Just some thoughts:
1) we spent last year listening to Democrats harping that we didn't have enough troops on the ground (from Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Kerry, et al), that that represented a failure on the part of the administration. Now we're listening to the same people complaining that we have as many boots on the ground that we have. Then, we weren't supporting the Iraq process toward government enough; now we're "there too long" -- which says nothing of the fact that, in the interim, we've had one election (successful), a constitutional assembly that produced a constitution (successful), and are on the cusp of the next election. What we have last year are Dems arguing that we need to support "the process" (elections, forming a constitution, etc.); what we have this year are that they don't care about the process anymore, it's "going too long". Which is historically ignorant and dangerous -- remember, it took the United States literally DECADES to secure itself as a democracy. Note to Dems: make up your mind. Stop playing politics with something that will literally affect the world going forward and OFFER A VIABLE, REALISTIC alternative.
2) Moveon.Org has already demonstrated over and over again that they don't care what facts are, they'll just run whatever ads they think supports their positions. Case in point: the latest ad, criticising U.S. troops, which they finally just pulled. Why is this agregious? Because the ad showed troops in shorts in chow lines... who were BRITISH, not U.S. troops. When confronted with the error of their ad, Moveon.Org... didn't do the decent and honest thing and withdraw the ad with an apology, they touched up the ad and graphically darkened the uniforms to look more like U.S. uniforms and touched up the shorts to look like full-length pants -- or, rephrased, they refused to pull the lie and furthered it by deliberately tailoring a photo to represent something that wasn't. When confronted (finally) about their blatant hypocrisy and lies, they have finally withdrawn the ad altogether. What is astonishing is that any American (or any person of the world) would give money to an organization that knowingly and deliberately falsifies information in order to push its politics. Note to MoveON: if you can't make your arguments without falsifying information and deliberately lying, you might want to reconsider the merit of your arguments. Second note: grow up.
3) Firefly. Nothing to do with politics. Just a note on how grateful I am to the powers-that-be that they released the Firefly series DVD with the episodes in the order they should have been run (as opposed to Fox's idiocy of running the series out-of-order). Wish the movie (Serenity) had made more bucks, but hopefully they'll resurrect the series on SciFi -- it drew more viewers on Fox than anything on SciFi, including the new Battlestar Galactica and the two Stargates, so it would be a shoo-in. Fantastic series, deep characterisations, morals without being "in your face" or preachy about it... nothing like it on television now (a shame).
4) Note to Republicans: keep pushing to get drilling in the arctic (we're talking about a few hundred square miles in the midst of literally tens of thousands of square miles), it's worth it to get at the huge reservoir of oil up there. Go back and rewrite the moronic bankruptcy bill that was passed -- start by junking what was passed and actually focus on helping people instead of crushing them. Stand up for what's right -- deposing a dictator who used poison gas on his own people and on other nations, who set up "rape rooms" in his palaces, who did things far more disgusting than even those, is NEVER a bad thing, nor an improper thing. There is NO decency in arguing that the Iraqis were "better off" in Saddam's world, where women were grabbed off the streets and mass-raped and worse. It's a pity there are so few Republicans with backbones who will stand up and say so, forcibly and with conviction. There are a few Democrats (VERY few), like Joe Leiberman -- nice to see a rational adult among the Dems.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Cindy Sheehan, the ongoing saga
So we have the latest from Cindy Sheehan to dwell on. Seems that she wrote a letter to the President's Mother, criticising the former first lady's parental skills.
First, when other grieving mothers of sons and daughters who have died in Iraq tried to write to Sheehan during the summer, we were treated to Miss Sheehan complaining how despicable and unworthy these other grieving mothers were, for daring to disagree with her and for addressing themselves to her and her actions. That's an interesting (and arrogant) standard, one which we now have Miss Sheehan violating herself. If it was so "despicable" for someone who disagreed with her to write her, it's also despicable when she does it herself. But then, that would require Cindy Sheehan to actually apply the standard she forces on the world around her to herself.
Second, she again repeats the tired refrains we've all heard before. The war was for oil. Well, that doesn't even pass the smell test. Were we interested in cheap oil, as she implies, we would have simply lifted the sanctions and gone back to working with Hussein, as we did as a nation in the 1980s. THAT would have guaranteed cheap oil -- not continuing to apply sanctions. If the war were "for oil", then after militarily defeating Hussein we would have at least immediately upgraded the Iraqi oil infrastructure so that it could immediately begin pumping oil at high quantities. We didn't. We would have nationalized the oil infrastructure, to let us control it -- we didn't. We did literally NOTHING after defeating Hussein militarily that would result in "cheap oil" -- which is the point. If cheap oil were the goal, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place; if cheap oil were a goal of the war itself, we would have done things very differently than we did. At no point does the phrase "the war was for oil" reach anything approaching even logical -- it is transparently ideological, which does not require the same honest standard as logic.
Lastly, we again are treated to Miss Sheehan's ongoing hubris. When she put up crosses in Texas with the names of the dead soldiers on them, she didn't bother to find out if that was okay with the other grieving mothers of those soldiers -- she just did it, piously standing over those crosses and lecturing the world. When those grieving mothers showed up to remove the crosses with THEIR children's names on them, we were treated to Miss Sheehan -- putting them back up. She demands that we respect her as a "grieving mother", and that that instantly qualifies her as an expert on international affairs, and that that instantly makes her worthy of respect -- but she refuses to give the same respect to other grieving mothers. Not only is that a double standard, it's a particularly heinous double standard -- if one grieving mother is worth respect and listening to, then they all are, even if they happen to disagree with Miss Sheehan.
Then again, that evidently never bothered to occur to her as she was angrily telling those other grieving mothers that they shouldn't speak up or take up "her microphone time" (love that phrase). Sort of like the enormous respect she showed the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- when she complained that she wasn't being listened to anymore or getting airtime, and I quote, "because of a little rain and wind which aren't nearly as important as what I'm trying to say". A little rain and wind? Can you show any more disrespect for people who just had their lives thrown into utter disarray, their homes ruined, their loved-ones killed? A Cat-5 hurricane, a "little rain and wind"? But that isn't the worst part, it's what's behind the words that's horrible. We're treated again to the fact that, in Cindy Sheehan's world, she's the only one who should ever get any attention, she's the only expert on whatever she's saying, and no one else, particularly those who disagree with her but also those who suffered through the hurricanes, should get any attention.
As standard-bearers and spokespersons go, she is literally the worst for any cause. What happened to the day when liberalism had intellectually-honest spokespeople like Daniel Patrick Moynihan? Where did those honest, thoughtful liberals go? Or have the Michael "never-saw-a-fact-I-couldn't-ignore" Moore and Cindy "respect grieving mothers, but only THIS grieving mother" Sheehan chased them out of the party?
