divide the two. My gaming-related comments will remain in "Thoughts of a Gamer", but from now on, my musings on politics, religion, the public, and so forth will all be here, at Thinking Politics.
Who am I? A U.S. citizen. I hold an M.A. in History with a heavy emphasis in English and International Relations. I'm a tech geek, a Republican by principle though not necessarily by vote, a concerned citizen, and a husband. I've owned my own company, worked in the off-lease/used computer industry for several years; I've built my own computers, set up my own home and busines networks, and I'm an addict of online roleplaying games. Most of all, I'm a citizen who looks at today's society and today's politics and sees far too much to be troubled by.
So expect my musings to begin shortly. What can you expect? I create my arguments as carefully as I can -- this isn't a place to get a rant, it's a place to argue rationally, to expect discourse, to debate. You won't see me complaining about something without supporting my complaints and filling out the context of the argument. You won't see me throwing around words without understanding what the words mean -- and explaining why I'm using them.
Until then. :)
Who am I? A U.S. citizen. I hold an M.A. in History with a heavy emphasis in English and International Relations. I'm a tech geek, a Republican by principle though not necessarily by vote, a concerned citizen, and a husband. I've owned my own company, worked in the off-lease/used computer industry for several years; I've built my own computers, set up my own home and busines networks, and I'm an addict of online roleplaying games. Most of all, I'm a citizen who looks at today's society and today's politics and sees far too much to be troubled by.
So expect my musings to begin shortly. What can you expect? I create my arguments as carefully as I can -- this isn't a place to get a rant, it's a place to argue rationally, to expect discourse, to debate. You won't see me complaining about something without supporting my complaints and filling out the context of the argument. You won't see me throwing around words without understanding what the words mean -- and explaining why I'm using them.
Until then. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)