Frightening.
First, when other grieving mothers of sons and daughters who have died in Iraq tried to write to Sheehan during the summer, we were treated to Miss Sheehan complaining how despicable and unworthy these other grieving mothers were, for daring to disagree with her and for addressing themselves to her and her actions. That's an interesting (and arrogant) standard, one which we now have Miss Sheehan violating herself. If it was so "despicable" for someone who disagreed with her to write her, it's also despicable when she does it herself. But then, that would require Cindy Sheehan to actually apply the standard she forces on the world around her to herself.
Second, she again repeats the tired refrains we've all heard before. The war was for oil. Well, that doesn't even pass the smell test. Were we interested in cheap oil, as she implies, we would have simply lifted the sanctions and gone back to working with Hussein, as we did as a nation in the 1980s. THAT would have guaranteed cheap oil -- not continuing to apply sanctions. If the war were "for oil", then after militarily defeating Hussein we would have at least immediately upgraded the Iraqi oil infrastructure so that it could immediately begin pumping oil at high quantities. We didn't. We would have nationalized the oil infrastructure, to let us control it -- we didn't. We did literally NOTHING after defeating Hussein militarily that would result in "cheap oil" -- which is the point. If cheap oil were the goal, we wouldn't have gone to war in the first place; if cheap oil were a goal of the war itself, we would have done things very differently than we did. At no point does the phrase "the war was for oil" reach anything approaching even logical -- it is transparently ideological, which does not require the same honest standard as logic.
Lastly, we again are treated to Miss Sheehan's ongoing hubris. When she put up crosses in Texas with the names of the dead soldiers on them, she didn't bother to find out if that was okay with the other grieving mothers of those soldiers -- she just did it, piously standing over those crosses and lecturing the world. When those grieving mothers showed up to remove the crosses with THEIR children's names on them, we were treated to Miss Sheehan -- putting them back up. She demands that we respect her as a "grieving mother", and that that instantly qualifies her as an expert on international affairs, and that that instantly makes her worthy of respect -- but she refuses to give the same respect to other grieving mothers. Not only is that a double standard, it's a particularly heinous double standard -- if one grieving mother is worth respect and listening to, then they all are, even if they happen to disagree with Miss Sheehan.
Then again, that evidently never bothered to occur to her as she was angrily telling those other grieving mothers that they shouldn't speak up or take up "her microphone time" (love that phrase). Sort of like the enormous respect she showed the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita -- when she complained that she wasn't being listened to anymore or getting airtime, and I quote, "because of a little rain and wind which aren't nearly as important as what I'm trying to say". A little rain and wind? Can you show any more disrespect for people who just had their lives thrown into utter disarray, their homes ruined, their loved-ones killed? A Cat-5 hurricane, a "little rain and wind"? But that isn't the worst part, it's what's behind the words that's horrible. We're treated again to the fact that, in Cindy Sheehan's world, she's the only one who should ever get any attention, she's the only expert on whatever she's saying, and no one else, particularly those who disagree with her but also those who suffered through the hurricanes, should get any attention.
As standard-bearers and spokespersons go, she is literally the worst for any cause. What happened to the day when liberalism had intellectually-honest spokespeople like Daniel Patrick Moynihan? Where did those honest, thoughtful liberals go? Or have the Michael "never-saw-a-fact-I-couldn't-ignore" Moore and Cindy "respect grieving mothers, but only THIS grieving mother" Sheehan chased them out of the party?
Frightening.
Friday, November 18, 2005
playing politics
The worst thing a politician (or political party) can do is play politics - by which I mean, pursue something for purely political reasons, regardless of reason, philosophy (even their own), or standard.
Let's look at the elections of George W. Bush. The Dems and their interest groups ranged far and wide to talk up his personal failings in the far past - as far back as his teen-age years, back into the sixties. We were told by the Dems that that sort of thing mattered, since those years are the "formulative" ones that help form who we become. We were told that it all mattered, because it proved -- proved! -- that the George W. Bush of today was the same person as the George W. Bush back then.
Let's look at the election of Bill Clinton. The Dems and their interest groups ranged far and wide trying to assert that past behavior didn't matter, that it didn't matter how many women accused him of rape (rape!) or sexual assault if it were all "in the past", that his writing the phrase "I can't go in the military, I have to maintain my political viability" at age eighteen didn't matter because it was "all in the past and that has no bearing on who he is now". We had Dems saying what one did during the Vietnam War didn't matter, that deferments didn't matter and were perfectly honorable, that Bill Clinton's deferments (to "maintain his political viability", which is an amazing statement from a college-age person, and a horribly cynical one from an adult) were fine and we shouldn't waste our time looking at these things.
OK. I hope all the rational people out there are reading carefully, because the sheer arrogance of the Democratic Party's double-standards is breathtaking. What they say is this: if you're a Democrat, it doesn't matter what you did in the past, or why you did it, because we need you to get elected. If you're a Republican, you'd best not have stepped on a spider on a sidewalk at age five, 'cause we're going to spend the time and money to investigate your past all the way back to that point. If you're Bill Clinton, you can go to Moscow and other European stops during the Vietnam War, using your deferment, "to maintain your political viability", and that's fine, and we shouldn't be looking at that, because it doesn't matter anyway, it was all so long ago; but if you're George Bush, we'll look at the same time-period and the fact that Bush flew in the Air National Guard and was honorably discharged... and find a way to smear that somehow, because after all it does matter what Bush did back then. Of course, the fact that even Mary Mapes and her five years of trying to smear Bush on this issue, by contorting it to show that he didn't really show up all the time and that therefore he was somehow lesser a person and a liar, turned up... evidence to the contrary, and that her only "evidence" to support her position turned out to be totally corruptible (forged documents; witnesses who were lifelong active Democrats with a record of among other things forging documents and lying to smear people).
If you're Bill Clinton, Dems turn a blind eye to his avoiding the draft, as I've said -- but we get Dems currently slamming Dick Cheney's deferments, as though not being in the military prevents a rational human being from being able to formulate national policy (also another thing that was said about Bill Clinton, who didn't serve at all, and to which we were treated to Dems saying that it doesn't matter if you serve, human beings are capable of rationally thinking out policy regardless).
The sheer hubris of this sort of enormous double-standard SHOULD be the sort of thing that the press takes up and holds up for criticism -- but it doesn't. I haven't decided what's actually doing more damage to this country, long-term: the arrogance of the Democrat Party's double-standards (which are as malleable as the wind, and utterly determined by which Party you belong to), or the absolute failure of the American Media to do its duty and through exposure hold up this sort of double-standard for all to see and thereby contribute to eliminating hte use of such double standards.
Here's a clue: we should have one set of standards by which to judge people. If we argue in the 1990s that it doesn't matter what one did during Vietnam, then it shouldn't suddenly start mattering in the 2000s. If we argue that one's past doesn't matter, it only matters what we say today, then that standard should apply across the board to our opponents as well. That's why we call them "standards".
What we have today from the Dems aren't standards and certainly aren't philosophies-of-worth: we have crass politics, double-standards, and whatever else they need to do to finally pull out an electoral win.
This column is more than happy to criticise Republicans (as we've done), but with regards to the standards each party holds and demonstrates, there is a clear uneven balance at work. The Republicans didn't like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or her policies, but they applied the same standard to her as they applied before and they voted her through, because she was the President's choice. The Dems at the time went out of their way to tell her, on the record, how to avoid answering questions, not to prejudge cases, etc. Fast forward again to the present day, and we have Dems complaining when the current nominees (from a non-Democrat President) do the same thing for the same reasons, and we have Republicans... arguing again that the President should get his pick. Which party is running a double-standard there? Hint: it's not the Republicans.
Only when the people of the United States stop accepting (and indeed being complicit, through our votes or non-voting, in) these double standards will the system begin to correct itself and will philosophy begin to reassert itself over ideology, will reason reassert itself over crass political maneuvering, and will actual, HONEST debates once more be possible.
So, I guess the conclusion is: the Democrats as above are guilty of the worst sort of double-standards, the Press is guilty for pretending these things don't exist or don't matter, and the People of the United States are guilty for either accepting double standards or not being smart enough or educated enough to realise the profound negativity that double standards create.
Sad.
Let's look at the elections of George W. Bush. The Dems and their interest groups ranged far and wide to talk up his personal failings in the far past - as far back as his teen-age years, back into the sixties. We were told by the Dems that that sort of thing mattered, since those years are the "formulative" ones that help form who we become. We were told that it all mattered, because it proved -- proved! -- that the George W. Bush of today was the same person as the George W. Bush back then.
Let's look at the election of Bill Clinton. The Dems and their interest groups ranged far and wide trying to assert that past behavior didn't matter, that it didn't matter how many women accused him of rape (rape!) or sexual assault if it were all "in the past", that his writing the phrase "I can't go in the military, I have to maintain my political viability" at age eighteen didn't matter because it was "all in the past and that has no bearing on who he is now". We had Dems saying what one did during the Vietnam War didn't matter, that deferments didn't matter and were perfectly honorable, that Bill Clinton's deferments (to "maintain his political viability", which is an amazing statement from a college-age person, and a horribly cynical one from an adult) were fine and we shouldn't waste our time looking at these things.
OK. I hope all the rational people out there are reading carefully, because the sheer arrogance of the Democratic Party's double-standards is breathtaking. What they say is this: if you're a Democrat, it doesn't matter what you did in the past, or why you did it, because we need you to get elected. If you're a Republican, you'd best not have stepped on a spider on a sidewalk at age five, 'cause we're going to spend the time and money to investigate your past all the way back to that point. If you're Bill Clinton, you can go to Moscow and other European stops during the Vietnam War, using your deferment, "to maintain your political viability", and that's fine, and we shouldn't be looking at that, because it doesn't matter anyway, it was all so long ago; but if you're George Bush, we'll look at the same time-period and the fact that Bush flew in the Air National Guard and was honorably discharged... and find a way to smear that somehow, because after all it does matter what Bush did back then. Of course, the fact that even Mary Mapes and her five years of trying to smear Bush on this issue, by contorting it to show that he didn't really show up all the time and that therefore he was somehow lesser a person and a liar, turned up... evidence to the contrary, and that her only "evidence" to support her position turned out to be totally corruptible (forged documents; witnesses who were lifelong active Democrats with a record of among other things forging documents and lying to smear people).
If you're Bill Clinton, Dems turn a blind eye to his avoiding the draft, as I've said -- but we get Dems currently slamming Dick Cheney's deferments, as though not being in the military prevents a rational human being from being able to formulate national policy (also another thing that was said about Bill Clinton, who didn't serve at all, and to which we were treated to Dems saying that it doesn't matter if you serve, human beings are capable of rationally thinking out policy regardless).
The sheer hubris of this sort of enormous double-standard SHOULD be the sort of thing that the press takes up and holds up for criticism -- but it doesn't. I haven't decided what's actually doing more damage to this country, long-term: the arrogance of the Democrat Party's double-standards (which are as malleable as the wind, and utterly determined by which Party you belong to), or the absolute failure of the American Media to do its duty and through exposure hold up this sort of double-standard for all to see and thereby contribute to eliminating hte use of such double standards.
Here's a clue: we should have one set of standards by which to judge people. If we argue in the 1990s that it doesn't matter what one did during Vietnam, then it shouldn't suddenly start mattering in the 2000s. If we argue that one's past doesn't matter, it only matters what we say today, then that standard should apply across the board to our opponents as well. That's why we call them "standards".
What we have today from the Dems aren't standards and certainly aren't philosophies-of-worth: we have crass politics, double-standards, and whatever else they need to do to finally pull out an electoral win.
This column is more than happy to criticise Republicans (as we've done), but with regards to the standards each party holds and demonstrates, there is a clear uneven balance at work. The Republicans didn't like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or her policies, but they applied the same standard to her as they applied before and they voted her through, because she was the President's choice. The Dems at the time went out of their way to tell her, on the record, how to avoid answering questions, not to prejudge cases, etc. Fast forward again to the present day, and we have Dems complaining when the current nominees (from a non-Democrat President) do the same thing for the same reasons, and we have Republicans... arguing again that the President should get his pick. Which party is running a double-standard there? Hint: it's not the Republicans.
Only when the people of the United States stop accepting (and indeed being complicit, through our votes or non-voting, in) these double standards will the system begin to correct itself and will philosophy begin to reassert itself over ideology, will reason reassert itself over crass political maneuvering, and will actual, HONEST debates once more be possible.
So, I guess the conclusion is: the Democrats as above are guilty of the worst sort of double-standards, the Press is guilty for pretending these things don't exist or don't matter, and the People of the United States are guilty for either accepting double standards or not being smart enough or educated enough to realise the profound negativity that double standards create.
Sad.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Dems, Abortion Politics, and the Alito nomination
Well, I would have said it would be hard for Washtington, D.C., to offer up lunacy in excess of what we've already seen this year, but lo! along comes Democratic Senator Reid to disprove that.
Sen. Reid, Democrat Minority Leader of the Senate, says he has "concerns" about Supreme Court Nominee Alito, concerns rooted in a writing of Alito's from 1985 in which he expressed the idea that the right to abortion "is nowhere found in the Constitution". The Democrat line is that such a statement is enough to make one "a zealot", "likely to roll back our civil and abortion rights", "extreme", and also therefore likely to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Hm. Let me roll the clock back to the 1980s. What do Dick Durbin and Al Gore, among many, many other Democrats, have in common in the early part of the 1980s? They were, by their own words, pro-Life and against abortion and against Roe vs Wade. They didn't have their big epiphanies (read: realising that being pro Roe v. Wade, pro-Choice, would be better for a politician in the Democratic party) until during the 1980s and into the late 1980s. Hm. Wouldn't that, according to Harry Reid's standard, make Al Gore and Dick Durbin (Senator, Illinois, Democrat) "extreme", "likely to roll back our civil and abortion rights"? It would, if Senator Reid were interested in applying his standards honestly. Of course, Senator Reid is counting on the bulk of the people to not be aware of these little things we call Facts (that Al Gore was pro-life in his early political career and changed course only well into the 1980s, for instance). He's counting on playing his little criticism and expecting people to just nod and go "yup".
Here's the fallacy: no writings have come up from the intervening twenty years (since 1985) that would indicate that Alito would vote that way. We do have the sheer tonnage of Judge Alito's decades on the bench and all his rulings to look at --but if we do that honestly and fairly, you won't find any indication that he'd overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, you'd find rulings that respect Precedent (we can argue over whether respecting Precedent is a good thing or a bad thing, or a bad thing when done blindly and without thought, later), which would incline him toward NOT voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But again, Senator Reid and his ilk don't want you to think for yourself or bother yourself with little nasty things like facts, or realising that, by the standard he offers up to criticise Alito, he would have to also then criticise, in the same words, folks like Al Gore, Dick Durbin, and many other once-Pro-Life Democrats who became Pro-Choice only later in their political lives.
Final word: it would be nice if the American Press were doing its job and pointing out when this sort of blatant hypocricy and extraordinarily dishonest reasoning was offered up. There are some good folks out there who do try to hold people to standards, or at least to point out that they should be applying their own standards fairly and against all those who don't match up; but the vast reaches of the mass media aren't bothering to do that anymore.
Instead, we get "the war was for oil" (if it was for oil, we'd have record-low gas prices, not the contrary; we'd have rebuilt the Iraqi oil industry quickly and turned up the tap, which we didn't do; etc.; the statement is so shorn of inherent logic as to be nonsensical, but it's passed on by the bulk of the media as though it were Written Fact.) and other nonsense that doesn't even hold up to its own inherent logic. We get Mary Mapes, who still doesn't understand that reporters aren't supposed to reach conclusions that are CONTRARY to the facts they uncover.
So, to Harry Reid: grow up. Apply your words and standards, as you should if you actually believe what you're saying, to everyone equally. And start criticising Al Gore, Dick Durbin, and the other Democrats who were pro-life at one time each and every time you criticise Alito and imply that people can't "grow" or "change" in the space of 20 years. (oops, I forgot: for Democrats, you're only allowed to change or nuance your opinions if you're a Democrat; and we aren't to look at a person's past when considering them for public office (so we heard about Bill Clinton), unless that person's a Republican, in which case it's fair game to go back forty and fifty years).
What a pathetic way to behave. And what a terrible thing that too many Americans just swallow this spewage and nod and applaud.
Oops, forgot one more thing (how very Columbo-like!): perfectly intelligent human beings can argue, quite persuasively, that there is no guarantee to protect Abortion (in Democrat's terms) in the Constitution, and that therefore overturning Roe V Wade would be the constitutional thing to do. And those same human beings may actually SUPPORT the concept of "abortion rights", but find supporting something that isn't constitutional inherently wrong. And, to go one more step, they might also then argue that the states would immediately pass laws protecting (or not) those rights, according to the belief of their citizens. Strange how that sounds -- like the way the U.S. Constitution was written to work. Hm...
Sen. Reid, Democrat Minority Leader of the Senate, says he has "concerns" about Supreme Court Nominee Alito, concerns rooted in a writing of Alito's from 1985 in which he expressed the idea that the right to abortion "is nowhere found in the Constitution". The Democrat line is that such a statement is enough to make one "a zealot", "likely to roll back our civil and abortion rights", "extreme", and also therefore likely to overturn Roe V. Wade.
Hm. Let me roll the clock back to the 1980s. What do Dick Durbin and Al Gore, among many, many other Democrats, have in common in the early part of the 1980s? They were, by their own words, pro-Life and against abortion and against Roe vs Wade. They didn't have their big epiphanies (read: realising that being pro Roe v. Wade, pro-Choice, would be better for a politician in the Democratic party) until during the 1980s and into the late 1980s. Hm. Wouldn't that, according to Harry Reid's standard, make Al Gore and Dick Durbin (Senator, Illinois, Democrat) "extreme", "likely to roll back our civil and abortion rights"? It would, if Senator Reid were interested in applying his standards honestly. Of course, Senator Reid is counting on the bulk of the people to not be aware of these little things we call Facts (that Al Gore was pro-life in his early political career and changed course only well into the 1980s, for instance). He's counting on playing his little criticism and expecting people to just nod and go "yup".
Here's the fallacy: no writings have come up from the intervening twenty years (since 1985) that would indicate that Alito would vote that way. We do have the sheer tonnage of Judge Alito's decades on the bench and all his rulings to look at --but if we do that honestly and fairly, you won't find any indication that he'd overturn Roe v. Wade. In fact, you'd find rulings that respect Precedent (we can argue over whether respecting Precedent is a good thing or a bad thing, or a bad thing when done blindly and without thought, later), which would incline him toward NOT voting to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But again, Senator Reid and his ilk don't want you to think for yourself or bother yourself with little nasty things like facts, or realising that, by the standard he offers up to criticise Alito, he would have to also then criticise, in the same words, folks like Al Gore, Dick Durbin, and many other once-Pro-Life Democrats who became Pro-Choice only later in their political lives.
Final word: it would be nice if the American Press were doing its job and pointing out when this sort of blatant hypocricy and extraordinarily dishonest reasoning was offered up. There are some good folks out there who do try to hold people to standards, or at least to point out that they should be applying their own standards fairly and against all those who don't match up; but the vast reaches of the mass media aren't bothering to do that anymore.
Instead, we get "the war was for oil" (if it was for oil, we'd have record-low gas prices, not the contrary; we'd have rebuilt the Iraqi oil industry quickly and turned up the tap, which we didn't do; etc.; the statement is so shorn of inherent logic as to be nonsensical, but it's passed on by the bulk of the media as though it were Written Fact.) and other nonsense that doesn't even hold up to its own inherent logic. We get Mary Mapes, who still doesn't understand that reporters aren't supposed to reach conclusions that are CONTRARY to the facts they uncover.
So, to Harry Reid: grow up. Apply your words and standards, as you should if you actually believe what you're saying, to everyone equally. And start criticising Al Gore, Dick Durbin, and the other Democrats who were pro-life at one time each and every time you criticise Alito and imply that people can't "grow" or "change" in the space of 20 years. (oops, I forgot: for Democrats, you're only allowed to change or nuance your opinions if you're a Democrat; and we aren't to look at a person's past when considering them for public office (so we heard about Bill Clinton), unless that person's a Republican, in which case it's fair game to go back forty and fifty years).
What a pathetic way to behave. And what a terrible thing that too many Americans just swallow this spewage and nod and applaud.
Oops, forgot one more thing (how very Columbo-like!): perfectly intelligent human beings can argue, quite persuasively, that there is no guarantee to protect Abortion (in Democrat's terms) in the Constitution, and that therefore overturning Roe V Wade would be the constitutional thing to do. And those same human beings may actually SUPPORT the concept of "abortion rights", but find supporting something that isn't constitutional inherently wrong. And, to go one more step, they might also then argue that the states would immediately pass laws protecting (or not) those rights, according to the belief of their citizens. Strange how that sounds -- like the way the U.S. Constitution was written to work. Hm...
Monday, November 14, 2005
Random Thoughts
The topic: Abortion.
The issue: the word "choice" and its implications.
We're told that women should have the right to "choose" what to do with their bodies, aka with respect to having abortions. That's "pro-choice" within U.S. political lexicon.
I have a problem with this. The pro-choice argument is that women are capable of making informed decisions for themselves with regard to having an abortion, that they're smart enough and should be counted wise enough to make such a decision (even at age twelve, one should point out). Why are we cutting off the "choice" at this point? Why should they be wise enough to choose to have an abortion -- only at that point in life? Why aren't they using this wisdom and intelligence when it comes to the choice that starts it all -- having sex in the first place?
My two-cents: if someone chooses -- chooses -- to behave in a certain way, they should be responsible for the consequences. That should be true for any and all behavior choices, not just abortion. If you choose to have sex, I say that your wisdom and intelligence should be applied at that point -- not just afterward.
The consequence of having sex is pregnancy and the creation of a unique living being (arguing over when life begins is pointless; the only way a unique human being is formed is through pregnancy, and the potential for such a life is started the moment the act is consumated and the "stuff" that makes babies begins evolving). If you choose to have sex, you should have to accept the responsibility for your actions. The CHOICE doesn't start AFTER a pregnancy has formed, but it starts by choosing to do the thing that creates the pregnancy in the first place. If a 12-yr old, as pro-choice arguments go, is smart and wise enough to go get an abortion because she chose to have sex and "got pregnant", she should by definition have been smart and wise enough to avoid getting pregnant altogether. If she isn't smart and wise enough to make the decision to avoid having sex, then she isn't smart and wise enough to be choosing to have an abortion. The pro-choice argument is precisely that: that wisdom and intelligence should only be expected AFTER the act, not prior to the act, that causes pregnancy. That women are wise and smart enough to choose to have an abortion (or not; and this includes 12-yr. olds, courtesy of California law, remember), but not wise and smart enough to think about consequences before choosing to have sex.
My final two-cents: if you choose to have sex, you should have to live with the consequences of that choice. If you didn't choose (rape, incest, etc. are not choices, ergo not included in this), then you should have the option to apply your wisdom and intelligence to the problem and resolve it to your own conscience (abort or not). By arguing that choice only takes place after pregnancy, the pro-choice side is effectively arguing: that we are free to have sex as wantonly as we choose and at whatever age we choose, because we aren't to be held responsible for the consequences of those actions.
None of this says that the choice to have an abortion is a simple or easy one. It isn't. And that's precisely the point: it isn't simple and it isn't easy, and it does and should require careful thought and consideration before choosing to do so. When pro-choice arguments advocate 12-yr olds being wise and smart enough to choose to have an abortion, and when they argue against laws that would require the 12-yr old to notify her parents without the parents being given any ability to prevent it (mere notification, even if it's from the doctor's office), then they are literally advocating consequence-free sex, and assigning to abortion the absence of any consequence. And they're arguing that this amazing wisdom and intelligence is only applicable and should only be considered at the time of abortion, not in the choosing of the act that leads to pregnancy -- selective application of intelligence and wisdom, timed so because if they argued consistently, they'd realise that there's little intelligence of wisdom in, for instance, the woman I worked with a few years back who was on her fourth abortion. What was her story? She was single, she liked sex, and she thought nothing of having an abortion or of changing her behavior. And she never will, in a world where excuse the consequences of having sex and only think of "choice" as existing after sex, not before.
The issue: the word "choice" and its implications.
We're told that women should have the right to "choose" what to do with their bodies, aka with respect to having abortions. That's "pro-choice" within U.S. political lexicon.
I have a problem with this. The pro-choice argument is that women are capable of making informed decisions for themselves with regard to having an abortion, that they're smart enough and should be counted wise enough to make such a decision (even at age twelve, one should point out). Why are we cutting off the "choice" at this point? Why should they be wise enough to choose to have an abortion -- only at that point in life? Why aren't they using this wisdom and intelligence when it comes to the choice that starts it all -- having sex in the first place?
My two-cents: if someone chooses -- chooses -- to behave in a certain way, they should be responsible for the consequences. That should be true for any and all behavior choices, not just abortion. If you choose to have sex, I say that your wisdom and intelligence should be applied at that point -- not just afterward.
The consequence of having sex is pregnancy and the creation of a unique living being (arguing over when life begins is pointless; the only way a unique human being is formed is through pregnancy, and the potential for such a life is started the moment the act is consumated and the "stuff" that makes babies begins evolving). If you choose to have sex, you should have to accept the responsibility for your actions. The CHOICE doesn't start AFTER a pregnancy has formed, but it starts by choosing to do the thing that creates the pregnancy in the first place. If a 12-yr old, as pro-choice arguments go, is smart and wise enough to go get an abortion because she chose to have sex and "got pregnant", she should by definition have been smart and wise enough to avoid getting pregnant altogether. If she isn't smart and wise enough to make the decision to avoid having sex, then she isn't smart and wise enough to be choosing to have an abortion. The pro-choice argument is precisely that: that wisdom and intelligence should only be expected AFTER the act, not prior to the act, that causes pregnancy. That women are wise and smart enough to choose to have an abortion (or not; and this includes 12-yr. olds, courtesy of California law, remember), but not wise and smart enough to think about consequences before choosing to have sex.
My final two-cents: if you choose to have sex, you should have to live with the consequences of that choice. If you didn't choose (rape, incest, etc. are not choices, ergo not included in this), then you should have the option to apply your wisdom and intelligence to the problem and resolve it to your own conscience (abort or not). By arguing that choice only takes place after pregnancy, the pro-choice side is effectively arguing: that we are free to have sex as wantonly as we choose and at whatever age we choose, because we aren't to be held responsible for the consequences of those actions.
None of this says that the choice to have an abortion is a simple or easy one. It isn't. And that's precisely the point: it isn't simple and it isn't easy, and it does and should require careful thought and consideration before choosing to do so. When pro-choice arguments advocate 12-yr olds being wise and smart enough to choose to have an abortion, and when they argue against laws that would require the 12-yr old to notify her parents without the parents being given any ability to prevent it (mere notification, even if it's from the doctor's office), then they are literally advocating consequence-free sex, and assigning to abortion the absence of any consequence. And they're arguing that this amazing wisdom and intelligence is only applicable and should only be considered at the time of abortion, not in the choosing of the act that leads to pregnancy -- selective application of intelligence and wisdom, timed so because if they argued consistently, they'd realise that there's little intelligence of wisdom in, for instance, the woman I worked with a few years back who was on her fourth abortion. What was her story? She was single, she liked sex, and she thought nothing of having an abortion or of changing her behavior. And she never will, in a world where excuse the consequences of having sex and only think of "choice" as existing after sex, not before.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Joe Wilson, Democrats, and chronology
There's an interesting side to the Joe Wilson story that none seem to want to look at -- at least, none on the Left side of politics, none of the antiwar crowd.
When Joe Wilson, who went to Niger to check up on stories of Hussein's attempts to trade for nuclear-weapon component materials, first got back, the CIA and the British intelligence agencies summed up his mission thusly:
That Mr. Wilson's efforts showed that Saddam Hussein was attempting to open new trading possibilities with Niger; that Niger's chief exports are goats and the raw ore that facilitates nuclear weapon-building; that by showing an effort to open trade with Niger, the most likely odds are that Hussein is trying to obtain those materials necessary to build nuclear weapons.
I would add that it is rather hard to believe that Hussein would be trying to get goats from Niger. Sarcasm intended. World data shows that Niger's chief exports are livestock (hence, "goats" for sarcasm) and yellowcake. If, as Joe Wilsons' report states, that Iraq was looking to open trade with Niger, it makes little sense for them to be looking to trade for livestock. And that only leaves... yellowcake.
So no one, at any intelligence agency, remembers the summary of Joe Wilson's efforts the way Joe Wilson does. And no intelligence agency conclusion supports the version Joe Wilson tells now, either. In fact, reading Mr. Wilson's report, a reasonable conclusion is exactly what the intelligence agencies came up with: it's nonsensical to assume Hussein needed livestock, and that leaves yellowcake as a trading material.
The Senate Intelligence committee's years-long investigation and report on this also indicated and documented Joe Wilson as a liar and verified the chronology (which makes Mr. Wilson's now-selective memory of events also, er, mistaken) of what happened and when. The investigation by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald specifically stated that he is not indicting anyone for "outing" Valerie Plame, nor for anything else specific to the Wilson/Plame affair. In fact, the very splashy way that Mr. Wilson has been "outing" his own wife, particularly in their many magazine covers, renders his complaints largely moot. The Senate committee also said in its report that no one outed Ms. Plame, that the reporter's use of her name in no way impacted her ability to do her job, and that such complaints were 'without merit'. Yet Mr. Wilson and his wife continue to complain - and to rake in the cash that their now-celebrity status gives them, from the book tour, the lecture circuit, magazines, etc. I love it when someone complains that they've been "harmed" and can't make money like they used to -- even as they rake in more money than ever through lectures, talks, books, etc.
The sad affair of the American Left with a host of hypocritical, nonsensical spokespersons continues. From Michael "I never saw a fact I could ignore if it supported the conclusion I made BEFORE I investigated" Moore to Cindy "women were better off under Hussein than they are now" Sheehan to Joe "Ignore what I wrote when I got back, everyone was wrong but me" Wilson. There was a day when the Left had some geniune, deeply thoughtful philosophers on their side, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. That the Left has sunk so far as to be holding up hypocrites and apalling creatures like Sheehan as their heroes is not simply disgusting but truly and deeply saddening.
The little "stunt" of closing the Senate to a closed-door session early this week only furthers the Left's self-denial of reality. They complain about prewar Intelligence -- but remember, these same Democrats were privvy to the same intelligence the President had, and we can run down their quotes in support not simply of the war but of the idea that Hussein, whether or not he had WMDs, had to be stopped BEFORE he could acquire such things. Of course, their own memories have to be ignored, their own statements ignored, in order for their current argument ("Bush lied") to be valid. Especially since it makes they themselves liars, since they argued and stated clearly the same things they accuse Bush of "lying" about.
What is similar about all these things? The reliance on the Left of taking advantage of ignorance. They want to be able to "create" truth simply by stating something is true, rather than taking verifiable information and relating that as truth. They want to prejudge information before having the facts -- so, they "know" Bush lied about WMD's, rather than simply having relied on the best possible intelligence and made conclusions from that; so, they "know" that Karl Rove is guilty and should step down, despite the fact that the Special Prosecutor and the Grand Jury have said specifically that he has not been indicted nor even accused of anything yet, nor that they will do so. They "know" that Hussein wasn't going after WMD's, despite the obvious intelligence to the contrary (as indicated above), despite Bill Clinton's, and many Senate Democrat's, assertions in the late 1990s and early 2000s that Hussein had to be stopped, that he was clearly after WMD's, that he had to be stopped before he acquired them, etc.
So they make statements that are not proven and many not true, despite knowing the contrary, because it serves their ideological and political purposes. One of these days, it would be nice to have our politicians actually wait until an investigation was over and actual facts were known BEFORE they made their conclusions. You know, like we're taught to in our 100-level college courses, or even in junior high school.
When Joe Wilson, who went to Niger to check up on stories of Hussein's attempts to trade for nuclear-weapon component materials, first got back, the CIA and the British intelligence agencies summed up his mission thusly:
That Mr. Wilson's efforts showed that Saddam Hussein was attempting to open new trading possibilities with Niger; that Niger's chief exports are goats and the raw ore that facilitates nuclear weapon-building; that by showing an effort to open trade with Niger, the most likely odds are that Hussein is trying to obtain those materials necessary to build nuclear weapons.
I would add that it is rather hard to believe that Hussein would be trying to get goats from Niger. Sarcasm intended. World data shows that Niger's chief exports are livestock (hence, "goats" for sarcasm) and yellowcake. If, as Joe Wilsons' report states, that Iraq was looking to open trade with Niger, it makes little sense for them to be looking to trade for livestock. And that only leaves... yellowcake.
So no one, at any intelligence agency, remembers the summary of Joe Wilson's efforts the way Joe Wilson does. And no intelligence agency conclusion supports the version Joe Wilson tells now, either. In fact, reading Mr. Wilson's report, a reasonable conclusion is exactly what the intelligence agencies came up with: it's nonsensical to assume Hussein needed livestock, and that leaves yellowcake as a trading material.
The Senate Intelligence committee's years-long investigation and report on this also indicated and documented Joe Wilson as a liar and verified the chronology (which makes Mr. Wilson's now-selective memory of events also, er, mistaken) of what happened and when. The investigation by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald specifically stated that he is not indicting anyone for "outing" Valerie Plame, nor for anything else specific to the Wilson/Plame affair. In fact, the very splashy way that Mr. Wilson has been "outing" his own wife, particularly in their many magazine covers, renders his complaints largely moot. The Senate committee also said in its report that no one outed Ms. Plame, that the reporter's use of her name in no way impacted her ability to do her job, and that such complaints were 'without merit'. Yet Mr. Wilson and his wife continue to complain - and to rake in the cash that their now-celebrity status gives them, from the book tour, the lecture circuit, magazines, etc. I love it when someone complains that they've been "harmed" and can't make money like they used to -- even as they rake in more money than ever through lectures, talks, books, etc.
The sad affair of the American Left with a host of hypocritical, nonsensical spokespersons continues. From Michael "I never saw a fact I could ignore if it supported the conclusion I made BEFORE I investigated" Moore to Cindy "women were better off under Hussein than they are now" Sheehan to Joe "Ignore what I wrote when I got back, everyone was wrong but me" Wilson. There was a day when the Left had some geniune, deeply thoughtful philosophers on their side, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan. That the Left has sunk so far as to be holding up hypocrites and apalling creatures like Sheehan as their heroes is not simply disgusting but truly and deeply saddening.
The little "stunt" of closing the Senate to a closed-door session early this week only furthers the Left's self-denial of reality. They complain about prewar Intelligence -- but remember, these same Democrats were privvy to the same intelligence the President had, and we can run down their quotes in support not simply of the war but of the idea that Hussein, whether or not he had WMDs, had to be stopped BEFORE he could acquire such things. Of course, their own memories have to be ignored, their own statements ignored, in order for their current argument ("Bush lied") to be valid. Especially since it makes they themselves liars, since they argued and stated clearly the same things they accuse Bush of "lying" about.
What is similar about all these things? The reliance on the Left of taking advantage of ignorance. They want to be able to "create" truth simply by stating something is true, rather than taking verifiable information and relating that as truth. They want to prejudge information before having the facts -- so, they "know" Bush lied about WMD's, rather than simply having relied on the best possible intelligence and made conclusions from that; so, they "know" that Karl Rove is guilty and should step down, despite the fact that the Special Prosecutor and the Grand Jury have said specifically that he has not been indicted nor even accused of anything yet, nor that they will do so. They "know" that Hussein wasn't going after WMD's, despite the obvious intelligence to the contrary (as indicated above), despite Bill Clinton's, and many Senate Democrat's, assertions in the late 1990s and early 2000s that Hussein had to be stopped, that he was clearly after WMD's, that he had to be stopped before he acquired them, etc.
So they make statements that are not proven and many not true, despite knowing the contrary, because it serves their ideological and political purposes. One of these days, it would be nice to have our politicians actually wait until an investigation was over and actual facts were known BEFORE they made their conclusions. You know, like we're taught to in our 100-level college courses, or even in junior high school.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Religion and Politics
I've been listening to various religious-oriented issues as they crop up recently. These issues in our public forum make me wonder if anyone, including Senators, Congressmen, and lawyers and judges around this country have ever bothered to actually read the Constitution and the writings of our forefathers.
The founding fathers of the United States wrote that very special piece of the Constitution regarding the establishment of religion and forbidding said establishment to prevent the United States from suffering the same problems the European governments, across time, suffered from. Consider the phrase: the establishment of religion. What does that mean? The definition of "establishment" is the creation of or validation of some "thing", in this case religion, through an act -- or, rephrased, the creation of a state-defined and state-backed religion.
So consider: how does talking about the concept that the universe was created by a specific and deliberate source, rather than the happenstance of science, become "unconstitutional" or threaten to create a state-religion? It doesn't. There are multiple theories out there regarding the creation of everything -- big bang theory (but what was there before the "core" that became the big bang, to have created that "core"?); creationism (someone or something that is self-creating thus created everything, usually referred to as God). Is it not better to discuss different perspectives, to encourage children to actually begin to think for themselves? How can they learn to assess varying perspectives and viewpoints, if they are denied specifically the option to learn about the other ideas? Or: how can we say that we deny children and teenagers the capacity to talk about creationism, but we push the idea of a supposedly-neutral scientific perspective -- thereby not just closing the door on anyone thinking for themselves, but denying the school the capacity to encourage children to learn not WHAT to think but HOW to think.
The call that talking about both things somehow would be "establishing" religion is utterly bogus. Is discussing Fascism versus Mercantilism an "establishment" of Fascism? The two are exactly the same, in principle: simply presenting the varying perspectives and then discussing them and pointing out the strengths/flaws of these perspectives doesn't establish anything... other than an open and informed discussion, which is what each and every school should not only encourage but have as its principle purpose. When we claim that we cannot talk about God, or anything remotely religious (which in the United States tends to be specifically anything Judeo-Christian, since we simultaneously argue for the rights of every other religion to be able to express itself, without even seeing the glaring hypocrisy of that), then we aren't protecting a non-establishment of religion but we are closing off discussion, a public debate, and informing people of varying perspectives.
I'd rather be presented with what National Socialism in Germany was about, and realise the evils that came with it, than just be told "can't talk about it" or "it's bad". Neither of those things does anything but create closed minds and encourage a closed thinking environment. I'd rather be shown the pluses and minuses across time of Islam, and Catholicism, and so forth, since those things were and remain a large motivation in history. How can we look at the creation of everything, without acknowledging the enormous and overriding influences of religion through the tens of thousands of years of human history?
The real focus of those who offer up "the establishment clause" as the reason you can't talk at all about anything that might be called "religious" by the self-appointed guardians of the government is far more aggravating. They don't want to let children/teenagers think for themselves, they don't want to present varying perspectives before them to encourage debate: they want to close the door on all such things and present only the perspective that they, themselves, approve of. They are part of an overall trend in U.S. history toward not simply avoiding a state-established religion but to push as much of the Judeo-Christian experience and history out of public life. There is nothing about teaching creationism in its own terms, side by side with other theories, that establishes religion or requires it to be the "this is the only right" perspective. But by denying the discussion, by refusing to allow for freedom of thought and refusing the debate, they are saying the exact and equivalent hypocrisy: that "the only right perspectives" are the non-creationism ones.
That serves nothing. It certainly doesn't serve the creation of a dynamic learning environment which encourages students to learn to think for themselves and assess information. It creates exactly the opposite environment.
And that's the saddest part of all. We have Cindy Sheehan as the darling of the left as she shreds Judaism and Catholicism as twin evils in the world, while she holds up as paragons of virtue such notables as Islamic Jihad and Iran and calls Saddam Hussein "a better option for Iraqi women than the Bush-imposed leadership". How can such vile, empty thought exist anywhere, but especially here? Because she's the product of a system that encourages not analytical thought but forced thinking, not debate along factual and philosophical lines but solely along ideological lines.
We need schools to discuss, side-by-side with other perspectives, those things that affect and affected human history. Religion, plus or minus, has played perhaps the largest role across the millenia in motivating and informing historical progression. To pretend otherwise, to refuse to discuss that participation, is simply close-minded idiocy.
The writings of our forefathers are rife with religious thought motivating their thoughts, informing their decisions, and helping fashion their conclusions. They certainly never intended the U.S. to reach a point where we claim the total rejection of anything religious-in-reference is "constitutional" and thereby in keeping with what they, the founders, wanted. The hijacking of the establishment clause is a pity and a travesty.
The founding fathers of the United States wrote that very special piece of the Constitution regarding the establishment of religion and forbidding said establishment to prevent the United States from suffering the same problems the European governments, across time, suffered from. Consider the phrase: the establishment of religion. What does that mean? The definition of "establishment" is the creation of or validation of some "thing", in this case religion, through an act -- or, rephrased, the creation of a state-defined and state-backed religion.
So consider: how does talking about the concept that the universe was created by a specific and deliberate source, rather than the happenstance of science, become "unconstitutional" or threaten to create a state-religion? It doesn't. There are multiple theories out there regarding the creation of everything -- big bang theory (but what was there before the "core" that became the big bang, to have created that "core"?); creationism (someone or something that is self-creating thus created everything, usually referred to as God). Is it not better to discuss different perspectives, to encourage children to actually begin to think for themselves? How can they learn to assess varying perspectives and viewpoints, if they are denied specifically the option to learn about the other ideas? Or: how can we say that we deny children and teenagers the capacity to talk about creationism, but we push the idea of a supposedly-neutral scientific perspective -- thereby not just closing the door on anyone thinking for themselves, but denying the school the capacity to encourage children to learn not WHAT to think but HOW to think.
The call that talking about both things somehow would be "establishing" religion is utterly bogus. Is discussing Fascism versus Mercantilism an "establishment" of Fascism? The two are exactly the same, in principle: simply presenting the varying perspectives and then discussing them and pointing out the strengths/flaws of these perspectives doesn't establish anything... other than an open and informed discussion, which is what each and every school should not only encourage but have as its principle purpose. When we claim that we cannot talk about God, or anything remotely religious (which in the United States tends to be specifically anything Judeo-Christian, since we simultaneously argue for the rights of every other religion to be able to express itself, without even seeing the glaring hypocrisy of that), then we aren't protecting a non-establishment of religion but we are closing off discussion, a public debate, and informing people of varying perspectives.
I'd rather be presented with what National Socialism in Germany was about, and realise the evils that came with it, than just be told "can't talk about it" or "it's bad". Neither of those things does anything but create closed minds and encourage a closed thinking environment. I'd rather be shown the pluses and minuses across time of Islam, and Catholicism, and so forth, since those things were and remain a large motivation in history. How can we look at the creation of everything, without acknowledging the enormous and overriding influences of religion through the tens of thousands of years of human history?
The real focus of those who offer up "the establishment clause" as the reason you can't talk at all about anything that might be called "religious" by the self-appointed guardians of the government is far more aggravating. They don't want to let children/teenagers think for themselves, they don't want to present varying perspectives before them to encourage debate: they want to close the door on all such things and present only the perspective that they, themselves, approve of. They are part of an overall trend in U.S. history toward not simply avoiding a state-established religion but to push as much of the Judeo-Christian experience and history out of public life. There is nothing about teaching creationism in its own terms, side by side with other theories, that establishes religion or requires it to be the "this is the only right" perspective. But by denying the discussion, by refusing to allow for freedom of thought and refusing the debate, they are saying the exact and equivalent hypocrisy: that "the only right perspectives" are the non-creationism ones.
That serves nothing. It certainly doesn't serve the creation of a dynamic learning environment which encourages students to learn to think for themselves and assess information. It creates exactly the opposite environment.
And that's the saddest part of all. We have Cindy Sheehan as the darling of the left as she shreds Judaism and Catholicism as twin evils in the world, while she holds up as paragons of virtue such notables as Islamic Jihad and Iran and calls Saddam Hussein "a better option for Iraqi women than the Bush-imposed leadership". How can such vile, empty thought exist anywhere, but especially here? Because she's the product of a system that encourages not analytical thought but forced thinking, not debate along factual and philosophical lines but solely along ideological lines.
We need schools to discuss, side-by-side with other perspectives, those things that affect and affected human history. Religion, plus or minus, has played perhaps the largest role across the millenia in motivating and informing historical progression. To pretend otherwise, to refuse to discuss that participation, is simply close-minded idiocy.
The writings of our forefathers are rife with religious thought motivating their thoughts, informing their decisions, and helping fashion their conclusions. They certainly never intended the U.S. to reach a point where we claim the total rejection of anything religious-in-reference is "constitutional" and thereby in keeping with what they, the founders, wanted. The hijacking of the establishment clause is a pity and a travesty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)